One day, I was driving with a friend when someone cut us off and nearly missed his front right bumper. My usually volatile friend must have been in a good mood because he calmly said the following, "You know what my biggest problem is, other people's stupidity. I have no control over it."
As Americans and sports fans, we are reminded of the profound, simple wisdom of my buddy's words.
No, I'm not talking about Sarah Palin being a viable Vice Presidential candidate.
I'm not even talking about Plaxico Burress shooting himself in the thigh at a Manhattan night club.
I'm talking about a story I saw on the National Football League Network's pregame show. A story about the New England Patriot fans. You know, that paradigm of intelligent and sophisticated fanhood in the Northeast. The same fanbase that switches a Pats' parka in the winter for a Red Sox cap in the summer. The more obnoxious of which spend most of their sports-related time instructing others as to what it means to be a real fan.
If the story is true, they are beginning to rumble about franchising Matt Cassel in order to trade Tom Brady.
Let me say that again, there is a movement taking shape to trade Tom Brady.
I'm hoping the story was ridiculous and a fabrication. Just another attempt by the media to start a tempest in a teapot where none exists. If it's not, there is simply no way for that region to ever recover its credibility. At least with regard to football.
First, let's dispel with these ridiculous comparisons between the Matt Cassel-Tom Brady situation and the Steve Young-Joe Montana one that confronted the San Francisco 49ers. Regardless of what you think about the talent/potential of the players involved, Joe Montana was 37 by the time he started his first game for the Kansas City Chiefs.
Tom Brady is 31. Six years is a long time in the real world. In the NFL, it is a lifetime.
Second, let's really consider the hysterical dementia that's closing its fist around New England according to the NFL Network. Matt Cassel may be an elite quarterback. He seems to have gotten better with every start. He's putting up great numbers and has the Patriots on the brink of the postseason in what many thought would be a lost campaign. Cassel's currently sitting on back-to-back 400+ yard passing games, an achievement the media gleefully trumpets because Brady has yet to do so.
And yet, this lunacy can be dismissed as easily as three-time Super Bowl Champion.
Debate over.
Of course, there's no need to stop the list of Brady's accolades at that. He's been the regular season Most Valuable Player, the Super Bowl MVP twice, and a four-time Pro Bowler. He owns the single-season record for passing touchdowns, a record he set in his first and only year to date with Randy Moss.
There simply is no comparison.
Against all Tom Brady has done for that franchise, Matt Cassel's strongest resume point is the 400 yard passing games. That's it. The problem is the Pats lost one of those games. At home to a division rival and a bitter one at that. The other problem is that Brady had games of 399 yards, 388 yards, and 380 yards last year. He also threw for 410 yards in 2002 without the luxury of Randy Moss.
The bigger problem is that it could all be a smoke screen.
Who has New England beaten? They have seven wins against the Chiefs, New York Jets, Niners, Denver Broncos, St. Louis Rams, Buffalo Bills, and Miami Dolphins. There aren't too many impressive wins there except of the Jets, which was on the road. But that loses some luster because the win came early in the season before Brett Favre had really acclimated to the system.
It loses considerably more luster because a synchronized Favre and Jets team was the bitter rival that withstood Cassel's first 400-yard game in Foxborough.
Look at the four losses: on the road against a struggling San Diego Chargers, on the road against the formidable Indianapolis Colts, at home against the Miami Dolphins/Wildcats, and the aforementioned Jets game.
I don't really see a win that should surprise anyone on that list. And maybe there aren't any losses that should surprise anyone. SD is still playing well at home, there's never any shame in losing to Indy, and the other two are both divisional rivals.
But that still means that Matt Cassel is simply beating teams he should beat and losing to teams that pose challenges. That becomes a bigger issue when you consider he has no college resume of which to speak. That makes him an even bigger unknown.
I said before he could be an elite QB in the NFL. He could just as easily be a one-year, right-system wonder.
Yet, if the NFL Network is to be believed, the loyal in the New England area have seen enough.
Forget the Super Bowls, MVPs, records, and all-time greatness of Tom Brady.
Who needs that when you've got a guy throwing 400 yards every game?
Of course, Tom Brady's a Bay Area guy. He's in his prime and the Niners currently trot Shaun Hill out to take snaps. What am I complaining about?
You know what? New England's right.
Matt Cassel is definitely a better option for the future of the franchise.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Plaxico Burress Might Be the Dumbest Player in the History of the NFL
"Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the former." - Albert Einstein
There is a broken and developing story about the New York Giants' problematic receiver, Plaxico Burress. The story, as I'm sure you've heard/read, is that the man accidentally shot himself in the leg with, presumably, a handgun. Shot himself in the thigh and spent the night in the hospital.
I am staggered by the indescribable stupidity required for such an act.
Until shortly before my eighth birthday, my family lived in St. Louis, MO. While there, we'd spend summers in the more rural parts of the State. If you've never lived in the Midwest, there's a good chance you have no idea what "rural" means. This was a place where you could spend weeks, ranging far and wide on foot or by river, without ever encountering another human-being.
These are the places where six-year-olds learn to shoot a .22 rifle.
For the last two decades, my family has lived in the suburbs of San Francisco. Suffice it to say the attitude towards outdoor riflery is not the same. Nor is it really feasible. Instead, my dad and I shoot most weeks in an indoor range. We've also graduated to handguns, three .45s to be exact.
A 1911 Gold Cup, a Les Baer Thunder Ranch Special, and a Wilson Combat Tactical Supergrade.
I have been around guns all my life. You can debate the merit/intelligence of this all you want, but you cannot debate what I am about to say: anyone who could accidentally shoot himself without a truly spectacular freak occurrence is terrifyingly reckless. And that makes him dumb, exceedingly so.
You either have or have not been around a gun.
If you have not been around one, the very idea should and does inspire the utmost caution if you are even semi-reasonable. If you have been around a gun and operate a functional central cortex, the power of a loaded gun terrifies you into exercising even more caution than that. Plaxico falls into one of the above categories by definition.
And yet he accidentally shot himself. In the thigh, not a toe or a finger or some other outer extremity. The thigh.
Maybe there is some totally reasonable explanation. I gotta say though, I struggle to conceive of one. The problem with a ricochet theory is that it's almost impossible to get one if you exercise reasonable caution. Step one of reasonable caution is finding a place where such ricochets are almost impossible.
Like a gun range.
If it wasn't a ricochet, that means he was carrying around a loaded, chambered, and cocked firearm. There are just no words to describe how insanely moronic that is. Your average retard might leave a gun laying around with ammunition in the clip/cylinder. That's dumb enough. To actually be carrying around a chambered round is ludicrous.
Unless you're a cop or some such occupation where it's part of the job.
But a weapon that's ready to fire? Subject to the above exceptions, you just don't do that. Ever.
Now, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it wasn't a handgun. Maybe it was a rifle or a shotgun. Maybe it was some totally reasonable, totally freak accident. Maybe it wasn't even an accident. Except for the freak accident, would any of those scenarios make this better?
If it wasn't an accident and this is his cover story, what the hell was the real one?
As for the freak accident, does anyone really believe that's likely? Remember, I'm not even sure one exists that could explain it. And if it wasn't a handgun, the probability of a reasonable accident shrinks to almost zero.
Most of the stupidity in the National Football League only results in catastrophe when mixed with equal parts lack of self-control. Here, catastrophe was only averted through luck. A gunshot wound is never a laughing matter, but one in the thigh (where a major artery runs) is especially dangerous.
Had catastrophe struck, it would have been one of the more serious tragedies in recent memory. Even by the NFL's unfortunate standard. And it would have been the product of sheer stupidity. That alone.
Only luck saved Plaxico Burress from himself. And this time, the penalty could have been infinitely more costly than a suspension.
Consider how happy he must be to be in a hospital, done for the year, and stuck watching his team defend their Super Bowl Title. Something that looks at least probable at this point.
The Dumbest Player in the History of the NFL is a lofty title and one for which there are many worthy candidates.
But Plax gets mine.
There is a broken and developing story about the New York Giants' problematic receiver, Plaxico Burress. The story, as I'm sure you've heard/read, is that the man accidentally shot himself in the leg with, presumably, a handgun. Shot himself in the thigh and spent the night in the hospital.
I am staggered by the indescribable stupidity required for such an act.
Until shortly before my eighth birthday, my family lived in St. Louis, MO. While there, we'd spend summers in the more rural parts of the State. If you've never lived in the Midwest, there's a good chance you have no idea what "rural" means. This was a place where you could spend weeks, ranging far and wide on foot or by river, without ever encountering another human-being.
These are the places where six-year-olds learn to shoot a .22 rifle.
For the last two decades, my family has lived in the suburbs of San Francisco. Suffice it to say the attitude towards outdoor riflery is not the same. Nor is it really feasible. Instead, my dad and I shoot most weeks in an indoor range. We've also graduated to handguns, three .45s to be exact.
A 1911 Gold Cup, a Les Baer Thunder Ranch Special, and a Wilson Combat Tactical Supergrade.
I have been around guns all my life. You can debate the merit/intelligence of this all you want, but you cannot debate what I am about to say: anyone who could accidentally shoot himself without a truly spectacular freak occurrence is terrifyingly reckless. And that makes him dumb, exceedingly so.
You either have or have not been around a gun.
If you have not been around one, the very idea should and does inspire the utmost caution if you are even semi-reasonable. If you have been around a gun and operate a functional central cortex, the power of a loaded gun terrifies you into exercising even more caution than that. Plaxico falls into one of the above categories by definition.
And yet he accidentally shot himself. In the thigh, not a toe or a finger or some other outer extremity. The thigh.
Maybe there is some totally reasonable explanation. I gotta say though, I struggle to conceive of one. The problem with a ricochet theory is that it's almost impossible to get one if you exercise reasonable caution. Step one of reasonable caution is finding a place where such ricochets are almost impossible.
Like a gun range.
If it wasn't a ricochet, that means he was carrying around a loaded, chambered, and cocked firearm. There are just no words to describe how insanely moronic that is. Your average retard might leave a gun laying around with ammunition in the clip/cylinder. That's dumb enough. To actually be carrying around a chambered round is ludicrous.
Unless you're a cop or some such occupation where it's part of the job.
But a weapon that's ready to fire? Subject to the above exceptions, you just don't do that. Ever.
Now, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it wasn't a handgun. Maybe it was a rifle or a shotgun. Maybe it was some totally reasonable, totally freak accident. Maybe it wasn't even an accident. Except for the freak accident, would any of those scenarios make this better?
If it wasn't an accident and this is his cover story, what the hell was the real one?
As for the freak accident, does anyone really believe that's likely? Remember, I'm not even sure one exists that could explain it. And if it wasn't a handgun, the probability of a reasonable accident shrinks to almost zero.
Most of the stupidity in the National Football League only results in catastrophe when mixed with equal parts lack of self-control. Here, catastrophe was only averted through luck. A gunshot wound is never a laughing matter, but one in the thigh (where a major artery runs) is especially dangerous.
Had catastrophe struck, it would have been one of the more serious tragedies in recent memory. Even by the NFL's unfortunate standard. And it would have been the product of sheer stupidity. That alone.
Only luck saved Plaxico Burress from himself. And this time, the penalty could have been infinitely more costly than a suspension.
Consider how happy he must be to be in a hospital, done for the year, and stuck watching his team defend their Super Bowl Title. Something that looks at least probable at this point.
The Dumbest Player in the History of the NFL is a lofty title and one for which there are many worthy candidates.
But Plax gets mine.
Friday, November 28, 2008
#*&% the Detroit Lions!
I'm sick and tired of the Detroit Lions ruining an otherwise fantastic part of Thanksgiving.
For the 187th year in a row, the Lions have rolled over like good little lambs being led to the slaughter. It was less noticeable yesterday since all three games were abominations and the Lions faced one of the best teams in the National Football League. A Tennessee Titans team coming off its first loss of the year. However, Detroit (as usual) set the tone for the day with such an astoundingly bad performance, it bordered on surreal.
It was like watching a scene from a sports movie that sets up the ultimate redemption. Think the montage scene in "Major League" before the Tribe started to turn it around. The one where all three outfielders collide going after a ball that drops, then see another ball drop after all three stand around expecting the other one to grab it.
It defies reason and logic that the Detroit Lions can convince anyone to come watch their games.
Every person associated with that organization should be mortified to show his/her face in public. The ownership should be forced to sell the team for pennies on the dollar as penance for what it has done to Motor City. The management isn't fit to run a lemonade stand in the suburbs of Detroit. The coaches should be run out of football and find themselves trying to make sense out of some Pop Warner team next year. Most of the players should be turned loose to find greener pastures or take up golf.
And I'm not even a Lions' fan.
I couldn't care less about the team. Well, that's not true. I'm actually rooting for them to go winless. But I'm not that vested in it; if they win, it'll barely register on my radar. Still, my blood boils for the fans and players (the ones still trying that is). It's one thing to go winless because you're not very good and your schedule is tough.
It is another thing altogether to go winless because you are embarrassingly putrid in every facet of the game, every facet of the organization. And have a tough schedule.
One half was all I could take; I had to find something more pleasant with which to occupy myself once halftime rolled around. I chose scrubbing and shucking oysters.
But one half was enough. One quarter was enough. I won't even bother with second stanza.
There's absolutely no need. It would be like challenging a borderline reception made by the losing team during the fourth quarter of a thorough destruction - unnecessary, malicious, classless, petty, and flat wrong.
In the first half alone, we had a fumble on the second play from scrimmage. We had an almost 30-yard end around on the next play. We had Chris Johnson scoring on a six-yard jaunt through a defense so absent, one of his blockers had no one to hit. We had Johnson running almost 70 yards to pay dirt through the middle of the line without ever being touched. We had Johnson racking up, what, 1000 yards on six carries?
We had Duante Culpepper throwing an interception directly to a defensive lineman inside his own 20. An interception that was returned for six points.
We had BOTH Titans' running backs scoring two touchdowns.
We had a delay of game penalty following a time-out on a series that culminated in a 13-yard punt.
We had a score of 38-10. It was 38-3 until a last minute touchdown courtesy of a Tennessee gift.
But don't worry Detroit, Rod Marinelli has great confidence in his abilities despite the record. And why wouldn't he?
Apparently, Detroit's ownership and management share Dr. Marinelli's diagnosis. And why wouldn't they?
The guy's only had 44 games and three season to get acclimated, find an approach/philosophy that works, and start to improve. Making a knee-jerk reaction based on such a small sample size would be foolishly rash. I mean, it's not like on-field performance is an accurate barometer of a talented coach, anyway.
Ownership, management, and the coaching staff have proven themselves utterly incompetent. For damn near a decade, the Detroit Lions have been awful. Their judgment has been awful. Their decisions have been awful. Their performance has been awful. Why would anyone employed by the franchise see any need to change now?
I say again, it absolutely defies reason and logic that a single person sits in those stands.
I wouldn't go if the tickets were free. And neither should a Lions' fans.
They deserve much better.
For the 187th year in a row, the Lions have rolled over like good little lambs being led to the slaughter. It was less noticeable yesterday since all three games were abominations and the Lions faced one of the best teams in the National Football League. A Tennessee Titans team coming off its first loss of the year. However, Detroit (as usual) set the tone for the day with such an astoundingly bad performance, it bordered on surreal.
It was like watching a scene from a sports movie that sets up the ultimate redemption. Think the montage scene in "Major League" before the Tribe started to turn it around. The one where all three outfielders collide going after a ball that drops, then see another ball drop after all three stand around expecting the other one to grab it.
It defies reason and logic that the Detroit Lions can convince anyone to come watch their games.
Every person associated with that organization should be mortified to show his/her face in public. The ownership should be forced to sell the team for pennies on the dollar as penance for what it has done to Motor City. The management isn't fit to run a lemonade stand in the suburbs of Detroit. The coaches should be run out of football and find themselves trying to make sense out of some Pop Warner team next year. Most of the players should be turned loose to find greener pastures or take up golf.
And I'm not even a Lions' fan.
I couldn't care less about the team. Well, that's not true. I'm actually rooting for them to go winless. But I'm not that vested in it; if they win, it'll barely register on my radar. Still, my blood boils for the fans and players (the ones still trying that is). It's one thing to go winless because you're not very good and your schedule is tough.
It is another thing altogether to go winless because you are embarrassingly putrid in every facet of the game, every facet of the organization. And have a tough schedule.
One half was all I could take; I had to find something more pleasant with which to occupy myself once halftime rolled around. I chose scrubbing and shucking oysters.
But one half was enough. One quarter was enough. I won't even bother with second stanza.
There's absolutely no need. It would be like challenging a borderline reception made by the losing team during the fourth quarter of a thorough destruction - unnecessary, malicious, classless, petty, and flat wrong.
In the first half alone, we had a fumble on the second play from scrimmage. We had an almost 30-yard end around on the next play. We had Chris Johnson scoring on a six-yard jaunt through a defense so absent, one of his blockers had no one to hit. We had Johnson running almost 70 yards to pay dirt through the middle of the line without ever being touched. We had Johnson racking up, what, 1000 yards on six carries?
We had Duante Culpepper throwing an interception directly to a defensive lineman inside his own 20. An interception that was returned for six points.
We had BOTH Titans' running backs scoring two touchdowns.
We had a delay of game penalty following a time-out on a series that culminated in a 13-yard punt.
We had a score of 38-10. It was 38-3 until a last minute touchdown courtesy of a Tennessee gift.
But don't worry Detroit, Rod Marinelli has great confidence in his abilities despite the record. And why wouldn't he?
Apparently, Detroit's ownership and management share Dr. Marinelli's diagnosis. And why wouldn't they?
The guy's only had 44 games and three season to get acclimated, find an approach/philosophy that works, and start to improve. Making a knee-jerk reaction based on such a small sample size would be foolishly rash. I mean, it's not like on-field performance is an accurate barometer of a talented coach, anyway.
Ownership, management, and the coaching staff have proven themselves utterly incompetent. For damn near a decade, the Detroit Lions have been awful. Their judgment has been awful. Their decisions have been awful. Their performance has been awful. Why would anyone employed by the franchise see any need to change now?
I say again, it absolutely defies reason and logic that a single person sits in those stands.
I wouldn't go if the tickets were free. And neither should a Lions' fans.
They deserve much better.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
What's the Hardest Defensive Position in Baseball? Hint: It's Shortstop
OK, so the title may be a little misleading. I'm sure a lot of you saw it and came rushing on here to see how I can put shortstop above catcher. Others did so to destroy me for merely making the suggestion. Rightly so. I would have to be insane for doing so.
Obviously, catcher is more difficult. Far more so.
Nothing saps your strength, produces more sustainable injuries, and/or shortens a player's career like donning the tools of ignorance. No defensive position requires more concentration and wears a player down mentally like the backstop.
There are two possible outcomes to every pitch: a take or an offer. The former involves the catcher every time. On an offer, there are two outcomes: a miss or contact. The former involves the catcher every time. If the batter makes contact, the catcher may or may not be directly involved depending on the quality of contact.
That's a lot of physical and mental responsibility.
But it's of a different kind. Like taking the mound, it's a wear and tear that you see coming. Both pitcher and catcher KNOW when they will be involved. Most times, they know how and to what extent. Even more importantly, they know any error will be quickly erased via their involvement on the next play. And the next. And the next.
Massaging a pitcher through the strikeout of a dangerous hitter might not seem to make up for a throwing error that turns a steal of second into a runner on third. You'd be surprised how quickly action - even trivial action - makes you forget.
The other guys on the field don't have that luxury.
Not only do they have to prepare for every pitch as if it might come to them, knowing all the while that the odds are against it unless one of the very best control pitchers is on the mound. They have to execute in a vacuum of opportunity, where each error could be the last chance they see for the day. Where mistakes usually cost outs rather than extra bases.
It is unpleasant. A different kind of stress - both physical and psychological - that deserves a separate comparison.
Plus, the question isn't interesting if you include the catching position.
So, having removed it (and pitcher since that position isn't difficult because of defense), we can toss out all the outfield positions. Center is obviously the most demanding and could arguably be more difficult than second base, but it's still not in the discussion.
The pure and simple fact is, all other things being equal, catching a baseball in flight is easier than fielding one cleanly that is hit on the ground. There is no debate.
It comes down to SS and the bases.
First and second are a notch below third and short.
They are on the right side of the infield, which is most batters' opposite field. That means they see fewer chances and, usually, easier ones. They see more jam shots or poor attempts to go the opposite way.
That's not to suggest either is easy. Nothing at the Major League level is.
They see their fair share of screamers pulled off the bat of lefties or driven the other way with authority by righties. This is the Show after all, where a lot of hitters can go to right well and lefties are more common. Not only that, both have sophisticated responsibilities for their bags.
But they are still easier than their counterparts on the left side of the diamond.
I'd argue first is harder than second just because of handling short-hops and other wayward throws. But that also weighs in second's favor as the more difficult since first typically gets to see more action. And turning a double-play, even from second, is no picnic.
Luckily for me, that's not the question.
The question is whether shortstop is more difficult than third.
Both see a good amount of action. Both see grass-cutters on a regular basis. Both are expected to cover a serious amount of ground to be elite. Both have complicated rotational duties on specialty plays. Both must have cannons hanging from the right shoulder. Both must have velvety hands and nimble footwork.
It comes down to a matter of degree.
The shortstop sees a little more action. Third probably sees a higher number of vicious "chances" and the most dangerous ones. But short must cover more ground, rotate to cover both second and third routinely, have better arms, have better hands, and have better feet. The difference is not extreme in any instance, but there is a difference.
And it can be seen, not in the best players at the positions, but in the average ones.
Your average shortstop could move to third. Your average third-sacker could certainly NOT move to short. They would either be too slow or to awkward or too, uh, mentally-limited.
That is why most pro infielders (with the exception of the huge first basemen) were shortstops at some point in their careers. They started off as the best athlete and were put at SS. At a certain level, their defense became average for the spot so they were moved to another position.
Check it out, even some catchers and pitchers used to be shortstops.
Undoubtedly, this column will anger some of the fantasy-geeks and/or sabermatricians. It doesn't use any of the new, Star-Trek-sounding stats that are so in vogue amongst those communities. It doesn't use stats of any kind. And it's not because I dismiss those things.
They serve their purpose and the defensive ones are getting better.
But they still have a ways to go before they can approximate value and proficiency as well as the offensive versions. And even the offensive versions can be juked and/or fail to capture some intangible aspect of a hitter's value. So I stick with experience playing and watching the game.
I stick with what I see at the highest level combined with what I know from the lower levels.
And I'll stand behind that.
That's a lot of physical and mental responsibility.
But it's of a different kind. Like taking the mound, it's a wear and tear that you see coming. Both pitcher and catcher KNOW when they will be involved. Most times, they know how and to what extent. Even more importantly, they know any error will be quickly erased via their involvement on the next play. And the next. And the next.
Massaging a pitcher through the strikeout of a dangerous hitter might not seem to make up for a throwing error that turns a steal of second into a runner on third. You'd be surprised how quickly action - even trivial action - makes you forget.
The other guys on the field don't have that luxury.
Not only do they have to prepare for every pitch as if it might come to them, knowing all the while that the odds are against it unless one of the very best control pitchers is on the mound. They have to execute in a vacuum of opportunity, where each error could be the last chance they see for the day. Where mistakes usually cost outs rather than extra bases.
It is unpleasant. A different kind of stress - both physical and psychological - that deserves a separate comparison.
Plus, the question isn't interesting if you include the catching position.
So, having removed it (and pitcher since that position isn't difficult because of defense), we can toss out all the outfield positions. Center is obviously the most demanding and could arguably be more difficult than second base, but it's still not in the discussion.
The pure and simple fact is, all other things being equal, catching a baseball in flight is easier than fielding one cleanly that is hit on the ground. There is no debate.
It comes down to SS and the bases.
First and second are a notch below third and short.
They are on the right side of the infield, which is most batters' opposite field. That means they see fewer chances and, usually, easier ones. They see more jam shots or poor attempts to go the opposite way.
That's not to suggest either is easy. Nothing at the Major League level is.
They see their fair share of screamers pulled off the bat of lefties or driven the other way with authority by righties. This is the Show after all, where a lot of hitters can go to right well and lefties are more common. Not only that, both have sophisticated responsibilities for their bags.
But they are still easier than their counterparts on the left side of the diamond.
I'd argue first is harder than second just because of handling short-hops and other wayward throws. But that also weighs in second's favor as the more difficult since first typically gets to see more action. And turning a double-play, even from second, is no picnic.
Luckily for me, that's not the question.
The question is whether shortstop is more difficult than third.
Both see a good amount of action. Both see grass-cutters on a regular basis. Both are expected to cover a serious amount of ground to be elite. Both have complicated rotational duties on specialty plays. Both must have cannons hanging from the right shoulder. Both must have velvety hands and nimble footwork.
It comes down to a matter of degree.
The shortstop sees a little more action. Third probably sees a higher number of vicious "chances" and the most dangerous ones. But short must cover more ground, rotate to cover both second and third routinely, have better arms, have better hands, and have better feet. The difference is not extreme in any instance, but there is a difference.
And it can be seen, not in the best players at the positions, but in the average ones.
Your average shortstop could move to third. Your average third-sacker could certainly NOT move to short. They would either be too slow or to awkward or too, uh, mentally-limited.
That is why most pro infielders (with the exception of the huge first basemen) were shortstops at some point in their careers. They started off as the best athlete and were put at SS. At a certain level, their defense became average for the spot so they were moved to another position.
Check it out, even some catchers and pitchers used to be shortstops.
Undoubtedly, this column will anger some of the fantasy-geeks and/or sabermatricians. It doesn't use any of the new, Star-Trek-sounding stats that are so in vogue amongst those communities. It doesn't use stats of any kind. And it's not because I dismiss those things.
They serve their purpose and the defensive ones are getting better.
But they still have a ways to go before they can approximate value and proficiency as well as the offensive versions. And even the offensive versions can be juked and/or fail to capture some intangible aspect of a hitter's value. So I stick with experience playing and watching the game.
I stick with what I see at the highest level combined with what I know from the lower levels.
And I'll stand behind that.
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
5 TV Ad Campaigns Forged by Satan and Perfected by His Minions
"It is to erase the fixed smiles of sleeping couples that Satan trained roosters to crow a five in the morning." - Tom Robbins, "Jitterbug Perfume"
No, I'm not a morning person. Nor am I a fan of commercials. If Satan trained roosters, he did the same for advertising executives. Because television ads are to sports fans what roosters are to the slumbering masses.
They are the harsh crow of reality that pulls us from our waking dreams.
As a junior in college, I stumbled across an infomercial for Tivo. It was three in the morning and I was, shall we say, not of sound mind. But my hatred for commercials pulled me through, sat me down at the computer, did a quick search to see if the company was publicly traded, and placed an auto-order for several hundred shares after finding out it had IPO'd a couple weeks ago.
Maybe it was a couple months. Like I said, I hadn't been out studying for an exam.
Anyway, it was one of my more brilliant drunken decisions. Did I say one of? I meant only. And I think my distaste for ads snapped me into coherence so it probably doesn't really qualify. There wasn't a doubt in my addled mind that the technology would be successful.
I'm also aware it is one of the better examples of irony you can find.
For that economic windfall and as an exercise in catharsis, I'd like to thank the following five commercial campaigns. They are, in my opinion, the worst offenders in a cluttered field and the inspiration for many a Tivo purchase:
5. Kay Jewelers' "Every Kiss Begins with Kay" campaign.
This campaign had issues before the growing awareness of how expensive diamonds are in the currency of human blood. Now, more people question the idea of showing her how much you really care with a stone that arguably perpetuates new levels of human brutality in Africa.
But even before that, you'd have to find the idea offensive. The commercials more or less equate the purchase of a diamond for Valentine's Day or Christmas or Hanukkah or whatever with proof of real love.
That's bad news if you can't afford what is essentially a shiny rock that costs thousands of dollars every time an annual occasion comes 'round.
Of course, it's good news if you happen to be Kobe Bryant.
I mean, we might all legitimately question whether the man really loves his wife. You know, because she was home in Los Angeles with their newborn baby girl while Kobe was banging some 19-year-old snowbunny in Colorado.
Thankfully, we have $5 million worth of proof to dispel such a preposterous notion.
4. The latest spate of eco-friendly campaigns from Big Oil.
These are phenomenal exercises in propaganda. Seriously, the most abhorrent dictators in history would be proud. Lest anyone accuse me of being a tree-hugger or even a firm environmentalist, let me say I'm not. Despite spending most of my life in Northern California, I see the confrontation between pursuit of livelihood and that of the environmental protection as a grayer area than most in this part of the State.
But environmental awareness and preservation as two of Big Oil's primary concerns?
Riiight. And I've got some lovely oceanfront property for you in Utah. It comes with a liquor license and it's own brothel.
That's a tough sell considering the corporations typically fight tooth and nail for every dollar they are forced to spend during clean-up efforts. They frequently and happily go to the mattresses in an effort to whittle away every cent of liability possible after some drunken, waste of oxygen rams a behemoth tanker into something so perilous as a bridge support.
Seriously, how can they be blamed? Those things really jump out at you.
3. The bronze medal goes to the current Miller Lite "Commissioner of Taste" campaign.
Any ad that drags an actor I like into the gutter is a serious offender. In this case, the actor in question is John C. McGinley. If you've gotten too seduced by his role on "Scrubs," take another run at "Platoon," "Office Space," or "Wild Hogs (an inexplicably entertaining movie)." His characters all have a general similarity, but I've got no problem with playing to your strengths.
However, the real reason it ranks so high (or so low) is that Miller beer is awful.
MGD is the worst, but Miller Lite is right there at its heels. The only Miller beer I'll drink is the High Life and that's more about the cool bottle/slogan ("It's the champagne of beers") than taste. Nor am I in the minority - I used to work in a bar during law school and almost no one orders Miller Lite.
Personally, I don't know anyone who prefers a Miller beer to its Bud or Coors equivalent.
And the campaign is based on TASTE! Ridiculous.
It doesn't help that the ads are generally irritating and mind-numbingly stupid.
2. The silver medal goes to any McDonald's ad - currently, the asinine McNugget campaign.
There are just so many soft spots, it's tough to know where to start. There are the shots of the restaurants, which are always clean and bright and cheerful. Where are these places? I'm not a huge fastfood guy, but I've NEVER been in a McDonald's that looked even vaguely reminiscent of these commercial palaces.
Or what about the food? If the burgers, shakes, fries, etc. really looked like that, those lines would be a lot longer.
Or how about the patrons? I never knew so many svelte, supermodel-types (both men and women) were such loyal and enthusiastic customers. And I guess these must be secret, invite-only restaurants because I have yet to run across one. Sadly though, I am not a supermodel-type.
Or what about just the general ideas? A McNugget party? Really? That's the best you can do? Whoa.
Let's not forget the "I'm lovin' it," "McGriddle's," and ethnocentric campaigns of yore. Lots of aneurysm-inducing potential there.
1. But the gold medal goes to the Lexus "December to Remember" sales event campaign that returns like a plague of locusts every holiday season. And it's not close.
These are by far the worst because they come out like clockwork every year and seem to be placed in extra-heavy circulation during football games. What football fan doesn't know the image of a Lexus SUV with a big, red bow on it? Or the wife confronted with the sedan and same bow in a snowy driveway?
And now it seems Audi is following Lexus' lead. Wonderful.
But let's really examine the idea of giving someone a luxury automobile - or any new car, for that matter - on Christmas or, presumably, Hanukkah. I can't really speak to the Jewish holiday because I am not Jewish. However, I grew up with a lot of Jews (doesn't that sound derogatory?) and have been to my share of Bar/Bat Mitzvahs.
One of my closest and my oldest friend is Jewish. We have Thanksgiving with his family every year.
I think it's pretty safe to say that a car is rarely the payoff for a night of Hanukkah. I could be wrong, but I remember a lot of complaints about books, sweaters, educational video games, etc. A car doesn't really seem consistent.
The idea of a Lexus or Audi for Christmas is only slightly less ridiculous.
I grew up in Tiburon, which is part of Marin County in California. Marin is just north of San Francisco, right across the Golden Gate Bridge. It is one of the most affluent areas in California, probably the country. My two sisters and I have run up the following educational tabs: three undergrads, two private and one public; nursing school; law school; and medical school. We have done so without any concept of a student-loan or any other kind. Not only that, my family's wealth is modest compared to the typical measure in Southern Marin.
I'm not saying this to brag. I'm pointing out that my family is extremely fortunate. More so that probably 95 percent of the country. Our neighbors are even luckier.
And I have never, ever, EVER heard of someone getting ANY kind of car for Christmas. Who are these people? Where are these people? Is it the ad equivalent of a subprime mortgage? Convince someone to buy a car of an occasion that he/she can't ultimately afford?
Or is it an ad campaign targeting the upper tenth of a percent of the population?
The really shocker though, is that, according to some studies, almost 10 percent of Lexus models are sold as gifts during the season. In other words, the campaign works.
I simply cannot believe that. I choose not to because it would shake my faith in a benevolent God.
Those are the most egregious offenders in my opinion. The list is by no means exhaustive or definitive. I'm sure I've left of some truly horrendous campaigns. I might have even left off the real gold medal winner. The field is simply too cluttered to shoot for perfection.
In the end, I am but one man. And a mere mortal at that.
Such a monumental task would require infinintely more mental capacity than I possess.
So I'll leave it the greater wisdom of the Bleacher Report community.
I've vented and feel much better. Now, it's your turn.
No, I'm not a morning person. Nor am I a fan of commercials. If Satan trained roosters, he did the same for advertising executives. Because television ads are to sports fans what roosters are to the slumbering masses.
They are the harsh crow of reality that pulls us from our waking dreams.
As a junior in college, I stumbled across an infomercial for Tivo. It was three in the morning and I was, shall we say, not of sound mind. But my hatred for commercials pulled me through, sat me down at the computer, did a quick search to see if the company was publicly traded, and placed an auto-order for several hundred shares after finding out it had IPO'd a couple weeks ago.
Maybe it was a couple months. Like I said, I hadn't been out studying for an exam.
Anyway, it was one of my more brilliant drunken decisions. Did I say one of? I meant only. And I think my distaste for ads snapped me into coherence so it probably doesn't really qualify. There wasn't a doubt in my addled mind that the technology would be successful.
I'm also aware it is one of the better examples of irony you can find.
For that economic windfall and as an exercise in catharsis, I'd like to thank the following five commercial campaigns. They are, in my opinion, the worst offenders in a cluttered field and the inspiration for many a Tivo purchase:
5. Kay Jewelers' "Every Kiss Begins with Kay" campaign.
This campaign had issues before the growing awareness of how expensive diamonds are in the currency of human blood. Now, more people question the idea of showing her how much you really care with a stone that arguably perpetuates new levels of human brutality in Africa.
But even before that, you'd have to find the idea offensive. The commercials more or less equate the purchase of a diamond for Valentine's Day or Christmas or Hanukkah or whatever with proof of real love.
That's bad news if you can't afford what is essentially a shiny rock that costs thousands of dollars every time an annual occasion comes 'round.
Of course, it's good news if you happen to be Kobe Bryant.
I mean, we might all legitimately question whether the man really loves his wife. You know, because she was home in Los Angeles with their newborn baby girl while Kobe was banging some 19-year-old snowbunny in Colorado.
Thankfully, we have $5 million worth of proof to dispel such a preposterous notion.
4. The latest spate of eco-friendly campaigns from Big Oil.
These are phenomenal exercises in propaganda. Seriously, the most abhorrent dictators in history would be proud. Lest anyone accuse me of being a tree-hugger or even a firm environmentalist, let me say I'm not. Despite spending most of my life in Northern California, I see the confrontation between pursuit of livelihood and that of the environmental protection as a grayer area than most in this part of the State.
But environmental awareness and preservation as two of Big Oil's primary concerns?
Riiight. And I've got some lovely oceanfront property for you in Utah. It comes with a liquor license and it's own brothel.
That's a tough sell considering the corporations typically fight tooth and nail for every dollar they are forced to spend during clean-up efforts. They frequently and happily go to the mattresses in an effort to whittle away every cent of liability possible after some drunken, waste of oxygen rams a behemoth tanker into something so perilous as a bridge support.
Seriously, how can they be blamed? Those things really jump out at you.
3. The bronze medal goes to the current Miller Lite "Commissioner of Taste" campaign.
Any ad that drags an actor I like into the gutter is a serious offender. In this case, the actor in question is John C. McGinley. If you've gotten too seduced by his role on "Scrubs," take another run at "Platoon," "Office Space," or "Wild Hogs (an inexplicably entertaining movie)." His characters all have a general similarity, but I've got no problem with playing to your strengths.
However, the real reason it ranks so high (or so low) is that Miller beer is awful.
MGD is the worst, but Miller Lite is right there at its heels. The only Miller beer I'll drink is the High Life and that's more about the cool bottle/slogan ("It's the champagne of beers") than taste. Nor am I in the minority - I used to work in a bar during law school and almost no one orders Miller Lite.
Personally, I don't know anyone who prefers a Miller beer to its Bud or Coors equivalent.
And the campaign is based on TASTE! Ridiculous.
It doesn't help that the ads are generally irritating and mind-numbingly stupid.
2. The silver medal goes to any McDonald's ad - currently, the asinine McNugget campaign.
There are just so many soft spots, it's tough to know where to start. There are the shots of the restaurants, which are always clean and bright and cheerful. Where are these places? I'm not a huge fastfood guy, but I've NEVER been in a McDonald's that looked even vaguely reminiscent of these commercial palaces.
Or what about the food? If the burgers, shakes, fries, etc. really looked like that, those lines would be a lot longer.
Or how about the patrons? I never knew so many svelte, supermodel-types (both men and women) were such loyal and enthusiastic customers. And I guess these must be secret, invite-only restaurants because I have yet to run across one. Sadly though, I am not a supermodel-type.
Or what about just the general ideas? A McNugget party? Really? That's the best you can do? Whoa.
Let's not forget the "I'm lovin' it," "McGriddle's," and ethnocentric campaigns of yore. Lots of aneurysm-inducing potential there.
1. But the gold medal goes to the Lexus "December to Remember" sales event campaign that returns like a plague of locusts every holiday season. And it's not close.
These are by far the worst because they come out like clockwork every year and seem to be placed in extra-heavy circulation during football games. What football fan doesn't know the image of a Lexus SUV with a big, red bow on it? Or the wife confronted with the sedan and same bow in a snowy driveway?
And now it seems Audi is following Lexus' lead. Wonderful.
But let's really examine the idea of giving someone a luxury automobile - or any new car, for that matter - on Christmas or, presumably, Hanukkah. I can't really speak to the Jewish holiday because I am not Jewish. However, I grew up with a lot of Jews (doesn't that sound derogatory?) and have been to my share of Bar/Bat Mitzvahs.
One of my closest and my oldest friend is Jewish. We have Thanksgiving with his family every year.
I think it's pretty safe to say that a car is rarely the payoff for a night of Hanukkah. I could be wrong, but I remember a lot of complaints about books, sweaters, educational video games, etc. A car doesn't really seem consistent.
The idea of a Lexus or Audi for Christmas is only slightly less ridiculous.
I grew up in Tiburon, which is part of Marin County in California. Marin is just north of San Francisco, right across the Golden Gate Bridge. It is one of the most affluent areas in California, probably the country. My two sisters and I have run up the following educational tabs: three undergrads, two private and one public; nursing school; law school; and medical school. We have done so without any concept of a student-loan or any other kind. Not only that, my family's wealth is modest compared to the typical measure in Southern Marin.
I'm not saying this to brag. I'm pointing out that my family is extremely fortunate. More so that probably 95 percent of the country. Our neighbors are even luckier.
And I have never, ever, EVER heard of someone getting ANY kind of car for Christmas. Who are these people? Where are these people? Is it the ad equivalent of a subprime mortgage? Convince someone to buy a car of an occasion that he/she can't ultimately afford?
Or is it an ad campaign targeting the upper tenth of a percent of the population?
The really shocker though, is that, according to some studies, almost 10 percent of Lexus models are sold as gifts during the season. In other words, the campaign works.
I simply cannot believe that. I choose not to because it would shake my faith in a benevolent God.
Those are the most egregious offenders in my opinion. The list is by no means exhaustive or definitive. I'm sure I've left of some truly horrendous campaigns. I might have even left off the real gold medal winner. The field is simply too cluttered to shoot for perfection.
In the end, I am but one man. And a mere mortal at that.
Such a monumental task would require infinintely more mental capacity than I possess.
So I'll leave it the greater wisdom of the Bleacher Report community.
I've vented and feel much better. Now, it's your turn.
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
The Dallas Cowboys Have Talked All Year, the Time to Walk Has Arrived
"Are you gonna bark all day little doggie? Or are you gonna bite?" - Mr. Blonde "Reservoir Dogs"
Time is up for the Dallas Cowboys. They can't mess around anymore if they really are what they say they are - a playoff team. Despite sitting at 7-4 in the National Football Conference, they are still looking at an uphill climb.
And some pundits are starting to lose sight of that fact.
It's a perfect example of Long John Silver's fantastic article about David Beckham and how the media created a hype Frankenstein from his spare parts.
Some of the experts (or at least Trent Dilfer and ESPN) are beginning to talk about how Dallas has righted the ship and is poised to make the playoff run everyone has been promising. Everyone who proudly reps the Star that is.
And so the first stitch in the monster is complete.
Just last week, those same experts were correctly pointing out that Dallas had a battle on its hands. That the 8-4 record they were sure to have after entering the National Football League's version of Betty Ford - games versus the San Francisco 49ers and the Seattle Seahawks - would be deceiving. That everyone should be careful to remember that and temper accordingly.
This week though, after all the pretty numbers Terrell Owens and the 'pokes put up, you're already seeing that qualification drop. You're already seeing the thousand-mile stare when the pundits talk of the offensive explosion. That look of glittering and blissful delusion you find in people who only see what they believe, but what they believe is not reality.
To a degree, it's warranted because the Cowboys were an irresistible force on Sunday.
But it was against the Niners. And it wasn't the whole game. Not even the majority. Not even close. As Joe Buck and Troy Aikman (two notorious Cowboy-haters) pointed out, Dallas couldn't put lowly SF away and flubbed an easy chance to rest their most valuable starters (read: Tony Romo and his broken pinkie) heading into a short week.
And it's not like San Fran played one of its better games.
This was not a case of a bad team playing up to a superior side's level. For most of the game, it was quite the opposite. Dallas matched 'frisco face-plant for face-plant. But some in the media are already trying to make the public ignore this. Odd considering the almost universal stance only a week ago.
It's about to get worse.
After the certain majesty of Dallas' offense against the lifeless Seahawks, the playoff party should be in full swing. That massacre should be Igor to the media's Dr. Frankenstein, flipping the switch to complete the process. To ensure that, by ignoring its own advice, the media will succeed in forcing the public to do the same.
Reality, though, is that the true test doesn't start until the Cowboys put the final nail in Seattle's coffin.
Dallas will be in a better spot at 8-4, but it will still need more. I would be shocked if a team with less than 10 wins made the postseason in either conference. I don't think I would be alone. So the Cowboys will need at least another two wins in their final four games.
Sounds simple enough. Finishing at a .500 clip for a quarter of the season isn't too much to ask of a playoff team.
Except Dallas gets a long week to prepare for a trip into Pittsburgh and a date with the first-place, 8-3 Steelers. Then the first-place, 10-1 New York Giants come marauding into Dallas for a game that should have the stench of last year's playoff game on it. If they win either of those games, they're a playoff team and it's mulligans all around for the guilty members of the media.
But those are two brutal assignments.
The 'pokes catch a slight break when they face the second-place, 7-4 Baltimore Ravens at home. But that's still a vicious defense and a young, dynamic quarterback. A QB who is improving with every game and will have three more under his belt by that time. That's another tough task before Dallas can finish with a lay-up against the Philadelphia Eagles, a 5-6 team (sorry, a tie with the Cincinnati Bengals is a loss in my book) and a house in disarray.
Even the lay-up isn't exactly that because it's still a division foe, the game is in Philly, and the Eagles have the talent to vastly improve over the next four games.
For Dallas, finishing 10-6 wouldn't be a Herculean effort, but it would impressive. And possibly not enough.
As it stands right now, the Cowboys have to jump the 7-4 Washington Redskins. The 'skins also have the Giants coming to town and must go to Baltimore. But they have the Bungals, the Niners, and Philly at home. Additionally, since they have it now based on NBC's playoff picture, I'm assuming they would still hold the tie-breaker over Dallas at the end of the year.
If that is indeed the case, Dallas is in big trouble because the NFC South will almost certainly ride off with the other Wild Card spot.
The Carolina Panthers are 8-3 with three probable wins on the schedule (New Orleans Saints, Denver Broncos, Green Bay Packers). The Tampa Bay Buccaneers are 8-3 with three probable wins on the schedule (San Diego Chargers, Oakland Raiders, Saints). The Atlanta Falcons are 7-4 with three probable wins on the schedule (Chargers, Minnesota Vikings, St. Louis Rams) AND seem to hold the tie-breaker over Dallas. Meanwhile, the Saints are a dangerous 6-5 team with a possible Most Valuable Player at QB in Drew Brees.
If either the Panthers or the Bucs stumble, it will probably be against New Orleans.
Chances are the second-place team in the NFC South will have either 11 wins or 10 wins and the tie-breaker over Dallas.
Obviously, this is all speculation and probabilities. There are four games left in the season, which is plenty of time for landscape-altering injuries. Furthermore, anything can happen in the NFL. The meek could rear up and torpedo everyone sitting on top of Dallas without people looking to the skies for the Four Horsemen. And Lord knows what the various wins/losses will do to tie-breaking scenarios?
But it is not wild speculation. It is very likely that Dallas will need 11 wins to control its own postseason fate.
That means beating either Pittsburgh on the road or the Giants at home.
We've heard Tony Romo say Dallas will make the playoffs. We've heard Terrell Owens say Dallas will make the playoffs. We've heard Jerry Jones say Dallas will make the playoffs.
That's a lot of barking.
After one more tune-up against Seattle and the ghosts of a snap gone awry, the Dallas Cowboys will have to show they can bite.
Time is up for the Dallas Cowboys. They can't mess around anymore if they really are what they say they are - a playoff team. Despite sitting at 7-4 in the National Football Conference, they are still looking at an uphill climb.
And some pundits are starting to lose sight of that fact.
It's a perfect example of Long John Silver's fantastic article about David Beckham and how the media created a hype Frankenstein from his spare parts.
Some of the experts (or at least Trent Dilfer and ESPN) are beginning to talk about how Dallas has righted the ship and is poised to make the playoff run everyone has been promising. Everyone who proudly reps the Star that is.
And so the first stitch in the monster is complete.
Just last week, those same experts were correctly pointing out that Dallas had a battle on its hands. That the 8-4 record they were sure to have after entering the National Football League's version of Betty Ford - games versus the San Francisco 49ers and the Seattle Seahawks - would be deceiving. That everyone should be careful to remember that and temper accordingly.
This week though, after all the pretty numbers Terrell Owens and the 'pokes put up, you're already seeing that qualification drop. You're already seeing the thousand-mile stare when the pundits talk of the offensive explosion. That look of glittering and blissful delusion you find in people who only see what they believe, but what they believe is not reality.
To a degree, it's warranted because the Cowboys were an irresistible force on Sunday.
But it was against the Niners. And it wasn't the whole game. Not even the majority. Not even close. As Joe Buck and Troy Aikman (two notorious Cowboy-haters) pointed out, Dallas couldn't put lowly SF away and flubbed an easy chance to rest their most valuable starters (read: Tony Romo and his broken pinkie) heading into a short week.
And it's not like San Fran played one of its better games.
This was not a case of a bad team playing up to a superior side's level. For most of the game, it was quite the opposite. Dallas matched 'frisco face-plant for face-plant. But some in the media are already trying to make the public ignore this. Odd considering the almost universal stance only a week ago.
It's about to get worse.
After the certain majesty of Dallas' offense against the lifeless Seahawks, the playoff party should be in full swing. That massacre should be Igor to the media's Dr. Frankenstein, flipping the switch to complete the process. To ensure that, by ignoring its own advice, the media will succeed in forcing the public to do the same.
Reality, though, is that the true test doesn't start until the Cowboys put the final nail in Seattle's coffin.
Dallas will be in a better spot at 8-4, but it will still need more. I would be shocked if a team with less than 10 wins made the postseason in either conference. I don't think I would be alone. So the Cowboys will need at least another two wins in their final four games.
Sounds simple enough. Finishing at a .500 clip for a quarter of the season isn't too much to ask of a playoff team.
Except Dallas gets a long week to prepare for a trip into Pittsburgh and a date with the first-place, 8-3 Steelers. Then the first-place, 10-1 New York Giants come marauding into Dallas for a game that should have the stench of last year's playoff game on it. If they win either of those games, they're a playoff team and it's mulligans all around for the guilty members of the media.
But those are two brutal assignments.
The 'pokes catch a slight break when they face the second-place, 7-4 Baltimore Ravens at home. But that's still a vicious defense and a young, dynamic quarterback. A QB who is improving with every game and will have three more under his belt by that time. That's another tough task before Dallas can finish with a lay-up against the Philadelphia Eagles, a 5-6 team (sorry, a tie with the Cincinnati Bengals is a loss in my book) and a house in disarray.
Even the lay-up isn't exactly that because it's still a division foe, the game is in Philly, and the Eagles have the talent to vastly improve over the next four games.
For Dallas, finishing 10-6 wouldn't be a Herculean effort, but it would impressive. And possibly not enough.
As it stands right now, the Cowboys have to jump the 7-4 Washington Redskins. The 'skins also have the Giants coming to town and must go to Baltimore. But they have the Bungals, the Niners, and Philly at home. Additionally, since they have it now based on NBC's playoff picture, I'm assuming they would still hold the tie-breaker over Dallas at the end of the year.
If that is indeed the case, Dallas is in big trouble because the NFC South will almost certainly ride off with the other Wild Card spot.
The Carolina Panthers are 8-3 with three probable wins on the schedule (New Orleans Saints, Denver Broncos, Green Bay Packers). The Tampa Bay Buccaneers are 8-3 with three probable wins on the schedule (San Diego Chargers, Oakland Raiders, Saints). The Atlanta Falcons are 7-4 with three probable wins on the schedule (Chargers, Minnesota Vikings, St. Louis Rams) AND seem to hold the tie-breaker over Dallas. Meanwhile, the Saints are a dangerous 6-5 team with a possible Most Valuable Player at QB in Drew Brees.
If either the Panthers or the Bucs stumble, it will probably be against New Orleans.
Chances are the second-place team in the NFC South will have either 11 wins or 10 wins and the tie-breaker over Dallas.
Obviously, this is all speculation and probabilities. There are four games left in the season, which is plenty of time for landscape-altering injuries. Furthermore, anything can happen in the NFL. The meek could rear up and torpedo everyone sitting on top of Dallas without people looking to the skies for the Four Horsemen. And Lord knows what the various wins/losses will do to tie-breaking scenarios?
But it is not wild speculation. It is very likely that Dallas will need 11 wins to control its own postseason fate.
That means beating either Pittsburgh on the road or the Giants at home.
We've heard Tony Romo say Dallas will make the playoffs. We've heard Terrell Owens say Dallas will make the playoffs. We've heard Jerry Jones say Dallas will make the playoffs.
That's a lot of barking.
After one more tune-up against Seattle and the ghosts of a snap gone awry, the Dallas Cowboys will have to show they can bite.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Oddly, Chris Simms Gets the Final Word on the 2006 NFL Draft
"The dumber people think you are, the more surprised they're going to be when you kill them." - William Clayton
Somewhere in the catacombs of the National Football League Network, Charley Casserly must be thinking just that because of Chris Simms. Sounds crazy, right? But, on Sunday morning, someone on one of the pregame shows (probably all of them) said that the Tennessee Titans are interested in signing Kerry Collins to a new contract.
No big surprise there.
The real shocker is that they plan to pursue Chris Simms as his primary back-up.
Not really the vote of confidence Vince Young needed.
I'm not part of the growing tide that has written VY off. In fact, I think Kristin Hamlin did a fine job of imagining what must be going through his mind at moments such as these. I very much believe that a leader and winner of his caliber will always be a leader and winner. Obviously not every minute of every day of his life, but he will pick himself off the ground.
Vince Young will ride again.
Just not in Houston.
And that means he was a waste of the number three pick in the 2006 NFL Draft.
Young came out of the gates fast, but that is not the reason you draft a player third overall. You draft that player and pay him the necessary money because he is supposed to be the cornerstone. The block that locks the organization together and gives it strength for posterity (or at least that player's prime years).
You do not draft him for two years of excellence and a cloud of dust.
Shift focus to Reggie Bush.
He has been good, but not great. And the injury bug bit him this year. As I understand it, that was one of his primary detractions - his slighter size made some appraisers question whether he would be durable enough to survive the leviathans who troll the NFL waters.
In other words, the New Orleans Saints might need a little divine intervention to get Reggie back on the field and keep him there.
Even if this injury is not a sign of unfortunate things to come for Bush, he has proven to be mediocre out of the backfield while averaging about 3.5 yards per carry for his career. His true and considerable value seems to be as a receiving back a la a more one-dimensional yet more elusive Marshall Faulk. In that role, Reggie gets the ball with a little more open space in which to razzle and dazzle.
And he may eventually turn into a formidable weapon via the hand-off.
But, once again, that is not why you spend the number two pick and the number two money on a kid out of college.
You're not searching for formidable weapons or a two-year sugar rush. You are searching for That Guy who will turn your franchise around almost immediately. Not necessarily turn it into a contender, but certainly lead a change in direction. You are looking for that special talent because your franchise must usually be in sorry shape to have such a high pick. And there are usually two or three of them in each draft-class.
Admittedly, I don't know enough about the intricacies of football to recognize these players unless they're on offense. So I don't know if Mario Williams is this kind of player.
I do know that 14.5 sacks is pretty good.
I do know that the Texans have gotten better. Granted, there weren't too many other options.
I also know that, while both the Saints and Titans have improved exponentially by comparison, it was neither Reggie Bush nor Vince Young who led the way. And it doesn't seem likely that either player will be doing so for the organization that drafted him.
And that makes them disappointments because of the high expectations that accompany the second and third overall picks, respectively.
Most importantly though, I know how much heat Casserly and the Texans took for drafting Mario Williams over the obvious jackpots represented by Reggie Bush and Vince Young.
I mean, Young played for the University of Texas!
There seems to be a consensus that Bill Simmons even used it as an excuse to create a default column topic for those days when he couldn't find an excuse to write about Boston. Said it proved professional franchises need a Vice President of Common Sense and periodically writes as if he is that person.
Because Casserly and the Texans so blatantly blew the easy money.
And Simmons was by no means alone in his condemnation. Nor was his group in the minority. Had I been more delusional in my knowledge of football, I might have been right there in the firing line.
Charley argued the Texans were not passing on a sure thing, let alone two. They were taking the player who could best help them, immediately and for years to come. The best professional talent they saw in the draft.
And Chris Simms proves - once, emphatically, and for all - that Casserly was right and we were wrong.
Somewhere in the catacombs of the National Football League Network, Charley Casserly must be thinking just that because of Chris Simms. Sounds crazy, right? But, on Sunday morning, someone on one of the pregame shows (probably all of them) said that the Tennessee Titans are interested in signing Kerry Collins to a new contract.
No big surprise there.
The real shocker is that they plan to pursue Chris Simms as his primary back-up.
Not really the vote of confidence Vince Young needed.
I'm not part of the growing tide that has written VY off. In fact, I think Kristin Hamlin did a fine job of imagining what must be going through his mind at moments such as these. I very much believe that a leader and winner of his caliber will always be a leader and winner. Obviously not every minute of every day of his life, but he will pick himself off the ground.
Vince Young will ride again.
Just not in Houston.
And that means he was a waste of the number three pick in the 2006 NFL Draft.
Young came out of the gates fast, but that is not the reason you draft a player third overall. You draft that player and pay him the necessary money because he is supposed to be the cornerstone. The block that locks the organization together and gives it strength for posterity (or at least that player's prime years).
You do not draft him for two years of excellence and a cloud of dust.
Shift focus to Reggie Bush.
He has been good, but not great. And the injury bug bit him this year. As I understand it, that was one of his primary detractions - his slighter size made some appraisers question whether he would be durable enough to survive the leviathans who troll the NFL waters.
In other words, the New Orleans Saints might need a little divine intervention to get Reggie back on the field and keep him there.
Even if this injury is not a sign of unfortunate things to come for Bush, he has proven to be mediocre out of the backfield while averaging about 3.5 yards per carry for his career. His true and considerable value seems to be as a receiving back a la a more one-dimensional yet more elusive Marshall Faulk. In that role, Reggie gets the ball with a little more open space in which to razzle and dazzle.
And he may eventually turn into a formidable weapon via the hand-off.
But, once again, that is not why you spend the number two pick and the number two money on a kid out of college.
You're not searching for formidable weapons or a two-year sugar rush. You are searching for That Guy who will turn your franchise around almost immediately. Not necessarily turn it into a contender, but certainly lead a change in direction. You are looking for that special talent because your franchise must usually be in sorry shape to have such a high pick. And there are usually two or three of them in each draft-class.
Admittedly, I don't know enough about the intricacies of football to recognize these players unless they're on offense. So I don't know if Mario Williams is this kind of player.
I do know that 14.5 sacks is pretty good.
I do know that the Texans have gotten better. Granted, there weren't too many other options.
I also know that, while both the Saints and Titans have improved exponentially by comparison, it was neither Reggie Bush nor Vince Young who led the way. And it doesn't seem likely that either player will be doing so for the organization that drafted him.
And that makes them disappointments because of the high expectations that accompany the second and third overall picks, respectively.
Most importantly though, I know how much heat Casserly and the Texans took for drafting Mario Williams over the obvious jackpots represented by Reggie Bush and Vince Young.
I mean, Young played for the University of Texas!
There seems to be a consensus that Bill Simmons even used it as an excuse to create a default column topic for those days when he couldn't find an excuse to write about Boston. Said it proved professional franchises need a Vice President of Common Sense and periodically writes as if he is that person.
Because Casserly and the Texans so blatantly blew the easy money.
And Simmons was by no means alone in his condemnation. Nor was his group in the minority. Had I been more delusional in my knowledge of football, I might have been right there in the firing line.
Charley argued the Texans were not passing on a sure thing, let alone two. They were taking the player who could best help them, immediately and for years to come. The best professional talent they saw in the draft.
And Chris Simms proves - once, emphatically, and for all - that Casserly was right and we were wrong.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Gather Up Your Flock, Here Comes BCS Armageddon
"I like these calm little moments before the storm. It reminds me of Beethoven." - Gary Oldman, "The Professional"
All I can say is, UH OH.
The Oklahoma Sooners are currently pasting the Red Raiders out of Texas Tech. Seriously, this game is over and the second quarter just started.
So that means only the Alabama Crimson Tide stands as the persevering unbeaten from a Bowl Championship Series conference. And they still have the Florida Gators looming on the horizon. A Gator team that just put up 70 points.
Granted, it was against the Citadel.
But two things can be taken from this game: what in the hell is Florida doing playing the Citadel in November and 70 points is an impressive output against anyone who can run and see. It is also totally unnecessary and, honestly, a little obscene.
But I'd be at least a little more concerned if I were a member of the Crimson Tide faithful or team.
It's almost inevitable that college football will be staring at a host of one-loss teams from the power conferences plus at least one undefeated team from a "lesser" conference. Possibly two or three. Look at the potential logjam if things play out perfectly, which also happens to be according to expectation:
1. Alabama Crimson Tide - would finish 12-1 if they beat the Auburn Tigers and lose to the Gators. Their signature wins would be over the LSU Tigers (7-3) and Georgia Bulldogs (9-2). Their loss would be to the Gators (10-1) at a neutral site.
2. Texas Tech Red Raiders - would finish 11-1 if they beat the Baylor Bears. Their signature wins would be over the Texas Longhorns (10-1) and the Oklahoma State Cowboys (9-2). Lost to Oklahoma (10-1) on the road.
3. Texas Longhorns - would finish 11-1 if they beat the Texas A&M Aggies. Their signature wins would be over the Oklahoma Sooners (10-1) and the Oklahoma State Cowboys (9-2). Lost to Texas Tech (10-1) on the road.
4. Florida Gators - would finish 12-1 if they beat the Florida State Seminoles and Alabama. Their signature wins would be over the Seminoles (7-3), the Tide (11-0), Georgia (9-2), and LSU (7-3). Lost to the Mississippi Rebels (7-4) at home.
5. Oklahoma Sooners - would finish 11-1 if they beat Oklahoma State. Their signature wins would be over Texas Tech (10-1) and Oklahoma State (9-2). Lost to Texas (10-1) at home.
6. USC Trojans - would finish 11-1 if they beat the Notre Dame Fightin' Irish and the UCLA Bruins. Their signature wins would be over the Ohio State Buckeyes (10-2) and the Oregon Ducks (8-3). Lost to the Oregon State Beavers (8-3) on the road.
7. Penn State Nittany Lions - finished 11-1. Their signature wins are over the Michigan State Spartans (9-3), Ohio State (10-2), and Oregon State (8-3). Lost to the Iowa Hawkeyes (8-4) on the road.
And then you have the Utah Utes, who finished undefeated, but list either Oregon State or the BYU Cougars as their best win. The cases are even weaker for the likely-to-finish-undefeated Boise State Broncos (at Oregon) and the Ball State Cardinals (crickets).
How do you sift through that clutter? Seven teams from four BCS conferences.
The three Big 12 teams are a mess because they've all beaten and lost to each other (complicating matters - today's game doesn't look like it's going to even be close as it's now halftime and the score's a 117-6). Not only that, but the only other signature win is against Oklahoma State for all three teams.
USC and Penn State pose problems because their best wins are over good teams from watered-down conferences. And yet, each school's only lost came to a pretty good divisional foe on the road.
Alabama would pose a problem because how can you bounce Alabama after spending the entire year at the top and losing in the conference title game (which neither USC nor Penn State must face)? To a scorching Florida squad?
Florida would pose a problem because, if you can't bump Alabama, how can you bump the team that just beat them? And what if Florida destroys the Crimson Tide? Plus, the Gators have beaten more strong teams than the other contenders while suffering the worst defeat.
And what of Utah, Boise State, and Ball State?
They beat everyone they could convince to play them, but get penalized because no big boys will take that risk. So we don't even get to consider what the destined-for-greatness arm of Nate Davis could do for one night. One game. Four quarters.
If Doug Flutie did it, why can't Nate? After all, if he's not the first quarterback taken in next year's draft, there's something seriously amiss with the player-rating system.
Of course, a lot of this could be avoided if teams stumble in the next couple of weeks. Especially if Alabama can turn back the tide of conventional wisdom and catch Florida in its own death-roll.
But c'mon, who's rooting for that outside of Alabama and the halls of the BCS?
To borrow from another great lyricist, I'm rooting for meteor showers and tidal waves. For fault lines that cannot sit still.
I'm rooting for the End of Days, BCS-style. And I'm not alone.
All I can say is, UH OH.
The Oklahoma Sooners are currently pasting the Red Raiders out of Texas Tech. Seriously, this game is over and the second quarter just started.
So that means only the Alabama Crimson Tide stands as the persevering unbeaten from a Bowl Championship Series conference. And they still have the Florida Gators looming on the horizon. A Gator team that just put up 70 points.
Granted, it was against the Citadel.
But two things can be taken from this game: what in the hell is Florida doing playing the Citadel in November and 70 points is an impressive output against anyone who can run and see. It is also totally unnecessary and, honestly, a little obscene.
But I'd be at least a little more concerned if I were a member of the Crimson Tide faithful or team.
It's almost inevitable that college football will be staring at a host of one-loss teams from the power conferences plus at least one undefeated team from a "lesser" conference. Possibly two or three. Look at the potential logjam if things play out perfectly, which also happens to be according to expectation:
1. Alabama Crimson Tide - would finish 12-1 if they beat the Auburn Tigers and lose to the Gators. Their signature wins would be over the LSU Tigers (7-3) and Georgia Bulldogs (9-2). Their loss would be to the Gators (10-1) at a neutral site.
2. Texas Tech Red Raiders - would finish 11-1 if they beat the Baylor Bears. Their signature wins would be over the Texas Longhorns (10-1) and the Oklahoma State Cowboys (9-2). Lost to Oklahoma (10-1) on the road.
3. Texas Longhorns - would finish 11-1 if they beat the Texas A&M Aggies. Their signature wins would be over the Oklahoma Sooners (10-1) and the Oklahoma State Cowboys (9-2). Lost to Texas Tech (10-1) on the road.
4. Florida Gators - would finish 12-1 if they beat the Florida State Seminoles and Alabama. Their signature wins would be over the Seminoles (7-3), the Tide (11-0), Georgia (9-2), and LSU (7-3). Lost to the Mississippi Rebels (7-4) at home.
5. Oklahoma Sooners - would finish 11-1 if they beat Oklahoma State. Their signature wins would be over Texas Tech (10-1) and Oklahoma State (9-2). Lost to Texas (10-1) at home.
6. USC Trojans - would finish 11-1 if they beat the Notre Dame Fightin' Irish and the UCLA Bruins. Their signature wins would be over the Ohio State Buckeyes (10-2) and the Oregon Ducks (8-3). Lost to the Oregon State Beavers (8-3) on the road.
7. Penn State Nittany Lions - finished 11-1. Their signature wins are over the Michigan State Spartans (9-3), Ohio State (10-2), and Oregon State (8-3). Lost to the Iowa Hawkeyes (8-4) on the road.
And then you have the Utah Utes, who finished undefeated, but list either Oregon State or the BYU Cougars as their best win. The cases are even weaker for the likely-to-finish-undefeated Boise State Broncos (at Oregon) and the Ball State Cardinals (crickets).
How do you sift through that clutter? Seven teams from four BCS conferences.
The three Big 12 teams are a mess because they've all beaten and lost to each other (complicating matters - today's game doesn't look like it's going to even be close as it's now halftime and the score's a 117-6). Not only that, but the only other signature win is against Oklahoma State for all three teams.
USC and Penn State pose problems because their best wins are over good teams from watered-down conferences. And yet, each school's only lost came to a pretty good divisional foe on the road.
Alabama would pose a problem because how can you bounce Alabama after spending the entire year at the top and losing in the conference title game (which neither USC nor Penn State must face)? To a scorching Florida squad?
Florida would pose a problem because, if you can't bump Alabama, how can you bump the team that just beat them? And what if Florida destroys the Crimson Tide? Plus, the Gators have beaten more strong teams than the other contenders while suffering the worst defeat.
And what of Utah, Boise State, and Ball State?
They beat everyone they could convince to play them, but get penalized because no big boys will take that risk. So we don't even get to consider what the destined-for-greatness arm of Nate Davis could do for one night. One game. Four quarters.
If Doug Flutie did it, why can't Nate? After all, if he's not the first quarterback taken in next year's draft, there's something seriously amiss with the player-rating system.
Of course, a lot of this could be avoided if teams stumble in the next couple of weeks. Especially if Alabama can turn back the tide of conventional wisdom and catch Florida in its own death-roll.
But c'mon, who's rooting for that outside of Alabama and the halls of the BCS?
To borrow from another great lyricist, I'm rooting for meteor showers and tidal waves. For fault lines that cannot sit still.
I'm rooting for the End of Days, BCS-style. And I'm not alone.
Friday, November 21, 2008
The Winning Argument Behind MLB's Most Valuable Players
Let's put it out there right up front - I disagree that Dustin Pedroia was the American League's Most Valuable Player. I think there were worthier candidates, namely Carlos Quentin and Justin Morneau. But I have no problem with Pedroia winning the award.
His case was as flawed as the others so it's just a matter of personal taste making the slight difference between winner and losers.
I wrote as much recently.
Except for the one moron at the bottom, the response was muted. I usually take that to mean people either agreed, were ambivalent, or disagreed too mildly to post a response. That's a win as far as I'm concerned. But it was champ's response that got me thinking about how ridiculous the school of thought really is that argues for handing the MVP award to a player from a non-contender.
Here is a guy who believes so blindly in the power of statistics to prove true value that he calls me lazy for not including such insane candidates as Grady Sizemore, Milton Bradley, and (presumably) Josh Hamilton. He just assumes that, if I didn't include them, it's because I was too lazy to consider them.
He is so convinced that players from non-contenders are serious options that he tries to personally insult me for my presumed oversight.
And he is so, so, so very wrong.
However, the truly disturbing part is not that one random blogger believes this, it's that the mental midget in question represents a much larger group. One that seems to actually be taken seriously. A group that will condescendingly accuse you of not doing enough research into the idea if you dismiss the notion. Of grossly misunderstanding what real value in baseball means.
Bingo! That's the pinnacle of hilarity for this topic.
Because look at each MVP winner from both the American and National Leagues compared to his team's success since Major League Baseball expanded to three divisions and wild cards (if the MVP reps a division winner, I made no notation for readability's sake):
1995 - Mo Vaughn for Boston and Barry Larkin for Cincinnati
1996 - Juan Gonzalez for Texas and Ken Caminiti for San Diego
1997 - Ken Griffey, Jr. for Seattle and Larry Walker for Colorado (finished third)
1998 - Gonzalez for Texas and Sammy Sosa for Chicago (won NL wild card)
1999 - Ivan Rodriguez for Texas and Chipper Jones for Atlanta
2000 - Jason Giambi for Oakland and Jeff Kent for San Francisco
2001 - Ichiro Suzuki for Seattle and Barry Bonds for SF (finished second)
2002 - Miguel Tejada for Oakland and Bonds for SF (won NL wild card)
2003 - Alex Rodriguez for Texas (finished last) and Bonds for SF
2004 - Vladimir Guerrero for Anaheim and Bonds for SF (finished second)
2005 - A-Rod for New York and Albert Pujols for St. Louis
2006 - Justin Morneau for Minnesota and Ryan Howard for Philadelphia (finished second)
2007 - A-Rod for NY (won AL wild card) and Jimmy Rollins for Philly
2008 - Dustin Pedroia for Boston (won AL wild card) and Pujols for the STL (finished fourth)
In the 14 years since MLB switched to its current format, there have been 28 MVP winners. Eighteen were on division winners (64%), four were on wild card winners (14%), and another four were on teams that finished no more than four games out of the playoffs (14%). Those 26 athletes from contenders account for 93 percent of the winners.
It gets better.
The two guys who won the MVP despite playing for non-contenders were A-Rod in 2003 and Walker in 1997.
In 2003, there weren't any great candidates from contenders and Rodriguez had an insane year. He led the league in runs scored with 124 and homeruns with 47. He finished second in RBIs with 118 and hit .298. From shortstop. That's a pretty strong case, but there's a reason I led off with the lack of solid candidates from the contenders. If that statement weren't true, I'm not sure A-Rod wins despite the incredible year.
In 1997, Walker almost won the Triple Crown. He led the league in homers with 49, came in third with 130 RBI (trailed winner by 15), and finished second to Tony Gwynn with a .366 average. Gwynn won with a .372 mark. Not too shabby.
And it's not like Walker's team was awful; the Rockies finished that year seven games out of the postseason.
Lest you think this is a modern trend, take a look at the days of only two divisions in each league. The form holds; there's a reason the older fans all remember when the Hawk, Andre Dawson, won the NL MVP while playing for the woeful Cubbies.
It was rare. Really, really rare.
As if there were a need for another nail in the coffin of this ridiculous argument, I offer the Hank Aaron Award. The award for Hammerin' Hank was introduced in 1999 to be awarded to the best hitter in each league. There would be no need for the award if the MVP was meant to go to the best hitter without reference to his team's success.
The bottom line is that value in sports is measured by contribution to winning. If a team doesn't win very often, even the best players aren't as valuable. That's not to say they have no value. It's to say that they have less value than players on a winning team because losers have failed at baseball's ultimate goal.
They have failed to deliver the most valuable prize in the sport.
The rarity with which MVPs come from non-contenders and the tacit endorsement of the idea by MLB as proven by the creation of the Hank Aaron Award doesn't convince you, nothing will.
You might not agree with the principle, but denying that team success is a crucial part of an MVP's candidacy is just willful ignorance.
History and Major League Baseball are screaming it right in your face.
His case was as flawed as the others so it's just a matter of personal taste making the slight difference between winner and losers.
I wrote as much recently.
Except for the one moron at the bottom, the response was muted. I usually take that to mean people either agreed, were ambivalent, or disagreed too mildly to post a response. That's a win as far as I'm concerned. But it was champ's response that got me thinking about how ridiculous the school of thought really is that argues for handing the MVP award to a player from a non-contender.
Here is a guy who believes so blindly in the power of statistics to prove true value that he calls me lazy for not including such insane candidates as Grady Sizemore, Milton Bradley, and (presumably) Josh Hamilton. He just assumes that, if I didn't include them, it's because I was too lazy to consider them.
He is so convinced that players from non-contenders are serious options that he tries to personally insult me for my presumed oversight.
And he is so, so, so very wrong.
However, the truly disturbing part is not that one random blogger believes this, it's that the mental midget in question represents a much larger group. One that seems to actually be taken seriously. A group that will condescendingly accuse you of not doing enough research into the idea if you dismiss the notion. Of grossly misunderstanding what real value in baseball means.
Bingo! That's the pinnacle of hilarity for this topic.
Because look at each MVP winner from both the American and National Leagues compared to his team's success since Major League Baseball expanded to three divisions and wild cards (if the MVP reps a division winner, I made no notation for readability's sake):
1995 - Mo Vaughn for Boston and Barry Larkin for Cincinnati
1996 - Juan Gonzalez for Texas and Ken Caminiti for San Diego
1997 - Ken Griffey, Jr. for Seattle and Larry Walker for Colorado (finished third)
1998 - Gonzalez for Texas and Sammy Sosa for Chicago (won NL wild card)
1999 - Ivan Rodriguez for Texas and Chipper Jones for Atlanta
2000 - Jason Giambi for Oakland and Jeff Kent for San Francisco
2001 - Ichiro Suzuki for Seattle and Barry Bonds for SF (finished second)
2002 - Miguel Tejada for Oakland and Bonds for SF (won NL wild card)
2003 - Alex Rodriguez for Texas (finished last) and Bonds for SF
2004 - Vladimir Guerrero for Anaheim and Bonds for SF (finished second)
2005 - A-Rod for New York and Albert Pujols for St. Louis
2006 - Justin Morneau for Minnesota and Ryan Howard for Philadelphia (finished second)
2007 - A-Rod for NY (won AL wild card) and Jimmy Rollins for Philly
2008 - Dustin Pedroia for Boston (won AL wild card) and Pujols for the STL (finished fourth)
In the 14 years since MLB switched to its current format, there have been 28 MVP winners. Eighteen were on division winners (64%), four were on wild card winners (14%), and another four were on teams that finished no more than four games out of the playoffs (14%). Those 26 athletes from contenders account for 93 percent of the winners.
It gets better.
The two guys who won the MVP despite playing for non-contenders were A-Rod in 2003 and Walker in 1997.
In 2003, there weren't any great candidates from contenders and Rodriguez had an insane year. He led the league in runs scored with 124 and homeruns with 47. He finished second in RBIs with 118 and hit .298. From shortstop. That's a pretty strong case, but there's a reason I led off with the lack of solid candidates from the contenders. If that statement weren't true, I'm not sure A-Rod wins despite the incredible year.
In 1997, Walker almost won the Triple Crown. He led the league in homers with 49, came in third with 130 RBI (trailed winner by 15), and finished second to Tony Gwynn with a .366 average. Gwynn won with a .372 mark. Not too shabby.
And it's not like Walker's team was awful; the Rockies finished that year seven games out of the postseason.
Lest you think this is a modern trend, take a look at the days of only two divisions in each league. The form holds; there's a reason the older fans all remember when the Hawk, Andre Dawson, won the NL MVP while playing for the woeful Cubbies.
It was rare. Really, really rare.
As if there were a need for another nail in the coffin of this ridiculous argument, I offer the Hank Aaron Award. The award for Hammerin' Hank was introduced in 1999 to be awarded to the best hitter in each league. There would be no need for the award if the MVP was meant to go to the best hitter without reference to his team's success.
The bottom line is that value in sports is measured by contribution to winning. If a team doesn't win very often, even the best players aren't as valuable. That's not to say they have no value. It's to say that they have less value than players on a winning team because losers have failed at baseball's ultimate goal.
They have failed to deliver the most valuable prize in the sport.
The rarity with which MVPs come from non-contenders and the tacit endorsement of the idea by MLB as proven by the creation of the Hank Aaron Award doesn't convince you, nothing will.
You might not agree with the principle, but denying that team success is a crucial part of an MVP's candidacy is just willful ignorance.
History and Major League Baseball are screaming it right in your face.
San Francisco Giants Continue to Play Musical Chairs, Now It's O-Dog's Turn
The front page story on MLB.com noted the San Francisco Giants' interest in Orlando Hudson has gone from casual to serious. All I can say is, thank heavens.
If I were a religious man, I'd get on my knees and thank whichever flavor of God I preferred.
But I'm not, my family moved to the suburbs of San Francisco when I was eight. Those are some long odds for church, temple, or whatever the collective term for mosques is.
But back to Hudson. I'd be ecstatic if the Giants signed him. Consider it great news.
And not necessarily because Orlando Hudson is that great. Based on his numbers since the move from the American League, he'd contribute an on-base percentage north of .350, give you over 150 hits, max out between 10 and 15 homeruns, and flash elite leather at second base. Those aren't Hall of Fame credentials, but it's certainly an upgrade from what we've seen recently.
Obviously, there's no guarantee his performance continues on that arc. But it's not totally unreasonable to bet it will.
If you consider management was paying Ray Durham $7.5 million for less value unless it was a contract year, Hudson looks even better. That money is about what you'd expect to give O-Dog (it'd represent a modest raise from his 2008 salary) and he's only 31. The Gents might even be wise to go a little higher than $7.5 mil depending on what else they have in the works.
So, SF would be getting a very good player for decent money in Major League Baseball terms.
But I'd be far more excited about what it would hopefully represent - no Manny Ramirez, no C.C. Sabathia, no Adam Dunn, no Pat Burrell, no Bobby Abreu, no Ben Sheets, and no other crazy-expensive moves.
Admittedly, I'm being paranoid. None of those guys is rumored to be on SF's radar except for Sabathia. But who knows what can happen once the market begins to move? That moment should be rapidly approaching so the sooner the Giants spend themselves out of the running, the better. I think it would be a catastrophe if management panicked and pulled the trigger on one of the above players.
Just look at the price tags attached to those names and then look at the ages.
Those are all some big numbers and, with the exception of Sabathia's, Father Time ain't in their corner. The kind of money they all will demand and probably receive is pretty risky to hand to someone who's closer to retirement than high school.
Particularly ominous is the rumored interest the Giants have expressed in C.C. Sabathia.
I've got nothing against the guy, but c'mon. The contract required to sign him would be expensive and long. Do we really want SF locked into two pitchers for the next decade to the tune of over $35 million?
What the hell does Brian Sabean and ownership do when Tim Lincecum's contract comes up?
Let him walk? Sign him to an equally humongous contract? And then how can you possibly put any offensive talent on the field if you have so much money locked up in the rotation? And what about Matt Cain?
Sabathia's obviously a supreme talent, but he's a supreme talent who can demand full value for it on the open market. Considering the Giants' many frailties, that's just not a price they should pay. Especially considering that C.C. doesn't fill a glaring need (to be brutally honest, he doesn't fill any need).
Furthermore, he's a young horse and a total stud. But he is not invulnerable.
The guy is 6'7" and listed at 290 pounds. That's probably generous, which means he's carrying around even more excess weight. Additionally, he's thrown almost 500 innings in the last two years. Now, I'm not one of those people who thinks there is a standard workload for a pro pitcher. Each guy is different - his mechanics, his genealogy, his injury history, etc.
But that's a lot of innings. For anyone. And a lot of them on the back-end were under the duress of short rest. That's a whole field of red flags, right there.
I would actually bet on C.C. to continue to be an almost super-human workforce. To prove all the doubters wrong.
I'm just not so confident that I want to watch him do it in orange and black. That contract will break any team except the biggest spenders if Sabathia goes down. It would be exponentially more debilitating to the Giants since the organization already has the Zito/Boras noose around its neck.
Signing and then losing Sabathia to injury would open the trap door.
Thankfully, if this latest rumor about the Giants and Orlando Hudson is true, it looks like we in the battered fanbase will be spared that fate.
If I were a religious man, I'd get on my knees and thank whichever flavor of God I preferred.
But I'm not, my family moved to the suburbs of San Francisco when I was eight. Those are some long odds for church, temple, or whatever the collective term for mosques is.
But back to Hudson. I'd be ecstatic if the Giants signed him. Consider it great news.
And not necessarily because Orlando Hudson is that great. Based on his numbers since the move from the American League, he'd contribute an on-base percentage north of .350, give you over 150 hits, max out between 10 and 15 homeruns, and flash elite leather at second base. Those aren't Hall of Fame credentials, but it's certainly an upgrade from what we've seen recently.
Obviously, there's no guarantee his performance continues on that arc. But it's not totally unreasonable to bet it will.
If you consider management was paying Ray Durham $7.5 million for less value unless it was a contract year, Hudson looks even better. That money is about what you'd expect to give O-Dog (it'd represent a modest raise from his 2008 salary) and he's only 31. The Gents might even be wise to go a little higher than $7.5 mil depending on what else they have in the works.
So, SF would be getting a very good player for decent money in Major League Baseball terms.
But I'd be far more excited about what it would hopefully represent - no Manny Ramirez, no C.C. Sabathia, no Adam Dunn, no Pat Burrell, no Bobby Abreu, no Ben Sheets, and no other crazy-expensive moves.
Admittedly, I'm being paranoid. None of those guys is rumored to be on SF's radar except for Sabathia. But who knows what can happen once the market begins to move? That moment should be rapidly approaching so the sooner the Giants spend themselves out of the running, the better. I think it would be a catastrophe if management panicked and pulled the trigger on one of the above players.
Just look at the price tags attached to those names and then look at the ages.
Those are all some big numbers and, with the exception of Sabathia's, Father Time ain't in their corner. The kind of money they all will demand and probably receive is pretty risky to hand to someone who's closer to retirement than high school.
Particularly ominous is the rumored interest the Giants have expressed in C.C. Sabathia.
I've got nothing against the guy, but c'mon. The contract required to sign him would be expensive and long. Do we really want SF locked into two pitchers for the next decade to the tune of over $35 million?
What the hell does Brian Sabean and ownership do when Tim Lincecum's contract comes up?
Let him walk? Sign him to an equally humongous contract? And then how can you possibly put any offensive talent on the field if you have so much money locked up in the rotation? And what about Matt Cain?
Sabathia's obviously a supreme talent, but he's a supreme talent who can demand full value for it on the open market. Considering the Giants' many frailties, that's just not a price they should pay. Especially considering that C.C. doesn't fill a glaring need (to be brutally honest, he doesn't fill any need).
Furthermore, he's a young horse and a total stud. But he is not invulnerable.
The guy is 6'7" and listed at 290 pounds. That's probably generous, which means he's carrying around even more excess weight. Additionally, he's thrown almost 500 innings in the last two years. Now, I'm not one of those people who thinks there is a standard workload for a pro pitcher. Each guy is different - his mechanics, his genealogy, his injury history, etc.
But that's a lot of innings. For anyone. And a lot of them on the back-end were under the duress of short rest. That's a whole field of red flags, right there.
I would actually bet on C.C. to continue to be an almost super-human workforce. To prove all the doubters wrong.
I'm just not so confident that I want to watch him do it in orange and black. That contract will break any team except the biggest spenders if Sabathia goes down. It would be exponentially more debilitating to the Giants since the organization already has the Zito/Boras noose around its neck.
Signing and then losing Sabathia to injury would open the trap door.
Thankfully, if this latest rumor about the Giants and Orlando Hudson is true, it looks like we in the battered fanbase will be spared that fate.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Dustin Pedroia Is Weak...And a Totally Reasonable 2008 AL MVP
The parrot is like the pheasant to those who have nothing. - Jules Verne, Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea
That is exactly what Dustin Pedroia is - a parrot turned pheasant amongst the comparable nothingness of the 2008 American League Most Valuable Player race. Consider the statistics of the four top candidates:
Player G AB R H 2B HR RBI BB SO OBP SLG AVG
Justin Morneau 163 623 97 187 47 23 129 76 85 0.374 0.499 0.300
Kevin Youklis 145 538 91 168 43 29 115 62 108 0.390 0.569 0.312
Carlos Quentin 130 480 96 138 26 36 100 66 80 0.394 0.571 0.288
Dustin Pedroia 157 653 118 213 54 17 83 50 52 0.376 0.493 0.326
Pedroia is woefully behind in the power numbers while actually having a lower on-base percentage than both Youklis and Quentin. Yes, he blew the others away as far as runs scored, but that's because he sat atop the Boston Red Sox lineup and was on-base a lot. The problem is that Quentin and Youklis reached base at a higher rate and Morneau only trailed by .002.
In other words, put any of those players in Pedroia's spot and they're gonna score those runs. Maybe not exactly since Pedroia's faster than the others, but it would be close.
So it comes down to Dustin's average, stolen bases (he had 20 while the others were led by Quentin's seven), doubles, and dearth of strikeouts. For the stat-heads out there, those four categories have to make up for his considerable deficiencies in runs batted in, homeruns, slugging percentage, and on-base percentage.
They don't. Pedroia's four strengths are simply not as valuable as the strengths of the other candidates.
But I'm not a pure stat guy, so let's look at Dustin Pedroia's qualitative argument for AL MVP.
People will tell you he was the engine that made the Red Sox go. That may be true, but they are the Boston Red Sox. They had Youklis. They had Jason Varitek (remember this is qualitative not quantitative). They had David Ortiz. Jacoby Ellsbury. Josh Beckett. Daisuke Matsuzaka. Jonathan Papelbon. J.D. Drew. Mike Lowell.
They had Manny Ramirez for almost 70 percent of the season and Jason Bay for the rest.
Do you see what I'm driving at?
The voters just handed the MVP to a guy on a team with a payroll in excess of $133 million. That kind of paper affords a lot of engines. Yet the voters felt the Most Valuable Player was somewhere amongst all that horsepower. Despite Boston's inability to turn it into even a division crown. Despite being vanquished by a squad with almost $100 million less under the hood.
They just handed the MVP to a guy who wasn't even clearly the most valuable player on a team that grossly underachieved.
And don't give me that injury tripe.
So what Ortiz was hurt. So what Becket was hurt. So what Curt Schilling never took the field. What about Carl Crawford? What about Troy Percival? What about Evan Longoria?
As for his defense, Pedroia's a second baseman. He's not a shortstop or a catcher or a third basemen. Shoot, a centerfielder might arguably be more important than a second-sacker in the pro game. The truth is, 2B is the easiest position in the infield. It's the shortest throw, there's not the same imperative/pressure to field balls cleanly because of your proximity to first base, and you usually get easier/fewer chances since the majority of pro hitters are right-handed i.e. 2B is less frequently the pull-side.
Granted, it's still more valuable than most corner outfielders and maybe more important than a centerfielder just because it's marginally more difficult.
But it is definitely no more important than a first or third baseman. Just look at Little League.
Where does the best player go? Shortstop. Then they radiate out depending on more specific strengths and weaknesses. The first tier goes in the infield because it's harder to field a bouncing ball than a flying one and the infield sees more action: slow but good arm = catcher; less range but can field = 3B; can catch and left-handed or a big target = 1B; and the kid who's left standing when the music stops lands at second.
Then you put your fastest kid who can catch in centerfield, hope you have one more who can catch to stick in left, and then put a live body in right.
Since the athletes are elite at the Major League level, the distinctions become blurred yet the basic principles remain (although the live body switches to left since you need a good arm in right).
With that in mind, Morneau is (from what little I've seen) a very good first baseman and Youklis was particularly valuable on defense because he could switch between third or first without losing much leather. So maybe Pedroia can use defense to make up some ground between him and Carlos, but not the other two.
No, in my opinion, Dustin Pedroia was obviously the weakest of the four candidates.
Except that the above is a hatchet job. I emphasized and explored his major flaws while glossing over his strengths. I could written the same thing with any of the others (off the top of my head):
Morneau - the Twinkies faltered badly down the stretch and he had Joe Mauer for support
Quentin - totally missed the stretch run with a self-inflicted injury
Youklis - essentially the above argument against Pedroia except emphasize different stats
And that's why I don't understand all the articles I've seen vehemently attacking Pedroia's victory.
Look, I would hate the Boston Red Sox if I could. Unfortunately, I only allow myself to hate one sports team and I have currently bestowed that honor upon Notre Dame football. Consequently, I can only intensely dislike the Red Sox.
If there's ever a legitimate reason to skewer the organization or its players, I'll be the first in line. This just isn't one of them.
Sure, Pedroia's candidacy was seriously flawed. They all were.
I think Quentin should have won because the White Sox flailed without him and only made the playoffs because Minnesota flailed a bit worse. But one of the few explicit criteria for the award is games played and Carlos trailed significantly in that category.
How can I really be outraged that he lost? And the same can be said for all the candidates.
So maybe the voters chose Dustin Pedroia because they felt he was the most valuable player. Or maybe because he was very good and plays the game the right way. Or maybe they picked the little guy because most sportswriters were picked last for kickball in gym class and found themselves in a position to exact some measure of metaphorical revenge.
Or maybe because the media sees dollar signs instead of Red Sox.
The point is, without an obvious winner, does it really matter?
There has only been one real miscarriage of justice during MVP voting that I can remember and that was in 2000. Jeff Kent won the award that year because the media hated Barry Bonds. That would have been fine if the race were close, but it wasn't. Kent's value was predicated upon Bonds' i.e. take Bonds away and Kent's value would have plummeted, take Kent away and Bonds' value wouldn't have changed much.
That was obvious to anyone who watched that team. It was criminal that the voters chose to ignore that fact because it showed that, what looked like a close race, was actually a landslide in Bonds' favor.
But the subtle differences in this case don't have that profound effect.
So let Dustin Pedroia and the voters have their moment. Or tell you kids to start throwing their next generation a pity pick in gym.
That is exactly what Dustin Pedroia is - a parrot turned pheasant amongst the comparable nothingness of the 2008 American League Most Valuable Player race. Consider the statistics of the four top candidates:
Player G AB R H 2B HR RBI BB SO OBP SLG AVG
Justin Morneau 163 623 97 187 47 23 129 76 85 0.374 0.499 0.300
Kevin Youklis 145 538 91 168 43 29 115 62 108 0.390 0.569 0.312
Carlos Quentin 130 480 96 138 26 36 100 66 80 0.394 0.571 0.288
Dustin Pedroia 157 653 118 213 54 17 83 50 52 0.376 0.493 0.326
Pedroia is woefully behind in the power numbers while actually having a lower on-base percentage than both Youklis and Quentin. Yes, he blew the others away as far as runs scored, but that's because he sat atop the Boston Red Sox lineup and was on-base a lot. The problem is that Quentin and Youklis reached base at a higher rate and Morneau only trailed by .002.
In other words, put any of those players in Pedroia's spot and they're gonna score those runs. Maybe not exactly since Pedroia's faster than the others, but it would be close.
So it comes down to Dustin's average, stolen bases (he had 20 while the others were led by Quentin's seven), doubles, and dearth of strikeouts. For the stat-heads out there, those four categories have to make up for his considerable deficiencies in runs batted in, homeruns, slugging percentage, and on-base percentage.
They don't. Pedroia's four strengths are simply not as valuable as the strengths of the other candidates.
But I'm not a pure stat guy, so let's look at Dustin Pedroia's qualitative argument for AL MVP.
People will tell you he was the engine that made the Red Sox go. That may be true, but they are the Boston Red Sox. They had Youklis. They had Jason Varitek (remember this is qualitative not quantitative). They had David Ortiz. Jacoby Ellsbury. Josh Beckett. Daisuke Matsuzaka. Jonathan Papelbon. J.D. Drew. Mike Lowell.
They had Manny Ramirez for almost 70 percent of the season and Jason Bay for the rest.
Do you see what I'm driving at?
The voters just handed the MVP to a guy on a team with a payroll in excess of $133 million. That kind of paper affords a lot of engines. Yet the voters felt the Most Valuable Player was somewhere amongst all that horsepower. Despite Boston's inability to turn it into even a division crown. Despite being vanquished by a squad with almost $100 million less under the hood.
They just handed the MVP to a guy who wasn't even clearly the most valuable player on a team that grossly underachieved.
And don't give me that injury tripe.
So what Ortiz was hurt. So what Becket was hurt. So what Curt Schilling never took the field. What about Carl Crawford? What about Troy Percival? What about Evan Longoria?
As for his defense, Pedroia's a second baseman. He's not a shortstop or a catcher or a third basemen. Shoot, a centerfielder might arguably be more important than a second-sacker in the pro game. The truth is, 2B is the easiest position in the infield. It's the shortest throw, there's not the same imperative/pressure to field balls cleanly because of your proximity to first base, and you usually get easier/fewer chances since the majority of pro hitters are right-handed i.e. 2B is less frequently the pull-side.
Granted, it's still more valuable than most corner outfielders and maybe more important than a centerfielder just because it's marginally more difficult.
But it is definitely no more important than a first or third baseman. Just look at Little League.
Where does the best player go? Shortstop. Then they radiate out depending on more specific strengths and weaknesses. The first tier goes in the infield because it's harder to field a bouncing ball than a flying one and the infield sees more action: slow but good arm = catcher; less range but can field = 3B; can catch and left-handed or a big target = 1B; and the kid who's left standing when the music stops lands at second.
Then you put your fastest kid who can catch in centerfield, hope you have one more who can catch to stick in left, and then put a live body in right.
Since the athletes are elite at the Major League level, the distinctions become blurred yet the basic principles remain (although the live body switches to left since you need a good arm in right).
With that in mind, Morneau is (from what little I've seen) a very good first baseman and Youklis was particularly valuable on defense because he could switch between third or first without losing much leather. So maybe Pedroia can use defense to make up some ground between him and Carlos, but not the other two.
No, in my opinion, Dustin Pedroia was obviously the weakest of the four candidates.
Except that the above is a hatchet job. I emphasized and explored his major flaws while glossing over his strengths. I could written the same thing with any of the others (off the top of my head):
Morneau - the Twinkies faltered badly down the stretch and he had Joe Mauer for support
Quentin - totally missed the stretch run with a self-inflicted injury
Youklis - essentially the above argument against Pedroia except emphasize different stats
And that's why I don't understand all the articles I've seen vehemently attacking Pedroia's victory.
Look, I would hate the Boston Red Sox if I could. Unfortunately, I only allow myself to hate one sports team and I have currently bestowed that honor upon Notre Dame football. Consequently, I can only intensely dislike the Red Sox.
If there's ever a legitimate reason to skewer the organization or its players, I'll be the first in line. This just isn't one of them.
Sure, Pedroia's candidacy was seriously flawed. They all were.
I think Quentin should have won because the White Sox flailed without him and only made the playoffs because Minnesota flailed a bit worse. But one of the few explicit criteria for the award is games played and Carlos trailed significantly in that category.
How can I really be outraged that he lost? And the same can be said for all the candidates.
So maybe the voters chose Dustin Pedroia because they felt he was the most valuable player. Or maybe because he was very good and plays the game the right way. Or maybe they picked the little guy because most sportswriters were picked last for kickball in gym class and found themselves in a position to exact some measure of metaphorical revenge.
Or maybe because the media sees dollar signs instead of Red Sox.
The point is, without an obvious winner, does it really matter?
There has only been one real miscarriage of justice during MVP voting that I can remember and that was in 2000. Jeff Kent won the award that year because the media hated Barry Bonds. That would have been fine if the race were close, but it wasn't. Kent's value was predicated upon Bonds' i.e. take Bonds away and Kent's value would have plummeted, take Kent away and Bonds' value wouldn't have changed much.
That was obvious to anyone who watched that team. It was criminal that the voters chose to ignore that fact because it showed that, what looked like a close race, was actually a landslide in Bonds' favor.
But the subtle differences in this case don't have that profound effect.
So let Dustin Pedroia and the voters have their moment. Or tell you kids to start throwing their next generation a pity pick in gym.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Just How Good Do We Think Notre Dame Football Really Is?
That might seem like an odd question to ask a bunch of professional football fans, but I say it has relevance. And I say we need to seriously consider the answer. Because, as I see it, the Golden Dome's reputation is the only explanation for Brady Quinn's ascension to the Cleveland Browns' quarterback throne.
Either that or it's because he's pretty. I won't sit here and tell you Quinn's not that.
If you've read some of my other columns, you know I make no effort to hide my animosity for ND football. Consequently, I have no love for Brady Quinn. To complicate matters, I find it insane that the kid was handed endorsement deals and commercials before he'd taken snap one in a real game.
I find it equally insane that he was handed the reins to the Browns' offense just because the team's defense was an abomination.
Of course, such swag is handed to others with less talent than Brady and a thinner resume. If I'm being totally objective, it's no great sin. Furthermore, the sin isn't Quinn's; it's not like I'd turn down a lucrative endorsement contract if my phone rang tomorrow. Ditto the keys to an NFL offense - can you imagine the hilarity that would ensue from that cataclysm?
And Brady Quinn's obviously done more to deserve his fruits.
That said, I've seen both of his starts in the NFL and I have yet to see what all the fuss is about. I'm not saying he's bad or even destined for mediocrity - he's quite obviously better than average and any signal-caller with his tools could become great with a little confidence/luck. But the media - notably on Monday night, Tony Kornheiser - sells Quinn like he's the LeBron James of the NFL (that could be a slight exaggeration, but you get the point).
For instance, Kornhesier spent much of his mic-time Monday night frothing at the mouth over Quinn. I believe he said at one point that Quinn looked like he was born for this. Generally, I'm a big Kornheiser fan. But he was nauseatingly and inexplicably undignified in his praise during the Browns-Buffalo Bills game.
To be honest, I really didn't see too much difference between Trent Edwards and Quinn for the last three quarters.
Before people race an aneurysm to their keyboards, let me finish.
The Browns won that game by virtue of a missed field goal. That means they won a game by less than three points in which the opposing team's QB spent the entire first quarter throwing to your defense almost as often as he threw to his own receivers.
It's true, some of the responsibility for the game being so close goes on the defense's shoulders. But Edwards essentially handed Cleveland's offense the ball three times in the first quarter and it managed six points.
Trent's most hideous interception gave Cleveland the ball on the Bills' 12 yard line. The Browns went three and out, took a digger face-first into three points.
Throw in another fumble lost by the Bills, zero turnovers by the Browns, and only two penalties for a total of 15 yards.
That means Cleveland got four turnovers, did next-to-nothing to hurt itself, and still only won by two points. On a missed field goal that probably should have been made.
So the results on the field back up the assertion that Quinn and Edwards were not too different after that sparkling first 15 minutes.
Now for the eyeball test.
Brady Quinn was clearly better than Trent Edwards. He threw a tighter spiral, more accurate deep ball, and navigated the pocket with more confident finesse. He didn't turn the ball over and efficiently marshaled his side. But what is that really saying? It is, after all, Trent Edwards and not one of his better games.
And it's not as if Quinn blew him off the field.
I saw Brady frequently miss his receivers. I saw him make some really bad decisions where luck saved him from interceptions. What I didn't see were any throws that made me sit up and take notice of their whoa-ness.
There was that one nice touch pass to Jerome Harrison. Again, though, there was a pretty large window over a linebacker. It's not exactly expecting the world of an average pro QB to be able to make that throw. Still, it was nice.
And Quinn obviously has a good feel for the pocket. He deftly side-stepped the rush several times and got off a couple more of those jump-throws with huge slabs of meat bearing down on him.
So, again, I'm not trying to dog Brady Quinn. He was clearly better than Trent Edwards and he very well could be an upgrade over Derek Anderson.
But what I don't see are the throws that I see from Jay Cutler or Matt Ryan or Joe Flacco or Aaron Rodgers. In other words, I see the reason for all the hullabaloo when I watch those other young guns play.
I'm not saying they're all destined for greatness.
What I am saying is, when you watch them operate for four quarters, they mix in several throws that are unusual for their excellence. Either deep balls that hit a receiver perfectly in stride or shorter throws that anticipate small windows before they appear. Lasers that still only sneak through because of speed, brotha.
And, if you pull a palace coup on a Pro Bowl quarterback who is fresh off a lucrative new contract, that's what I would expect to see. But I don't.
I see a talented, young athlete whose best plays are more reminiscent of Jeff Garcia than Brett Favre.
Granted, it's only been two games and Brady Quinn is 1-1 as a starter. But this isn't about how good Quinn could become. It's about why there was such a push to insert him now.
The push came from the fans, but that's only natural when everyone with a column or mic is hyping Quinn like he's the Savior in cleats and shoulder pads. If I were a Browns fan, I'd probably want him in there too.
Still, Derek Anderson led the Browns to an annihilation of the Super Bowl Champion New York Giants. Heretofore, the only blemish on the defending champ's record.
Quinn "led" them to a nail-biter over the very mediocre Buffalo Bills.
Their stats are virtually identical except that Anderson has more interceptions and losses. He also has four times the number of starts.
So I return to the initial question.
If Quinn doesn't look especially great and his stats aren't especially great. If he isn't night and day compared to the guy he replaced. If said guy went to the Pro Bowl last year and sports a hefty price tag. If the results on the field aren't an immediate and obvious improvement. If the success of the team rises and falls with a porous defense.
Why was the quarterback change made?
Maybe there has been progress with Quinn behind center rather than Anderson. I won't pretend to have seen any Cleveland games except the last two in which Brady started. Even so, it's inconsequential as long as the defense remains putrid.
So why the urgency?
Surely it can't be Brady Quinn's alma mater any more than it could be his looks.
The very notion is laughable.
Unfortunately, a laughable explanation can still be the best if it's the only one.
Either that or it's because he's pretty. I won't sit here and tell you Quinn's not that.
If you've read some of my other columns, you know I make no effort to hide my animosity for ND football. Consequently, I have no love for Brady Quinn. To complicate matters, I find it insane that the kid was handed endorsement deals and commercials before he'd taken snap one in a real game.
I find it equally insane that he was handed the reins to the Browns' offense just because the team's defense was an abomination.
Of course, such swag is handed to others with less talent than Brady and a thinner resume. If I'm being totally objective, it's no great sin. Furthermore, the sin isn't Quinn's; it's not like I'd turn down a lucrative endorsement contract if my phone rang tomorrow. Ditto the keys to an NFL offense - can you imagine the hilarity that would ensue from that cataclysm?
And Brady Quinn's obviously done more to deserve his fruits.
That said, I've seen both of his starts in the NFL and I have yet to see what all the fuss is about. I'm not saying he's bad or even destined for mediocrity - he's quite obviously better than average and any signal-caller with his tools could become great with a little confidence/luck. But the media - notably on Monday night, Tony Kornheiser - sells Quinn like he's the LeBron James of the NFL (that could be a slight exaggeration, but you get the point).
For instance, Kornhesier spent much of his mic-time Monday night frothing at the mouth over Quinn. I believe he said at one point that Quinn looked like he was born for this. Generally, I'm a big Kornheiser fan. But he was nauseatingly and inexplicably undignified in his praise during the Browns-Buffalo Bills game.
To be honest, I really didn't see too much difference between Trent Edwards and Quinn for the last three quarters.
Before people race an aneurysm to their keyboards, let me finish.
The Browns won that game by virtue of a missed field goal. That means they won a game by less than three points in which the opposing team's QB spent the entire first quarter throwing to your defense almost as often as he threw to his own receivers.
It's true, some of the responsibility for the game being so close goes on the defense's shoulders. But Edwards essentially handed Cleveland's offense the ball three times in the first quarter and it managed six points.
Trent's most hideous interception gave Cleveland the ball on the Bills' 12 yard line. The Browns went three and out, took a digger face-first into three points.
Throw in another fumble lost by the Bills, zero turnovers by the Browns, and only two penalties for a total of 15 yards.
That means Cleveland got four turnovers, did next-to-nothing to hurt itself, and still only won by two points. On a missed field goal that probably should have been made.
So the results on the field back up the assertion that Quinn and Edwards were not too different after that sparkling first 15 minutes.
Now for the eyeball test.
Brady Quinn was clearly better than Trent Edwards. He threw a tighter spiral, more accurate deep ball, and navigated the pocket with more confident finesse. He didn't turn the ball over and efficiently marshaled his side. But what is that really saying? It is, after all, Trent Edwards and not one of his better games.
And it's not as if Quinn blew him off the field.
I saw Brady frequently miss his receivers. I saw him make some really bad decisions where luck saved him from interceptions. What I didn't see were any throws that made me sit up and take notice of their whoa-ness.
There was that one nice touch pass to Jerome Harrison. Again, though, there was a pretty large window over a linebacker. It's not exactly expecting the world of an average pro QB to be able to make that throw. Still, it was nice.
And Quinn obviously has a good feel for the pocket. He deftly side-stepped the rush several times and got off a couple more of those jump-throws with huge slabs of meat bearing down on him.
So, again, I'm not trying to dog Brady Quinn. He was clearly better than Trent Edwards and he very well could be an upgrade over Derek Anderson.
But what I don't see are the throws that I see from Jay Cutler or Matt Ryan or Joe Flacco or Aaron Rodgers. In other words, I see the reason for all the hullabaloo when I watch those other young guns play.
I'm not saying they're all destined for greatness.
What I am saying is, when you watch them operate for four quarters, they mix in several throws that are unusual for their excellence. Either deep balls that hit a receiver perfectly in stride or shorter throws that anticipate small windows before they appear. Lasers that still only sneak through because of speed, brotha.
And, if you pull a palace coup on a Pro Bowl quarterback who is fresh off a lucrative new contract, that's what I would expect to see. But I don't.
I see a talented, young athlete whose best plays are more reminiscent of Jeff Garcia than Brett Favre.
Granted, it's only been two games and Brady Quinn is 1-1 as a starter. But this isn't about how good Quinn could become. It's about why there was such a push to insert him now.
The push came from the fans, but that's only natural when everyone with a column or mic is hyping Quinn like he's the Savior in cleats and shoulder pads. If I were a Browns fan, I'd probably want him in there too.
Still, Derek Anderson led the Browns to an annihilation of the Super Bowl Champion New York Giants. Heretofore, the only blemish on the defending champ's record.
Quinn "led" them to a nail-biter over the very mediocre Buffalo Bills.
Their stats are virtually identical except that Anderson has more interceptions and losses. He also has four times the number of starts.
So I return to the initial question.
If Quinn doesn't look especially great and his stats aren't especially great. If he isn't night and day compared to the guy he replaced. If said guy went to the Pro Bowl last year and sports a hefty price tag. If the results on the field aren't an immediate and obvious improvement. If the success of the team rises and falls with a porous defense.
Why was the quarterback change made?
Maybe there has been progress with Quinn behind center rather than Anderson. I won't pretend to have seen any Cleveland games except the last two in which Brady started. Even so, it's inconsequential as long as the defense remains putrid.
So why the urgency?
Surely it can't be Brady Quinn's alma mater any more than it could be his looks.
The very notion is laughable.
Unfortunately, a laughable explanation can still be the best if it's the only one.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The San Francisco Giants Sign Jeremy Affeldt and the City Is Speechless
San Francisco fans can rejoice. The hometown Giants have solved all their woes by bringing in...drum roll please...Jeremy Affeldt!
***crickets chirping***
In all seriousness, I like the move because it was cheap. Getting a left-handed reliever for two years at an average of $4 million per year isn't too shabby. If Affeldt works out, great. If he doesn't $4 mil ain't gonna break the bank.
Additionally, my biggest truck with relievers is that they are so inconsistent.
Yet Affeldt has largely bucked that bugaboo for the last two years in the National League. He's turned in an earned run average around 3.50 and sported a stellar walk to strikeout ratio. In my opinion, the most important statistic for a middle reliever is K:BB so there is reason to be optimistic since that's been one of Jeremy's strongest stats his whole career.
Most importantly though, the move would indicate that the Orange and Black will not be going through a major overhaul nor will management be throwing insane and foolish money after the likes of Manny Ramirez or Adam Dunn. The former was never likely, but the latter was a distinct possibility.
Both would have been mistakes.
Instead, it looks like Brian Sabean will be taking the approach for which most Giants' fans were rooting i.e. make a couple tweaks to the bullpen and corner positions, then roll the dice behind a strong youth movement.
That's good news.
As for shoring up the bullpen, I got curious as to how big of an issue it really was. I went back and looked at all the box scores for SF this past year. If the bullpen took over a lead or a game where the boys were trailing by less than four runs, I deemed its performance relevant to the topic. If the 'pen blew the lead or let the deficit balloon beyond that which was entrusted to it, I counted it as a failure. I did so even if the Gents ultimately retook the lead.
Lastly, I excluded Brian Wilson's performance. That is to say, if he blew it or was a problem, I did not count it as a bullpen failure since management is focusing on upgrading the middle relief.
Obviously, this isn't a perfect stat. It doesn't capture games in which the relievers let a big lead get trimmed, but never slip away. It doesn't capture losses where they entered trailing by four or more and let the lead get bigger. It doesn't capture games in which the middle relievers turned a romp into a save situation that Wilson ultimately blew.
And there are probably other scenarios I'm forgetting.
However, it does give a pretty good though rough idea of how many times the bullpen failed to do its primary job: enter winnable ballgames and hold the line by either protecting the lead or keeping the deficit from growing.
Like I said, it's not perfect in that regard. But it's as close as I'm gonna get until I get paid for this.
In San Francisco's 90 losses in 2008, the Giants bullpen failed its primary responsibility 50 times. The bullpen entered the game with a lead or less than a four run deficit FIFTY TIMES and either surrendered it or let the game get out of hand.
In San Francisco's 72 wins, the bullpen surrendered the lead three times only to have the Giants recover in time to win the game.
So, in 2008, the San Francisco Giants bullpen was a relevant vulnerability in 53 of 158 games (the starters threw four complete games). Ugh. That's a pretty gnarly problem.
In those 53 implosions, Jack Taschner and/or Alex Hinshaw figured in the demise a total of 17 times (including two of the three games that the 'pen blew, but SF ultimately won). That means the resident lefties had a hand in almost a third of the failures. Double ugh.
When viewed through that lens, the possible significance of another fine season from Affeldt could be actually quite profound. Such a presence would presumably improve the Giants' ability to compete in its division.
But a good season from Affeldt would have value even if the Giants fail to stay above water. Regardless of the team's overall success, a more reliable 'pen would help the youngsters develop. The extra confidence in the firemen would allow the young guns to relax and explore the margins of pitching more thoroughly. Neither the pitcher nor the young position players would have to face the psyche-crushing frustration of a blown lead, a missed opportunity for that elusive W.
No, Jeremy Affeldt isn't going to turn any team into a championship favorite overnight with the stroke of his left arm.
But that criticism is irrelevant if such is not your goal. And the World Series isn't San Fransisco's goal. The Giants' sights are considerably more conservatively set on getting better.
And Jeremy Affeldt should help them do just that.
***crickets chirping***
In all seriousness, I like the move because it was cheap. Getting a left-handed reliever for two years at an average of $4 million per year isn't too shabby. If Affeldt works out, great. If he doesn't $4 mil ain't gonna break the bank.
Additionally, my biggest truck with relievers is that they are so inconsistent.
Yet Affeldt has largely bucked that bugaboo for the last two years in the National League. He's turned in an earned run average around 3.50 and sported a stellar walk to strikeout ratio. In my opinion, the most important statistic for a middle reliever is K:BB so there is reason to be optimistic since that's been one of Jeremy's strongest stats his whole career.
Most importantly though, the move would indicate that the Orange and Black will not be going through a major overhaul nor will management be throwing insane and foolish money after the likes of Manny Ramirez or Adam Dunn. The former was never likely, but the latter was a distinct possibility.
Both would have been mistakes.
Instead, it looks like Brian Sabean will be taking the approach for which most Giants' fans were rooting i.e. make a couple tweaks to the bullpen and corner positions, then roll the dice behind a strong youth movement.
That's good news.
As for shoring up the bullpen, I got curious as to how big of an issue it really was. I went back and looked at all the box scores for SF this past year. If the bullpen took over a lead or a game where the boys were trailing by less than four runs, I deemed its performance relevant to the topic. If the 'pen blew the lead or let the deficit balloon beyond that which was entrusted to it, I counted it as a failure. I did so even if the Gents ultimately retook the lead.
Lastly, I excluded Brian Wilson's performance. That is to say, if he blew it or was a problem, I did not count it as a bullpen failure since management is focusing on upgrading the middle relief.
Obviously, this isn't a perfect stat. It doesn't capture games in which the relievers let a big lead get trimmed, but never slip away. It doesn't capture losses where they entered trailing by four or more and let the lead get bigger. It doesn't capture games in which the middle relievers turned a romp into a save situation that Wilson ultimately blew.
And there are probably other scenarios I'm forgetting.
However, it does give a pretty good though rough idea of how many times the bullpen failed to do its primary job: enter winnable ballgames and hold the line by either protecting the lead or keeping the deficit from growing.
Like I said, it's not perfect in that regard. But it's as close as I'm gonna get until I get paid for this.
In San Francisco's 90 losses in 2008, the Giants bullpen failed its primary responsibility 50 times. The bullpen entered the game with a lead or less than a four run deficit FIFTY TIMES and either surrendered it or let the game get out of hand.
In San Francisco's 72 wins, the bullpen surrendered the lead three times only to have the Giants recover in time to win the game.
So, in 2008, the San Francisco Giants bullpen was a relevant vulnerability in 53 of 158 games (the starters threw four complete games). Ugh. That's a pretty gnarly problem.
In those 53 implosions, Jack Taschner and/or Alex Hinshaw figured in the demise a total of 17 times (including two of the three games that the 'pen blew, but SF ultimately won). That means the resident lefties had a hand in almost a third of the failures. Double ugh.
When viewed through that lens, the possible significance of another fine season from Affeldt could be actually quite profound. Such a presence would presumably improve the Giants' ability to compete in its division.
But a good season from Affeldt would have value even if the Giants fail to stay above water. Regardless of the team's overall success, a more reliable 'pen would help the youngsters develop. The extra confidence in the firemen would allow the young guns to relax and explore the margins of pitching more thoroughly. Neither the pitcher nor the young position players would have to face the psyche-crushing frustration of a blown lead, a missed opportunity for that elusive W.
No, Jeremy Affeldt isn't going to turn any team into a championship favorite overnight with the stroke of his left arm.
But that criticism is irrelevant if such is not your goal. And the World Series isn't San Fransisco's goal. The Giants' sights are considerably more conservatively set on getting better.
And Jeremy Affeldt should help them do just that.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Only in the NFL Can the Lions Be Thrown To the Lions
About a week or so ago, I ran across a headline about how Roy Williams (the wide receiver one) thought the Detroit Lions wouldn't win a game all year. Eagerly, I clicked on the story because I love finding legitimate reasons to shred anything related to the Dallas Cowboys.
Sue me.
I'm a San Francisco 49ers fan and the 'pokes ended the Niners' season routinely in the 1990s. My intense dislike is part of the price Dallas and their fans paid for the Super Bowls. I'm pretty sure they're happy with the exchange.
Back to Williams.
One problem with my sinister plan was that his whole quote really didn't sound bitter or malicious. In fact, he said he hoped Detroit wins a game and his reasoning made perfect sense, considering the state of the current National Football League wide receiver. I sincerely believe Roy may be such an egomaniac that he really doesn't want any team he was a part of to finish winless because of how it reflects on him.
Even though he played less than half a season for them.
However, the larger problem was that Roy Williams is definitely right.
The Lions enter their bye week 0-10 and the rest of the schedule is daunting to say the least. Still on the docket are the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, the undefeated Tennessee Titans, the Minnesota Vikings, the Indianapolis Colts, the New Orleans Saints, and the Green Bay Packers. Those teams all sit at .500 or better and are legitimately in the playoff picture.
Not only that, but the above is the order in which Detroit plays the teams.
That means the Lions don't get an advantage out of the bye against Tampa Bay because the Bucs will be coming off one as well. It means they don't get the luxury of playing the Titans after Tennessee has clinched anything. It means they end the year with the Saints and Packers. Both teams are better than the Lions and will either be playing for the playoffs on the line or with angry pride after having been eliminated despite playoff expectations.
Those aren't winnable games. If Detroit managed any win, let alone its first one, against such odds, it would be a colossal upset.
As I see it, Detroit's best shot at a win is against the Vikings, who are 5-5 and part of the three-way-tie for first place in the Lions' division. Minnesota is obviously better and will likely still be alive in the playoff race. So the already diminished likelihood of overlooking a division opponent will be further reduced. However, considering the other teams on the docket, Minnesota is the weakest foe left and that game is in Detroit.
Even so, it would be a pretty surprising upset so the prospect of an 0-for-2008 in Detroit is pretty freakin' likely. But that probable humiliation shouldn't be totally on the Lions.
No, I'm not talking Barry Sanders' early retirement. Get over it.
I'm talking scheduling.
To be completely fair, you can't really blame the NFL. It's just a matter of the perfect storm: a really bad football team and a really unlucky schedule.
Check it out.
The Lions play the National Football Conference South, the American Football Conference South, two games each against the NFC North (their own division). That right there is 14 games set in stone, which means - even if the NFL were in the habit of massaging the schedule after it's released - there would only be two games of wiggle room.
And those two game were against my Niners - who are objectively hideous - and the Washington Redskins - a team that has overachieved to this point by most people's expectations.
You really can't get any easier than SF and Washington isn't exactly the New England Patriots. I guess you could have picked the Oakland Raiders instead of the 'skins. But that's only one game.
Furthermore, I imagine the other divisions against which each division must play rotate on an annual basis. Even if that's not the case, nobody saw the NFC South coming.
The Atlanta Falcons have to be considered one of the biggest surprises of the year, probably the biggest. The Carolina Panthers are quietly building a case for a trip to the Super Bowl. The Bucs were good last year, but I'm not sure anyone expected them to be sitting at 7-3. The Saints, who many expected to be the class of the division, actually got off to a slow start and sit in last place. But they are still awesome compared to the Lions at 5-5.
Sure, the AFC South is brutal when you're the Detroit Lions, but that goes hand-in-hand with the NFC South. Bottom line - you can't accuse the League of setting Detroit up for failure.
Especially when the Lions have lost to the easiest teams on the schedule.
They got stomped out by SF, the worst team they will play all year. Add to that losses against Washington, the Houston Texans, the Jacksonville Jaguars, and the Chicago Bears twice. Even if there were a legitimate gripe about the intent behind the scheduling, you don't generate much sympathy with that kind of resume.
Of course, the Detroit Lions already have my sympathy. I really do believe it's not a matter of historic futility, just a really bad team with a really tough schedule. That's stinks.
They just don't have my support. I'm rooting for history.
I'd feel bad about it if I had much of a conscience, but I'm rooting for a donut in the win column.
Like I said, I'm a Niner fan. It's sad, but I have to root for anything that will hide that smell.
Sue me.
I'm a San Francisco 49ers fan and the 'pokes ended the Niners' season routinely in the 1990s. My intense dislike is part of the price Dallas and their fans paid for the Super Bowls. I'm pretty sure they're happy with the exchange.
Back to Williams.
One problem with my sinister plan was that his whole quote really didn't sound bitter or malicious. In fact, he said he hoped Detroit wins a game and his reasoning made perfect sense, considering the state of the current National Football League wide receiver. I sincerely believe Roy may be such an egomaniac that he really doesn't want any team he was a part of to finish winless because of how it reflects on him.
Even though he played less than half a season for them.
However, the larger problem was that Roy Williams is definitely right.
The Lions enter their bye week 0-10 and the rest of the schedule is daunting to say the least. Still on the docket are the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, the undefeated Tennessee Titans, the Minnesota Vikings, the Indianapolis Colts, the New Orleans Saints, and the Green Bay Packers. Those teams all sit at .500 or better and are legitimately in the playoff picture.
Not only that, but the above is the order in which Detroit plays the teams.
That means the Lions don't get an advantage out of the bye against Tampa Bay because the Bucs will be coming off one as well. It means they don't get the luxury of playing the Titans after Tennessee has clinched anything. It means they end the year with the Saints and Packers. Both teams are better than the Lions and will either be playing for the playoffs on the line or with angry pride after having been eliminated despite playoff expectations.
Those aren't winnable games. If Detroit managed any win, let alone its first one, against such odds, it would be a colossal upset.
As I see it, Detroit's best shot at a win is against the Vikings, who are 5-5 and part of the three-way-tie for first place in the Lions' division. Minnesota is obviously better and will likely still be alive in the playoff race. So the already diminished likelihood of overlooking a division opponent will be further reduced. However, considering the other teams on the docket, Minnesota is the weakest foe left and that game is in Detroit.
Even so, it would be a pretty surprising upset so the prospect of an 0-for-2008 in Detroit is pretty freakin' likely. But that probable humiliation shouldn't be totally on the Lions.
No, I'm not talking Barry Sanders' early retirement. Get over it.
I'm talking scheduling.
To be completely fair, you can't really blame the NFL. It's just a matter of the perfect storm: a really bad football team and a really unlucky schedule.
Check it out.
The Lions play the National Football Conference South, the American Football Conference South, two games each against the NFC North (their own division). That right there is 14 games set in stone, which means - even if the NFL were in the habit of massaging the schedule after it's released - there would only be two games of wiggle room.
And those two game were against my Niners - who are objectively hideous - and the Washington Redskins - a team that has overachieved to this point by most people's expectations.
You really can't get any easier than SF and Washington isn't exactly the New England Patriots. I guess you could have picked the Oakland Raiders instead of the 'skins. But that's only one game.
Furthermore, I imagine the other divisions against which each division must play rotate on an annual basis. Even if that's not the case, nobody saw the NFC South coming.
The Atlanta Falcons have to be considered one of the biggest surprises of the year, probably the biggest. The Carolina Panthers are quietly building a case for a trip to the Super Bowl. The Bucs were good last year, but I'm not sure anyone expected them to be sitting at 7-3. The Saints, who many expected to be the class of the division, actually got off to a slow start and sit in last place. But they are still awesome compared to the Lions at 5-5.
Sure, the AFC South is brutal when you're the Detroit Lions, but that goes hand-in-hand with the NFC South. Bottom line - you can't accuse the League of setting Detroit up for failure.
Especially when the Lions have lost to the easiest teams on the schedule.
They got stomped out by SF, the worst team they will play all year. Add to that losses against Washington, the Houston Texans, the Jacksonville Jaguars, and the Chicago Bears twice. Even if there were a legitimate gripe about the intent behind the scheduling, you don't generate much sympathy with that kind of resume.
Of course, the Detroit Lions already have my sympathy. I really do believe it's not a matter of historic futility, just a really bad team with a really tough schedule. That's stinks.
They just don't have my support. I'm rooting for history.
I'd feel bad about it if I had much of a conscience, but I'm rooting for a donut in the win column.
Like I said, I'm a Niner fan. It's sad, but I have to root for anything that will hide that smell.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
San Francisco Giants: Please No Boras For Us
In an unrelated article, I mentioned that there are three approaches the San Francisco Giants could take this offseason (you'll notice it sounds like I wasn't interested in writing the forthcoming piece; what can I say, I can't resist the Giants' siren song).
1. Use the extra cash to overhaul the team and acquire anything other than pitching and catching.
I really hope they don't take this option and I see no reason nor indication they will. It doesn't make sense, they don't have enough cash and/or the willing to spend it to do this successfully, and there aren't really the players for it on the open market. Everyone's either too old or too over-priced. And the young players are too good and too inexperienced to discard.
The Giants' management, though it has its faults, is not stupid. This isn't really an option.
2. Use the extra cash and make modest value-adds to upgrade either first base, third base, second base, and/or the bullpen.
This is the best option as far as I see it except SF has to be careful. The best options are likely to be the players who represent the highest risk of overpaying. The viable options as I see it are Orlando Hudson, Richie Sexon, Jason Giambi, Sean Casey, Doug Mientkiewicz, Joe Crede, and/or Juan Uribe.
All of these guys have high upside, but may be destined to never realize it or already too far on the decline. They also have one or two very good seasons in the past so they might try to command a bloated price.
If that happens, the Giants should walk because none of the above makes sense if you have can't get a steep discount because of age, injury, recent failure, etc.
My favorites are Casey or Mientkiewicz. They fill a need (although I do like Travis Ishikawa) figure to be the cheapest, don't strike out a ton, and play excellent defense so they will at least bring that to the table if their offense continues to slide.
Crede's interesting depending on the price, which could be ridiculous because he's still comparably young.
As for the bullpen, middle relievers are so unpredictable that the reliable ones are way too expensive for my tastes (much like closers). I'd prefer the Gents to wait until next year to see if some of the young guys (Alex Hinshaw, Jack Taschner, Billy Sadler, Merkin Valdez, etc.) can mature into the role.
Or wait until some guy starts next year off well and then grab him if the boys stay in contention for the first several months.
Of course, I just read that management is going to make on opening bid for Juan Cruz. Oh well.
3. Throw caution to the wind and sign Mark Teixeira away from the Los Angeles Angels.
At first, I thought this sounded like a close second option, maybe even a 1B.
The guy is a splendid hitter, a sparkling defender, reasonably young at 29 (soon after Opening Day 2009), and a good clubhouse guy from what I can tell. That right there is a pretty good candidate to build around for years to come and he plays a position where the Giants are unsettled.
Sure, it would take a ton of money to get him away from the free-spending Halos and their damned Antichrist (Rally Monkey). But San Francisco plays in a big enough market to do that, considering management did it for years with Barry Bonds.
Even with the raises due some players, the Gents have trimmed considerable payroll from their measly expenditure (by Major League Baseball standards) of $77 million last year. They could probably add close to $20 mil and still come in south of the $100 million mark.
Considering 11 teams spent over that mark last year, I don't think that's an outrageous suggestion.
Of course, I totally forgot about Scott Boras.
First, his greedy shadow means the contract will probably be an albatross of which I would want no part.
Second and most importantly, why invite that cancer even deeper into the foundation of your franchise (he's already Barry Zito's agent)?
Here is a parasitic piece of garbage who not only flatly rejected a two-year, $45 million contract for Manny Ramirez, but had the nerve to disparage it. That would be $22.5 million per year for a 36-year-old outfielder who is a disaster in leftfield, dogged his way off a perennial contender that let him act the daily fool, and is just a general ticking time-bomb.
I know Manny tore up the league after the Los Angeles Dodgers acquired him, but a one-dimensional player isn't worth $22.5 million per year unless his name is Barry Lamar Bonds.
And Boras disparaged the offer. Said he intended to field more serious offers.
This is the kind of repugnant attitude that is destroying professional sports: drive those salaries as high as possible with the right sales pitch and leverage because the public can always be suckered into paying for them.
It will eventually destroy the games because fans have already been pushed to our breaking point. If the agents and owners push us harder, the effect won't just be a decline in ticket sales. It will be an abandonment of fanhood, and that kind of bitterness will be difficult to reverse.
And I didn't even get into the Alex Rodriquez fiasco during 2007's World Series, the Andruw Jones contract, Zito's contract, or that nonsense he pulled with Pedro Alvarez after the 2008 draft.
Scott Boras is a repellent abomination driven by greed and conceit.
I sincerely hope none of those "serious" offers he expects to field this offseason are from the Orange and Black.
For Mark Teixeira or any of Boras' stable.
1. Use the extra cash to overhaul the team and acquire anything other than pitching and catching.
I really hope they don't take this option and I see no reason nor indication they will. It doesn't make sense, they don't have enough cash and/or the willing to spend it to do this successfully, and there aren't really the players for it on the open market. Everyone's either too old or too over-priced. And the young players are too good and too inexperienced to discard.
The Giants' management, though it has its faults, is not stupid. This isn't really an option.
2. Use the extra cash and make modest value-adds to upgrade either first base, third base, second base, and/or the bullpen.
This is the best option as far as I see it except SF has to be careful. The best options are likely to be the players who represent the highest risk of overpaying. The viable options as I see it are Orlando Hudson, Richie Sexon, Jason Giambi, Sean Casey, Doug Mientkiewicz, Joe Crede, and/or Juan Uribe.
All of these guys have high upside, but may be destined to never realize it or already too far on the decline. They also have one or two very good seasons in the past so they might try to command a bloated price.
If that happens, the Giants should walk because none of the above makes sense if you have can't get a steep discount because of age, injury, recent failure, etc.
My favorites are Casey or Mientkiewicz. They fill a need (although I do like Travis Ishikawa) figure to be the cheapest, don't strike out a ton, and play excellent defense so they will at least bring that to the table if their offense continues to slide.
Crede's interesting depending on the price, which could be ridiculous because he's still comparably young.
As for the bullpen, middle relievers are so unpredictable that the reliable ones are way too expensive for my tastes (much like closers). I'd prefer the Gents to wait until next year to see if some of the young guys (Alex Hinshaw, Jack Taschner, Billy Sadler, Merkin Valdez, etc.) can mature into the role.
Or wait until some guy starts next year off well and then grab him if the boys stay in contention for the first several months.
Of course, I just read that management is going to make on opening bid for Juan Cruz. Oh well.
3. Throw caution to the wind and sign Mark Teixeira away from the Los Angeles Angels.
At first, I thought this sounded like a close second option, maybe even a 1B.
The guy is a splendid hitter, a sparkling defender, reasonably young at 29 (soon after Opening Day 2009), and a good clubhouse guy from what I can tell. That right there is a pretty good candidate to build around for years to come and he plays a position where the Giants are unsettled.
Sure, it would take a ton of money to get him away from the free-spending Halos and their damned Antichrist (Rally Monkey). But San Francisco plays in a big enough market to do that, considering management did it for years with Barry Bonds.
Even with the raises due some players, the Gents have trimmed considerable payroll from their measly expenditure (by Major League Baseball standards) of $77 million last year. They could probably add close to $20 mil and still come in south of the $100 million mark.
Considering 11 teams spent over that mark last year, I don't think that's an outrageous suggestion.
Of course, I totally forgot about Scott Boras.
First, his greedy shadow means the contract will probably be an albatross of which I would want no part.
Second and most importantly, why invite that cancer even deeper into the foundation of your franchise (he's already Barry Zito's agent)?
Here is a parasitic piece of garbage who not only flatly rejected a two-year, $45 million contract for Manny Ramirez, but had the nerve to disparage it. That would be $22.5 million per year for a 36-year-old outfielder who is a disaster in leftfield, dogged his way off a perennial contender that let him act the daily fool, and is just a general ticking time-bomb.
I know Manny tore up the league after the Los Angeles Dodgers acquired him, but a one-dimensional player isn't worth $22.5 million per year unless his name is Barry Lamar Bonds.
And Boras disparaged the offer. Said he intended to field more serious offers.
This is the kind of repugnant attitude that is destroying professional sports: drive those salaries as high as possible with the right sales pitch and leverage because the public can always be suckered into paying for them.
It will eventually destroy the games because fans have already been pushed to our breaking point. If the agents and owners push us harder, the effect won't just be a decline in ticket sales. It will be an abandonment of fanhood, and that kind of bitterness will be difficult to reverse.
And I didn't even get into the Alex Rodriquez fiasco during 2007's World Series, the Andruw Jones contract, Zito's contract, or that nonsense he pulled with Pedro Alvarez after the 2008 draft.
Scott Boras is a repellent abomination driven by greed and conceit.
I sincerely hope none of those "serious" offers he expects to field this offseason are from the Orange and Black.
For Mark Teixeira or any of Boras' stable.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Ode to the Lovely Ladies of Bleacher Report
As a newly anointed community co-leader for the San Francisco Giants and with the start of the free agency season upon us, the idea of writing a wish-list for the club has been floated. It's a good idea, but - for SF - it's a short article.
Either you believe the Giants should use their cash for a major overhaul, in which case they need everything except pitching and catching. Or you believe (as I do) they should be patient with their young guys, in which case they could upgrade third and/or first to be more competitive.
Of course, Mark Teixeira is youngish, fills a need at first base, has good leather and ash (or maple), and seems like a good clubhouse guy. Depending on his price tag, that might be an interesting idea.
But a better one occurred to me.
There's been some talk on B/R surrounding certain female writers. I'm not going to mention names because you probably know who I'm talking about and, if you don't, well now you have to go digging through articles to find out.
Look at that, my promotion's already paying off in extra traffic.
Anyway, the controversy is that these ladies, who are easy on the eyes, allegedly get extra attention and praise for their articles from misguided male readers. Readers who think that somehow the online flattery will translate into a real-world relationship. The bottom-line being that these ladies' writings receive accolades as proxies for their looks.
And if you read some of the comments compared to the writing, you have to admit the idea has some merit. There is certainly a cadre of men lavishing good yet flawed articles with such adjectives as "masterpiece," "perfect," and other transparent superlatives.
That said, I won't pretend to know these gentlemen's motives except that, as a man myself, I can't say the accusation is unreasonable.
Nor is the idea.
I mean, who says it won't work? Tell me you don't know a couple with a crazier hook-up story than that. And if it doesn't, what have they lost except a little respect from a bunch of strangers.
It's not something I would advise or try myself. As has been pointed out, you could find yourself meeting up with some dude at a coffee house after months of online courtship. Additionally, these girls are scattered across the world so it's just an irrational proposition. Most importantly, some of them are young; too young considering I just turned 30.
Picking women up online is already a little creepy and sniffs of desperation. Doing it as a 30-year-old targeting girls who could still be in college makes it more than a little perverse.
But I digress.
Much of the consternation stems from several of these ladies routinely winning the coveted Pick of the Day slot on the front page or placing highly on the writer rankings. The Opposition feels there are better pieces on those days and better writers on this site. Writers who are being ignored in favor of sexual allure rather than superior craft.
I can't say I blame the Opposition. This is a sports journalism site and it's only fair that the best writers get rewarded.
But there are several problems with the criticism:
1. There are no explicit parameters for Pick of the Day or the writer rankings.
To my knowledge, both systems reward writers who are popular with readers. And writers can be popular with readers for many reasons. Who's to say which are the "right" ones? Sure, it would be nice if popularity were driven by writing excellence alone since that is the goal. But I don't think you can ever say someone's preconditions are wrong for something as ephemeral as popularity.
2. Even if there are explicit criteria, impotence of order is the natural and predictable state of the Web.
Few consequences mean few rules. It is beautiful anarchy; the Wild West of our generation (how pathetic is that?). Anything goes because it's too hard to control the freedom that comes with anonymity.
Some people might vote based on looks, others might just throw a pick at everything they read, and others might be impossibly stingy. For instance, I've probably given out four or five picks during the entire two months I've been on here. People might say that's as ridiculous as voting based on looks.
You might not like it, but such anarchy is the necessary prerequisite for and limitation on the Internet's brilliance.
3. Physical attraction is just another advantage, an asset to be utilized like any other.
Men have the distinct advantage of playing incarnations of these sports that are closer to the professional levels. Women can play a sport that shares the name, but their version is not the same.
I don't mean to disparage women athletes here. My little sister played soccer for Berkeley so I've seen more women's soccer than men's and I almost prefer watching it. Almost. Furthermore, lots of elite female athletes could wipe their chosen playing surfaces with whatever part of me they chose.
However, the fact is that male athletes just move faster, jump higher, have better quicks, and bring more strength to bear than their female counterparts i.e. a high school male compared to a female or two college athletes or two professional athletes and so on.
Women tend to play a purer version of the sport, but it doesn't possess the same physical dynamic.
However, the great equalizer (as always) is the fact that men are controlled to a terrifying degree by our genitals.
You might say that physical attraction is not the same as the male advantage i.e. it doesn't give you a better insight into sports. I beg to differ - men just aren't that bright, especially when it comes to being manipulated by the prospect of sex.
Our advantage may give us more insight into how the game is played via experience, but women may be able to leverage their physical attraction to extract better insight from the actual pros (through beauty, flirtation, or whatever - I'm not suggesting by actually engaging in a sexual tit-for-tat). If it's reasonable to accuse men on B/R of gushing out of misguided hope for a date, the same can absolutely be said about professional athletes.
Infinitely more so because the pay-off is far more realistic plus pro athletes are notorious for a slavish and improbable devotion to their libidos.
You're telling me post-pubescent males are going to be as eager to disclose sensitive information to some Ken Rosenthal wannabe as they are to Erin Andrews?
4. Most importantly, these ladies are very good at what they do.
C'mon. If these articles were bad or even average, the website would go apesh*t. It would be painfully obvious that something was rotten in Denmark and people would FREAK OUT.
That simply isn't the case here.
Maybe you or I don't feel that the writing in question was the best that day or doesn't deserve to be as highly ranked, but to say such a thing is no great condemnation. Especially when there are as many competitors for the honor as there are on B/R.
The fact is the writing must be very good just to get in the discussion, just to create the controversy.
So what if these ladies' looks put them over the top? First, it's unprovable even if the circumstances indicate it. Second, such a phenomenon would be consistent with the spirit of sport.
Ultimately, sports aren't really about loving the best. They're about loving your favorite and our favorites are not always the best.
Our favorites are usually very good, but what puts them over the top is something that we find personally attractive.
I adore guys like Will Clark, Matt Williams, Omar Vizquel, Royce Clayton, Andy Van Slyke, Willie McGee, Robby Thompson, etc. because they were good to great players with little ego and an old-school approach.
Barry Lamar Bonds is the best and most valuable player I have ever seen. By a very wide margin. But I would never say I adore him because his personality and approach were distasteful.
My favorite shortstop of all-time is Ozzie Smith. Today's average power hitter launches more taters a year than the Wizard of Oz did his whole career (28). So what, I still say he's the best and I'll take him to war.
You can have your Alex Rodriguez, Cal Ripken Junior, or Ernie Banks (OK, I might take Mr. Cub).
And that's the point.
Once the competitors surpass a certain level, we're dissecting shades of excellence. Some will choose a writer they know, others will choose a writer they find attractive, and others will choose based on the subject of the writing. And that's just fine.
Because there has to be a winner, there has to be losers, and there has to be a way to differentiate between them. When the competition is so close, the difference rarely seems fair to the losers.
That is the beauty and tragedy of the sports world.
Either you believe the Giants should use their cash for a major overhaul, in which case they need everything except pitching and catching. Or you believe (as I do) they should be patient with their young guys, in which case they could upgrade third and/or first to be more competitive.
Of course, Mark Teixeira is youngish, fills a need at first base, has good leather and ash (or maple), and seems like a good clubhouse guy. Depending on his price tag, that might be an interesting idea.
But a better one occurred to me.
There's been some talk on B/R surrounding certain female writers. I'm not going to mention names because you probably know who I'm talking about and, if you don't, well now you have to go digging through articles to find out.
Look at that, my promotion's already paying off in extra traffic.
Anyway, the controversy is that these ladies, who are easy on the eyes, allegedly get extra attention and praise for their articles from misguided male readers. Readers who think that somehow the online flattery will translate into a real-world relationship. The bottom-line being that these ladies' writings receive accolades as proxies for their looks.
And if you read some of the comments compared to the writing, you have to admit the idea has some merit. There is certainly a cadre of men lavishing good yet flawed articles with such adjectives as "masterpiece," "perfect," and other transparent superlatives.
That said, I won't pretend to know these gentlemen's motives except that, as a man myself, I can't say the accusation is unreasonable.
Nor is the idea.
I mean, who says it won't work? Tell me you don't know a couple with a crazier hook-up story than that. And if it doesn't, what have they lost except a little respect from a bunch of strangers.
It's not something I would advise or try myself. As has been pointed out, you could find yourself meeting up with some dude at a coffee house after months of online courtship. Additionally, these girls are scattered across the world so it's just an irrational proposition. Most importantly, some of them are young; too young considering I just turned 30.
Picking women up online is already a little creepy and sniffs of desperation. Doing it as a 30-year-old targeting girls who could still be in college makes it more than a little perverse.
But I digress.
Much of the consternation stems from several of these ladies routinely winning the coveted Pick of the Day slot on the front page or placing highly on the writer rankings. The Opposition feels there are better pieces on those days and better writers on this site. Writers who are being ignored in favor of sexual allure rather than superior craft.
I can't say I blame the Opposition. This is a sports journalism site and it's only fair that the best writers get rewarded.
But there are several problems with the criticism:
1. There are no explicit parameters for Pick of the Day or the writer rankings.
To my knowledge, both systems reward writers who are popular with readers. And writers can be popular with readers for many reasons. Who's to say which are the "right" ones? Sure, it would be nice if popularity were driven by writing excellence alone since that is the goal. But I don't think you can ever say someone's preconditions are wrong for something as ephemeral as popularity.
2. Even if there are explicit criteria, impotence of order is the natural and predictable state of the Web.
Few consequences mean few rules. It is beautiful anarchy; the Wild West of our generation (how pathetic is that?). Anything goes because it's too hard to control the freedom that comes with anonymity.
Some people might vote based on looks, others might just throw a pick at everything they read, and others might be impossibly stingy. For instance, I've probably given out four or five picks during the entire two months I've been on here. People might say that's as ridiculous as voting based on looks.
You might not like it, but such anarchy is the necessary prerequisite for and limitation on the Internet's brilliance.
3. Physical attraction is just another advantage, an asset to be utilized like any other.
Men have the distinct advantage of playing incarnations of these sports that are closer to the professional levels. Women can play a sport that shares the name, but their version is not the same.
I don't mean to disparage women athletes here. My little sister played soccer for Berkeley so I've seen more women's soccer than men's and I almost prefer watching it. Almost. Furthermore, lots of elite female athletes could wipe their chosen playing surfaces with whatever part of me they chose.
However, the fact is that male athletes just move faster, jump higher, have better quicks, and bring more strength to bear than their female counterparts i.e. a high school male compared to a female or two college athletes or two professional athletes and so on.
Women tend to play a purer version of the sport, but it doesn't possess the same physical dynamic.
However, the great equalizer (as always) is the fact that men are controlled to a terrifying degree by our genitals.
You might say that physical attraction is not the same as the male advantage i.e. it doesn't give you a better insight into sports. I beg to differ - men just aren't that bright, especially when it comes to being manipulated by the prospect of sex.
Our advantage may give us more insight into how the game is played via experience, but women may be able to leverage their physical attraction to extract better insight from the actual pros (through beauty, flirtation, or whatever - I'm not suggesting by actually engaging in a sexual tit-for-tat). If it's reasonable to accuse men on B/R of gushing out of misguided hope for a date, the same can absolutely be said about professional athletes.
Infinitely more so because the pay-off is far more realistic plus pro athletes are notorious for a slavish and improbable devotion to their libidos.
You're telling me post-pubescent males are going to be as eager to disclose sensitive information to some Ken Rosenthal wannabe as they are to Erin Andrews?
4. Most importantly, these ladies are very good at what they do.
C'mon. If these articles were bad or even average, the website would go apesh*t. It would be painfully obvious that something was rotten in Denmark and people would FREAK OUT.
That simply isn't the case here.
Maybe you or I don't feel that the writing in question was the best that day or doesn't deserve to be as highly ranked, but to say such a thing is no great condemnation. Especially when there are as many competitors for the honor as there are on B/R.
The fact is the writing must be very good just to get in the discussion, just to create the controversy.
So what if these ladies' looks put them over the top? First, it's unprovable even if the circumstances indicate it. Second, such a phenomenon would be consistent with the spirit of sport.
Ultimately, sports aren't really about loving the best. They're about loving your favorite and our favorites are not always the best.
Our favorites are usually very good, but what puts them over the top is something that we find personally attractive.
I adore guys like Will Clark, Matt Williams, Omar Vizquel, Royce Clayton, Andy Van Slyke, Willie McGee, Robby Thompson, etc. because they were good to great players with little ego and an old-school approach.
Barry Lamar Bonds is the best and most valuable player I have ever seen. By a very wide margin. But I would never say I adore him because his personality and approach were distasteful.
My favorite shortstop of all-time is Ozzie Smith. Today's average power hitter launches more taters a year than the Wizard of Oz did his whole career (28). So what, I still say he's the best and I'll take him to war.
You can have your Alex Rodriguez, Cal Ripken Junior, or Ernie Banks (OK, I might take Mr. Cub).
And that's the point.
Once the competitors surpass a certain level, we're dissecting shades of excellence. Some will choose a writer they know, others will choose a writer they find attractive, and others will choose based on the subject of the writing. And that's just fine.
Because there has to be a winner, there has to be losers, and there has to be a way to differentiate between them. When the competition is so close, the difference rarely seems fair to the losers.
That is the beauty and tragedy of the sports world.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Matt Holliday Proves Brian Wilson Should Be Touchable
Brian Sabean recently said that the San Francisco Giants consider several players untouchable. Among the players he named were Tim Lincecum, Matt Cain, and Brian Wilson. To me, Cy Young and Cain make perfect sense.
But Brian Wilson?
Let me start by saying I am a die-hard Giants' fan and have been since soon after my family moved to the Bay Area in 1987. I have seen several iterations of closers pass through the Orange and Black. The list is long and, at times, ignominious:
Scott Garrelts, Steve Bedrosian, Craig Lefferts, Jeff Brantley, Dave Righetti, Rod Beck, Rob Nen, Tim Worrell (oh man...), Matt Herges (...I think...), Dustin Hermanson (...I'm gonna be...), Tyler Walker (...sick...), Armando Benitez (...and there it is), Mike Stanton, Brad Hennessey, and Brian Wilson.
Except for the move from Beck to Nen, it hasn't been a smooth ride.
So I appreciate the value of a reliable fireman. And I would put Wilson, after just one full year on the job, behind only Nen and Beck. Those are the Giants' best and two of the best in baseball's history at the role.
So I appreciate Brian Wilson's considerable value in particular.
But to label him untouchable is, in my opinion, a bad mistake (unless of course it's a bargaining ploy by Sabean, which is entirely possible). I believe that for the following reasons:
1. Genuinely reliable closers are exceptionally rare, but impostors come along frequently.
Problem is, they're impossible to tell apart at first because both can come from anywhere at any time, but the impostors will regress to kerosene with equal unpredictability.
Joakim Soria? Jonathan Papelbon? Joe Nathan? Francisco Rodriguez? Jose Valverde? Kerry Wood? George Sherrill? Please explain a science of predicting these guys.
Or take a guy like Brad Lidge. He came from nowhere, aped the Sandman, then got torched, and now he's back to dominating - having just polished off a perfect season at the end of games.
Or Manny Corpas. He rose to filthy heights from nowhere last year and was so bad this year that he couldn't make it out of May with the job.
Bottom line - closers are as unpredictable as the rest of the bullpen, which means a seemingly reliable guy could go up just as easily as you could pluck the next Soria from the scrap heap. Only a couple guys are exceptions to this and it's too early to tell regarding Wilson.
2. Only championship contenders really need to find and hold a lights-out closer.
Sure, it's frustrating to blow late leads for any team. But the warm-and-fuzzy security that the best closers provide comes at a steep price. They are outrageously expensive to sign and/or to keep plus their full value isn't realized until they can enter those coal-to-diamond situations in which they so inexplicably and uniquely thrive.
A rebuilding or even marginal contender probably won't ever create those situations. Therefore, such a team wastes money that could be spent on more useful players that don't require the terminal stages of championship contention to approach full value.
A reliable closer is a luxury item.
In an ideal world, he is the final piece to a championship because acquiring one too soon can actually retard World Series aspirations.
3. The San Francisco Giants are not realistically going to be a championship contender next year, as is.
I recently wrote an article advocating a move or two this offseason to make the Giants playoff contenders. In that piece, I said any team that makes the playoffs is a championship contender. But playoff contention does not actually require making the playoffs.
I sincerely believe the Gents are a good-sized move or two away from playoff contention. I also sincerely believe they are several bigger moves away from actually making the playoffs.
Everything could break right for SF and they could find themselves inexplicably playing for baseball's biggest prize in 2009, but I doubt a money closer will make or break those odds.
4. Huston Street is the centerpiece of the Matt Holliday trade.
Didn't I say that closers were outrageously expensive?
I'm not going to go through the stats because they are so incomparable as to be useless. Suffice it to say that, although Carlos Gonzalez is a promising young player, his offensive contribution is not going to replace Holliday's any time soon, if ever. And Greg Smith, while also promising, just had elbow surgery.
Additionally, the Rockies figure to lose Brian Fuentes to free agency and Corpas was, ahem, unsteady in the closer's role last year.
In other words, the two young guys are relative question marks and long-term projects at best. Colorado figured to lose its closer and had no attractive replacement. That means, the main and immediate prize for Matt Holliday was Huston Street.
5. Brian Wilson is insanely better than Huston Street.
You can draw any conclusion you want based on the peripheral stats. In truth, they are very similar. But for a closer, only one stat matters and that is save percentage.
Wilson was 41 for 47. Street lost the job after going 18 for 25. Argument over.
So if Huston Street plus some blue-chip prospects equals Matt Holliday, what could SF get for Brian Wilson? And if Oakland's budget allowed them to go after a guy like Holliday, what could San Francisco's considerably larger budget produce?
I doubt Colorado would have traded Holliday to a division rival so I don't mean to imply that, had Sabean been willing to move Wilson, we could be watching Matt Holliday in SF's outfield next year.
But I do mean to imply that San Francisco might be able to land a similar whale for Brian Wilson and some of the young guys. The right whale would be worth it because Wilson may or may not be the genuine article.
And, even though I think he is the real deal, Wilson's more valuable to the Giants ultimate goal if he's walking out the door.
Of course, Brian Wilson and Tim Lincecum are apparently close friends. So, what if trading Wilson would upset the Franchise?
In that case, forget I wrote anything.
But Brian Wilson?
Let me start by saying I am a die-hard Giants' fan and have been since soon after my family moved to the Bay Area in 1987. I have seen several iterations of closers pass through the Orange and Black. The list is long and, at times, ignominious:
Scott Garrelts, Steve Bedrosian, Craig Lefferts, Jeff Brantley, Dave Righetti, Rod Beck, Rob Nen, Tim Worrell (oh man...), Matt Herges (...I think...), Dustin Hermanson (...I'm gonna be...), Tyler Walker (...sick...), Armando Benitez (...and there it is), Mike Stanton, Brad Hennessey, and Brian Wilson.
Except for the move from Beck to Nen, it hasn't been a smooth ride.
So I appreciate the value of a reliable fireman. And I would put Wilson, after just one full year on the job, behind only Nen and Beck. Those are the Giants' best and two of the best in baseball's history at the role.
So I appreciate Brian Wilson's considerable value in particular.
But to label him untouchable is, in my opinion, a bad mistake (unless of course it's a bargaining ploy by Sabean, which is entirely possible). I believe that for the following reasons:
1. Genuinely reliable closers are exceptionally rare, but impostors come along frequently.
Problem is, they're impossible to tell apart at first because both can come from anywhere at any time, but the impostors will regress to kerosene with equal unpredictability.
Joakim Soria? Jonathan Papelbon? Joe Nathan? Francisco Rodriguez? Jose Valverde? Kerry Wood? George Sherrill? Please explain a science of predicting these guys.
Or take a guy like Brad Lidge. He came from nowhere, aped the Sandman, then got torched, and now he's back to dominating - having just polished off a perfect season at the end of games.
Or Manny Corpas. He rose to filthy heights from nowhere last year and was so bad this year that he couldn't make it out of May with the job.
Bottom line - closers are as unpredictable as the rest of the bullpen, which means a seemingly reliable guy could go up just as easily as you could pluck the next Soria from the scrap heap. Only a couple guys are exceptions to this and it's too early to tell regarding Wilson.
2. Only championship contenders really need to find and hold a lights-out closer.
Sure, it's frustrating to blow late leads for any team. But the warm-and-fuzzy security that the best closers provide comes at a steep price. They are outrageously expensive to sign and/or to keep plus their full value isn't realized until they can enter those coal-to-diamond situations in which they so inexplicably and uniquely thrive.
A rebuilding or even marginal contender probably won't ever create those situations. Therefore, such a team wastes money that could be spent on more useful players that don't require the terminal stages of championship contention to approach full value.
A reliable closer is a luxury item.
In an ideal world, he is the final piece to a championship because acquiring one too soon can actually retard World Series aspirations.
3. The San Francisco Giants are not realistically going to be a championship contender next year, as is.
I recently wrote an article advocating a move or two this offseason to make the Giants playoff contenders. In that piece, I said any team that makes the playoffs is a championship contender. But playoff contention does not actually require making the playoffs.
I sincerely believe the Gents are a good-sized move or two away from playoff contention. I also sincerely believe they are several bigger moves away from actually making the playoffs.
Everything could break right for SF and they could find themselves inexplicably playing for baseball's biggest prize in 2009, but I doubt a money closer will make or break those odds.
4. Huston Street is the centerpiece of the Matt Holliday trade.
Didn't I say that closers were outrageously expensive?
I'm not going to go through the stats because they are so incomparable as to be useless. Suffice it to say that, although Carlos Gonzalez is a promising young player, his offensive contribution is not going to replace Holliday's any time soon, if ever. And Greg Smith, while also promising, just had elbow surgery.
Additionally, the Rockies figure to lose Brian Fuentes to free agency and Corpas was, ahem, unsteady in the closer's role last year.
In other words, the two young guys are relative question marks and long-term projects at best. Colorado figured to lose its closer and had no attractive replacement. That means, the main and immediate prize for Matt Holliday was Huston Street.
5. Brian Wilson is insanely better than Huston Street.
You can draw any conclusion you want based on the peripheral stats. In truth, they are very similar. But for a closer, only one stat matters and that is save percentage.
Wilson was 41 for 47. Street lost the job after going 18 for 25. Argument over.
So if Huston Street plus some blue-chip prospects equals Matt Holliday, what could SF get for Brian Wilson? And if Oakland's budget allowed them to go after a guy like Holliday, what could San Francisco's considerably larger budget produce?
I doubt Colorado would have traded Holliday to a division rival so I don't mean to imply that, had Sabean been willing to move Wilson, we could be watching Matt Holliday in SF's outfield next year.
But I do mean to imply that San Francisco might be able to land a similar whale for Brian Wilson and some of the young guys. The right whale would be worth it because Wilson may or may not be the genuine article.
And, even though I think he is the real deal, Wilson's more valuable to the Giants ultimate goal if he's walking out the door.
Of course, Brian Wilson and Tim Lincecum are apparently close friends. So, what if trading Wilson would upset the Franchise?
In that case, forget I wrote anything.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Notre Dame Football: The Devil In Disguise
I ran across something that absolutely disgusted me while reading about Notre Dame football. When discussing sports, you frequently use severity and exaggeration as hammers to drive home a point.
This is not one of those situations.
I was not a fan of the program before, but my antipathy blossomed from admittedly petty reasons. Because I acknowledged this pettiness, I tempered my feelings. Capped them at intense dislike.
No more.
I literally hate Notre Dame football and what it represents - the perfect National Collegiate Athletic Association program.
Heretofore, I could only say that I hated the Los Angeles Dodgers. They were the one rival I allowed myself to hate because I take no pleasure in that emotion. But I'm a San Francisco Giants' fan, what could I do?
Apparently, the answer was to find a worthier target. And I've found one.
The NCAA's mission statement reads like this: "Our purpose is to govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount."
Paramount. As in, above all others in importance and priority.
If you know about the program's recent history and you re-read that paragraph, you will realize that Notre Dame football is Job Bluth, the Great Magician.
You will realize that, intentionally or not, the Tyrone Willingham-Charlie Weis Civil War that rages is a singularly transcendent bit of misdirection. It's the next shit and the NCAA is the program's pusher.
Can anyone remember anything about ND football before this scuffle broke out? Before ESPN assaulted the airwaves with rumors, whispers, and nuanced accusations of racism at the nation's most popular Catholic university. Before each ND win or loss became an excuse to dissect Willingham's recruiting versus that of Weis and to revive the race issue.
It is only a slight stretch to say that Notre Dame's long history seems to have been truncated, consisting merely of the last seven years. Especially in today's ADHD world.
How often does Bob Davie's name get mentioned? In fact, I might have to remind some people that he was the coach that preceded TW.
And if the administration at Notre Dame has enough brain cells to blow its collective nose, they should be spending a lot of extra time in divine genuflection for that little bit of deliverance.
Because in 2001, Notre Dame football received the American Football Coaches Association Achievement Award for graduating, get this, 100% of its football players.
100%. As in every single player eligible for graduation. At a competitive, big-time football program.
Schools like Notre Dame will always graduate a higher percentage of their athletes because they simply draw that type of individual. But 100% is perfection.
And 2001 was Bob Davie's last year under the employ of that fine academic institution.
Davie was fired after five years during which he compiled a 35-25 record, accepted invitations to three bowl games, reached the school's first Bowl Championship Series game, eventually graduated everyone eligible for that honor, and was exceptionally inconsistent (they lost all three bowl games).
Anything else? Oh yeah, he had stepped into the rather commodious shoes of Lou Holtz.
To be fair, Davie also received and deserved (to a degree) criticism for opening the University to an age-discrimination suit by mishandling the firing of a long-time Holtz guy.
And it also must be mentioned that Notre Dame received probation from the NCAA during his tenure for a scandal involving improper gifts from a booster to players. Although, how poorly that should reflect on Bob Davie is a matter of debate.
Regardless, no individual is perfect. More importantly, he was not fired for either scandal. He was fired because Notre Dame was closer to average than great under his command and was inconsistent. The scandals did make nice moral cover.
But of paramount importance, at least according to the NCAA, should have been that he ensured every single player eligible for one of life's most valuable assets (a college degree) received it. And apologists could argue that it was the most important thing Davie did.
Except he was fired the year he did it.
"[T]o integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount."
From that statement, the NCAA draws many benefits. One particularly significant such benefit is a tax-exempt status in the eyes of our government. Think about the repercussions of all that revenue sans taxation, both on the NCAA's bottom line and our country's.
Now consider the Draconian constraints placed on the athletes from which all that tax-free revenue is generated. And all the misery sown when immature adolescents break those impossibly unjust constraints.
The NCAA is a greedy, hypocritical parasite and Notre Dame football is its superlative exemplar.
The program is a license to print money. During its finest years, it can compete with all but the most elite programs. It is nationally-revered for its integrity, the premium it places on the intellectual sustenance of its athletes, and its refusal to compromise in that regard.
Notre Dame football is sold to and by the national media as an athletic powerhouse and a bastion of intellectual perseverance through athletic achievement. It sells well.
And it is a vomitous lie.
Notre Dame football is a voracious wolf in sheep's clothing. Its concern over its athletes' intellectual advancement is tertiary. Only when the program's financial and competitive health have been maximized can the program trouble itself with developing its players' minds.
Apologists for Notre Dame and the NCAA will point to the fact that the program continues to graduate a high percentage of its players and has subsequently repeated as winner of the Academic Achievement Award.
But the mission statement does not say the goal of the NCAA is to maximize athletic proficiency and, consequently, profit generation while maintaining an excellent commitment to education. It says education is "paramount."
That means the ideal is a 100% graduation rate while winning national championships. Short of that, it means the next rung on the Ideal Ladder is a 100% graduation rate while staying competitive. It means that the education of its athletes should never be compromised until absolutely necessary.
And Notre Dame football compromised it for a mercurial shot at a marginal gain in athletics. A marginal gain that has yet to materialize. The program sold its soul and has yet to see any return.
Apologists will point to other programs and cry, "guilty!" But those programs are not cast and do not cast themselves as the great and unique intellectual benefactor. Notre Dame football is and does.
It is as a beacon on a hill, but burns its principles to throw that light.
And I will hate Notre Dame football until that changes.
This is not one of those situations.
I was not a fan of the program before, but my antipathy blossomed from admittedly petty reasons. Because I acknowledged this pettiness, I tempered my feelings. Capped them at intense dislike.
No more.
I literally hate Notre Dame football and what it represents - the perfect National Collegiate Athletic Association program.
Heretofore, I could only say that I hated the Los Angeles Dodgers. They were the one rival I allowed myself to hate because I take no pleasure in that emotion. But I'm a San Francisco Giants' fan, what could I do?
Apparently, the answer was to find a worthier target. And I've found one.
The NCAA's mission statement reads like this: "Our purpose is to govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount."
Paramount. As in, above all others in importance and priority.
If you know about the program's recent history and you re-read that paragraph, you will realize that Notre Dame football is Job Bluth, the Great Magician.
You will realize that, intentionally or not, the Tyrone Willingham-Charlie Weis Civil War that rages is a singularly transcendent bit of misdirection. It's the next shit and the NCAA is the program's pusher.
Can anyone remember anything about ND football before this scuffle broke out? Before ESPN assaulted the airwaves with rumors, whispers, and nuanced accusations of racism at the nation's most popular Catholic university. Before each ND win or loss became an excuse to dissect Willingham's recruiting versus that of Weis and to revive the race issue.
It is only a slight stretch to say that Notre Dame's long history seems to have been truncated, consisting merely of the last seven years. Especially in today's ADHD world.
How often does Bob Davie's name get mentioned? In fact, I might have to remind some people that he was the coach that preceded TW.
And if the administration at Notre Dame has enough brain cells to blow its collective nose, they should be spending a lot of extra time in divine genuflection for that little bit of deliverance.
Because in 2001, Notre Dame football received the American Football Coaches Association Achievement Award for graduating, get this, 100% of its football players.
100%. As in every single player eligible for graduation. At a competitive, big-time football program.
Schools like Notre Dame will always graduate a higher percentage of their athletes because they simply draw that type of individual. But 100% is perfection.
And 2001 was Bob Davie's last year under the employ of that fine academic institution.
Davie was fired after five years during which he compiled a 35-25 record, accepted invitations to three bowl games, reached the school's first Bowl Championship Series game, eventually graduated everyone eligible for that honor, and was exceptionally inconsistent (they lost all three bowl games).
Anything else? Oh yeah, he had stepped into the rather commodious shoes of Lou Holtz.
To be fair, Davie also received and deserved (to a degree) criticism for opening the University to an age-discrimination suit by mishandling the firing of a long-time Holtz guy.
And it also must be mentioned that Notre Dame received probation from the NCAA during his tenure for a scandal involving improper gifts from a booster to players. Although, how poorly that should reflect on Bob Davie is a matter of debate.
Regardless, no individual is perfect. More importantly, he was not fired for either scandal. He was fired because Notre Dame was closer to average than great under his command and was inconsistent. The scandals did make nice moral cover.
But of paramount importance, at least according to the NCAA, should have been that he ensured every single player eligible for one of life's most valuable assets (a college degree) received it. And apologists could argue that it was the most important thing Davie did.
Except he was fired the year he did it.
"[T]o integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount."
From that statement, the NCAA draws many benefits. One particularly significant such benefit is a tax-exempt status in the eyes of our government. Think about the repercussions of all that revenue sans taxation, both on the NCAA's bottom line and our country's.
Now consider the Draconian constraints placed on the athletes from which all that tax-free revenue is generated. And all the misery sown when immature adolescents break those impossibly unjust constraints.
The NCAA is a greedy, hypocritical parasite and Notre Dame football is its superlative exemplar.
The program is a license to print money. During its finest years, it can compete with all but the most elite programs. It is nationally-revered for its integrity, the premium it places on the intellectual sustenance of its athletes, and its refusal to compromise in that regard.
Notre Dame football is sold to and by the national media as an athletic powerhouse and a bastion of intellectual perseverance through athletic achievement. It sells well.
And it is a vomitous lie.
Notre Dame football is a voracious wolf in sheep's clothing. Its concern over its athletes' intellectual advancement is tertiary. Only when the program's financial and competitive health have been maximized can the program trouble itself with developing its players' minds.
Apologists for Notre Dame and the NCAA will point to the fact that the program continues to graduate a high percentage of its players and has subsequently repeated as winner of the Academic Achievement Award.
But the mission statement does not say the goal of the NCAA is to maximize athletic proficiency and, consequently, profit generation while maintaining an excellent commitment to education. It says education is "paramount."
That means the ideal is a 100% graduation rate while winning national championships. Short of that, it means the next rung on the Ideal Ladder is a 100% graduation rate while staying competitive. It means that the education of its athletes should never be compromised until absolutely necessary.
And Notre Dame football compromised it for a mercurial shot at a marginal gain in athletics. A marginal gain that has yet to materialize. The program sold its soul and has yet to see any return.
Apologists will point to other programs and cry, "guilty!" But those programs are not cast and do not cast themselves as the great and unique intellectual benefactor. Notre Dame football is and does.
It is as a beacon on a hill, but burns its principles to throw that light.
And I will hate Notre Dame football until that changes.
Monday, November 10, 2008
It's Rare, But the Patience of San Francisco Giants' Fans Is Wearing Thin
This can't go on all the time - all this franticness and jumping around. We've got to go someplace, find something. - Jack Kerouac, On the Road
For the San Francisco Giants, that place is the World Series. That thing is the championship trophy.
After five long years of frantic futility and jumping around the peripheral of the National League West races, the time for excuses has long since passed.
Consider the following:
Some hold it against us, say that it means we aren't real fans. We can't be the geniune article because we don't care enough to boo at the drop of a ball or walk of a batter.
I say it's that we care just as much, but maintain a healthy perspective of sports vis-a-vis life. That point can be debated.
What cannot be debated is that five long years of utter futility for a franchise that fielded a championship contender almost every year from 1993 through 2003 is long enough. Especially when there is over $10 million sitting in reserve that must be spent on talent to keep a promise to customers.
Especially when the team already has a one-two punch of Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain.
Especially when they can follow that up with Jonathan Sanchez, Barry Zito, and Brian Wilson.
Especially when they already have a nice little offensive nucleus of Aaron Rowand, Bengie Molina, Randy Winn, Emanuel Burriss, Freddie Lewis, and Pablo Sandoval.
The Giants' 2009 roster will not overwhelm anyone offensively, but it features a pitching staff that should do quite well with just an average offense. If everything breaks right, the 2009 Giants' offense, as-is (or will be), might be average. But it could easily be above average if management adds the right piece to the mix.
That piece is NOT Manny Ramirez.
We just washed off the stink of Bonds'. I loved Barry as much as any die-hard fan would love a player who carried his/her favorite team to the postseason almost every year. But I was well aware that it was an adoration with a price: you couldn't feel totally clean about yourself (and I'm not talking steroids, I'm talking the guy is human garbage by all accounts).
But at least Barry was the best chemically-enhanced player this game has ever seen. Ramirez isn't even the best hitter it's seen and his act is already tired. That was before he caught the Dodger Blue bug.
Ugh. Keep that train wreck away.
Nor is that piece C.C. Sabathia.
I'm as big a fan of Sabathia as the next guy. But I already listed the virtues of the as-assembled 2009 San Francisco Giants. Points one and two were pitching. Really, points three and four are pitching as well, but I'm being optimistic. The Gents simply do not need more pitching.
It sounds odd to say that in the modern era, but it's true. The organization even has a couple more young arms down on the farm. Our cup runneth over (if form holds true, admittedly a large if).
Of course, signing Sabathia would make sense if you moved some of that young pitching, but why take that very expensive risk on the heels of Zito? SF would have to move Noah Lowry, Cain, Sanchez, or one of the guys on the farm; it would probably be Cain. Those young arms are MUCH cheaper than C.C.
Granted, they are not the same quality. But who knows what quality Sabathia's next team will get? I can promise you I'm not the only person concerned by all those innings under so much stress with so little rest in between. He's young and he's an absolute monster, but he's still human.
Regardless, signing him would require huge money and the trade of a promising young arm (or two). That's a big risk for anyone to take and the Giants just failed pretty spectacularly on another large risk with Zito's contract.
Thankfully, neither Ramirez nor Sabathia (nor the trade of Cain for that matter) looks likely. Yet, all have been mentioned by people inside baseball so none is ridiculous.
What would be ridiculous would be a repeat, in 2009, of the impotence that has befouled our recent seasons.
Management owes us more than that.
For the San Francisco Giants, that place is the World Series. That thing is the championship trophy.
After five long years of frantic futility and jumping around the peripheral of the National League West races, the time for excuses has long since passed.
Consider the following:
- The Giants haven't finished above .500 since 2004; they haven't really been close.
- They haven't managed better than a third place finish in Major League Baseball's weakest division since that same year.
- Their 2007 payroll of over $90 million was good for 12th in MLB.
- Barry Bonds' 2007 salary was $15.8 million.
- SF's 2008 payroll of just under $77 million was good for 17th in MLB and they actually spent less per player than the Cincinnati Reds (who finished 18th in total payroll).
- Barry Lamar Bonds no longer patrols leftfield.
- We loyal fans were assured that the money freed by Bonds' departure wouldn't just be pocketed by the owners, that a substantial amount would be put back into spikes.
Some hold it against us, say that it means we aren't real fans. We can't be the geniune article because we don't care enough to boo at the drop of a ball or walk of a batter.
I say it's that we care just as much, but maintain a healthy perspective of sports vis-a-vis life. That point can be debated.
What cannot be debated is that five long years of utter futility for a franchise that fielded a championship contender almost every year from 1993 through 2003 is long enough. Especially when there is over $10 million sitting in reserve that must be spent on talent to keep a promise to customers.
Especially when the team already has a one-two punch of Tim Lincecum and Matt Cain.
Especially when they can follow that up with Jonathan Sanchez, Barry Zito, and Brian Wilson.
Especially when they already have a nice little offensive nucleus of Aaron Rowand, Bengie Molina, Randy Winn, Emanuel Burriss, Freddie Lewis, and Pablo Sandoval.
The Giants' 2009 roster will not overwhelm anyone offensively, but it features a pitching staff that should do quite well with just an average offense. If everything breaks right, the 2009 Giants' offense, as-is (or will be), might be average. But it could easily be above average if management adds the right piece to the mix.
That piece is NOT Manny Ramirez.
We just washed off the stink of Bonds'. I loved Barry as much as any die-hard fan would love a player who carried his/her favorite team to the postseason almost every year. But I was well aware that it was an adoration with a price: you couldn't feel totally clean about yourself (and I'm not talking steroids, I'm talking the guy is human garbage by all accounts).
But at least Barry was the best chemically-enhanced player this game has ever seen. Ramirez isn't even the best hitter it's seen and his act is already tired. That was before he caught the Dodger Blue bug.
Ugh. Keep that train wreck away.
Nor is that piece C.C. Sabathia.
I'm as big a fan of Sabathia as the next guy. But I already listed the virtues of the as-assembled 2009 San Francisco Giants. Points one and two were pitching. Really, points three and four are pitching as well, but I'm being optimistic. The Gents simply do not need more pitching.
It sounds odd to say that in the modern era, but it's true. The organization even has a couple more young arms down on the farm. Our cup runneth over (if form holds true, admittedly a large if).
Of course, signing Sabathia would make sense if you moved some of that young pitching, but why take that very expensive risk on the heels of Zito? SF would have to move Noah Lowry, Cain, Sanchez, or one of the guys on the farm; it would probably be Cain. Those young arms are MUCH cheaper than C.C.
Granted, they are not the same quality. But who knows what quality Sabathia's next team will get? I can promise you I'm not the only person concerned by all those innings under so much stress with so little rest in between. He's young and he's an absolute monster, but he's still human.
Regardless, signing him would require huge money and the trade of a promising young arm (or two). That's a big risk for anyone to take and the Giants just failed pretty spectacularly on another large risk with Zito's contract.
Thankfully, neither Ramirez nor Sabathia (nor the trade of Cain for that matter) looks likely. Yet, all have been mentioned by people inside baseball so none is ridiculous.
What would be ridiculous would be a repeat, in 2009, of the impotence that has befouled our recent seasons.
Management owes us more than that.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
East of the BCS's False Eden
You are one of the rare people who can separate your observation from your preconception. You see what is, where most people see what they expect. - John Steinbeck, East of Eden
Lines like that announce and define great writers. Simple and incisive confrontations with the human condition that echo in every area of every life. Sometimes the stories and characters keep pace with this ability to focus the reader on the universal truths; all the better, but that is not the requirement.
The wisdom of Steinbeck's words is no more evident than in the world of sports. ESPN and its cavalcade of media outlets ensure that you need not face a moment of independent introspection upon your favorite ones.
Throw in Fox Sports, CBS Sportsline, Yahoo! Sports, Deadspin, our lovely little forum here, etc. and there is no shortage of people telling you how it is, when it is, and where it is (or should be). I'm not saying this is a bad thing; we participate in all of it voluntarily.
I am saying that Steinbeck's words should be heeded. The trick, as always, is to see the forest of truth through the trees of opinion (often disguised as fact).
Which brings me to college football.
Such an ability to see teams for what they really are is most important in this sport because there is no playoff. There is no normalizing event that pits the best of the strongest against each other. Instead, we are left to conjecture and compare by association, which is borderline useless.
So what if Team A from the SEC beat Team B from the Big 10? That doesn't tell us much about Team C from the SEC because the world of sports is not that of algebra. Neither football nor any arena of athletic competition follows the law of transitivity, even though it frequently pans out along those lines.
Of course, since there's no guarantee Team C and B will ever meet, the above comparison is the best we've got so it's what we go on. That's a simplification, but I think it fairly approximates the situation.
Do we know Florida isn't as good as Texas Tech just because they have a loss? After all, that loss wasn't to the Red Raiders.
Or what about an undefeated Ball State team and any other undefeated team? I mean, that quarterback looked pretty ridiculous, albeit against Northern Illinois.
College football is also the sport where such an ability to objectively, independently, and accurately assess each team is most difficult to develop and most frustrating to have once you get it (I'm guessing here because I don't pretend to have it).
Again, because of the lack of a playoff.
Each year is the same. This season, it's shaping up to be a debate between the SEC and the Big 12: the best of both conferences look like monsters, but who is the best?
Look at the schedules:
That discussion is more complicated because you have to consider more conferences. You need to include the Big 10 because of the newly-minted, one-loss Nittany Lions. And the Pac 10 to account for USC. And I won't forget the other undefeated non-BCS teams (Utah and Boise State).
Both debates are predicated on which conferences are the best, a fundamentally problematic question.
For instance, I saw that Texas-Texas Tech game. I'm still not sure whether the Big 12 is a conference full of good offenses and abysmal defenses or great offenses that would chew up any defense. Texas Tech looked like the latter, but not conclusively.
Meanwhile, the SEC looks like a conference full of teams that can dominate on both sides of the ball. But, again, who knows? I base that lead statement largely on the SEC's history of obliterating foes in bowl games. In previous years.
How ludicrous is that?
The cacophony of "experts" irritates the entire mess because the tide of popular opinion is even more powerful without the equalizer of a playoff.
Consider that, at this point, if the Crimson Tide get to the SEC title game, they play for the National Championship - win or lose.
They would be a one-loss SEC regular season champion. Their only loss would be in the postseason tournament's last game. That's a team that makes it in over every other team except two undefeated BCS-conference reps. Texas Tech is the only other such school.
But is that because of reality or expectation?
We don't expect a team like Ball State to be able to stun a one-loss, BCS-conference team. Especially from the mighty SEC. Forget about an undefeated one.
But what about Doug Flutie? Broadway Joe? People won't like this, but Michael Vick leading Atlanta into Lambeau Field during the January playoffs?
Doesn't football's history tell us a prolific talent can carry a team to one, single, improbable victory?
Doesn't Nate Davis have the talent and weapons to take down an Alabama, Texas Tech, Florida, or USC? Couldn't he make Ball State better for one afternoon? It's obviously unlikely, but well within the confines of reality.
And it's unlikely we'll ever get to find out.
Too bad. Because a reality breaking from expectation, in large part, defines the greatness of sports.
Lines like that announce and define great writers. Simple and incisive confrontations with the human condition that echo in every area of every life. Sometimes the stories and characters keep pace with this ability to focus the reader on the universal truths; all the better, but that is not the requirement.
The wisdom of Steinbeck's words is no more evident than in the world of sports. ESPN and its cavalcade of media outlets ensure that you need not face a moment of independent introspection upon your favorite ones.
Throw in Fox Sports, CBS Sportsline, Yahoo! Sports, Deadspin, our lovely little forum here, etc. and there is no shortage of people telling you how it is, when it is, and where it is (or should be). I'm not saying this is a bad thing; we participate in all of it voluntarily.
I am saying that Steinbeck's words should be heeded. The trick, as always, is to see the forest of truth through the trees of opinion (often disguised as fact).
Which brings me to college football.
Such an ability to see teams for what they really are is most important in this sport because there is no playoff. There is no normalizing event that pits the best of the strongest against each other. Instead, we are left to conjecture and compare by association, which is borderline useless.
So what if Team A from the SEC beat Team B from the Big 10? That doesn't tell us much about Team C from the SEC because the world of sports is not that of algebra. Neither football nor any arena of athletic competition follows the law of transitivity, even though it frequently pans out along those lines.
Of course, since there's no guarantee Team C and B will ever meet, the above comparison is the best we've got so it's what we go on. That's a simplification, but I think it fairly approximates the situation.
Do we know Florida isn't as good as Texas Tech just because they have a loss? After all, that loss wasn't to the Red Raiders.
Or what about an undefeated Ball State team and any other undefeated team? I mean, that quarterback looked pretty ridiculous, albeit against Northern Illinois.
College football is also the sport where such an ability to objectively, independently, and accurately assess each team is most difficult to develop and most frustrating to have once you get it (I'm guessing here because I don't pretend to have it).
Again, because of the lack of a playoff.
Each year is the same. This season, it's shaping up to be a debate between the SEC and the Big 12: the best of both conferences look like monsters, but who is the best?
Look at the schedules:
- Texas Tech played NOBODY outside the Big 12. They've looked awesome inside the conference, but what does that really tell us?
- Oklahoma beat TCU and Cincinnati, who are juggernauts compared to the powder-puffs that populate the non-conference schedules of the Sooners' competition.
- Texas stomped all over Arkansas, but so has its SEC opposition.
- Alabama roughed up what was then a ninth-ranked Clemson squad. They are currently a 4-5 Clemson squad, toiling near the cellar of the ACC.
- Florida battered Miami, which isn't the resume-builder it used to be.
- Georgia played cupcakes outside conference.
That discussion is more complicated because you have to consider more conferences. You need to include the Big 10 because of the newly-minted, one-loss Nittany Lions. And the Pac 10 to account for USC. And I won't forget the other undefeated non-BCS teams (Utah and Boise State).
Both debates are predicated on which conferences are the best, a fundamentally problematic question.
For instance, I saw that Texas-Texas Tech game. I'm still not sure whether the Big 12 is a conference full of good offenses and abysmal defenses or great offenses that would chew up any defense. Texas Tech looked like the latter, but not conclusively.
Meanwhile, the SEC looks like a conference full of teams that can dominate on both sides of the ball. But, again, who knows? I base that lead statement largely on the SEC's history of obliterating foes in bowl games. In previous years.
How ludicrous is that?
The cacophony of "experts" irritates the entire mess because the tide of popular opinion is even more powerful without the equalizer of a playoff.
Consider that, at this point, if the Crimson Tide get to the SEC title game, they play for the National Championship - win or lose.
They would be a one-loss SEC regular season champion. Their only loss would be in the postseason tournament's last game. That's a team that makes it in over every other team except two undefeated BCS-conference reps. Texas Tech is the only other such school.
But is that because of reality or expectation?
We don't expect a team like Ball State to be able to stun a one-loss, BCS-conference team. Especially from the mighty SEC. Forget about an undefeated one.
But what about Doug Flutie? Broadway Joe? People won't like this, but Michael Vick leading Atlanta into Lambeau Field during the January playoffs?
Doesn't football's history tell us a prolific talent can carry a team to one, single, improbable victory?
Doesn't Nate Davis have the talent and weapons to take down an Alabama, Texas Tech, Florida, or USC? Couldn't he make Ball State better for one afternoon? It's obviously unlikely, but well within the confines of reality.
And it's unlikely we'll ever get to find out.
Too bad. Because a reality breaking from expectation, in large part, defines the greatness of sports.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Fear and Loathing in the National Football League
No, this is not a good town for psychedelic drugs. Reality itself is too twisted. - Hunter S. Thompson "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas"
If I were Derek Anderson, those words would have been ricocheting off the walls of my skull all night as I watched Brady Quinn from the sidelines.
That would be the same Derek Anderson who seemingly rose from nowhere last year to lead the Cleveland Browns to a 10-6 record and received a juicy new contract in the offseason for his efforts. The same Derek Anderson who went to the Pro Bowl last year, a very competitive year for American Football Conference quarterbacks.
Let me repeat: Cleveland Browns, 10-6, Pro Bowl QB.
And then reality twisted.
The calendar flipped to 2008 and the Browns struggled out of the gate. One thing led to another and Anderson was chucked (intentionally or not) under the bus. Romeo Crennel yanked him just in time to insert Quinn against a seemingly defenseless Denver Broncos team at home.
On a nationally-televised, Thursday night game.
For the NFL Network's 2008 debut.
Now, I don't follow the Browns. I don't know what caused their early struggles nor do I pretend to know if Anderson or Quinn is better going forward.
What I do know is what I saw Thursday night.
I know that the problem with the Browns is not the quarterback. Their offense may have been sluggish, but the problem is the defense.
I also know that I see reason to be excited about Jay Cutler. I see those feathery touch throws, the cannon arm, and the accuracy on the move.
I can't say the same about Brady Quinn. I see hype, but I don't understand it. Maybe he will be a difference maker for the rest of the season, but he certainly didn't make much of one Thursday.
And that's why the reality of football is so twisted.
Because Derek Anderson is not getting that job back any time soon and it really doesn't have anything to do with his play. With the running game moving the ball as well as it was moving it against the Broncos and all that time to throw, I'm willing to bet good money a guy who was a Pro Bowler last year could have made every throw Quinn made.
Not to mention starting from the freakin' 50 every series.
Cris Collinsworth, who I generally don't like, made a great point. He said that throwing the ball in the NFL isn't too difficult between the 20s. The real quarterbacks are made inside the Red Zone. I don't know if Collinsworth is right, but it makes sense since there's less real estate to cover and explore.
And I didn't see Quinn make any especially nice throws inside the 20.
In fact, I didn't really see him make that many impressive throws or plays, period.
One of the reasons I don't like Collinsworth is that he inexplicably fixates on certain players, certain plays, or certain aspects of the game. And he was guilty of it last night with Quinn. Cris kept talking about how great Brady looked, about how well he moved in the pocket.
Don't give me that nonsense. I know that's the Kool-Aid flavor o' the day, but keep it moving.
That hop-pass he made to Jamal Lewis in the fourth quarter was very nice. That's it.
The touchdown with the guy in his face? C'mon. It took some guts, but has the NFL really deteriorated to the point where we can't even expect that much from the average professional signal-caller? And the other touchdown (as well as much of Quinn's yardage) was created by Kellen Winslow after the catch.
Not to mention those picks the Brown receivers seemed to be running? How were those flying under the refs' radar?
On the other hand, I saw Brady make quite a few ugly throws.
In fact, judging from the highlights, the only real difference between Quinn and Anderson is that Quinn's go-to guy (Winslow) can catch most of the time whereas Anderson's (Braylon Edwards) seems to have a gnarly case of the dropsies.
Incidentally, what is the deal with all the dropped passes lately? The Broncos tight end dropped a couple, Edwards tallied his customary share, Brandon Marshall dropped a touchdown, and that's just a few from one game. It seems to be a League-wide phenomenon.
I guess that's the risk you run pimping Terrell Owens so hard.
But back to Derek Anderson and Brady Quinn.
Quinn finished the game 23-35 with 239 yards and two touchdowns. He had Cleveland headed towards a win until the defense turtled to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Or at least that's the way it will be written in the papers.
And the job will be Brady's to lose.
He'll owe it to Jamal Lewis and the offensive line, who finally answered the bell.
He'll owe it to a Denver defense that missed Champ Bailey and didn't put up much of a fight.
He'll owe it to Romeo Crennel, a coach whose fix for a team fielding a defense capable of allowing 21 points in the fourth quarter of a nationally-televised home game is a quarterback change.
He'll owe it to just another day in the NFL.
The Vegas of the sports' world. It is not a good sport for psychedelic drugs.
Reality itself is far too twisted.
If I were Derek Anderson, those words would have been ricocheting off the walls of my skull all night as I watched Brady Quinn from the sidelines.
That would be the same Derek Anderson who seemingly rose from nowhere last year to lead the Cleveland Browns to a 10-6 record and received a juicy new contract in the offseason for his efforts. The same Derek Anderson who went to the Pro Bowl last year, a very competitive year for American Football Conference quarterbacks.
Let me repeat: Cleveland Browns, 10-6, Pro Bowl QB.
And then reality twisted.
The calendar flipped to 2008 and the Browns struggled out of the gate. One thing led to another and Anderson was chucked (intentionally or not) under the bus. Romeo Crennel yanked him just in time to insert Quinn against a seemingly defenseless Denver Broncos team at home.
On a nationally-televised, Thursday night game.
For the NFL Network's 2008 debut.
Now, I don't follow the Browns. I don't know what caused their early struggles nor do I pretend to know if Anderson or Quinn is better going forward.
What I do know is what I saw Thursday night.
I know that the problem with the Browns is not the quarterback. Their offense may have been sluggish, but the problem is the defense.
I also know that I see reason to be excited about Jay Cutler. I see those feathery touch throws, the cannon arm, and the accuracy on the move.
I can't say the same about Brady Quinn. I see hype, but I don't understand it. Maybe he will be a difference maker for the rest of the season, but he certainly didn't make much of one Thursday.
And that's why the reality of football is so twisted.
Because Derek Anderson is not getting that job back any time soon and it really doesn't have anything to do with his play. With the running game moving the ball as well as it was moving it against the Broncos and all that time to throw, I'm willing to bet good money a guy who was a Pro Bowler last year could have made every throw Quinn made.
Not to mention starting from the freakin' 50 every series.
Cris Collinsworth, who I generally don't like, made a great point. He said that throwing the ball in the NFL isn't too difficult between the 20s. The real quarterbacks are made inside the Red Zone. I don't know if Collinsworth is right, but it makes sense since there's less real estate to cover and explore.
And I didn't see Quinn make any especially nice throws inside the 20.
In fact, I didn't really see him make that many impressive throws or plays, period.
One of the reasons I don't like Collinsworth is that he inexplicably fixates on certain players, certain plays, or certain aspects of the game. And he was guilty of it last night with Quinn. Cris kept talking about how great Brady looked, about how well he moved in the pocket.
Don't give me that nonsense. I know that's the Kool-Aid flavor o' the day, but keep it moving.
That hop-pass he made to Jamal Lewis in the fourth quarter was very nice. That's it.
The touchdown with the guy in his face? C'mon. It took some guts, but has the NFL really deteriorated to the point where we can't even expect that much from the average professional signal-caller? And the other touchdown (as well as much of Quinn's yardage) was created by Kellen Winslow after the catch.
Not to mention those picks the Brown receivers seemed to be running? How were those flying under the refs' radar?
On the other hand, I saw Brady make quite a few ugly throws.
In fact, judging from the highlights, the only real difference between Quinn and Anderson is that Quinn's go-to guy (Winslow) can catch most of the time whereas Anderson's (Braylon Edwards) seems to have a gnarly case of the dropsies.
Incidentally, what is the deal with all the dropped passes lately? The Broncos tight end dropped a couple, Edwards tallied his customary share, Brandon Marshall dropped a touchdown, and that's just a few from one game. It seems to be a League-wide phenomenon.
I guess that's the risk you run pimping Terrell Owens so hard.
But back to Derek Anderson and Brady Quinn.
Quinn finished the game 23-35 with 239 yards and two touchdowns. He had Cleveland headed towards a win until the defense turtled to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Or at least that's the way it will be written in the papers.
And the job will be Brady's to lose.
He'll owe it to Jamal Lewis and the offensive line, who finally answered the bell.
He'll owe it to a Denver defense that missed Champ Bailey and didn't put up much of a fight.
He'll owe it to Romeo Crennel, a coach whose fix for a team fielding a defense capable of allowing 21 points in the fourth quarter of a nationally-televised home game is a quarterback change.
He'll owe it to just another day in the NFL.
The Vegas of the sports' world. It is not a good sport for psychedelic drugs.
Reality itself is far too twisted.
Razing Cain
My dad and I have an ongoing debate. Or, to be more precise, we have an annual debate that begins around July and proceeds until October. It's started earlier the last couple years because the official starter's gun goes off once the San Francisco Giants surrender for the season.
It goes like this: my dad thinks the Giants should trade Matt Cain and I do not.
The problem is that pops is very smart and an avid baseball fan, but not a fan of one team in particular. It's the product of loving the game, but spending the first 40+ years of his life in St. Louis and the last 20+ in San Francisco. Both strong baseball towns (although SF doesn't get the credit because a lot of the die-hards are priced out of Pac Bell) that pulled his allegiance until they obliterated it.
It's a problem because his background makes him objective and objectivity plus intelligence usually equals an accurate assessment. If that's the case here, Cain would be better off in another uniform.
His argument is that pitching for the no-margin-of-error Orange and Black for too long will do irreparable damage to Cain's approach and psyche. In essence, the team behind him is infecting his career.
That is a truly horrible prospect.
One made all the more horrific because it has happened in the past. How many times do we see a change of scenery revive an otherwise flat-lining career? It doesn't always happen, but it happens enough to seriously consider the idea.
Matt Cain deserves that much.
In a lot of ways, the Big Boy is more freakish than the Freak.
Although Tim Lincecum is actually several months older than Cain, Cain has three years and change in the Show, which is two more than Timmy's got. It might not seem so significant, but it means that Cain debuted at the tender age of 20. He underwent baptism by professional fire right out of high school while the Franchise got to hone his craft against the aluminum bats of college players - more dangerous weapons it is true, but wielded by vastly inferior opponents.
It means that the Franchise got to work on his mental development far from the spotlight of Major League Baseball while Cain was forced (and chose) to work on his in its glare.
It means that Lincecum takes the mound with the same margin for error (virtually zero), but does so with the confidence born of several years of domination.
Matt Cain does not.
And it is that intangible but profound difference that can perhaps account for the enormous difference in numerical performance between the two pitchers despite a similarly dominating arsenal.
For instance, imagine both pitchers facing a hitter's count in the early frames of a game with a dangerous hitter on deck.
Lincecum can draw on an experiential reserve of facing dangerous hitters in college and dominating them. True, that is a far cry from dominating Major Leaguers, but it's funny how effectively and quickly the subconscious can rationalize things to facilitate success. Such instantaneous processing allows Lincecum to take some edge off the pressure and make his pitch.
Even if he fails, the extra years of confidence maturation allow him to continue working under less oppressive circumstances and minimize any subsequent damage. Something evidenced by the astonishing rarity with which the wheels totally come off a Lincecum start.
Now imagine Cain in the same situation.
His experiential reservoir tells him that, if he makes a couple mistakes (like walking this hitter and making a single bad pitch to the guy on deck), he and his team will lose the game. He has no recent history of domination except in high school. He has done so at the pro level in spots - far more frequently than a pitcher of his years should - but he has been inconsistent.
That inconsistency is the only major hole in the dike against debilitating self-doubt, but it is sufficient.
Cain's experience puts an extra edge on the pressure and makes it even more difficult to throw his pitch. The pressure gets exponentially worse as the situation deteriorates.
Yet, more often than not, Cain makes his pitch. More often than not, Cain thrives working without that margin for error. Like I said, his numerical performance doesn't show it, but that is because he faces the above hypothetical every time he takes the mound.
Furthermore, his numbers do show it if you look closely.
In his three years plus seven starts, Matt Cain has compiled a record of 30-43. In 104 starts (105 appearances), he has pitched 654 2/3 innings. Consider what that means. It means the Kid averaged at least six innings per start between the ages of 20 and 23. During the Steroid Era. For a very bad team.
In those 650+ innings, Cain struck out 558 batters while walking 276; almost a perfect 2:1 K to BB ratio. He turned these numbers into an earned run average of 3.74 and a WHIP of 1.277, both substantially better than the league averages over those same years.
Again, from a guy between the ages of 20 and 23. Right out of high school.
Just for good measure, he's done his part to carry on the legacy started by guys like the Caveman and Livan Hernandez. The legacy of stout hurlers who just might yank one out.
The only category that lacks real luster is his winning percentage. That is obviously a factor of his team, considering who he pitches for and his peripherals.
Which brings me full circle because that is what my dad (and others) would point to.
How long before that won-loss record gets inside Matt Cain's head? How long before that winning percentage begins to define him?
I say it never will. I say the Kid is too mentally tough, too much of a psychological horse for that to ever happen.
But I have to consider the possibility if for no other reasons than baseball and Matt Cain deserve better than such a tragic fate. A fate that has befallen others before him.
Cain is a special talent, which is why I am so happy to read that Brian Sabean and the organization consider him untouchable. But it is a talent too special to waste.
Even if it means it has to be realized in another uniform.
It goes like this: my dad thinks the Giants should trade Matt Cain and I do not.
The problem is that pops is very smart and an avid baseball fan, but not a fan of one team in particular. It's the product of loving the game, but spending the first 40+ years of his life in St. Louis and the last 20+ in San Francisco. Both strong baseball towns (although SF doesn't get the credit because a lot of the die-hards are priced out of Pac Bell) that pulled his allegiance until they obliterated it.
It's a problem because his background makes him objective and objectivity plus intelligence usually equals an accurate assessment. If that's the case here, Cain would be better off in another uniform.
His argument is that pitching for the no-margin-of-error Orange and Black for too long will do irreparable damage to Cain's approach and psyche. In essence, the team behind him is infecting his career.
That is a truly horrible prospect.
One made all the more horrific because it has happened in the past. How many times do we see a change of scenery revive an otherwise flat-lining career? It doesn't always happen, but it happens enough to seriously consider the idea.
Matt Cain deserves that much.
In a lot of ways, the Big Boy is more freakish than the Freak.
Although Tim Lincecum is actually several months older than Cain, Cain has three years and change in the Show, which is two more than Timmy's got. It might not seem so significant, but it means that Cain debuted at the tender age of 20. He underwent baptism by professional fire right out of high school while the Franchise got to hone his craft against the aluminum bats of college players - more dangerous weapons it is true, but wielded by vastly inferior opponents.
It means that the Franchise got to work on his mental development far from the spotlight of Major League Baseball while Cain was forced (and chose) to work on his in its glare.
It means that Lincecum takes the mound with the same margin for error (virtually zero), but does so with the confidence born of several years of domination.
Matt Cain does not.
And it is that intangible but profound difference that can perhaps account for the enormous difference in numerical performance between the two pitchers despite a similarly dominating arsenal.
For instance, imagine both pitchers facing a hitter's count in the early frames of a game with a dangerous hitter on deck.
Lincecum can draw on an experiential reserve of facing dangerous hitters in college and dominating them. True, that is a far cry from dominating Major Leaguers, but it's funny how effectively and quickly the subconscious can rationalize things to facilitate success. Such instantaneous processing allows Lincecum to take some edge off the pressure and make his pitch.
Even if he fails, the extra years of confidence maturation allow him to continue working under less oppressive circumstances and minimize any subsequent damage. Something evidenced by the astonishing rarity with which the wheels totally come off a Lincecum start.
Now imagine Cain in the same situation.
His experiential reservoir tells him that, if he makes a couple mistakes (like walking this hitter and making a single bad pitch to the guy on deck), he and his team will lose the game. He has no recent history of domination except in high school. He has done so at the pro level in spots - far more frequently than a pitcher of his years should - but he has been inconsistent.
That inconsistency is the only major hole in the dike against debilitating self-doubt, but it is sufficient.
Cain's experience puts an extra edge on the pressure and makes it even more difficult to throw his pitch. The pressure gets exponentially worse as the situation deteriorates.
Yet, more often than not, Cain makes his pitch. More often than not, Cain thrives working without that margin for error. Like I said, his numerical performance doesn't show it, but that is because he faces the above hypothetical every time he takes the mound.
Furthermore, his numbers do show it if you look closely.
In his three years plus seven starts, Matt Cain has compiled a record of 30-43. In 104 starts (105 appearances), he has pitched 654 2/3 innings. Consider what that means. It means the Kid averaged at least six innings per start between the ages of 20 and 23. During the Steroid Era. For a very bad team.
In those 650+ innings, Cain struck out 558 batters while walking 276; almost a perfect 2:1 K to BB ratio. He turned these numbers into an earned run average of 3.74 and a WHIP of 1.277, both substantially better than the league averages over those same years.
Again, from a guy between the ages of 20 and 23. Right out of high school.
Just for good measure, he's done his part to carry on the legacy started by guys like the Caveman and Livan Hernandez. The legacy of stout hurlers who just might yank one out.
The only category that lacks real luster is his winning percentage. That is obviously a factor of his team, considering who he pitches for and his peripherals.
Which brings me full circle because that is what my dad (and others) would point to.
How long before that won-loss record gets inside Matt Cain's head? How long before that winning percentage begins to define him?
I say it never will. I say the Kid is too mentally tough, too much of a psychological horse for that to ever happen.
But I have to consider the possibility if for no other reasons than baseball and Matt Cain deserve better than such a tragic fate. A fate that has befallen others before him.
Cain is a special talent, which is why I am so happy to read that Brian Sabean and the organization consider him untouchable. But it is a talent too special to waste.
Even if it means it has to be realized in another uniform.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Observations from the NFL's Parallel Universe
The National Football League is like another universe. It's got a lot of the same features as ours except everything is just a little bit more outrageous. Especially the hypocrisy.
For instance, there's a story out of Boston that's getting some play right now about the Patriots firing an 18-year-old cheerleader. Shouldn't the Patriots' hiring of an adolescent girl as erotic accoutrement be the story?
Hmm. An adolescent cheerleader. In the NFL. What could possibly go wrong?
This is an organization whose employees routinely find themselves in trouble because of strip club visits and dalliances of questionable judgment with the opposite sex. An organization powered by young, virile men in their physical and financial primes. Men who are fueled for most of their lives by testosterone and taught to intensify their more primitive/savage tendencies. Men who are usually too immature and naive to safely navigate the novel waters of celebrity and wealth.
Men who are insanely vulnerable targets to prurient predation.
And we're sending them to work in the same building with a nubile vixen who gets paid to shake her ass? Whoa.
Or how about all the hand-wringing and consternation over the current crop of New Orleans Saints, et alia, who have been shockingly pinched for using steroids or other performance enhancers?
Wait, you mean the human body isn't supposed to be 6'1" and 260 lbs. of pure muscle? No way.
You mean 6'6" men who tip the scale north of 280 don't naturally combine a 4.4 40 with a 60" vert? Are we sure?
Furthermore, didn't Shawne Merriman piss hot a couple years ago, get suspended for four games, and then win Defensive Player of the (same) Year? What exactly is the message we're trying to send here? I know a rule has been passed subsequently that prevents a repeat of this episode, but that it happened in the first place is the condemnation.
Then there is this business of guys like Michael Vick, Pacman Jones, Chris Henry, and (apparently) Larry Johnson.
Think about this. We give them passes or slaps on the wrist repeatedly, even as the offenses escalate, in an effort to teach them respect for the rules and laws of our society. However, in what is surely one of life's greatest mysteries, they fail to grasp that message and eventually do something unforgivable. Something that demands serious punishment.
Something that effectively ends their career. Sometimes their productive lives.
And we toss the book at them. Write 'em off. After all, they've had numerous chances to straighten up and fly right. They took those chances and used them to stray further from the path of righteousness. That's it; you had your chances and now it's over.
But step back from the picture. Who has failed whom?
If we were concerned about the individual's best interests, wouldn't it make far more sense to hit 'em the first time? To punish them appropriately when that punishment doesn't disqualify them from their chosen life's work? Isn't that what we, as a society, usually do?
Instead, we tell them the right message (your actions have serious consequences) while reinforcing the wrong message with our actions (your talent is a get-out-of-jail-free card). Not only that, our actions send them back into a world where the parasitic entourage further undermines our verbal message with words and actions of its own to the contrary.
And we're outraged when they put themselves right back in the crosshairs?
If you let an individual off the hook the first time, there are two possible outcomes: a change in behavior to conformity or a continuation of nonconforming misbehavior.
The same person who will conform when treated leniently will probably conform after appropriate punishment.
The same person who will continue to misbehave after appropriate punishment will probably continue to misbehave after lenience.
However, a person who will continue to misbehave after lenience may conform after appropriate punishment. Therefore, with lenience, we have lost an opportunity to teach that individual a valuable lesson.
Furthermore, we have lost an equally valuable chance to assess his/her psychological constitution. A person who fails to conform after experiencing the adverse consequences of his/her actions probably lacks such constitution required for the public scrutiny that symbiotically lives with a professional athlete.
Failure to conform after punishment tells us something useful whereas such failure after lenience tells us very little, almost nothing.
Of course, what we don't lose (at first) is money.
That initial offense can be ignored with little public fallout. And that means you can keep your revenue-generating superstar on the field. You can squeeze as much money out of him/her while hoping he/she gets the message. If the moment ever comes that announces he/she will never get the message, you can safely cut ties before suffering implication by association.
You can maximize the profits from one individual and then move on to the next when the first forfeits his/her value. And you can even join in the indignant vilification. You can hide behind those previous leniencies as evidence that you really wanted to help. You even tried.
And these are only three examples. There are many more.
I have written that football's parallel universe is a beautiful thing. And that is true.
But my hypocrisy would be equally criminal if I left it at that.
Because beauty is not necessarily perfection. Certainly not in this case.
For instance, there's a story out of Boston that's getting some play right now about the Patriots firing an 18-year-old cheerleader. Shouldn't the Patriots' hiring of an adolescent girl as erotic accoutrement be the story?
Hmm. An adolescent cheerleader. In the NFL. What could possibly go wrong?
This is an organization whose employees routinely find themselves in trouble because of strip club visits and dalliances of questionable judgment with the opposite sex. An organization powered by young, virile men in their physical and financial primes. Men who are fueled for most of their lives by testosterone and taught to intensify their more primitive/savage tendencies. Men who are usually too immature and naive to safely navigate the novel waters of celebrity and wealth.
Men who are insanely vulnerable targets to prurient predation.
And we're sending them to work in the same building with a nubile vixen who gets paid to shake her ass? Whoa.
Or how about all the hand-wringing and consternation over the current crop of New Orleans Saints, et alia, who have been shockingly pinched for using steroids or other performance enhancers?
Wait, you mean the human body isn't supposed to be 6'1" and 260 lbs. of pure muscle? No way.
You mean 6'6" men who tip the scale north of 280 don't naturally combine a 4.4 40 with a 60" vert? Are we sure?
Furthermore, didn't Shawne Merriman piss hot a couple years ago, get suspended for four games, and then win Defensive Player of the (same) Year? What exactly is the message we're trying to send here? I know a rule has been passed subsequently that prevents a repeat of this episode, but that it happened in the first place is the condemnation.
Then there is this business of guys like Michael Vick, Pacman Jones, Chris Henry, and (apparently) Larry Johnson.
Think about this. We give them passes or slaps on the wrist repeatedly, even as the offenses escalate, in an effort to teach them respect for the rules and laws of our society. However, in what is surely one of life's greatest mysteries, they fail to grasp that message and eventually do something unforgivable. Something that demands serious punishment.
Something that effectively ends their career. Sometimes their productive lives.
And we toss the book at them. Write 'em off. After all, they've had numerous chances to straighten up and fly right. They took those chances and used them to stray further from the path of righteousness. That's it; you had your chances and now it's over.
But step back from the picture. Who has failed whom?
If we were concerned about the individual's best interests, wouldn't it make far more sense to hit 'em the first time? To punish them appropriately when that punishment doesn't disqualify them from their chosen life's work? Isn't that what we, as a society, usually do?
Instead, we tell them the right message (your actions have serious consequences) while reinforcing the wrong message with our actions (your talent is a get-out-of-jail-free card). Not only that, our actions send them back into a world where the parasitic entourage further undermines our verbal message with words and actions of its own to the contrary.
And we're outraged when they put themselves right back in the crosshairs?
If you let an individual off the hook the first time, there are two possible outcomes: a change in behavior to conformity or a continuation of nonconforming misbehavior.
The same person who will conform when treated leniently will probably conform after appropriate punishment.
The same person who will continue to misbehave after appropriate punishment will probably continue to misbehave after lenience.
However, a person who will continue to misbehave after lenience may conform after appropriate punishment. Therefore, with lenience, we have lost an opportunity to teach that individual a valuable lesson.
Furthermore, we have lost an equally valuable chance to assess his/her psychological constitution. A person who fails to conform after experiencing the adverse consequences of his/her actions probably lacks such constitution required for the public scrutiny that symbiotically lives with a professional athlete.
Failure to conform after punishment tells us something useful whereas such failure after lenience tells us very little, almost nothing.
Of course, what we don't lose (at first) is money.
That initial offense can be ignored with little public fallout. And that means you can keep your revenue-generating superstar on the field. You can squeeze as much money out of him/her while hoping he/she gets the message. If the moment ever comes that announces he/she will never get the message, you can safely cut ties before suffering implication by association.
You can maximize the profits from one individual and then move on to the next when the first forfeits his/her value. And you can even join in the indignant vilification. You can hide behind those previous leniencies as evidence that you really wanted to help. You even tried.
And these are only three examples. There are many more.
I have written that football's parallel universe is a beautiful thing. And that is true.
But my hypocrisy would be equally criminal if I left it at that.
Because beauty is not necessarily perfection. Certainly not in this case.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Are the San Francisco Giants the Real Cubbies?
Look at who's enjoyed the throne since the Arizona Diamondbacks broke the New York Yankees' stranglehold on baseball in 2001.
2002 - California Angels (or whatever you want to call them)
2003 - Florida Marlins
2004 - Boston Red Sox
2005 - Chicago White Sox
2006 - St. Louis Cardinals
2007 - Boston Red Sox
2008 - Philadelphia Phillies
I want to draw your attention particularly to '04, '05, and '08. Those years saw long-suffering franchises finally remove the Baseball Gods' collective foot from their throats. It's true that Philly won a championship as recently as 1980, but the franchise's history dates back to 1883.
And 2008 was their second title. Oof.
Everyone knows the story behind the '04 Red Sox - the Curse of the Bambino, blah, blah, freakin' blah. Ditto the '05 White Sox - no titles since the Black Sox scandal in 1919.
Now consider that the Chicago Cubs, the heretofore unquestioned most lovable loser, clocked in last year with a payroll just a hair under $118 million. Only seven teams showed more human bling on the diamond.
Uhhh, you don't get to play "lovable loser" while you're trying to buy a World Series. Or is it just me?
And what if a group spearheaded by Mark Cuban purchases the team?
Without Boston, Philadelphia, and both Chicagos, there is a noticeable void in the baseball world.
Whose fanbase is the longest-suffering, most battle-scarred loser we should all pull for when it's the last one standing? After our teams have been eliminated?
Provided of course they can make it back to the playoffs sometime in the next millennium, ladies and gentlemen, I submit my beloved San Francisco Giants.
First, allow me to run through the Shakespearean resume:
There's more disappointment in the years between the Giants' first year in SF, '58, and '86. I'll leave the stories behind those scars for the people who bear them.
Furthermore, the bullet points of '89, '93, and '02 don't even scratch the surface.
Consider the '89 Quake did untold physical and psychological damage to the Bay Area, especially the City of San Francisco. True, it did some of the same to Oakland. But the Nimitz Freeway was less a part of Oakland and more a part of California's infrastructure. Meanwhile, the Bay Bridge is as much a part of SF as it is of Oakland.
Regardless, neither is as personally significant to the area's identity as SF's Marina District, which crumbled and burned.
Within the less important reference frame of baseball, the Quake prevented the start of Game Three, which was the Giants' first home game and first chance against a pitcher not named Dave Stewart or Mike Moore. It damaged Candlestick. It allowed the A's to get two starts in four games from their two best pitchers.
In all honestly, the Giants were probably not winning that Series. The offenses were competitive but Oakland's pitching had SF's dominated. Still, Loma Prieta took a lot of the psychological fight out of our boys and facing Oakland's two aces twice in four games didn't help matters.
The Last Pure Pennant Race was almost more devastating from a baseball perspective.
I remember spending the entire summer listening to the Gents on the radio while oiling the shingles on my parents' house.
I remember the day the Atlanta Braves acquired Fred McGriff and Fulton County Stadium literally caught fire.
I remember Will Clark running up the back of Mike Jackson's legs, sending Jax to the shelf and doing immeasurable damage to our hopes.
I remember tearing up every single Thrill poster that adorned my walls. He was my favorite player so it took a while.
I remember Salomon Torres when he was still an insanely young, blue-chip starter.
And I remember the last game of the year against the Los Angeles Dodgers that began Torres' career as a reliever.
Most of all, I remember 103 wins and no postseason. An injustice so cruel it broke the wild card camel's back, ensuring San Francisco would be the last team to suffer such a shocking and cold-hearted fate at the hands of the Baseball Gods.
Alas, all the misery to date heaped together pales compared to the agony of 2002. As I said, I won't discuss it. I cannot yet get passed three words: five outs away.
Finally, look at the baseball landscape.
You have to remove from the discussion any expansion teams or those who have won a title in the last 60 years, unless there are extenuating circumstances like those just exorcised from Philly. That's a lot of teams, including those discussed above:
Good bye both New York teams, Boston, Toronto, Tampa Bay, Baltimore, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Florida, Washington, both Chicagos, Kansas City, Detroit, Minnesota, Houston, St. Louis, Cincinnati, both Los Angeles teams, Oakland, Seattle, Texas, San Diego, Colorado, and Arizona.
That's the entire American League except for Cleveland. The entire National League except for Pittsburgh and Milwaukee.
The Pirates won two titles in the '70s plus another in '60, but they make the list because of their recent putridity. Still, three titles are three titles.
Milwaukee won a title in '57, but that was the Braves' franchise and they have been pretty awful recently, too. This is a little closer to SF.
But really, the only team that can give the Giants a run for Shakespearean tragic supremacy is the Cleveland Indians.
And I don't think they've got a shot. Of course, I haven't been paying attention too closely to the Tribe. Plus, they got to enjoy Major League (then again, I guess the sequels would have to factor in as additional misery - forget I said anything).
I guess I can't blame you if you run to the Indians, but we need you in San Francisco.
The heaviest foot of the Baseball Gods is on our throat.
2002 - California Angels (or whatever you want to call them)
2003 - Florida Marlins
2004 - Boston Red Sox
2005 - Chicago White Sox
2006 - St. Louis Cardinals
2007 - Boston Red Sox
2008 - Philadelphia Phillies
I want to draw your attention particularly to '04, '05, and '08. Those years saw long-suffering franchises finally remove the Baseball Gods' collective foot from their throats. It's true that Philly won a championship as recently as 1980, but the franchise's history dates back to 1883.
And 2008 was their second title. Oof.
Everyone knows the story behind the '04 Red Sox - the Curse of the Bambino, blah, blah, freakin' blah. Ditto the '05 White Sox - no titles since the Black Sox scandal in 1919.
Now consider that the Chicago Cubs, the heretofore unquestioned most lovable loser, clocked in last year with a payroll just a hair under $118 million. Only seven teams showed more human bling on the diamond.
Uhhh, you don't get to play "lovable loser" while you're trying to buy a World Series. Or is it just me?
And what if a group spearheaded by Mark Cuban purchases the team?
Without Boston, Philadelphia, and both Chicagos, there is a noticeable void in the baseball world.
Whose fanbase is the longest-suffering, most battle-scarred loser we should all pull for when it's the last one standing? After our teams have been eliminated?
Provided of course they can make it back to the playoffs sometime in the next millennium, ladies and gentlemen, I submit my beloved San Francisco Giants.
First, allow me to run through the Shakespearean resume:
- No championship since 1954, which means no world titles since the team relocated to the City.
- Lost to STL in the 1987 National League Championship Series.
- Swept by the Oakland Athletics in the 1989 World Series after the '89 Quake postponed Game Three.
- Devastated losers of the Last Pure Pennant Race in 1993; winners of 103 baseball games, watching the postseason from the couch.
- Bounced by the eventual champion and wild card Florida Marlins in 1997.
- Losers of the one-game playoff tie-breaker to the Cubbies in 1998.
- Unceremoniously shown the exit by the wild card New York Mets in 2000 after completing the regular season with the best record in baseball.
- I can't yet talk about it; I'll just point at the 2002 World Series.
- Bounced by the eventual champion and wild card Florida Marlins in 2003.
- Barry Lamar Bonds is no longer under the employ of the franchise, which also brought the payroll back to the middle of the pack.
There's more disappointment in the years between the Giants' first year in SF, '58, and '86. I'll leave the stories behind those scars for the people who bear them.
Furthermore, the bullet points of '89, '93, and '02 don't even scratch the surface.
Consider the '89 Quake did untold physical and psychological damage to the Bay Area, especially the City of San Francisco. True, it did some of the same to Oakland. But the Nimitz Freeway was less a part of Oakland and more a part of California's infrastructure. Meanwhile, the Bay Bridge is as much a part of SF as it is of Oakland.
Regardless, neither is as personally significant to the area's identity as SF's Marina District, which crumbled and burned.
Within the less important reference frame of baseball, the Quake prevented the start of Game Three, which was the Giants' first home game and first chance against a pitcher not named Dave Stewart or Mike Moore. It damaged Candlestick. It allowed the A's to get two starts in four games from their two best pitchers.
In all honestly, the Giants were probably not winning that Series. The offenses were competitive but Oakland's pitching had SF's dominated. Still, Loma Prieta took a lot of the psychological fight out of our boys and facing Oakland's two aces twice in four games didn't help matters.
The Last Pure Pennant Race was almost more devastating from a baseball perspective.
I remember spending the entire summer listening to the Gents on the radio while oiling the shingles on my parents' house.
I remember the day the Atlanta Braves acquired Fred McGriff and Fulton County Stadium literally caught fire.
I remember Will Clark running up the back of Mike Jackson's legs, sending Jax to the shelf and doing immeasurable damage to our hopes.
I remember tearing up every single Thrill poster that adorned my walls. He was my favorite player so it took a while.
I remember Salomon Torres when he was still an insanely young, blue-chip starter.
And I remember the last game of the year against the Los Angeles Dodgers that began Torres' career as a reliever.
Most of all, I remember 103 wins and no postseason. An injustice so cruel it broke the wild card camel's back, ensuring San Francisco would be the last team to suffer such a shocking and cold-hearted fate at the hands of the Baseball Gods.
Alas, all the misery to date heaped together pales compared to the agony of 2002. As I said, I won't discuss it. I cannot yet get passed three words: five outs away.
Finally, look at the baseball landscape.
You have to remove from the discussion any expansion teams or those who have won a title in the last 60 years, unless there are extenuating circumstances like those just exorcised from Philly. That's a lot of teams, including those discussed above:
Good bye both New York teams, Boston, Toronto, Tampa Bay, Baltimore, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Florida, Washington, both Chicagos, Kansas City, Detroit, Minnesota, Houston, St. Louis, Cincinnati, both Los Angeles teams, Oakland, Seattle, Texas, San Diego, Colorado, and Arizona.
That's the entire American League except for Cleveland. The entire National League except for Pittsburgh and Milwaukee.
The Pirates won two titles in the '70s plus another in '60, but they make the list because of their recent putridity. Still, three titles are three titles.
Milwaukee won a title in '57, but that was the Braves' franchise and they have been pretty awful recently, too. This is a little closer to SF.
But really, the only team that can give the Giants a run for Shakespearean tragic supremacy is the Cleveland Indians.
And I don't think they've got a shot. Of course, I haven't been paying attention too closely to the Tribe. Plus, they got to enjoy Major League (then again, I guess the sequels would have to factor in as additional misery - forget I said anything).
I guess I can't blame you if you run to the Indians, but we need you in San Francisco.
The heaviest foot of the Baseball Gods is on our throat.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Do You Think Kobe Already Has LeBron's Home Address?
Kobe Bryant owes LeBron James a very large Thank You card.
If you've seen the new Guitar Hero commercial with Kobe, Alex Rodriguez, Tony Hawk, and Michael Phelps, several things are obvious.
First, A-Rod is beyond help.
If he can't look natural goofing around at this point in his career/life, he never will unless perhaps he wins a championship. I doubt it. The guy is too insecure to ever really be comfortable with himself, no matter the accolades. If you want further proof, find a reasonable answer as to why a professional athlete of international fame would divorce his wife and the mother of his children to hook up with a 50-year old, over-the-hill pop star. A woman who was also married and a mother at the time of their initial trysts.
Second, the jury is still out on Phelps.
He looked a tad awkward there. He might want to dial back the exposure until he's got a better handle on the camera. Of course, I didn't see him on Saturday Night Live. Nor have I thought that he looked particularly painful in any of his other commercials, so maybe it was just a bad take. What do I know? There's a reasonable chance the answer is nothing.
The third thing is the most important. Kobe Bryant has officially arrived.
I might not like it. You might not like it. But it's a fact.
Odd that a commercial would play the role of the apple in this revelation, but Kobe just looked like he was having a good time. He looked like he was sincerely enjoying the role of lead jackass. That's endearing. That's what a lot of the greats realize and embrace:
People LOVE me. I don't have to take myself too seriously because they always will.
I think that realization lives in symbiosis with another:
I am one of the best, if not the best, (fill in the blank) going right now.
In tandem, they turn very good into great. They turn a superstar into a special star, one that you will always remember and consider yourself lucky to have witnessed.
I've been really luck in my lifetime. Consider I have seen, up close and personally - Ozzie Smith, Barry Bonds, David Ortiz, Ken Griffey Jr., Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Shaquille O'Neal (in his prime, the most impressive Irish force to ever take the floor), Joe Montana, Bo Jackson, Barry Sanders, John Elway, Jerry Rice, and Tom Brady.
And that's just off the top of my head.
I think we're gonna have to add Kobe's name to that group after this season.
And I think he's got LeBron James to thank for it. Bear with me.
When Kobe was first drafted, he was a petulant and spoiled rookie. He thought he was great already, but was far from it. No one could or did rationally question his talent. Still, he was only 18. Even exceptional talent needs time to develop into performance at the highest level of competition.
But Kobe failed to grasp that concept and carried on like he was already the New Air Jordan instead of just the Original's heir-apparent. I loathed him for it; I was not alone.
Remember that ridiculous commercial of him writing poetry or making an introspective entry in his journal or some such nonsense? Wow.
But then he started to mature. His other-worldly talent ripened and it's manifestation on the floor became a sight for tired eyes that had seen the National Basketball Association rise to glory under the tutelage of Magic, Bird, and then the Greatest of Them All.
And even haters like me came around. Supreme talent will do that to true fans every time (provided you're not out tossing people down stairs or electrocuting defenseless animals).
I was not alone.
And then came Colorado. Then chucking Shaq under the bus for seemingly no reason. Really, were those police interview transcripts real or not? Kobe's not stupid; what was he trying to accomplish by involving Shaq?
I had no illusion that he raped that girl. Give me a break. What he unquestionably did was bang some 19-year old ski bunny while his wife was home in California with a new-born baby daughter. Then he tried to worm his way out by implicating someone who had absolutely nothing to do with the situation.
Back to square one, Mr. Bryant. I was back to despising him. And I was not alone.
Kobe continued to regress after that episode. There was the increasingly public catfight with Shaq. Then the disaster season that saw Kobe, Shaq, Karl Malone, and Gary Payton fail to win a championship. Then Kobe ran Shaq out of Los Angeles (either directly or indirectly). And, finally, Kobe had it his way - he got all the press and shot attempts he could handle.
Only the Lakers were no good.
I think that made Kobe take a step back and reassess the situation with an objective eye. Like I said, I think he's a pretty smart guy and I believe he really is driven by a sincere desire to win.
What he saw was Shaq winning a championship and trying to groom Dwayne Wade for the spot Kobe wanted.
He saw his Lakers struggling despite absolutely unreal numbers from Number 24.
He saw a non-LA public and media turning against him and looking to the younger generation to fill those Nikes with the guy in flight on the side.
Most importantly, he saw LeBron James and he saw a real threat to his legacy. To his place in basketball history.
That is when Kobe started to get it. To see his teammates as necessary rather than necessary evils. To see assists as something that helped his team win rather than missed shot opportunities. To see defense as important rather than a time to rest his shooting legs.
And I believe he got it because, consciously or subconsciously, he saw LeBron already had it. Although James was still a little raw, Kobe was smart enough and talented enough to see his younger self in LeBron.
Except it was young Kobe talent with mature Kobe's attitude. And I believe it shook Bryant.
For the first time, he saw that his window for basketball immortality was finite. That someone better than he would eventually come along. Perhaps he already had.
I think he saw what most of us saw in LeBron - not the next Michael Jordan, but the first LeBron James.
And he knew that he had to get his act together and secure his legacy while he still could. Kobe knew he had to raise his game to the next level while that level was still the standard for legendary remembrance. He knew that, in a couple years, LeBron will do things that no one has seen or imagined.
Things that even Kobe Bryant cannot replicate.
So prepare yourself people. Because Kobe Bryant is going to be unstoppable this year because he knows he must be.
He is going to make believers of us all.
It started last year when he carried LA to the NBA Finals almost single-handedly. It continued this summer when he led the United States back to golden glory in the Olympics by being a DEFENSIVE force of nature. And it continues right now as he plays hurt - an injury that really impacts his scoring and not much else.
It gives me no pleasure to say this, but I think it ends with Kobe hoisting one of the more inexplicable championship trophies in recent memory.
If you've seen the new Guitar Hero commercial with Kobe, Alex Rodriguez, Tony Hawk, and Michael Phelps, several things are obvious.
First, A-Rod is beyond help.
If he can't look natural goofing around at this point in his career/life, he never will unless perhaps he wins a championship. I doubt it. The guy is too insecure to ever really be comfortable with himself, no matter the accolades. If you want further proof, find a reasonable answer as to why a professional athlete of international fame would divorce his wife and the mother of his children to hook up with a 50-year old, over-the-hill pop star. A woman who was also married and a mother at the time of their initial trysts.
Second, the jury is still out on Phelps.
He looked a tad awkward there. He might want to dial back the exposure until he's got a better handle on the camera. Of course, I didn't see him on Saturday Night Live. Nor have I thought that he looked particularly painful in any of his other commercials, so maybe it was just a bad take. What do I know? There's a reasonable chance the answer is nothing.
The third thing is the most important. Kobe Bryant has officially arrived.
I might not like it. You might not like it. But it's a fact.
Odd that a commercial would play the role of the apple in this revelation, but Kobe just looked like he was having a good time. He looked like he was sincerely enjoying the role of lead jackass. That's endearing. That's what a lot of the greats realize and embrace:
People LOVE me. I don't have to take myself too seriously because they always will.
I think that realization lives in symbiosis with another:
I am one of the best, if not the best, (fill in the blank) going right now.
In tandem, they turn very good into great. They turn a superstar into a special star, one that you will always remember and consider yourself lucky to have witnessed.
I've been really luck in my lifetime. Consider I have seen, up close and personally - Ozzie Smith, Barry Bonds, David Ortiz, Ken Griffey Jr., Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Shaquille O'Neal (in his prime, the most impressive Irish force to ever take the floor), Joe Montana, Bo Jackson, Barry Sanders, John Elway, Jerry Rice, and Tom Brady.
And that's just off the top of my head.
I think we're gonna have to add Kobe's name to that group after this season.
And I think he's got LeBron James to thank for it. Bear with me.
When Kobe was first drafted, he was a petulant and spoiled rookie. He thought he was great already, but was far from it. No one could or did rationally question his talent. Still, he was only 18. Even exceptional talent needs time to develop into performance at the highest level of competition.
But Kobe failed to grasp that concept and carried on like he was already the New Air Jordan instead of just the Original's heir-apparent. I loathed him for it; I was not alone.
Remember that ridiculous commercial of him writing poetry or making an introspective entry in his journal or some such nonsense? Wow.
But then he started to mature. His other-worldly talent ripened and it's manifestation on the floor became a sight for tired eyes that had seen the National Basketball Association rise to glory under the tutelage of Magic, Bird, and then the Greatest of Them All.
And even haters like me came around. Supreme talent will do that to true fans every time (provided you're not out tossing people down stairs or electrocuting defenseless animals).
I was not alone.
And then came Colorado. Then chucking Shaq under the bus for seemingly no reason. Really, were those police interview transcripts real or not? Kobe's not stupid; what was he trying to accomplish by involving Shaq?
I had no illusion that he raped that girl. Give me a break. What he unquestionably did was bang some 19-year old ski bunny while his wife was home in California with a new-born baby daughter. Then he tried to worm his way out by implicating someone who had absolutely nothing to do with the situation.
Back to square one, Mr. Bryant. I was back to despising him. And I was not alone.
Kobe continued to regress after that episode. There was the increasingly public catfight with Shaq. Then the disaster season that saw Kobe, Shaq, Karl Malone, and Gary Payton fail to win a championship. Then Kobe ran Shaq out of Los Angeles (either directly or indirectly). And, finally, Kobe had it his way - he got all the press and shot attempts he could handle.
Only the Lakers were no good.
I think that made Kobe take a step back and reassess the situation with an objective eye. Like I said, I think he's a pretty smart guy and I believe he really is driven by a sincere desire to win.
What he saw was Shaq winning a championship and trying to groom Dwayne Wade for the spot Kobe wanted.
He saw his Lakers struggling despite absolutely unreal numbers from Number 24.
He saw a non-LA public and media turning against him and looking to the younger generation to fill those Nikes with the guy in flight on the side.
Most importantly, he saw LeBron James and he saw a real threat to his legacy. To his place in basketball history.
That is when Kobe started to get it. To see his teammates as necessary rather than necessary evils. To see assists as something that helped his team win rather than missed shot opportunities. To see defense as important rather than a time to rest his shooting legs.
And I believe he got it because, consciously or subconsciously, he saw LeBron already had it. Although James was still a little raw, Kobe was smart enough and talented enough to see his younger self in LeBron.
Except it was young Kobe talent with mature Kobe's attitude. And I believe it shook Bryant.
For the first time, he saw that his window for basketball immortality was finite. That someone better than he would eventually come along. Perhaps he already had.
I think he saw what most of us saw in LeBron - not the next Michael Jordan, but the first LeBron James.
And he knew that he had to get his act together and secure his legacy while he still could. Kobe knew he had to raise his game to the next level while that level was still the standard for legendary remembrance. He knew that, in a couple years, LeBron will do things that no one has seen or imagined.
Things that even Kobe Bryant cannot replicate.
So prepare yourself people. Because Kobe Bryant is going to be unstoppable this year because he knows he must be.
He is going to make believers of us all.
It started last year when he carried LA to the NBA Finals almost single-handedly. It continued this summer when he led the United States back to golden glory in the Olympics by being a DEFENSIVE force of nature. And it continues right now as he plays hurt - an injury that really impacts his scoring and not much else.
It gives me no pleasure to say this, but I think it ends with Kobe hoisting one of the more inexplicable championship trophies in recent memory.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Capitalism Is Killing Sports and It's Deadly Weapon Is Television
That might be an unpopular sentiment, but it's the truth. I'll give you three pieces of evidence.
1. The 2008 Major League Baseball postseason, culminating in the World Series.
Everyone not on the West Coast was upset about the late start to Game Three. Upset turned to apoplectic when rain interrupted Game Five and caused it to be finished two days later. The experts came out of the woodwork to blast Bud Selig and MLB for its handling of the situation, for compromising the integrity of competition's ultimate stage.
Now, those same experts propose we save the "integrity" by moving the World Series to a neutral site. Presumably a warm weather site or a dome so that weather would not be an issue. Or start the season earlier. Or shorten the season.
Forget the wild card and interleague play, those ideas would really soil the purity of the game. Those ideas are really proposals to change the very fabric of baseball purely for the sake of profit. Not to also open the championship to more teams. Not also to allow fans access to players in both leagues.
Just to squeeze more and more money out of the sport.
That doesn't compromise the integrity of competition?
And some such brilliant stroke will ultimately be the solution. Because the answers that make the most sense are total non-starters. Those would be to play more playoff games in the afternoon and to remove the unnecessary off-days inserted to generate extra television revenue.
But they won't even be broached because the only sacred thing left in sports is the almighty dollar.
2. Notre Dame Football
Do you ever wonder why it is so rare to find an adult fan of the Golden-Domers who doesn't have some sort of personal connection to the school? Seriously, almost every ND fan either went to the school, had a relative who went there, or lived in the area.
If you are a college football fan forged in the last decade and you don't fit the above description, chances are you intensely dislike ND. Why?
They haven't been very good. They've been barely relevant to the national title chase. They don't even have that many big wins. And yet nothing unites a diverse college football crowd like the sight of Notre Dame getting shellacked.
Why?
The answer is simple enough: National Broadcasting Company and the Bowl Championship Series.
Notre Dame is the only team in the country to have its own, exclusive network deal. Right or wrong, this breeds contempt like rotten chicken breeds maggots. It doesn't help that the broadcasters can't help but be biased for a team they watch week in and week out. I actually think they do an admirable job of trying to be even-handed, but they're in an untenable situation. Even if they spent all week researching the other team, they'd still know more about ND simply by proximity and familiarity.
Even less forgivable is the BCS. back in the days when ND was BCS-eligible, they always got tabbed for a big-money game despite getting annihilated almost every single time.
The reason for both the network deal and ND's BCS-darling status is, once again, dolla dolla bill y'all. Specifically (but not exclusively), those generated by the idiot box.
3. The National Basketball Association.
If you believe the word on the cyber-street, the NBA is losing fans about as quickly as Brett Favre. I'm still hanging on, but I can see why so many have been driven from the world's best cagers. And it's got nothing to do with tattoos, corn-rows, or criminal superstars (OK, maybe it's got something to do with that).
The problem is excessive timeouts.
Seriously, watch the last five minutes of a close NBA game. Better yet, watch the last minute. I promise it will take at least 10, maybe 15. Each team has, what, 10 timeouts over the course of the game? Not to mention all the television timeouts allow the teams to save almost their full allotment.
The result is a timeout with every basket or change of possession for the last couple of minutes. Not only does this kill almost all the excitement of the moment, it makes the end of the game unbearably long and choppy. No momentum or flow that sucks in the viewer.
The problem is a postseason that lasts almost as long as the regular season (or so it seems).
Good lord. Those Turner Broadcasting System promos seem to last from April until baseball's All-Star game. No back-to-back games. No overlaps. Off-days to stretch out series in order to guarantee weekend, primetime games. It's insane. God forbid you get too many seven game series otherwise you might be crowning an NBA champ alongside a World Series one.
In each case, the respective offender has made a conscious effort to utilize television to its maximum revenue-generating capacity. In each case, that decision is directly and significantly causing damage to reputation and, eventually, that very same bottom line.
And these are only three quick examples.
How about MLB moving some of the postseason games to cable?
How about the NFL network forcing fans' hands by showing certain games on that channel only?
How about the total affront to human logic and intelligence that is the National Collegiate Athletic Association and its habit of hiding behind its scholastic mission statement to retain tax-exempt status while completely ignoring its most profitable athletes' educations?
Or how about the last person to subject the most important presidential candidates in our country's history will be Chris freakin' Berman? I don't mind Berman, but is that a damn joke?
I know, I know. This country was built on capitalism and that's just what the respective offenders are doing - maximizing revenue stream through television by any means necessary. Surviving by being the financially fittest.
But therein lies the problem
They aren't doing this just to survive. Neither the NBA nor the NFL nor MLB would be hurting for money if they eased off the accelerators. The same is true of college football and basketball. In some cases, they are driven by pure greed.
And in several cases, the foot on the revenue pedal is what may end up costing them their livelihood altogether.
Capitalism is killing the sports we love, the sports it helped make so beloved. It's using television to do it.
Yes, capitalism made this country great. It is responsible for many of our strengths. But every idea has course that includes its time and place. And every such course runs out.
Fannie Mae. Freddie Mac. Wachovia. Washington Mutual. Enron. WorldCom. Global Crossing. Tyco.
Almost 30 years of Reaganomics (the perfection of capitalism) created them and then destroyed them.
And, now, they're slouching towards our sports.
1. The 2008 Major League Baseball postseason, culminating in the World Series.
Everyone not on the West Coast was upset about the late start to Game Three. Upset turned to apoplectic when rain interrupted Game Five and caused it to be finished two days later. The experts came out of the woodwork to blast Bud Selig and MLB for its handling of the situation, for compromising the integrity of competition's ultimate stage.
Now, those same experts propose we save the "integrity" by moving the World Series to a neutral site. Presumably a warm weather site or a dome so that weather would not be an issue. Or start the season earlier. Or shorten the season.
Forget the wild card and interleague play, those ideas would really soil the purity of the game. Those ideas are really proposals to change the very fabric of baseball purely for the sake of profit. Not to also open the championship to more teams. Not also to allow fans access to players in both leagues.
Just to squeeze more and more money out of the sport.
That doesn't compromise the integrity of competition?
And some such brilliant stroke will ultimately be the solution. Because the answers that make the most sense are total non-starters. Those would be to play more playoff games in the afternoon and to remove the unnecessary off-days inserted to generate extra television revenue.
But they won't even be broached because the only sacred thing left in sports is the almighty dollar.
2. Notre Dame Football
Do you ever wonder why it is so rare to find an adult fan of the Golden-Domers who doesn't have some sort of personal connection to the school? Seriously, almost every ND fan either went to the school, had a relative who went there, or lived in the area.
If you are a college football fan forged in the last decade and you don't fit the above description, chances are you intensely dislike ND. Why?
They haven't been very good. They've been barely relevant to the national title chase. They don't even have that many big wins. And yet nothing unites a diverse college football crowd like the sight of Notre Dame getting shellacked.
Why?
The answer is simple enough: National Broadcasting Company and the Bowl Championship Series.
Notre Dame is the only team in the country to have its own, exclusive network deal. Right or wrong, this breeds contempt like rotten chicken breeds maggots. It doesn't help that the broadcasters can't help but be biased for a team they watch week in and week out. I actually think they do an admirable job of trying to be even-handed, but they're in an untenable situation. Even if they spent all week researching the other team, they'd still know more about ND simply by proximity and familiarity.
Even less forgivable is the BCS. back in the days when ND was BCS-eligible, they always got tabbed for a big-money game despite getting annihilated almost every single time.
The reason for both the network deal and ND's BCS-darling status is, once again, dolla dolla bill y'all. Specifically (but not exclusively), those generated by the idiot box.
3. The National Basketball Association.
If you believe the word on the cyber-street, the NBA is losing fans about as quickly as Brett Favre. I'm still hanging on, but I can see why so many have been driven from the world's best cagers. And it's got nothing to do with tattoos, corn-rows, or criminal superstars (OK, maybe it's got something to do with that).
The problem is excessive timeouts.
Seriously, watch the last five minutes of a close NBA game. Better yet, watch the last minute. I promise it will take at least 10, maybe 15. Each team has, what, 10 timeouts over the course of the game? Not to mention all the television timeouts allow the teams to save almost their full allotment.
The result is a timeout with every basket or change of possession for the last couple of minutes. Not only does this kill almost all the excitement of the moment, it makes the end of the game unbearably long and choppy. No momentum or flow that sucks in the viewer.
The problem is a postseason that lasts almost as long as the regular season (or so it seems).
Good lord. Those Turner Broadcasting System promos seem to last from April until baseball's All-Star game. No back-to-back games. No overlaps. Off-days to stretch out series in order to guarantee weekend, primetime games. It's insane. God forbid you get too many seven game series otherwise you might be crowning an NBA champ alongside a World Series one.
In each case, the respective offender has made a conscious effort to utilize television to its maximum revenue-generating capacity. In each case, that decision is directly and significantly causing damage to reputation and, eventually, that very same bottom line.
And these are only three quick examples.
How about MLB moving some of the postseason games to cable?
How about the NFL network forcing fans' hands by showing certain games on that channel only?
How about the total affront to human logic and intelligence that is the National Collegiate Athletic Association and its habit of hiding behind its scholastic mission statement to retain tax-exempt status while completely ignoring its most profitable athletes' educations?
Or how about the last person to subject the most important presidential candidates in our country's history will be Chris freakin' Berman? I don't mind Berman, but is that a damn joke?
I know, I know. This country was built on capitalism and that's just what the respective offenders are doing - maximizing revenue stream through television by any means necessary. Surviving by being the financially fittest.
But therein lies the problem
They aren't doing this just to survive. Neither the NBA nor the NFL nor MLB would be hurting for money if they eased off the accelerators. The same is true of college football and basketball. In some cases, they are driven by pure greed.
And in several cases, the foot on the revenue pedal is what may end up costing them their livelihood altogether.
Capitalism is killing the sports we love, the sports it helped make so beloved. It's using television to do it.
Yes, capitalism made this country great. It is responsible for many of our strengths. But every idea has course that includes its time and place. And every such course runs out.
Fannie Mae. Freddie Mac. Wachovia. Washington Mutual. Enron. WorldCom. Global Crossing. Tyco.
Almost 30 years of Reaganomics (the perfection of capitalism) created them and then destroyed them.
And, now, they're slouching towards our sports.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
