Mark Reynolds: your jersey is on it's way in the mail. You are the man.
Reynolds struck out for his 206th time last night, breaking his own record last year of 204. His reaction? "So what." A logical and calm reaction from a dude who is pretty damn good at hitting a baseball.
But Mike and Mike -- purveyors of certain things in the "morning" -- well they think he sucks. Maybe they don't think he sucks. But they think he's garbage.
After making a bunch of "so what" pantomimes -- including "You hit 40 home runs. So what?" -- they needed some confirmation that Reynolds was indeed a horrible, awful human being for striking out.
But then a certain Keith Law (fuuuuuck, a person who knows what he's talking about!) came on. And well, you probably can guess what happened.
"Most teams don't care about strikeouts. They aren't very much worse than any other out."
Reynolds line:
.266/.357/.562
43/100/93/24
That's 24 steals (tenth in the NL!) from a dude who hit 43 (and counting) bombs. He's fourth in the NL in slugging, second in homers and has a 131 OPS+. He is good at baseball. You know who else strikes out a ton? Ryan Howard. But he's on the Phillies! He's in the home run derby!
Leave Mark Reynolds alone and let him hit bombs and steal bases while striking out a lot. And let Keith Law host every baseball show on ESPN.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Joe's still got it
"Announcing" tonight's Yankees/Red Sox game re: the Texas Rangers.
"No team in baseball hustles more than they do. They just play the game the right way."
Fuck off Joe Morgan.
"No team in baseball hustles more than they do. They just play the game the right way."
Fuck off Joe Morgan.
Friday, August 21, 2009
I love Mark Reynolds
"I don't understand why the strikeout is such a bad stat," Reynolds says. "I know when you have a man on third and less than two outs and you punch out, it's not good. But if there's a man on first and one out and you hit a weak ground ball to second base and it's a double play, what good does that do? If I strike out, at least the guy on deck still has a chance."
That is all.
Monday, June 29, 2009
57 percent of Trib readers actually agree with this
But to be fair, they are paying for their news (sorry papers!). There actually isn't too much stupidity in the text of this article by Phil Rodgers -- who looks a lot like a young Roger Ebert -- but the assertion should be grounds for termination.
Perfect time for Cubs to waive bye-bye to Carlos Zambrano
Really guys, if you want to make me work you can't just slap together "awesome player should be cut! Cut, I say!" It's far too easy to dismantle, mainly because it is fucking dumb.
Proving that I did not attend Kellogg, Wharton or even the Acme School of Business, I offer this proposition for Jim Hendry: First thing Monday morning, put Zambrano on waivers. If anyone claims him and the $62.75 million left on his contract, which runs through 2012, immediately trade him for whatever is being offered, from a bag of balls to a 32-year-old minor-leaguer.
I am wondering if you attended any sort of formal schooling beyond middle school.
Some team will claim him because they will get three-and-a-half seasons of 127 ERA+, 15-9 W/L, 200+ IP, 2:1 K:BB ratio and 3.5 ERA (162-game average). Yeah, it's like 20 mil/season, but aces aren't generally available on the waiver wire.
So other than the recent beanball fest -- which, to me is understandable because it's the White Sox -- here's the great evidence Rodgers produces:
The Cubs are 0-5 in Zambrano's starts in the playoffs, being outscored 31-15. We'll dismiss the 2003 NL Championship Series as old news and blame Piniella for lifting him when he was in a 1-1 game against Brandon Webb in the 2007 playoff opener, but his pitching had as much to do with the ugly Game 2 loss to Los Angeles last year as did the four infield errors.
I've written this before when it comes to Big Z, but please give the man a break.
His lines in those five starts:
5.2/3 R/4:0
6.0/6 R/3:1
5.0/2 R/5:4
6.0/1 R/8:1
6.1/3 R/7:2
He had ONE BAD FUCKING START and this guy wants him dropped. How do they let you write this? How about dropping every hitter for not scoring runs in the playoffs.
Trade him or bench him or something, but advocating cutting him is stupid. The guy is a good pitcher. Yeah, he's crazy and smashes shit sometimes, but is he any worse than Papelbon or Chamberlain or K-Rod or a host of other pitchers? Possibly, but he's 28 and better than "a bag of balls to a 32-year-old minor-leaguer."
And he hits home runs. Which is awesome.
Perfect time for Cubs to waive bye-bye to Carlos Zambrano
Really guys, if you want to make me work you can't just slap together "awesome player should be cut! Cut, I say!" It's far too easy to dismantle, mainly because it is fucking dumb.
Proving that I did not attend Kellogg, Wharton or even the Acme School of Business, I offer this proposition for Jim Hendry: First thing Monday morning, put Zambrano on waivers. If anyone claims him and the $62.75 million left on his contract, which runs through 2012, immediately trade him for whatever is being offered, from a bag of balls to a 32-year-old minor-leaguer.
I am wondering if you attended any sort of formal schooling beyond middle school.
Some team will claim him because they will get three-and-a-half seasons of 127 ERA+, 15-9 W/L, 200+ IP, 2:1 K:BB ratio and 3.5 ERA (162-game average). Yeah, it's like 20 mil/season, but aces aren't generally available on the waiver wire.
So other than the recent beanball fest -- which, to me is understandable because it's the White Sox -- here's the great evidence Rodgers produces:
The Cubs are 0-5 in Zambrano's starts in the playoffs, being outscored 31-15. We'll dismiss the 2003 NL Championship Series as old news and blame Piniella for lifting him when he was in a 1-1 game against Brandon Webb in the 2007 playoff opener, but his pitching had as much to do with the ugly Game 2 loss to Los Angeles last year as did the four infield errors.
I've written this before when it comes to Big Z, but please give the man a break.
His lines in those five starts:
5.2/3 R/4:0
6.0/6 R/3:1
5.0/2 R/5:4
6.0/1 R/8:1
6.1/3 R/7:2
He had ONE BAD FUCKING START and this guy wants him dropped. How do they let you write this? How about dropping every hitter for not scoring runs in the playoffs.
Trade him or bench him or something, but advocating cutting him is stupid. The guy is a good pitcher. Yeah, he's crazy and smashes shit sometimes, but is he any worse than Papelbon or Chamberlain or K-Rod or a host of other pitchers? Possibly, but he's 28 and better than "a bag of balls to a 32-year-old minor-leaguer."
And he hits home runs. Which is awesome.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Is Harold Reynolds the new Joe Morgan? We should all be so lucky
I love Joe Morgan. Not the ball player and especially not the analyst. But I love the man for spawning the funniest web site ever. Do I need to say it?
But with that beautiful site gone, Joe has gone unscathed as of late. But fear not, cause HR's got your back.
It's been real interesting in the last couple years as I've watched how the importance of statistics has taken over how to analyze a baseball game. I used to play for an old time manager named Dick Williams who used to tell me, the situation will dictate what happens." He used to call me to his office and say, "I should never have to give you a sign. You should know this is a bunt situation, you should know this is a situation where you need to take a trike, you should know the situation calls for getting the man over. I should never have to give you a sign, the situation dictates what happens."
There's nothing awful here, just a stupid anecdote confirming HR was really good at stinking at baseball.
But this thing is getting the full copy/pasta treatment.
But what I've been witnessing while I've been a broadcaster is everyone using these stats to try and explain the game of baseball.
"These stats." Props to the editor for cutting out "new fangled" in between.
Not all statistics work. Some do, some don't.
Someone tell HR stats aren't kitchen appliances. They neither do or do not "work," they can tell us things, and those things may be more informative than other things, but they don't need to be taken to repair men or greased up every 2,000 miles or whatever one does with cars. I'm a nerd, I don't know.
And one of the stats that has become real popular is OPS. On-base plus slugging. All of a sudden, it's this stat that defines whether a guy is a good ball player or not.
And praise be to Allah OPS is featured on major networks. It is a really simple stat (X + Y), and yes, it is flawed, but it is light years better than BA.
And the fact of the matter is, if you're a power hitter then the situation will dictate what a pitcher does with you - either walk you or pitch you real careful. So more than likely you're going to end up on base and therefore your on-base percentage goes up.
Well he may not like it, but he understands getting on base = on-base going up.
This in my mind has become the stat the everyone thinks is the be all and end all.
Harold's thinks this is the stat everyone thinks is the be all, end all. He thinks.
It is not.
I thought you thought everyone thought it was.
If you have a ball club that's a great offensive team then that changes everything. But if you have a guy like Adrian Gonzalez, for example, his OPS is going to be high - he's got a lot of home runs and walks a lot...because you're not going to pitch to him.
Do you know why people don't pitch to him? Because he is awesome and will hit home runs. And do you know why people pitch to sub .700 OPS players like you? Because you will most likely make an out or hit a single or bunt.
Power guys like Giambi and Dunn have always had high OPS because no one wants to pitch to them. But it takes two hits to score them from first.
And here is the crux of the argument: speed is >>>>>>>>> homers/walks.
This is how the game has changed. Dick Williams is pulling his hair out.
So you could say he's pulling his Dick hair out.
Yeah, I went there.
This is not something people have reinvented in the game. You can go all the way back to Dave Kingman. When Kingman was hot, you didn't pitch to him. If he wasn't hot, you pitched to him. Big power hitters swing and miss and strikeout. Or they hit home runs and walk.
Or they hit doubles. Or singles. Sounds like a good trade-off to me.
And at the end of the year their OBP is always going to be higher than most of the other guys on the team because they clog the bases.
Emphasis motherfucking mine. [Sidenote: is Blogging the Bases an awesome blog name or what?]
OK, their OBP is going to be higher because they clog the bases. Let that soak in for a moment. Pretend you're washing your hair.
...
A player's OBP is not high because he clogs the bases. I think Harold meant players who clog the bases have high OBP (which is wrong, Pujols, Dunn and the like are pretty good baserunners. Maybe not fast, but they don't have two left feet.). At least, I hope he meant that. Because if not, motherfucker, that shit makes no sense.
A few years ago this stat grabbed my ear when someone said that Ichiro doesn't walk enough. So I said, "What do you mean?" And they said his OBP could be so much higher if he walked more.
Truth.
The guy gets 200 hits a season! And he scores over 100 runs. I think that speaks for itself.
Also true. Still doesn't take away from the fact that more walks = higher on-base.
So as the old, wise Dick Williams used to tell me, "I should never have to give you a sign. The situation dictates what happens."
The situation being that you should never, ever be allowed to type again.
But with that beautiful site gone, Joe has gone unscathed as of late. But fear not, cause HR's got your back.
It's been real interesting in the last couple years as I've watched how the importance of statistics has taken over how to analyze a baseball game. I used to play for an old time manager named Dick Williams who used to tell me, the situation will dictate what happens." He used to call me to his office and say, "I should never have to give you a sign. You should know this is a bunt situation, you should know this is a situation where you need to take a trike, you should know the situation calls for getting the man over. I should never have to give you a sign, the situation dictates what happens."
There's nothing awful here, just a stupid anecdote confirming HR was really good at stinking at baseball.
But this thing is getting the full copy/pasta treatment.
But what I've been witnessing while I've been a broadcaster is everyone using these stats to try and explain the game of baseball.
"These stats." Props to the editor for cutting out "new fangled" in between.
Not all statistics work. Some do, some don't.
Someone tell HR stats aren't kitchen appliances. They neither do or do not "work," they can tell us things, and those things may be more informative than other things, but they don't need to be taken to repair men or greased up every 2,000 miles or whatever one does with cars. I'm a nerd, I don't know.
And one of the stats that has become real popular is OPS. On-base plus slugging. All of a sudden, it's this stat that defines whether a guy is a good ball player or not.
And praise be to Allah OPS is featured on major networks. It is a really simple stat (X + Y), and yes, it is flawed, but it is light years better than BA.
And the fact of the matter is, if you're a power hitter then the situation will dictate what a pitcher does with you - either walk you or pitch you real careful. So more than likely you're going to end up on base and therefore your on-base percentage goes up.
Well he may not like it, but he understands getting on base = on-base going up.
This in my mind has become the stat the everyone thinks is the be all and end all.
Harold's thinks this is the stat everyone thinks is the be all, end all. He thinks.
It is not.
I thought you thought everyone thought it was.
If you have a ball club that's a great offensive team then that changes everything. But if you have a guy like Adrian Gonzalez, for example, his OPS is going to be high - he's got a lot of home runs and walks a lot...because you're not going to pitch to him.
Do you know why people don't pitch to him? Because he is awesome and will hit home runs. And do you know why people pitch to sub .700 OPS players like you? Because you will most likely make an out or hit a single or bunt.
Power guys like Giambi and Dunn have always had high OPS because no one wants to pitch to them. But it takes two hits to score them from first.
And here is the crux of the argument: speed is >>>>>>>>> homers/walks.
This is how the game has changed. Dick Williams is pulling his hair out.
So you could say he's pulling his Dick hair out.
Yeah, I went there.
This is not something people have reinvented in the game. You can go all the way back to Dave Kingman. When Kingman was hot, you didn't pitch to him. If he wasn't hot, you pitched to him. Big power hitters swing and miss and strikeout. Or they hit home runs and walk.
Or they hit doubles. Or singles. Sounds like a good trade-off to me.
And at the end of the year their OBP is always going to be higher than most of the other guys on the team because they clog the bases.
Emphasis motherfucking mine. [Sidenote: is Blogging the Bases an awesome blog name or what?]
OK, their OBP is going to be higher because they clog the bases. Let that soak in for a moment. Pretend you're washing your hair.
...
A player's OBP is not high because he clogs the bases. I think Harold meant players who clog the bases have high OBP (which is wrong, Pujols, Dunn and the like are pretty good baserunners. Maybe not fast, but they don't have two left feet.). At least, I hope he meant that. Because if not, motherfucker, that shit makes no sense.
A few years ago this stat grabbed my ear when someone said that Ichiro doesn't walk enough. So I said, "What do you mean?" And they said his OBP could be so much higher if he walked more.
Truth.
The guy gets 200 hits a season! And he scores over 100 runs. I think that speaks for itself.
Also true. Still doesn't take away from the fact that more walks = higher on-base.
So as the old, wise Dick Williams used to tell me, "I should never have to give you a sign. The situation dictates what happens."
The situation being that you should never, ever be allowed to type again.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Good point guards are shit, don't draft them
*It's been a long time since I've posted. But in all honesty, I haven't found a whole lot to gripe about. I really hope the Boston Herald/NY Post/SI.com set hasn't had some overhaul where they stop being dumbasses. But here's the first salvo in what will hopefully be a summer filled with bullshit.*
Who's the most important player on a basketball team? The point guard, probably. He handles the ball the most and facilitates the offense. You can easily overcome a shitty one with a great two-guard (see: Kobe, Wade, "I play every position" LeBron), but having a great one is a huge help.
But fuck drafting one high. Chris Paul? Dude's a stiff. Deron Williams? Guy sucks. They aren't winners.
*Gun loading*
DEREK FISHER PROVES TITLES AREN'T WON WITH GREAT POINT GUARDS
This was the teaser that set me off. Fisher has four rings. Three of them with Shaq/Kobe and one with an insane Kobe. Fisher had dick to do with them winning, aside from some "clutch" threes (that one against the Spurs kills me) and not turning the ball over. Awesome great job!
To review: Avery Johnson has one ring, Jason Williams has one ring, Steve Nash and Jason Kidd none.
Conclusion: Johnson and Williams are better than two HOFers.
Kidd was in back-to-back finals and lost to awesome teams. What a schlub. Steve Nash has two (ill-gotten) MVPs and is unfortunately running a flawed team that probably could never win a title. They are both great. And yes, they have both never won a crapshoot filled with landmines played underwater, drunk and blindfolded.
Two starting point guards among the last 12 champions have been All-Stars. No Hall of Famer was in the role since Isiah Thomas with the Pistons in 1990.
This is so flawed because of the past 12 title winners, a whooping SEVEN of those were either the Spurs (Parker, who's an awesome PG remember) or Lakers (the land of two top twenty all-time guys). So this list is a whole huge weird mess of randomness.
Who's the most important player on a basketball team? The point guard, probably. He handles the ball the most and facilitates the offense. You can easily overcome a shitty one with a great two-guard (see: Kobe, Wade, "I play every position" LeBron), but having a great one is a huge help.
But fuck drafting one high. Chris Paul? Dude's a stiff. Deron Williams? Guy sucks. They aren't winners.
*Gun loading*
DEREK FISHER PROVES TITLES AREN'T WON WITH GREAT POINT GUARDS
This was the teaser that set me off. Fisher has four rings. Three of them with Shaq/Kobe and one with an insane Kobe. Fisher had dick to do with them winning, aside from some "clutch" threes (that one against the Spurs kills me) and not turning the ball over. Awesome great job!
Derrick Rose was Rookie of the Year. Chauncey Billups was a hero in Denver. Jameer Nelson and Mo Williams were difference makers in the East. Aaron Brooks almost changed history. Point guards also are expected to dominate the first 10 or 12 picks in the draft next week.
All those dudes are A) either very good or awesome at basketball B) except for Williams, first round picks and C) teams that made the playoffs. And where's Paul and Deron Williams? They made the playoffs too.
And then there's Derek Fisher. He of the season averages of 10 points and three assists. He of the 40 percent shooting in the playoffs.
And he of the four rings.
Alright, fuck this. I am dubbing this the Ramiro Mendoza corollary: when a dude wins a ton of rings being very lucky or like the tenth best dude (or worse) on his team.
There's your reality check. At one of the great historical intersections in the history of point guards, an unexplainable convergence of circumstances from the 2008-09 season into the June 25 draft into free agency next month, the reminder note being distributed after Lakers-Magic is that it does not take a great talent at the point to win the title. Big men (Kevin Garnett, Tim Duncan, Shaquille O'Neal, Hakeem Olajuwon), yes. Wing players who leave defenders with singed jerseys (Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, Michael Jordan), absolutely. But not point guards.
Tony Parker is an awful PG. How the hell did Duncan win the title ... what's that? He won a Finals MVP? He is a two-time all-star who has averaged 18 points or more and 5.5 assists or more over the past four seasons and is only 26 years old? Well shit...
I will cede that the teams Howard-Cooper cherry-picked didn't need awesome PGs to win titles. But of those seven players, two are in the top ten OF ALL-TIME and the four big men are in the top fifty or forty.
Point is, you need awesome players to win.
Fisher is just part of the story. Take a look at the point guards who have won in the Finals the past decade or so, and it's clear teams do not need great point guards to win a championship, and teams where the best player is a point guard do not win.
Already this list is bunk for a few reasons. The Lakers have won four of the past ten titles. The Bulls got one, and the Spurs PG is great. Let's see this thang.
2009 -- Fisher.
2008 -- Rajon Rondo, Celtics. Certainly has All-Star potential, but not there yet.
2007 -- Tony Parker, Spurs. Three All-Star appearances, one Finals MVP.
2006 -- Jason Williams, Heat. With the asterisk that Wade handled the ball a lot.
2005 -- Parker.
2004 -- Chauncey Billups, Pistons. Four All-Star appearances.
2003 -- Parker.
2002 -- Fisher (35 starts in the regular season and all 19 starts in the playoffs) and Lindsey Hunter (47 starts in the regular season, most at the point). With the asterisk that Bryant handled the ball.
2001 -- Fisher. Started only 20 times in the regular season because a foot injury cost him the other 62 games, then started the entire playoffs. Brian Shaw and Ron Harper played the point a lot in the regular season. Plus: the Kobe asterisk.
2000 -- Harper.
1999 -- Avery Johnson, Spurs.
1998 -- Harper, Bulls. Asterisk: Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen.
To review: Avery Johnson has one ring, Jason Williams has one ring, Steve Nash and Jason Kidd none.
Conclusion: Johnson and Williams are better than two HOFers.
Kidd was in back-to-back finals and lost to awesome teams. What a schlub. Steve Nash has two (ill-gotten) MVPs and is unfortunately running a flawed team that probably could never win a title. They are both great. And yes, they have both never won a crapshoot filled with landmines played underwater, drunk and blindfolded.
Two starting point guards among the last 12 champions have been All-Stars. No Hall of Famer was in the role since Isiah Thomas with the Pistons in 1990.
This is so flawed because of the past 12 title winners, a whooping SEVEN of those were either the Spurs (Parker, who's an awesome PG remember) or Lakers (the land of two top twenty all-time guys). So this list is a whole huge weird mess of randomness.
The draft and free agency alone will alter the league for years. It just may not deliver a title. Because it doesn't take a great point guard to win.
I guarantee Chris Paul will win a title sometime as the best player on his team. Deron Williams is also very, very good and could get there. Jason Kidd has ran into some freight trains and Steve Nash's window is probably closed. Rajon Rondo and Derrick Rose look set to battle it out for decades, possibly contending for titles.
This has nothing to do with "title teams don't need point guards!" It's "title teams need really good players and a bunch of other shit to happen" to win. All-time greats help too.
If you are going to "prove" it doesn't take good PGs to win, how about deflating all the lottery PGs that stink now? I am sure that'd be more convincing than "the Spurs/Lakers -- winners of 58% of the last dozen titles -- didn't need one!"
It's good to be back.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Tony Massarotti doesn't understand anything
Following the Boston Red Sox for some time, I have seen more than my fair share of players run out of town for not living up to insane expectations day one into their Boston careers.
Julio Lugo -- a favorite punching bag of Sox fans -- is probably next. The fact he's lasted into the third year of a four-year contract is actually astounding.
Tony Massarotti, who is quickly becoming my new favorite Sox idiot writer, is doing his best to make sure Lugo doesn't make it past year 2.5.
The question, really, concerns how far the Red Sox are willing to go. How long are they willing to put Julio Lugo at shortstop? How long are they willing to try? How long before they give the keys to Nick Green or Jed Lowrie or someone else entirely?
Or what he really wants to write: Is Jose Reyes or Hanley Ramirez available?
Jesus Christ.
Those horrible, completely Lugo's fault losses were against...
CLE, TAM, TAM, CLE, TAM
And Lugo had ONE at-bat in one of those losses against Cleveland. So shove it.
Tampa is the AL champs and Sox pitching allowed nine runs against the Indians both games. Not exactly Lugo's doing. He's also gone 5-17 with two runs and two RBI (one homer) in losses he's started.
With regard to wins, Green (16) is winning by a landslide (Lugo has one). The Red Sox are choosing their words carefully with regard to Lugo’s play afield, but most anyone would be hard pressed to suggest that the Sox are a better team with Lugo on the diamond.
I don't know what Mazz uses for his stats, but I have Lugo with two "wins", May 7 and 8, where he went 4-9 with four runs scored.
And attributing wins to a SS is dumber than starting pitchers. Which is to say: dumb as shit.
Nick "The Hammer" Green has played in 24 games compared to Lugo's 9, with more than double the PAs. Now you'd think Green would be killing Lugo statistically, enough for Mazz to want to start him.
But nay, that would make sense.
Green's traditional line: 274/1/11 with a sterling .748 OPS
Lugo's: .357/1/2 with a .936 OPS
Now, unlike other Globe writers, I will admit Lugo's stats are nearly pointless because he's played so few games. But still, same homers and a much better OPS.
Nick Green is 30 years old, with five career homers and a .665 OPS. So he's actually playing over his head right now. By a lot. Green also has 16 Ks and two walks, the same amount of walks Lugo has in one third as many games.
Nick Green sucks at hitting a baseball.
But what about the Deeeeeeeeeefense?
The .685 OPS sucks, but the 12/16 steals and better K:BB ratio (51:34) make him a better option offensively. Lugo's D was pretty bad (16 errors), but does he really deserve to be replaced by a speed-less, powerless, unproven 25 year-old kid?
Economically, it makes sense. But Mazz didn't write that (other than "the money matters." Deep analysis there.), he's making this a baseball decision. Which is dumb.
Julio Lugo -- a favorite punching bag of Sox fans -- is probably next. The fact he's lasted into the third year of a four-year contract is actually astounding.
Tony Massarotti, who is quickly becoming my new favorite Sox idiot writer, is doing his best to make sure Lugo doesn't make it past year 2.5.
The question, really, concerns how far the Red Sox are willing to go. How long are they willing to put Julio Lugo at shortstop? How long are they willing to try? How long before they give the keys to Nick Green or Jed Lowrie or someone else entirely?
Or what he really wants to write: Is Jose Reyes or Hanley Ramirez available?
In the interim, games are being played. And roughly one-fifth of the way through this 2009 season, the Red Sox are precisely where we left them at the end of 2008:
Unsure of themselves at the shortstop position.
Also at the end of the 2008 season: One fucking win (a 3-1 loss) away from the World Series.
In the middle stands Lugo, now in the third year of a four-year, $36 million contract. The money matters. ... What should have been a double play was, instead, a single. And instead of having nobody on with two outs, the Rays had the beginnings of what was a six-run rally.
In the moments thereafter, Lugo was booed by a Fenway Park following clearly aware that the Sox now have lost more games this season with Lugo as the starter (five) than they have with Nick Green (four).Jesus Christ.
Those horrible, completely Lugo's fault losses were against...
CLE, TAM, TAM, CLE, TAM
And Lugo had ONE at-bat in one of those losses against Cleveland. So shove it.
Tampa is the AL champs and Sox pitching allowed nine runs against the Indians both games. Not exactly Lugo's doing. He's also gone 5-17 with two runs and two RBI (one homer) in losses he's started.
With regard to wins, Green (16) is winning by a landslide (Lugo has one). The Red Sox are choosing their words carefully with regard to Lugo’s play afield, but most anyone would be hard pressed to suggest that the Sox are a better team with Lugo on the diamond.
I don't know what Mazz uses for his stats, but I have Lugo with two "wins", May 7 and 8, where he went 4-9 with four runs scored.
And attributing wins to a SS is dumber than starting pitchers. Which is to say: dumb as shit.
Nick "The Hammer" Green has played in 24 games compared to Lugo's 9, with more than double the PAs. Now you'd think Green would be killing Lugo statistically, enough for Mazz to want to start him.
But nay, that would make sense.
Green's traditional line: 274/1/11 with a sterling .748 OPS
Lugo's: .357/1/2 with a .936 OPS
Now, unlike other Globe writers, I will admit Lugo's stats are nearly pointless because he's played so few games. But still, same homers and a much better OPS.
Nick Green is 30 years old, with five career homers and a .665 OPS. So he's actually playing over his head right now. By a lot. Green also has 16 Ks and two walks, the same amount of walks Lugo has in one third as many games.
Nick Green sucks at hitting a baseball.
But what about the Deeeeeeeeeefense?
For what it’s worth, Green hasn’t exactly been Ozzie Smith at shortstop this season, either, contributing six errors to a team total of seven from the shortstop position, tied for most in the majors. Just the same, most of Green’s errors have come on throws and he has been moving reasonably well in the field.
So much for that.
The combination of Green’s offense and defense has been an asset to the club, particularly when one considers that he entered the spring third (at least) on the depth chart at the position.
His offense sucks and his defense is bad. Anyone but Lugo I guess.Between now and the time Lowrie returns -- if he returns -- both we and the Red Sox will have had sufficient time to evaluate their $36 million investment at shortstop. Lugo has plenty of time to change our minds. Until then, the Red Sox will continue to play games and position themselves for a potential postseason berth, hoping that Lugo does not hurt them more than he helps.
People know Lowrie put up a .739 OPS in 81 games (over 300 PA) last season? And hit two home runs, stole one base, struck out nearly twice as much as he walked (68:35) in 2008, right? The 25 doubles are nice, but Lugo was nearly as good, with way more upside.The .685 OPS sucks, but the 12/16 steals and better K:BB ratio (51:34) make him a better option offensively. Lugo's D was pretty bad (16 errors), but does he really deserve to be replaced by a speed-less, powerless, unproven 25 year-old kid?
Economically, it makes sense. But Mazz didn't write that (other than "the money matters." Deep analysis there.), he's making this a baseball decision. Which is dumb.
Hand in hand, the Red Sox and their shortstop will walk the line together.
They could play a AAA guy (like Lowrie) and be World Series champs. They don't need Cal Ripken.
Relax.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Baseball Tonight needs to stop covering fantasy, A.S.A.P.
BBT -- one of the bastions of mis-information and vapid analysis on the sport -- runs a little fantasy sidebar with their box scores. How cute, they're embracing fantasy baseball, something Kruk probably has no idea about and Vina has never even heard of.
One random note I had to write down beacuse it exemplifies just how valuable the Fantasy Impact on BBT can be:
Floyd (SD) to have MRI on knee.
That is Cliff Floyd. Who is 0.8% percent owned in ESPN fantasy leagues. Who hasn't topped 350 ABs since 2005, his last relevant year. Who hit 11 homers in 2006 and 2008, with 44 and 39 RBI in those seasons.
Finally, I can drop him and pick up Mike Piazza.
One random note I had to write down beacuse it exemplifies just how valuable the Fantasy Impact on BBT can be:
Floyd (SD) to have MRI on knee.
That is Cliff Floyd. Who is 0.8% percent owned in ESPN fantasy leagues. Who hasn't topped 350 ABs since 2005, his last relevant year. Who hit 11 homers in 2006 and 2008, with 44 and 39 RBI in those seasons.
Finally, I can drop him and pick up Mike Piazza.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Why do we need 162 games when one is more than enough?
We are officially one day into the MLB season and you know what that means -- everything we need to know, we know already. Nothing will change. Let's play the World Series now and get ready for the NFL draft.
I'm kidding, of course. It really takes about a month before we know the Cy Young, MVP, best teams and division winners.
But two things are 100% fact -- Careston Charles Sabathia is an awful pitcher and the Phillies will go 0-162.
We're going double-whammy today in honor of baseball season. Heyman, Verducci -- you're on.
CC Sabathia heaved his white towel toward the bin in the middle of the visiting clubhouse after the $210 million Yankees dropped their well-anticipated opener to the Orioles -- and he missed the bin, too. Sabathia was a little off with his control in his dreadful Yankees debut -- like maybe a zip code or two off.
How long do you think it took Heyman to come up with these jokes? One hour? Two? Five seconds? Better question: which answer is more pathetic?
Utley -- 2/5 with a double, career .280 versus LHP
Ibanez -- never faced, career .268 versus LHP
After Utley walked in the ninth to bring the tying run to the plate, Howard whiffed and Ibanez did likewise. Somewhere Pat Burrell was smiling.
I just love when things come together.
Smiling Pat Burrell:
o-5, 4 K versus Gonzalez, career .276 versus LHP
I'm kidding, of course. It really takes about a month before we know the Cy Young, MVP, best teams and division winners.
But two things are 100% fact -- Careston Charles Sabathia is an awful pitcher and the Phillies will go 0-162.
We're going double-whammy today in honor of baseball season. Heyman, Verducci -- you're on.
CC Sabathia heaved his white towel toward the bin in the middle of the visiting clubhouse after the $210 million Yankees dropped their well-anticipated opener to the Orioles -- and he missed the bin, too. Sabathia was a little off with his control in his dreadful Yankees debut -- like maybe a zip code or two off.
How long do you think it took Heyman to come up with these jokes? One hour? Two? Five seconds? Better question: which answer is more pathetic?
"Today, I didn't do my job,'' said Sabathia, whose ugly pitching line included eight hits, six earned runs and five walks, including four unintentional. "I'll go out in five games, and try to get it done.''
After a performance such as this, that sounded as much a threat as a promise. All spring, the Yankees talked about how great their pitching is, and how great they felt about this team, and also how much of that good feeling is attributable to the presence of their new $161 million pitcher.
Cut your losses now. Nothing is worth this level of embarassment.But on this day, CC was a mess. He wore a heating pad in the dugout he said to keep warm -- though it wasn't an especially chilly day (56 degrees).
Coward. Jeter would never keep warm. Did you see that flip against Oakland? Soooooo sick.
Sabathia, who may feel slightly better knowing he stunk early last year, positing a 7.87 ERA through April, 2008, chalked it all up to not being able to locate his fastball. But total truth be told, he didn't throw it all that hard, either. According to the scoreboard, he pitched at around 92-93 mph. Posada said it was 94-95. But in any case, it didn't overpower a soul.
Gotta love hiding a totally article undermining fact in a paragraph that evokes Posada's human radar gun capabilities.
Let's look at those starts from early '08:
Mar 31 -- 5.1 IP/6 H/5 ER/3 BB/7 K
Apr 5 -- 5.1 IP/6 H/4 ER/4 BB/2 K
Apr 11 -- 3.1 IP/12 H/9 ER/2 BB/4 K
Apr 16 -- 4 IP/ 8 H/9 ER/ 5 BB/ 1 K
Lesson: be happy you got off with 4+ innings and less than nine earned runs.
After the buildup, the whole thing was such a letdown.
A buildup created by you guys, the media, saying he was Sandy Fucking Koufax for the last third of the 2008 season.
And Teixeira pleased them by doing nothing, by going 0-for-4 with a walk, and by grounding out with the tying run at third base in the eighth inning.
"I didn't get it done today,'' Teixeira said.
That makes two of 'em. Between Sabathia and Teixeira, the Yankees got zero return on their $341 million investment.
And will continue to when Tex goes 0-630 with 162 walks and CC goes 0-31.
-----
Of course, no one dares to write off a rugged Phillies team on the basis of one game, other than maybe the few fans who booed Myers and Ibanez.
And dumbass sports writers who make accusations based on 0.6% of the baseball season.
Indeed, the Phillies have turned slow starts into their own Philly tradition, having begun the previous three seasons 24-22, 26-28 and 24-24. Wake them up when it's June.
Article over. Well, done Verducci. Wait, there's like 250 more words here...
Shit.
But there was something specific about how Philadelphia faded out on Day One that bears watching. Manuel chose to bat left-handers Utley, Ryan Howard and Raul Ibanez in succession in the middle of the order,
Also known as two of his three best hitters.
thus handing opposing managers a room-service invitation to clamp down a game with one decent left-handed reliever -- a reliever such as the Braves' Mike Gonzalez.
I am not going to give Manuel this much credit, mainly because I think he played with Abner Doubleday, but is there a slight, small, miniscule chance Manuel thought, "You know what, Utley and Howard are fucking awesome at baseball, who cares what handedness they are, I am batting them 3-4."
I think it's dumb that Jayson Werth bats second (should be sixth) and Rollins leadoff (should be second) when Shane Victorino is batting sixth (should be leadoff), but that's just me.
Also, it's not like Mike Gonzalez is killing these guys.
Howard -- 1/7 with a homer, career .231 versus LHPUtley -- 2/5 with a double, career .280 versus LHP
Ibanez -- never faced, career .268 versus LHP
After Utley walked in the ninth to bring the tying run to the plate, Howard whiffed and Ibanez did likewise. Somewhere Pat Burrell was smiling.
I just love when things come together.
Smiling Pat Burrell:
o-5, 4 K versus Gonzalez, career .276 versus LHP
"We've played one game, man," Manuel said. "What would you suggest?"
Translation: "Fuck off, Verducci."
Well, here's an idea, now that $31.5 million already has been spent on a soon-to-be 37-year-old left-handed hitter who has never played in a playoff game: Put Shane Victorino or Jayson Werth between Howard and Ibanez, with the other of the two hitting second.
So Victorino, with his 34 career homers, now protects Ryan Howard? Get ready to see four wide ones, Ryan. Or how about Werth, with his career-high 418 ABs (and 24 homers in '08), 29 years on this Earth and never being an everyday player?
At least Ibanez has gone 20+ homers for four straight seasons of more than 600 ABs.
Oh, and fuck "never played in a playoff game."
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Overheard watching the WBC
The series-long Japan slob-fest train keeps on chuggin.
Paraphrasing some guy (does it even matter anymore?): "Moving station to station, situational hitting, good, solid defense, throwing strikes, the strikeout when you need it. That's winning baseball."
So...
Scoring runs, not giving up more runs than you score, moving from first to home, hitting the baseball, catching the baseball, throwing the baseball. That's winning baseball.
Paraphrasing some guy (does it even matter anymore?): "Moving station to station, situational hitting, good, solid defense, throwing strikes, the strikeout when you need it. That's winning baseball."
So...
Scoring runs, not giving up more runs than you score, moving from first to home, hitting the baseball, catching the baseball, throwing the baseball. That's winning baseball.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Redskins sign T.O. for $500 million
In a move that surprises no one, the Washington Redskins signed recently cut wide out Terrel Owens for 15 years at half a billion dollars.
Owner Daniel Snyder said in conference call that while the contract seems high -- especially in this economy -- it was market value. "T.O. is a valuable player. His combination of route running, making the big play, feuding with coaches and hating teammates, makes him a perfect fit for the Redskins. We simply had to snap him up before anyone else."
Despite catching 38 touchdowns in three seasons with the Cowboys, Dallas went 0-2 in the playoffs with Owens. And we all know it was his fault. "He just didn't come to play when the playoffs rolled around," said Dallas quarterback Tony Romo. When asked about his dropped extra point hold which would have tied the game in the '06 playoffs, Romo burst into tears.
The Owens signing is the third huge free-agent signing by the Redskins -- Albert Haynesworth's 7/$100 million and unheard of cornerback D'Angelo Hall to a 6/$55 million. Sources confirmed that this is not the same Hall who was a good player years ago in Atlanta.
They also signed some guy named Dockery to 5/$27 million. Whatever.
"We're making a lot of moves," said Snyder, "and we hope they will pay off despite copious amounts of evidence to the contrary."
Owens' agent Drew Rosenhaus spoke to reporters about his biggest client's new home. "T.O. wanted to go to a team that actually had a quaterback, but when it came down to it, this was where T.O. wanted to play." When asked if the money had anything to do with it, Rosenhaus answered with, "Next question."
President Barack Obama was asked about the record-breaking contract given out by the hometown Redskins and said, "This is fucking nuts. Isn't Jason Campbell still our QB?" Well said, Mr. President, well said.
Owner Daniel Snyder said in conference call that while the contract seems high -- especially in this economy -- it was market value. "T.O. is a valuable player. His combination of route running, making the big play, feuding with coaches and hating teammates, makes him a perfect fit for the Redskins. We simply had to snap him up before anyone else."
Despite catching 38 touchdowns in three seasons with the Cowboys, Dallas went 0-2 in the playoffs with Owens. And we all know it was his fault. "He just didn't come to play when the playoffs rolled around," said Dallas quarterback Tony Romo. When asked about his dropped extra point hold which would have tied the game in the '06 playoffs, Romo burst into tears.
The Owens signing is the third huge free-agent signing by the Redskins -- Albert Haynesworth's 7/$100 million and unheard of cornerback D'Angelo Hall to a 6/$55 million. Sources confirmed that this is not the same Hall who was a good player years ago in Atlanta.
They also signed some guy named Dockery to 5/$27 million. Whatever.
"We're making a lot of moves," said Snyder, "and we hope they will pay off despite copious amounts of evidence to the contrary."
Owens' agent Drew Rosenhaus spoke to reporters about his biggest client's new home. "T.O. wanted to go to a team that actually had a quaterback, but when it came down to it, this was where T.O. wanted to play." When asked if the money had anything to do with it, Rosenhaus answered with, "Next question."
President Barack Obama was asked about the record-breaking contract given out by the hometown Redskins and said, "This is fucking nuts. Isn't Jason Campbell still our QB?" Well said, Mr. President, well said.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
34 year-old SS with no range or power and little speed totally, utterly untradeable
If you don't know who it is, you must not be a Yankee fan.
Yeah, it's Jeter.
The trendy thing to do among skeptics, cynics and statistical analysts is to diminish who Derek Jeter is, what Jeter is, what he brings to the ballpark every day.
The trendy thing to do among [moron sports writers], [idiots] and [talking heads] is to [inflate to insane proportions] who [slightly above average baseball players] are, what Jeter [Varitek, Eckstein, any white infielder] is, what he brings to the ballpark every day.
His range has shrunk. He is neither slugger nor perennial batting champion. Since signing his $189 million contract, he hasn't even been a part of a World Series winner.
That contract is the one thing really grinds my gears regarding Jeter. For being such an awesome "leader" and "glue guy," he is ridiculously, laughably overpaid.
From 2006 on he's made over $20 million per season. And here's what you got for an average season:
.322 BA/12 HR/34 2B/20 SB-6 CS/118 OPS+/59 BB:96 K
Worth it.
Yeah, it's Jeter.
The trendy thing to do among skeptics, cynics and statistical analysts is to diminish who Derek Jeter is, what Jeter is, what he brings to the ballpark every day.
The trendy thing to do among [moron sports writers], [idiots] and [talking heads] is to [inflate to insane proportions] who [slightly above average baseball players] are, what Jeter [Varitek, Eckstein, any white infielder] is, what he brings to the ballpark every day.
His range has shrunk. He is neither slugger nor perennial batting champion. Since signing his $189 million contract, he hasn't even been a part of a World Series winner.
That contract is the one thing really grinds my gears regarding Jeter. For being such an awesome "leader" and "glue guy," he is ridiculously, laughably overpaid.
From 2006 on he's made over $20 million per season. And here's what you got for an average season:
.322 BA/12 HR/34 2B/20 SB-6 CS/118 OPS+/59 BB:96 K
Worth it.
"Intangibles, my eye!" the skeptics and the cynics scoff, laughing.
Intangibles, me eye! (which isn't even an expression) *Scoff* Har har har.
The fact is, there were nearly 60 players on the field during USA's 6-5 win over the Yankees who would tell you they wouldn't trade Derek Jeter for anyone - even Rollins, which is interesting given that Jeter's presence will guarantee Rollins' absence from the lineup many days of the World Baseball Classic.
We'll start with Rollins -- who, I gurantee, is a better player than Jeter.
Rollins from '06-'08 made five, eight and eight million dollars. A total of $21 million, or one Jeter season. For that you got:
.283 BA/22 HR/40 2B/41 SB-4 CS/107 OPS+/54BB:73 K
Fucking awesome. And 60 dumbass baseball players wouldn't trade Jeter for him. Well, at least according to one huge dumbass sports writer.
I would trade his bloated contract, diminished skills and greatness in leading people for, oh I don't know...
Wright, Howard, Miggy Cabrera, Hanley, Rollins, Peavy, Utley, Pujols, Reyes, 1/2 the Tampa roster, and like at least fifty more players.
And if Jeter takes Rollins playing time, the U.S. deserves to lose. Which they will, because the D.R. is stacked and Japan is scrappy.
A leader? Would you like to know what a leader does? A leader, when asked the other day about David Wright, says something like this: "I have a great deal of respect for him, because he's talented and he loves to win, and he plays hard. It's a great challenge playing against him, so I'm happy to have the chance to play with him for a little while."
A-Rod, meanwhile, said, "Who the fuck is David Wright?" He then injected a steroid needle directly into his bicep, rubbed Icy Hot on Robinson Cano's jock strap, punched a reporter in the face and burned down an orphanage.
Monday, March 02, 2009
Jay Jay Cutwer need a diapy change?
I knew this was coming. Jay Cutler -- in nearly everyones eyes a franchise QB in the making -- is angry about "being lied to" by the Broncos about a possible trade that fell through.
But no, in the world of Sports (caps for seriousness) you must put the team above all else. Front office lies to you? Suck it up, wimp. You are the talk of trade rumors coming off a Pro Bowl season and only 24 years old? Deal with it, selfishface. You actually want to stay with the franchise that drafted you, instead of going all mercenary-like? Come on, you should be switching teams like every year!
What I should have known is that Wojo would be the man to pen all of it.
But no, in the world of Sports (caps for seriousness) you must put the team above all else. Front office lies to you? Suck it up, wimp. You are the talk of trade rumors coming off a Pro Bowl season and only 24 years old? Deal with it, selfishface. You actually want to stay with the franchise that drafted you, instead of going all mercenary-like? Come on, you should be switching teams like every year!
What I should have known is that Wojo would be the man to pen all of it.
Will someone please give Jay Cutler his pacifier, hand him his favorite blankie and put him back in his crib for his afternoon nap? Because if he cries anymore about a trade that didn't happen, we'll have to check his Pampers.
Boom, roasted.
We have every possible baby reference in there. Except for a direct poop drop, but I bet the ESPN censors got that one.
But the mere thought of a possible trade upset Cutler so much that he went into full waaaa-waaaa-waaaa mode, wailing like an infant. 'Why are they being so mean to me?' That sort of thing.
Imagine this, Gene. You work for ESPN. They believed in you when others didn't. You make good money and are coming off a great writing season where you penned 25 columns and wrote over 4,500 words. Sure, you had 18 stinky articles, but you like writing for ESPN and they like you.
But then, out of the blue, you hear they are trying to trade you to Sports Illustrated. Or worse, the NY Post. "What did I do wrong?" you ask. They say, "They contacted us, don't worry Gene." Then you hear that they actually called those other publications, not the other way around. And are actively trying to move you.
Would you be mad?
Why call Denver and ask about Cutler? Because the Broncos haven't reached the playoffs since the 2005 season.
Cutler was drafted in '06. His fault for not leading them to the promised land when he was at Vandy.
Because Cutler's record as a starter is 17-20.
Ugh.
Cutler's stats from '07-'08:
8023 YDS/45 TD/32 INT/63% comp.
Brady's first two full seasons:
6067 YDS/46 TD/26 INT/63% comp./20-10 W-L
Manning's first two full seasons:
7874 YDS/52 TD/43 INT/59% comp./16-16 W-L
Don't get me wrong -- Cutler is a talent, possibly a major talent. His numbers keep tracking upward (4,526 passing yards, 25 touchdowns in '08), but so do his turnovers (18 interceptions, including four in Denver's last three games -- all losses) and hissy fits.
He lead the league in hissy fits with -- what? they don't keep track of that because it's bullshit? Someone tell Wojo. Oh, and I am pretty sure Phil Rivers -- a "fiery" "competitor" "warrior" -- would lead the league in hissy fits.
None of this Cutler trade talk likely would have happened if Mike Shanahan were still the Broncos' head coach. ... But Shanahan is Broncos history. It happens. Last week it happened to 11-time Pro Bowl linebacker Derrick Brooks of the Bucs. He was cut after 14 years.
This is goofy. Brooks is a 14-year veteran with declining skills (1 INT, 58 tackles in 16 games in '08) while Cutler has all of two years in the league in which he played very well with a shit defense and a revolving door of stiffs at running back.
But guess what. Brooks manned the fuck up.
Brooks didn't pout like Cutler. And his agent didn't issue any angry criticisms of the Bucs' decision. Instead, Brooks articulated the essential truth of the NFL: It's business, not personal.
But this would be a dumbass business move. Trade a young, promosing, talented franchise QB who knows the team at 24 years old? Sounds good to me.
So what if the Broncos considered proposals from the Bucs? Who cares whether they listened to an offer from the Detroit Lions? When you haven't reached the playoffs since '05, when you gag away a three-game division lead with three games left, you listen to everybody about anybody.
No, you don't.
Houston Texans. Not a great team, never made the playoffs, "choked away" a ton of games, but have some talent. The Eagles call up asking about Andre Johnson. They offer a second round pick and Kevin Kolb. How long does it take for them to hang up the phone?
Just because a team is "bad" (which the Broncos are not) doesn't mean every player is available. Hey Vikings, how about Cassel for Adrian Peterson? Hey Lions, you're 0-16!! What the hell do you need Calvin Johnson for? How about a fourth and first for him?
The nontrade causes serious problems only if Cutler wants it that way. To whine about the Broncos' kicking the tires on a trade accomplishes nothing. Especially from a guy with zero playoff appearances and a grand total of 37 NFL games.
Especially from a guy with zero playoff appearances and a grand total of 37 NFL games.
That is just a great line. It's great because those two statements directly contradict one another. He's played 37 games -- just over two seasons -- and has never made the playoffs!?! What a no-good, lazy, diabetic bastard! Trade him for a guy with no playoff experience and a total of 30 games who's older. Chop chop!
Cutler has accomplished nothing in this league.
Fuck. That. Noise.
One Pro Bowl. Nearly 10,000 yards passing. Over 50 TDs. Completion percentage of over 62. All in only two years as a starter. Dude has accomplished a lot. But I guess anyone who hasn't won a Super Bowl in their first two motherfucking years in the league has accomplished shit.
Hear that Broncos? Trade this whiny stiff. I hear the Pats need a backup.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Horrible inJustice
And no, I'm not talking about Mickey Rourke losing to Sean Penn last night. I am talking about Richard Justice -- who, apparently, is dumb.
When I say "winning football team in Texas," who do you think of? No, not the Oilers. It's the Cowboys. The sports model of why the terrorists hate us. They've got T.O. and Romo -- prototypes of their respective positions. A crazy owner and the most famous cheerleaders this side of the Laker Girls. By golly, they're America's team!
I don't know how much owners have to do with other teams, but I do know Jerry Jones is fucking crazy and makes pretty much every Cowboys decision. Is this a good move? I doubt it, but hey, it seems to be working in a dysfucntional way.
But your Chief Justice will take the Texans owner. Every time. The owner whose team has never been above .500 in seven seasons and hit eight wins only twice -- these past two years. Please, Justify this pick (these puns will go on all day).
When I say "winning football team in Texas," who do you think of? No, not the Oilers. It's the Cowboys. The sports model of why the terrorists hate us. They've got T.O. and Romo -- prototypes of their respective positions. A crazy owner and the most famous cheerleaders this side of the Laker Girls. By golly, they're America's team!
I don't know how much owners have to do with other teams, but I do know Jerry Jones is fucking crazy and makes pretty much every Cowboys decision. Is this a good move? I doubt it, but hey, it seems to be working in a dysfucntional way.
But your Chief Justice will take the Texans owner. Every time. The owner whose team has never been above .500 in seven seasons and hit eight wins only twice -- these past two years. Please, Justify this pick (these puns will go on all day).
I'm going to get screamed at for this opinion.
Arrrrrrrgggggggh!!!
I know that upfront. I'm braced for it. I'm going to be reminded that Jerry Jones has three championships, Bob McNair none, that the Cowboys are more interesting than the Texans and that the Cowboys now have a better stadium than the Texans.
I'm going to be reminded that there are advantages to having a pro-active owner instead of one that sometimes seem not to have a pulse. I'll hear that the Cowboys are one of the two most popular professional sports franchises in this country while the Texans are irrelevant.
It's also true that Bob McNair hasn't had a good off-season. He raised ticket prices at the worst possible time. He apparently is so insulated from reality that he doesn't know the country's economy is in shambles.
His team got caught doing off-season drills that were both dumb and illegal. Investigations are underway, injury grievances pending. McNair's GM, Rick Smith, appears to have zero respect inside the lockerroom. Meanwhile, the Texans are beginning their eighth season still in search of a year in which they win more than they lose.
McNair should thank his lucky stars that he lives in a city in which the media coverage of the team is so soft. No matter how many free-agent mistakes are made, no matter how many injury grievances are filed, no matter how many rules are broken, there's almost no tough reporting.
Holy shit, looks like I don't have to do any work here.
Having said all of that, it's not even a close call for me. I'd take Bob McNair over Jerry Jones seven days a week.
Before I clicked on this article, I thought, "Hey, maybe this Justice fella will make some argument about how the Texans have been really good drafters the past few seasons and seem to be moving in the right direction." Maybe a few Texans/Cowbys draft comparisons, something like that.
The Texans get it.
Fuuuuuuuccckkkk.
I believe more than ever than Gary Kubiak is going to be a terrific head coach. He gets his teams to play with passion each and every week. If the Texans continue to upgrade the roster, they'll eventually win.
"If the Texans get better, they'll get better."
The Cowboys are a mess.
A 9-7, one season removed from 13-3, mess that has talent at every position and, unfortunately for them, plays in a ridiculously tough division.
No head coach has real authority. If a player has a problem with the coach, he knows he can go to Jerry. If the head coach makes a rule, players know it means nothing, that Jerry might overrule it at any moment.
Jerry has good personnel men on his payroll, but he doesn't always listen to them. He has no concept of team chemistry and why a guy like T.O. is a team-killer.
So it's team chemistry. That's why the Boys are a mess. Not an injured QB or a shit trade for the corpse of Roy Williams. There's too much T.O.nium mixed with Romoric acid, creating a cloud of deadly gas.
T.O. -- or T.K. (for team killer) as I like to call him, last season:
69 catches/1052 yards/10 TDs
McNair wouldn't allow a guy like T.O. within five miles of his front door. He doesn't want thugs on his team, either.
Thugs is old, white writer speak for the N-word. Just sayin. And if McNair wouldn't let a 1000 yard, double-digit TD receiving "thug" on his team, he is dumb.
Roll your eyes about this if you want, but in the end, character is still important. When a game is tight in the fourth quarter, talent and chemistry are important.
Like how much lithium is in the ball or the oxide levels of the air in Denver.
The Texans still have one more difficult step to take in their quest for respectability. I don't know if they're going to take it in 2009 or not. But they're way more likely to be in the playoffs next season than the Cowboys. For that, we should be appreciative.
OK. This is bullshit. But not for the reasons you think. The Texans may be more likely to make the playoffs, but it has shit to do with the owner Master's degree in chemistry.
The Cowboys are still playing with the Eagles, Giants and Redskins -- all better than above average teams with huge payrolls. The Texans play with the Titans, Colts and Jags. The Titans are great, but Kerry Collins? Fo real?!!? The Colts are on the down swing, but still good and the Jags are mediocre.
And the Cowboys still have Romo and Witten and T.O. and a good defensive front and bunch of other shit the Texans don't have. Gun to my head, I am picking the Cowboys to make it, if only because the Texans have never been above .500.
This:
Texans lifetime record -- 40-72
Cowboys in same span -- 61-51
That too.
Friday, February 13, 2009
People continue to be baffled by Adam Dunn
Adam Dunn -- OBP and home run machine -- just signed a two-year, $20 million deal with the Nationals. Aside from it being the Nationals, good for him. As a player the majority of the baseball talking/writing heads continually rip on, I love him.
But still, "His defense sucks! All he can do it hit homers. Walks are borrrrrrrrrring."
I pretty much summed up this article.
One would surmise that Dunn will be used to hit in front of or behind potential all-star Ryan Zimmerman, giving the Nationals a solid run producing combo in the middle of their lineup. However, when breaking down the numbers, this might not be the case. Dunn, despite his large OBP and 40+ homer potential is of minimal value on a club like the Nationals.
Forty home runs. Minimal value. There's nowhere else to go but up from here!
Dudes who hit 40+ home runs in 2008 = Two. Dunn and Howard.
That's actually the opposite of minimal value. Especially at $10 mil/season.
First, the idea that Dunn’s lofty OBP holds any sort of amazing value is blatantly false.
Ohhhhhhh doctor.
Dunn -- who is only 28 years old, mind you -- has a career .381 OBP. That's 21st among all active players. Higher than Utley (who is also older), Teixeira and Miggy Cabrera.
The idea that a top-twenty OBP you can get at a discount price is not of amazing value is blatantly false.
For his career Dunn has an OBP of .381 but when you subtract his home run total he has only scored 421 runs in 1,552 times on base.
While we're at it, let's subtract the best thing each player does in baseball.*
When Reyes doesn't steal a base he only scores 16% of time.
When Howard doesn't hit a home run he only scores 32% of the time he's on base.
When Pujols doesn't do everything awesomely Tony La Russa falls asleep.
An exercise in stupidity? You bet.
Oh, and runs scored is teammate dependent. That's why Dunn is awesome, he drives himself in. Sure, he may not be a "team player" in that he doesn't sit at second base clapping for Ryan Freel to drive him in. But who cares.
Of those 421 runs, 185 of them came after he walked. Dunn has drawn 797 walks in his career, meaning he has scored after a walk only 23% of the time. Of those 185 runs scored after a walk, Dunn has advanced (or been advanced by a teammate) into scoring position on 130 of them (70%). The point is that, unless he gets into scoring position, Adam Dunn’s walks are good for a run scored less than 25% of the time.
All this shit comes down to this: It isn't Dunn's fault.
All he can do is A) walk to first and hope some scrub can drive him in (note: sorry he can't steal two bags.) or B) hit a freakin' home run and drive himself in.
Either way, he sucks.
But still, "His defense sucks! All he can do it hit homers. Walks are borrrrrrrrrring."
I pretty much summed up this article.
One would surmise that Dunn will be used to hit in front of or behind potential all-star Ryan Zimmerman, giving the Nationals a solid run producing combo in the middle of their lineup. However, when breaking down the numbers, this might not be the case. Dunn, despite his large OBP and 40+ homer potential is of minimal value on a club like the Nationals.
Forty home runs. Minimal value. There's nowhere else to go but up from here!
Dudes who hit 40+ home runs in 2008 = Two. Dunn and Howard.
That's actually the opposite of minimal value. Especially at $10 mil/season.
First, the idea that Dunn’s lofty OBP holds any sort of amazing value is blatantly false.
Ohhhhhhh doctor.
Dunn -- who is only 28 years old, mind you -- has a career .381 OBP. That's 21st among all active players. Higher than Utley (who is also older), Teixeira and Miggy Cabrera.
The idea that a top-twenty OBP you can get at a discount price is not of amazing value is blatantly false.
For his career Dunn has an OBP of .381 but when you subtract his home run total he has only scored 421 runs in 1,552 times on base.
While we're at it, let's subtract the best thing each player does in baseball.*
When Reyes doesn't steal a base he only scores 16% of time.
When Howard doesn't hit a home run he only scores 32% of the time he's on base.
When Pujols doesn't do everything awesomely Tony La Russa falls asleep.
An exercise in stupidity? You bet.
Oh, and runs scored is teammate dependent. That's why Dunn is awesome, he drives himself in. Sure, he may not be a "team player" in that he doesn't sit at second base clapping for Ryan Freel to drive him in. But who cares.
Of those 421 runs, 185 of them came after he walked. Dunn has drawn 797 walks in his career, meaning he has scored after a walk only 23% of the time. Of those 185 runs scored after a walk, Dunn has advanced (or been advanced by a teammate) into scoring position on 130 of them (70%). The point is that, unless he gets into scoring position, Adam Dunn’s walks are good for a run scored less than 25% of the time.
All this shit comes down to this: It isn't Dunn's fault.
All he can do is A) walk to first and hope some scrub can drive him in (note: sorry he can't steal two bags.) or B) hit a freakin' home run and drive himself in.
Either way, he sucks.
It is painfully obvious when looking at Dunn’s stolen base and doubles totals that he does a poor job of getting into scoring position when not belting the long ball. So, the question becomes, who is going to be moving him along?
Please tell me it's Christian "The Black David Eckstein" Guzman.
If he hits third (which Dunn’s done in only 125 of his 1,131 career games) then he’s a good chance of being advanced by Zimmerman, who is a double-hitting machine. However, Zimmerman has only hit in the clean-up slot 69 times in his career and usually hits third himself. If Dunn hits fourth, several of Zimmerman’s doubles will be wasted as Dunn does two things very well – walk and/or strike out.
This, this right here, is ridiculous. "He's only batted third 125 times! He'll go fucking crazy if he's moved one slot in the lineup!"
Look, it's not like he's going from playing left field to catching. He's moving (theoretically) from third to fourth, something hitters do all the time. Dunn isn't going to suddenly forget how to OBP .380 and hit 40 bombs because you moved him one spot in the lineup.
This also feels like Mike Walsh really wanted to write clogging the bases. Just do it! It feels so good!
The only way to squeeze any value out of Dunn’s OBP is to hit him second and put contact hitters like Zimmerman and Cristian Guzman
Woooo!
behind him in order to advance him into scoring position. Otherwise, Dunn’s on base percentage is just a number which has led to no viable run production outside of his home run potential. This has been a consistent problem for Dunn over the last eight seasons.
Again, not his fault. Sorry he can't walk to first, sacrifice himself over, steal third and score on passed ball, but hey, 40 homers and a .900 OPS comes with a price.
Dunn has driven in only 328 runners in 969 at bats with runners in scoring position (34%) for his career when not hitting a homer. Again, Dunn is outperformed by someone like Jose Reyes in this department. Reyes, despite a career slugging percentage of .436 (compared to Dunn’s .518) has driven in 235 runners in 632 at bats with men in scoring position (37%). In 2008 Reyes drove in 52 teammates; Dunn drove in 60. For the season Dunn had an OPS of .899 while Reyes posted a low mark of .772. Still, Reyes drove in only eight fewer men (minus homers) and scored 58 more runs than Dunn despite a 50 point difference in OBP and a 127 point difference in OPS.
This is so skewed it's a joke. You'd think he'd pick a comparable hitter to Dunn to make these numbers seem like it's a Dunn's fault. But no, how about we go with Jose Reyes, who hit 16 home runs in 2008. Subtracting homers from Reyes does nothing because he bats leadoff. In fact, 11 of his homers came with the bases empty. So there! *sticks tongue out*
Let's look at the RISP numbers for both:
Reyes - 144 PA/33 H/4 HR/2 2B/4 3B/53 RBI/21 BB/0.844 OPS
Dunn - 182 PA/32 H/11 HR/3 2B/0 3B/65 RBI/39 BB/0.929 OPS
This entire argument is also crazy because it's not like Dunn = Reyes. One of the bets SS in baseball who makes a cajillion dollars versus a top-twenty OF free-agent. It's not like the Nats had a choice between them.
Completely different types of players.
Dunn’s career OPS is .899- Good.
Dunn’s other career totals; 201 doubles, 59 stolen bases, eight triples while batting a mere .225 with 329 strikeouts in 969 at-bats (34% of the time) with runners in scoring position- Bad.
Really? You're picking steals and triples here? How about sac flies and infield hits while we're at it?
How about his NL home run rankings from '04-'08, which go 2, 4, 7, 3, 2? Or walks from '02-'08, 3, 6, 3, 2, 5, 1? Or how he's in the top 25 among actives in OPS+, BB, OPS, and OBP? And not getting paid like it?
Adam Dunn is really, really, really good at hitting homers and getting to first base. He won't save the Nats (who can?), but he'll hit 40 homers and walk 110+ times, all the while people admonish him for not scoring runs or something else dumb.
Oh well.
*numbers made up
Monday, February 09, 2009
Bill Madden may have suffered a serious head injury
That is really the only explanation of him suggesting that the Yankees cut the alleged steroid abuser, A-Rod.
I've stumbled across a lot of moronic, sensationalist and ill-informed sports writing over the past year or so since I've been actively looking for it. But I am not exaggerating when I say this is the absolute dumbest.
I've stumbled across a lot of moronic, sensationalist and ill-informed sports writing over the past year or so since I've been actively looking for it. But I am not exaggerating when I say this is the absolute dumbest.
Now that A-Rod's pursuit looks as counterfeit as Bonds', they should do what's best for the organization:
Cut him loose - no matter the cost.
That cost? $270 million. Thrown away. Not to sign the best player in baseball, but to cut him. How does Madden still have a job? Oh that's right, this is in the New York Daily News.
As difficult as it is to imagine eating $270 million, the Bombers will be making a statement, not just for the Yankee brand but for baseball as a whole.
And we all know the Yankees -- the holiest franchise in baseball, nay all of sports -- are responsible to guarding the ivory gates of baseball dogma. They must stand for what's right -- single-handedly expunge this widespread cancer from America's glorious pastime.
The statement they will make is, "We don't want to win or make smart business decisions. We want to do 'what's right.'"
They will be applauded for it.
Yes, by every other team in baseball because then they can sign A-Rod at a discount.
The Yankees operate under two basic tenets: The relentless pursuit of championships
Those chances will be negatively correlated by cutting A-Rod.
and the fierce protection of their brand. If they are going to remain true to both, then they have no choice but to sever ties with Rodriguez.
And sign Andy freakin' Pettitte -- a roid user.
And if you think A-Rod wilted under the pressure of big games before, just imagine his delicate psyche now under the heightened scrutiny of the media and fans.
Well since he's a pussy, he'd crumble anyway. A-FRAUD!!
As painful as swallowing that $270 million might be, there will be consolation for the Yankees when no other team elects to besmirch their brand by taking in A-Rod - even for nothing.
Oh boy...
Teams not signing Bonds is understandable. He's an AL-only player because he cannot play OF anymore and giving your DH spot to a 40-year-old attention magnet that may not be baseball-ready anymore is not something a lot of teams can do.
But the assertion that no team would sign a bought out A-Rod is absurdly dumb. He's a 33-year-old three-time MVP who will chase the home run record. The steroid thing is honestly so insignificant that I guarantee his phone would be ringning off the hook with calls should the Yankees do this - which they won't because the Yankee brass aren't idiots.
Yet another reason I am glad I am not a Yankee fan: I don't have to read this bullshit all the time about my team.
Until Ortiz gets nabbed and Dan Shaughnessy calls for the '04 and '07 championships to be rescinded.
Monday, February 02, 2009
Best Super Bowl EVARARARAR!!!!!!1111111!111!!!!
A game was played last night. It was exciting - at least quarters two and four, where 44 of the 50 points were scored - and much better than people thought it was going to be.
But best ever? Ahh how we over-exaggerate recent memories.
Snap judgments require making quick, rapid-fire assessments, but I think even upon further review, with lots of time to mull things over, I'd still come to the same remarkable conclusion: We just witnessed the best Super Bowl in history. Pittsburgh 27, Arizona 23.
No. The last eight minutes - when the score went from yawn-worthy 20-7 to the final of 27-23 - were very exciting. But the other 52? Sure, there were great plays. But Arizona did not play very well, there were a ton of penalties and there were questionable calls. Let's not go crazy here.
But best ever? Ahh how we over-exaggerate recent memories.
Snap judgments require making quick, rapid-fire assessments, but I think even upon further review, with lots of time to mull things over, I'd still come to the same remarkable conclusion: We just witnessed the best Super Bowl in history. Pittsburgh 27, Arizona 23.
No. The last eight minutes - when the score went from yawn-worthy 20-7 to the final of 27-23 - were very exciting. But the other 52? Sure, there were great plays. But Arizona did not play very well, there were a ton of penalties and there were questionable calls. Let's not go crazy here.
A mouthful, I know. But for drama, plot twists and huge, game-changing plays, how can we say anything less than the Super Bowl's 43rd edition was the best ever?
By saying it was a very exciting game and could be one of the best Super Bowls ever. Ah, but we don't get paid to write rationally.
"Some say we could not top last year's Super Bowl, but the Steelers and Cardinals did that tonight,'' said NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, getting no disagreement from me.
Background on last year's Super Bowl that you already know:
- The Patriots were 18-0 and enormous favorites.
- The Giants were a wild card team, the first ever to win a Super Bowl.
- Tom Brady threw 50 TDs, a record and won the MVP.
- The Patriots may have had the best season any team has ever had.
- There was the whole Spygate thing and the Pats cast as one of the best villains ever.
- The Patriots were 18 and fucking 0.
- The Giants won an insane series of plays, the likes of which are impossible to recreate. I can't even watch this whole clip.
Friday, January 09, 2009
I remember something about false idols...
[Update]
Jay Mariotti chimed in with this ridiculous column yesterday. His blog on AOL is now required reading for me:
Tim Tebow (God bless you) and the Florida Gators beat Oklahoma in the BCS National Championship game last night. But much more entertaining than the game was the announcing.
The guilty party? Thom Brennaman - whose constant slobbering over Tebow was borderline fetishistic.
Some excerpts:
"You know, in such a cynical, sarcastic society; oftentimes looking for the negative on anybody or anything, if you're fortunate enough to spend five minutes or twenty minutes around Tim Tebow, your life is better for it."
Holy fucking shit.
This made me LOL a little bit:
"Time Tebow, the young man unwavering in his faith and how it sustains him, his remarkable achievements off the field define him far more than those on the field. ... He's fed needy children, lived in an orphanage as well as a lepper colony."
Lepper colonies still exist?!
*After a taunting penalty on The Great One*
"That may be the first thing he's done wrong in his life. I'm dead serious."
Ok, so maybe that second sentence wasn't spoken, but it was implied.
I really LOLed at this one:
*After the subject of Tebow being the fourth best QB in the Big 12*
"That may be the single most ridiculous statement anybody has ever uttered."
No, I think that is the most ridiculous statement anyone has ever uttered.
All in all, it was a night of absurd exaggeration for a player who will be the third tight end on an NFL team in a year.
Jay Mariotti chimed in with this ridiculous column yesterday. His blog on AOL is now required reading for me:
Down in these parts, where college football is part religion and part psychosis, they like to say Superman wears Tebow pajamas. I'm thinking that's an understatement. I'm thinking if Tebow heads to Wall Street next week, the economic crisis instantly will end. I'm thinking he convinces Amy Winehouse to sober up and Lindsay Lohan to stop fighting with this Samantha person. I'm thinking he shows up in Detroit, and the Lions go 16-0.
He is, I dare suggest, one of the most important young people in this country: true to his faith, unfailingly humble and courteous, a together kid in a complicated world. He's a rock star without the sex and drugs and even the rock and roll, citing Frank Sinatra as his fave and "Send in the Clowns'' as his coolest song, which isn't exactly Lil Wayne doing "Lollipop."
This is not a joke. Those words are real. Written by someone who is paid. Really.
And the ending:
Kill me now.He is, I dare suggest, one of the most important young people in this country: true to his faith, unfailingly humble and courteous, a together kid in a complicated world. He's a rock star without the sex and drugs and even the rock and roll, citing Frank Sinatra as his fave and "Send in the Clowns'' as his coolest song, which isn't exactly Lil Wayne doing "Lollipop."
This is not a joke. Those words are real. Written by someone who is paid. Really.
And the ending:
I feel so inferior. You, too?
***
Tim Tebow (God bless you) and the Florida Gators beat Oklahoma in the BCS National Championship game last night. But much more entertaining than the game was the announcing.
The guilty party? Thom Brennaman - whose constant slobbering over Tebow was borderline fetishistic.
Some excerpts:
"You know, in such a cynical, sarcastic society; oftentimes looking for the negative on anybody or anything, if you're fortunate enough to spend five minutes or twenty minutes around Tim Tebow, your life is better for it."
Holy fucking shit.
This made me LOL a little bit:
"Time Tebow, the young man unwavering in his faith and how it sustains him, his remarkable achievements off the field define him far more than those on the field. ... He's fed needy children, lived in an orphanage as well as a lepper colony."
Lepper colonies still exist?!
*After a taunting penalty on The Great One*
"That may be the first thing he's done wrong in his life. I'm dead serious."
Ok, so maybe that second sentence wasn't spoken, but it was implied.
I really LOLed at this one:
*After the subject of Tebow being the fourth best QB in the Big 12*
"That may be the single most ridiculous statement anybody has ever uttered."
No, I think that is the most ridiculous statement anyone has ever uttered.
All in all, it was a night of absurd exaggeration for a player who will be the third tight end on an NFL team in a year.
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Colin Cowherd (clearly) 'not a numbers guy'
When a talking head speaks the phrase, "I'm not a numbers guy", what usually follows is a string of idiotic anecdotes and cherry-picked "stats" to seem edgy or against the public opinion. They are almost always wrong and always hilarious.
ESPN Radio's resident talking head king, Colin Cowherd used that dreaded line to precede this gem: Vincent Jackson (SD wide-out) is better than T.O. - who should be outright cut from the Cowboys.
Oh doctor.
Excerpts transcribed from 1/8/09 show
*Said after cartoonish "Nerd alert!" sound bite*
I'm not a nerd. I don't watch a lot of TV.
Well thank God, because dem nerds can't be trusted. With their calculators, pocket-protectors, horn-rimmed glasses with masking tape holding them together in the middle, high-pitched voices and lack of confidence when it comes to women.
Did I forget anything? Oh yeah, mom's basement living.
Not into fantasy stuff. I get guys who are, I'm not banging on ya,
Your previous sound bite and entire existence beg to differ
but statistical analysis is largely overrated.
I know this is a radio "show" and speaking properly is hard, but this logistically makes no sense. Do you mean the way stats are used in the media is overrated? The stats themselves cannot be, neither the analysis of them. Unless, of course, there was a list of awesome things and stat analysis was too high for Cowherd's liking.
1. Pizza
2. Stats
3. Puppies
In that instance, yes, statistical analysis would be overrated. Everyone knows puppies are great.
Let me just throw a few "nerd alert" numbers at you: ... T.O. had two games all year when he was a "huge game influencer."
Quotes mine. "Huge game influencer" may be one of the dumbest ways to gauge a wide receiver - or any athlete.
Here are games in which I think T.O. had a "good"* game:
(Week: REC/YDs/TDs)
Week 1: 5/87/1
Week 2: 3/89/2
Week 4: 7/71/1
Week 5: 2/67/1
Week 12: 7/213/1
Week 13: 5/98/1
Week 16: 5/63/1
Week 17: 6/103/0
Da Herd?
Week 2 against the Eagles; two touchdowns and week 12 against the Niners where he was unguardable, seven catches.
Love the omission of the ridiculous 213 yards and a TD versus the Niners.
He averages just over four catches. Of his biggest days in total receptions - his BIG days - he had two seven catch days and one six catch day. Two resulted in a loss, one they beat the mighty Niners.
Those things are unrelated. The Skins game was 24-26. Probably not T.O.'s fault. And the six catch game they turned the ball over roughly 25 times and got their ass kicked. Again, not T.O.'s fault.
And when he faced premiere defenses - the Giants twice and Pittsburgh and Baltimore - four games, no "breakout" games, one TD.
I have the numbers right in front of me and it's making me more and more confident that Cowherd does not.
NY, Pitt., Bal., combined stats:
16/169/3
Seems alright to me, especially against good defenses.
Now let's compare $8.6 million/year T.O. to Vincent Jackson at San Diego. ... But in his big five games, *smarmy voice, engage* they translated to four wins
Jackson's "good" games:
Week 1: 3/47/1 (L)
Week 6: 5/134/1 (W)
Week 7: 4/42/1 (L)
Week 8: 4/60/1 (L)
Week 12: 2/57/1 (L)
Week 14: 5/148/1 (W)
Week 15: 6/89/1 (W)
Week 16: 7/111/0 (W)
Those wins were against New England, Oakland, KC and Tampa. A veritable murderer's row!
He had his biggest games often against divisional rivals or against New England or at Tampa Bay.
Oooooo, divisional rivals! The mighty Chiefs and Raiders (combined 7-25).
T.O. had his biggest against *smarmy voice again* the Niners.
Well Jackson had his biggest against *smarmy voice* the Raiders.
Cowherd makes good points here about salary and age, but then goes right back to his old ways.
Whereas T.O. disappears during playoff games, ... Vincent Jackson elevates his game.
All I had to do here is click the "playoffs" tab on profootballreference to find how wrong Cowherd is.
T.O. playoffs:
11 games
54/751/5
Per game:
5/68/.45
Jackson playoffs:
4 games
20/343/2
Per game:
5/86/.5
So yes, in less than half as many games, Jackson has ever-so-slightly better numbers.
Jackson is 1/10 price, 1/100 the disruption, ten years younger and his numbers are significantly better against the better teams, where T.O.'s disintergrate.
Well I am going to use the average season for each and not the games against "better teams" because that's stupid.
Who's really better?
T.O. career average:
73/1076/11
Jackson's career average:
37/638/4.5
I mean come on.
It's not a question of WHETHER you cut T.O., it's when. It's obvious.
I hope Jerry Jones is listening.
*good being ten or more fantasy points; six points/TD, one point/ten yards receiving.
ESPN Radio's resident talking head king, Colin Cowherd used that dreaded line to precede this gem: Vincent Jackson (SD wide-out) is better than T.O. - who should be outright cut from the Cowboys.
Oh doctor.
Excerpts transcribed from 1/8/09 show
*Said after cartoonish "Nerd alert!" sound bite*
I'm not a nerd. I don't watch a lot of TV.
Well thank God, because dem nerds can't be trusted. With their calculators, pocket-protectors, horn-rimmed glasses with masking tape holding them together in the middle, high-pitched voices and lack of confidence when it comes to women.
Did I forget anything? Oh yeah, mom's basement living.
Not into fantasy stuff. I get guys who are, I'm not banging on ya,
Your previous sound bite and entire existence beg to differ
but statistical analysis is largely overrated.
I know this is a radio "show" and speaking properly is hard, but this logistically makes no sense. Do you mean the way stats are used in the media is overrated? The stats themselves cannot be, neither the analysis of them. Unless, of course, there was a list of awesome things and stat analysis was too high for Cowherd's liking.
1. Pizza
2. Stats
3. Puppies
In that instance, yes, statistical analysis would be overrated. Everyone knows puppies are great.
Let me just throw a few "nerd alert" numbers at you: ... T.O. had two games all year when he was a "huge game influencer."
Quotes mine. "Huge game influencer" may be one of the dumbest ways to gauge a wide receiver - or any athlete.
Here are games in which I think T.O. had a "good"* game:
(Week: REC/YDs/TDs)
Week 1: 5/87/1
Week 2: 3/89/2
Week 4: 7/71/1
Week 5: 2/67/1
Week 12: 7/213/1
Week 13: 5/98/1
Week 16: 5/63/1
Week 17: 6/103/0
Da Herd?
Week 2 against the Eagles; two touchdowns and week 12 against the Niners where he was unguardable, seven catches.
Love the omission of the ridiculous 213 yards and a TD versus the Niners.
He averages just over four catches. Of his biggest days in total receptions - his BIG days - he had two seven catch days and one six catch day. Two resulted in a loss, one they beat the mighty Niners.
Those things are unrelated. The Skins game was 24-26. Probably not T.O.'s fault. And the six catch game they turned the ball over roughly 25 times and got their ass kicked. Again, not T.O.'s fault.
And when he faced premiere defenses - the Giants twice and Pittsburgh and Baltimore - four games, no "breakout" games, one TD.
I have the numbers right in front of me and it's making me more and more confident that Cowherd does not.
NY, Pitt., Bal., combined stats:
16/169/3
Seems alright to me, especially against good defenses.
Now let's compare $8.6 million/year T.O. to Vincent Jackson at San Diego. ... But in his big five games, *smarmy voice, engage* they translated to four wins
Jackson's "good" games:
Week 1: 3/47/1 (L)
Week 6: 5/134/1 (W)
Week 7: 4/42/1 (L)
Week 8: 4/60/1 (L)
Week 12: 2/57/1 (L)
Week 14: 5/148/1 (W)
Week 15: 6/89/1 (W)
Week 16: 7/111/0 (W)
Those wins were against New England, Oakland, KC and Tampa. A veritable murderer's row!
He had his biggest games often against divisional rivals or against New England or at Tampa Bay.
Oooooo, divisional rivals! The mighty Chiefs and Raiders (combined 7-25).
T.O. had his biggest against *smarmy voice again* the Niners.
Well Jackson had his biggest against *smarmy voice* the Raiders.
Cowherd makes good points here about salary and age, but then goes right back to his old ways.
Whereas T.O. disappears during playoff games, ... Vincent Jackson elevates his game.
All I had to do here is click the "playoffs" tab on profootballreference to find how wrong Cowherd is.
T.O. playoffs:
11 games
54/751/5
Per game:
5/68/.45
Jackson playoffs:
4 games
20/343/2
Per game:
5/86/.5
So yes, in less than half as many games, Jackson has ever-so-slightly better numbers.
Jackson is 1/10 price, 1/100 the disruption, ten years younger and his numbers are significantly better against the better teams, where T.O.'s disintergrate.
Well I am going to use the average season for each and not the games against "better teams" because that's stupid.
Who's really better?
T.O. career average:
73/1076/11
Jackson's career average:
37/638/4.5
I mean come on.
It's not a question of WHETHER you cut T.O., it's when. It's obvious.
I hope Jerry Jones is listening.
*good being ten or more fantasy points; six points/TD, one point/ten yards receiving.
Utah winners of Rick Reilly's Fav Team Bowl!
College football is not my cop of tea. Sure, I'll watch bowl games and big regular season games, but the whole BCS system is undeniably stupid.
The Utah Utes went 13-0 this season. Not the first time a crappy conference team went undefeated and it won't be the last.
Rick Reilly, in all his (see: interns) photoshopping glory, has crowned Utah the national champs after they beat number four ranked Alabama.
The Utah Utes went 13-0 this season. Not the first time a crappy conference team went undefeated and it won't be the last.
Rick Reilly, in all his (see: interns) photoshopping glory, has crowned Utah the national champs after they beat number four ranked Alabama.
Some gifts people give are pointless: Styling mousse to Dick Vitale. An all-you-can-eat card to Kate Moss. The BCS Championship given to Oklahoma or Florida.
It means nothing because the BCS has no credibility. Florida? Oklahoma? Who cares? Utah is the national champion.
The End. Roll credits.
A Kate Moss (is she still living?) joke? Delightful. Next they'll be a "Thong Song" reference and a Kurt Cobain shot.
And it's not the end. Utah plays in the shitty Mountain West Conference - featuring such luminaries as San Diego State (4-8 in 2007), Colorado State (3-9), Wyoming (5-7) and UNLV (2-10). Now it's not their fault they play in a bad conference, but when measuring them against other teams, it is a fair point.
Argue with this, please. I beg you. Find me anybody else that went undefeated. Thirteen-and-zero. Beat four ranked teams. Went to the Deep South and seal-clubbed Alabama in the Sugar Bowl. The same Alabama that was ranked No. 1 for five weeks. The same Alabama that went undefeated in the regular season. The same Alabama that Florida beat in order to get INTO the BCS Championship game in the first place.
Only because you begged.
Those four ranked teams: Oregon State (24), TCU (11), Brigham Young (17) and Alabama (4). So yes, the Bama win was huge. An upset, one could say. But the TCU game was 13-10 and the game versus that other OSU was 31-28 - hardly blowouts. Could've gone either way. But nope, Utes are the champs. Engrave the trophy.
Sure, BCS blowhards will hand you schlock about how the college football season is like a playoff, how it's an elimination tournament every week. Really? Well, how come Florida and Oklahoma weren't eliminated with their losses? Utah ran the table, beat everybody set in front of them, including Ala-damn-bama in no less than the Sugar Bowl, and gets the bagel.
Other close games (margin) versus crappy teams: Michigan (two points), Air Force (seven), New Mexico (three). New Mexico finished 4-8.
Utah beat everyone in front of them. Every crappy MWC team, many by very few points. Congrats.
Oklahoma, that horrible one-loss team, meanwhile, scored 54 points per game, will play seven ranked teams, is in a division with Missouri, Texas, Kansas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma State, and a bunch of other teams with third stringers that would start at Utah. Oklahama's closest win? Twenty versus Oklahoma State.
Florida, that team with one loss (by one point), also sucks. Playing four ranked opponents, playing with Bama, Georgia, LSU, Tennessee and all those other perennially great football teams and outscoring opponents 45 to 13 on the season. Their closest call? An eleven point win versus Bama. Next closest? Twenty-three against Miami.
Reilly's ignorance of margin of victory is so profound, I bet he picked the Angels to win the World Series last season.
What, you want the Utes to win a spelling bee? Make a prize-winning souffle? Knock up Angelina Jolie? What?
Schedule games against tougher non-conference opponents? And no, this year's Weber and Utah State don't count.
Until all these people do the right thing, I'll be celebrating with the true national champions — the undefeated, untied Utah Utes. (Our new slogan: Utahk about a team!)
They can join Hawaii and Boise State as the faux-National Champions.
Lemonades for everybody!
Excuse me? Is lemonade the state drink of Utah or something?
Monday, January 05, 2009
Grog hate numbers! Arrrrgh!
As far as sports stats are concerned, football is third - miles behind baseball and quite a ways behind basketball.
So I am all for networks throwing random stats - however silly they may be - at me to look at while Madden tries to pronounce Brandon Manumaleuna. It's cute that they're trying!
Phil Mushnick - who I can only assume is the progenitor of a group of monsters known as the Mushnicks - does not like them there numbers. Not at all.
NBC's two wild-cards,
He means games, I think.
Saturday, were typical NFL telecasts in that they seemed designed by those who don't know better for those who wouldn't know better.
I think "for those who don't know better" would have flowed much better. Also, I just want to watch football. I don't care if they have Scooter, the talking football explaining crossing routes to me.
They were so overloaded with useless, football-is-baseball stats that legit fans might have thought they were watching (or reading) ESPN. Or Fox. Or CBS. Or the NFL Network.
None of those mentioned entities use stats to any in-depth level. ESPN maybe. But the NFL Network has Deion Sanders screaming at me in a checkerboard/paisley suit while dancing and not many stats.
What did it matter that QB passing ratings are created by adding nonsense to silliness, then dividing ridiculous by the square root of stupid?
Hardy har har har.
1. Go to Wikipedia
2. Search "passer rating"
3. Read
Yes, it's esoteric and weird (why not out of 100, please? We like that number), but it also gives us insight into how good a QB is. More so than TDs or wins or numbers of guns slung per game.
Throughout the Falcons-Cards game, NBC not only posted Matt Ryan's rating,
Criminal.
it went micro - when he throws to the right, to the left, when winning, when trailing.
Somewhat interesting, especially considering they then said that most QBs are more comfortable going right.
(Apparently, he hadn't yet thrown in a scoreless or otherwise tied game, nor had he thrown over the middle.)
I'm confused. So you want more stats now?
Despite 22 people in motion at once and hundreds of variables, TV wants you to believe that everyone operates alone, from inside a lab, inside a test tube. TV producers believe it, so should you.
What the hell are you mushnicking about?
No one thinks football is an individual game. Yes, QBs are deified, but no one is dumb enough to think they could do it one on eleven. Football is number one precisely (well, the violence helps) because one can watch it and enjoy any number of a billion things going on, including dreaded stats.
Late in the Colts-Chargers game, headed for the wire, NBC asked us to stop paying attention to the game in order to consider a graphic - the Chargers' record in games determined by "eight or fewer points." Why not show us a kitten pawing at a ball of yarn?
The cat with the yarn ball would be awesome.
The Chargers record in those games: 0-7. I think there is a little something to that. Mostly, that they were unlucky in close games, or, as annoucers would say, "They just couldn't win the close ones."
As it happened, they won this close one. Still, the fact that they hadn't all year is at least bottom-line scroll-worthy.
So I am all for networks throwing random stats - however silly they may be - at me to look at while Madden tries to pronounce Brandon Manumaleuna. It's cute that they're trying!
Phil Mushnick - who I can only assume is the progenitor of a group of monsters known as the Mushnicks - does not like them there numbers. Not at all.
NBC's two wild-cards,
He means games, I think.
Saturday, were typical NFL telecasts in that they seemed designed by those who don't know better for those who wouldn't know better.
I think "for those who don't know better" would have flowed much better. Also, I just want to watch football. I don't care if they have Scooter, the talking football explaining crossing routes to me.
They were so overloaded with useless, football-is-baseball stats that legit fans might have thought they were watching (or reading) ESPN. Or Fox. Or CBS. Or the NFL Network.
None of those mentioned entities use stats to any in-depth level. ESPN maybe. But the NFL Network has Deion Sanders screaming at me in a checkerboard/paisley suit while dancing and not many stats.
What did it matter that QB passing ratings are created by adding nonsense to silliness, then dividing ridiculous by the square root of stupid?
Hardy har har har.
1. Go to Wikipedia
2. Search "passer rating"
3. Read
Yes, it's esoteric and weird (why not out of 100, please? We like that number), but it also gives us insight into how good a QB is. More so than TDs or wins or numbers of guns slung per game.
Throughout the Falcons-Cards game, NBC not only posted Matt Ryan's rating,
Criminal.
it went micro - when he throws to the right, to the left, when winning, when trailing.
Somewhat interesting, especially considering they then said that most QBs are more comfortable going right.
(Apparently, he hadn't yet thrown in a scoreless or otherwise tied game, nor had he thrown over the middle.)
I'm confused. So you want more stats now?
Despite 22 people in motion at once and hundreds of variables, TV wants you to believe that everyone operates alone, from inside a lab, inside a test tube. TV producers believe it, so should you.
What the hell are you mushnicking about?
No one thinks football is an individual game. Yes, QBs are deified, but no one is dumb enough to think they could do it one on eleven. Football is number one precisely (well, the violence helps) because one can watch it and enjoy any number of a billion things going on, including dreaded stats.
Late in the Colts-Chargers game, headed for the wire, NBC asked us to stop paying attention to the game in order to consider a graphic - the Chargers' record in games determined by "eight or fewer points." Why not show us a kitten pawing at a ball of yarn?
The cat with the yarn ball would be awesome.
The Chargers record in those games: 0-7. I think there is a little something to that. Mostly, that they were unlucky in close games, or, as annoucers would say, "They just couldn't win the close ones."
As it happened, they won this close one. Still, the fact that they hadn't all year is at least bottom-line scroll-worthy.
Late in the third quarter, Ravens' safety Ed Reed, who prevents TDs by scoring them, was injured while returning his second interception. CBS even showed a replay of his leg being bent backward.
And then CBS forgot about him, not a mention as to whether he was in the game during Miami's next two possessions, when he suddenly re-appeared, making a tackle.
Would this have sated you?
"And Ed Reed will be sitting a few plays out with what trainers are calling a sore leg. His return is probable."
*Two friggin playes later*
"Reed is coming back on the field! And I'm not talking about Willis!"
But during that time, CBS posted a graphic comparing this game's score and stats to the 2001 wild card the teams played. Nurse!
And that, inexplicably, is how the article ends.
My anecdotal evidence says: 'NFL Overtime sucks!'
It's NFL playoff time and that means the team/player/coach with the most heart, guts, ability to run the ball/stop said run will obviously win the Super Bowl.
It also means some games may go to overtime, as some teams are equally matched. This happened with San Diego/Indy over the weekend, a game in which the Chargers won after winning the coin flip.
This one instance means the coin flip sucks as a way to "decide who wins" an NFL game.
King me:
The overtime rule continues to be the dumbest, stupidest, most indefensible rule the NFL has on its books. Giving a coin flip more power than Tony Soprano has now deprived us of a satisfactory ending to two pivotal games this year -- Jets-Patriots in Week 11, when the Patriots and 401-yard passer Matt Cassel never saw the ball in overtime after a heroic fourth-quarter comeback, and Colts-Chargers, when we didn't get to see the NFL MVP even play in the fifth quarter because it was a one-possession overtime."
Oh how quickly we forget things that do not support our opinions. In week 16 the Giants and Panthers played a football match that proceeded to go into extra play. The Giants won the flip. Auto-win, right? Well they went three and out and punted. But so did Carolina. The second time around, the Giants win.
So the Giants won the flip and won the game, but both teams had a shot at it. Sounds fair to me.
That brings me to the enemy of anecdotes, mathematics (here, and elsewhere).
There have been 365 OT games from 1974 to 2003 (finding up-to-date stats was difficult). Seventy two percent of the time, teams have each had a possession. Fifty two percent of the time, teams that have won the flip have have won the game. Forty four percent of teams that have lost the flip have won the game, with five percent ending in a tie. Only 28% of teams have won the flip and driven to a score. It is unclear if that means directly scored, or, as in the Giants/Panthers case, simply scored and won the flip.
To me, 52 to 44 is a difference, but not a huge one. Plus, 365 games over thirty years isn't a very substantial sample size. There were 512 games played in 2008 alone, not including the playoffs.
Is it perfect? Obviously not. There are a number of solutions such as a timed OT period, not sudden death or using the idiotic college overtime system - in which teams start at the one-yard line and must only use linemen for quarterbacks.
But the coin flip isn't that bad - it just sticks out when teams who win it, win the game.
And for the record, I think pass interference is the "dumbest, stupidest, most indefensible rule the NFL has on its books."
That, or roughing the kicker. Those guys are wimps.
It also means some games may go to overtime, as some teams are equally matched. This happened with San Diego/Indy over the weekend, a game in which the Chargers won after winning the coin flip.
This one instance means the coin flip sucks as a way to "decide who wins" an NFL game.
King me:
The overtime rule continues to be the dumbest, stupidest, most indefensible rule the NFL has on its books. Giving a coin flip more power than Tony Soprano has now deprived us of a satisfactory ending to two pivotal games this year -- Jets-Patriots in Week 11, when the Patriots and 401-yard passer Matt Cassel never saw the ball in overtime after a heroic fourth-quarter comeback, and Colts-Chargers, when we didn't get to see the NFL MVP even play in the fifth quarter because it was a one-possession overtime."
Oh how quickly we forget things that do not support our opinions. In week 16 the Giants and Panthers played a football match that proceeded to go into extra play. The Giants won the flip. Auto-win, right? Well they went three and out and punted. But so did Carolina. The second time around, the Giants win.
So the Giants won the flip and won the game, but both teams had a shot at it. Sounds fair to me.
That brings me to the enemy of anecdotes, mathematics (here, and elsewhere).
There have been 365 OT games from 1974 to 2003 (finding up-to-date stats was difficult). Seventy two percent of the time, teams have each had a possession. Fifty two percent of the time, teams that have won the flip have have won the game. Forty four percent of teams that have lost the flip have won the game, with five percent ending in a tie. Only 28% of teams have won the flip and driven to a score. It is unclear if that means directly scored, or, as in the Giants/Panthers case, simply scored and won the flip.
To me, 52 to 44 is a difference, but not a huge one. Plus, 365 games over thirty years isn't a very substantial sample size. There were 512 games played in 2008 alone, not including the playoffs.
Is it perfect? Obviously not. There are a number of solutions such as a timed OT period, not sudden death or using the idiotic college overtime system - in which teams start at the one-yard line and must only use linemen for quarterbacks.
But the coin flip isn't that bad - it just sticks out when teams who win it, win the game.
And for the record, I think pass interference is the "dumbest, stupidest, most indefensible rule the NFL has on its books."
That, or roughing the kicker. Those guys are wimps.
Friday, January 02, 2009
NFL MVP voters prove (again) 'winning' is the bomb dot com
Peyton Manning - who is only a few steps away from becoming the new Favre - has won his third MVP in a landslide.
Is him winning the worst thing in the world? No, not really. He was good in a season where there were no LDTs or Shaun Alexanders (remember him?) smashing TD records.
Manning received 38 points. Adrian Peterson, who finished second, had 15.5 points.
Where did Manning rank amongst the NFL's best passers this season? Glad you asked.
Comp. % - third
Yards - sixth (over 1,000 behind leader)
Yards/attempt - 13th (a full yard behind Rivers)
TDs - fifth (seven behind Rivers)
INTs - tied for 18th
QB rating - fifth (ten spirit points or whatever the hell they're called behind Rivers)
Team W/L - 12-4 motherfuckers!
A fine resume for an MVP. But there is a certain name that keeps ranking near the top of all these - Philip Rivers.
Comp. % - seventh
Yards - fifth
Yards/attempt - first
TDs - first
INTs - tied for 18th
QB rating - first
Team W/L - 8-8 :(
And because his team finished 8-8, he gets a whopping 4 total points in the voting. I am not saying Rivers should have won, but he had a better season than Manning. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool.
Rivers, Peterson, Brees, Turner, Portis - hell even Thomas Jones, Chad Pennington or Albert Haynesworth, are all better MVP candidates.
But how many of them have two other MVPs and are the poster boys of the NFL?
Is him winning the worst thing in the world? No, not really. He was good in a season where there were no LDTs or Shaun Alexanders (remember him?) smashing TD records.
Manning received 38 points. Adrian Peterson, who finished second, had 15.5 points.
Where did Manning rank amongst the NFL's best passers this season? Glad you asked.
Comp. % - third
Yards - sixth (over 1,000 behind leader)
Yards/attempt - 13th (a full yard behind Rivers)
TDs - fifth (seven behind Rivers)
INTs - tied for 18th
QB rating - fifth (ten spirit points or whatever the hell they're called behind Rivers)
Team W/L - 12-4 motherfuckers!
A fine resume for an MVP. But there is a certain name that keeps ranking near the top of all these - Philip Rivers.
Comp. % - seventh
Yards - fifth
Yards/attempt - first
TDs - first
INTs - tied for 18th
QB rating - first
Team W/L - 8-8 :(
And because his team finished 8-8, he gets a whopping 4 total points in the voting. I am not saying Rivers should have won, but he had a better season than Manning. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool.
Rivers, Peterson, Brees, Turner, Portis - hell even Thomas Jones, Chad Pennington or Albert Haynesworth, are all better MVP candidates.
But how many of them have two other MVPs and are the poster boys of the NFL?
Thursday, January 01, 2009
Please, for the love of all that is holy, retire already
And I'm not talking about Favre, I am talking about Wojo.
Just kidding. I am talking about both of them.
Let's add another chapter to the "It's more than numbers, it's about heart. And wins" book of idiocy. This chapter's title? "2008 Aaron Rodgers SUCKS when compared to 2008 Favre."
Rodgers: 3807 YDS/28 TD: 13 INT/93.8 QB Rating
Jeans monger: 3259 YDS/22 TD: 22 INT/81.0 Rating
Pretty cut and dry, right? I mean, what could possibly put Favre ahead of Rodgers when comparing their seasons?
But sorry, there won't be any retractions. Just because Rodgers had a better statistical season doesn't mean the Packers were a better team without Favre.
So: worse QB = better team performance. Dan Orlovsky's phone must be ringing off the hook!
First of all, the numbers don't always make the man.
Never do.
If they did, then six of the top 10 quarterbacks by passing yards and six of the top 10 by touchdowns wouldn't be done with their seasons. But they are, including Rodgers and Favre.
Great, wonderful misuse of "stats."
Those ten by yards: Rivers, Pennington, Warner, Brees, Manning, Rodgers, Schaub, Romo, Garcia, Cassel.
Schaub, Brees and Rodgers were out. But the rest of those missed the playoffs on the last fucking game of the season. Seriously. The Patriots, Bucs and Cowboys were eliminated on the last day of the season.
Rodgers played well this season. He played hurt. He played in the blinding light of the post-Favre era and did so with poise and heart. If he stays healthy (he played much of the season with a shoulder injury), the Packers have themselves a quarterback.
But Favre played well, too -- not as often as Rodgers did,
Doesn't that undermi ... aw forget it.
but well enough that the Jets were 8-3 after beating the then-undefeated Tennessee Titans on the road.
All because of Favre. Football is not a team game played by two seperate 11-man units. It is a game of quarterbacks. Just good, American, white quarterbacks. Gunslingin' and havin' a ball out there.
Thomas Jones, who led the AFC in rushing (the other part of offense that is not throwing) with 1312 yards and 13 TDs, had nothing to do with the Jets being good during one random stretch of the season.
Also, in that wonderful game against the Titans, Favre threw for 224 yards, two TDs and a pick. A typical Favre game. But the Jets won 34-13. How can that be? Without Favre throwing four TDs, kicking every PAT and picking off two passes while playing cornerback?
Leon Washington ran for 82 yards and two TDs on eight (!) carries and Jones had over 100 total yards (96 rushing) and a rec. TD. That's how. They ran for 192 yards.
You remember: That was the same week the Packers got beat 51-29 by New Orleans to drop to 5-6 and start a five-game losing streak. Weird. I don't remember getting any "Favre's washed up" e-mails then.
I know it's hard for you to believe Wojo, but luck is an element in sports. A big one. One that the Packers had a lot of the bad variety this season. Look at their losses:
16-27, 21-30, 24-27, 16-19, 27-28, 29-51, 31-35, 21-24, 16-20, 17-20.
That's a crazy five games decided by three points or less. Two by four-seven and three by seven points or more. That sucks. I would be pissed if I was a Packers fan.
Now, of course, the Jets' losses:
10-19, 29-48, 13-16, 17-34, 14-24, 3-13, 17-24.
One by three or less. One by four-seven and five by seven or more.
This all means the Packers could have easily been 11-5 if they win a few more of the really close ones and one or two of the kind of close ones. The Jets, meanwhile, are pretty much where they should be.
The mistake people make is trying to compare Rodgers' season with Favre's. ... But do wins count for anything?
No. They count for everything.
Favre's Jets had nine compared to the Packers' six.
See above long-winded loss breakdown.
They beat three playoff-bound teams; the Packers defeated one. Favre's Jets gagged away their division lead in the last month, but they still had a chance at the playoffs. The Packers were officially eliminated with two weeks remaining in the season.
I'll give you the division thing, but counter with the AFC East played the AFC and NFC West. Those teams are garbage.
And the Pack beat the Vikings and Colts. That equals two playoff teams, not one.
Anyway, the move from the Packers to Jets doesn't absolve Favre from throwing a league-leading 22 interceptions. Some of those INTs were killers. But the same goes for Rodgers, whose late-game interceptions in Week 14 against Houston and Week 15 against Jacksonville ended comeback attempts. In fact, Rodgers was 0-8 in comeback situations this season.
But he also only threw 13 INTs and 6 more TDs than Favre. And what the fuck are "comeback siutations" anyway? Does being down 7-0 in the first quarter count? I bet it does.
I'm not blaming Rodgers for the mess. He wasn't perfect, but he also wasn't the problem -- just like Favre wasn't the main problem with the Jets. I see why Thompson was willing to make a leap of faith with Rodgers, but Favre's departure could have -- and should have -- been handled better by Packers management.
What I don't see is why it had to end this way, with some Packers fans reveling in the Jets' failures and Favre's injury and struggles. It's as if they can live with a 6-win season as long as Favre and the Jets suffer, too.
I could live with a six-win season too, as long as at least 70% of those 10 losses were winnable games. Oh, and my quarterback wasn't a 40-year-old dude with a TD to INT ratio of 1:1.
Dumb.
Just like this ... well you get it.
Just kidding. I am talking about both of them.
Let's add another chapter to the "It's more than numbers, it's about heart. And wins" book of idiocy. This chapter's title? "2008 Aaron Rodgers SUCKS when compared to 2008 Favre."
Rodgers: 3807 YDS/28 TD: 13 INT/93.8 QB Rating
Jeans monger: 3259 YDS/22 TD: 22 INT/81.0 Rating
Pretty cut and dry, right? I mean, what could possibly put Favre ahead of Rodgers when comparing their seasons?
But sorry, there won't be any retractions. Just because Rodgers had a better statistical season doesn't mean the Packers were a better team without Favre.
So: worse QB = better team performance. Dan Orlovsky's phone must be ringing off the hook!
First of all, the numbers don't always make the man.
Never do.
If they did, then six of the top 10 quarterbacks by passing yards and six of the top 10 by touchdowns wouldn't be done with their seasons. But they are, including Rodgers and Favre.
Great, wonderful misuse of "stats."
Those ten by yards: Rivers, Pennington, Warner, Brees, Manning, Rodgers, Schaub, Romo, Garcia, Cassel.
Schaub, Brees and Rodgers were out. But the rest of those missed the playoffs on the last fucking game of the season. Seriously. The Patriots, Bucs and Cowboys were eliminated on the last day of the season.
Rodgers played well this season. He played hurt. He played in the blinding light of the post-Favre era and did so with poise and heart. If he stays healthy (he played much of the season with a shoulder injury), the Packers have themselves a quarterback.
But Favre played well, too -- not as often as Rodgers did,
Doesn't that undermi ... aw forget it.
but well enough that the Jets were 8-3 after beating the then-undefeated Tennessee Titans on the road.
All because of Favre. Football is not a team game played by two seperate 11-man units. It is a game of quarterbacks. Just good, American, white quarterbacks. Gunslingin' and havin' a ball out there.
Thomas Jones, who led the AFC in rushing (the other part of offense that is not throwing) with 1312 yards and 13 TDs, had nothing to do with the Jets being good during one random stretch of the season.
Also, in that wonderful game against the Titans, Favre threw for 224 yards, two TDs and a pick. A typical Favre game. But the Jets won 34-13. How can that be? Without Favre throwing four TDs, kicking every PAT and picking off two passes while playing cornerback?
Leon Washington ran for 82 yards and two TDs on eight (!) carries and Jones had over 100 total yards (96 rushing) and a rec. TD. That's how. They ran for 192 yards.
You remember: That was the same week the Packers got beat 51-29 by New Orleans to drop to 5-6 and start a five-game losing streak. Weird. I don't remember getting any "Favre's washed up" e-mails then.
I know it's hard for you to believe Wojo, but luck is an element in sports. A big one. One that the Packers had a lot of the bad variety this season. Look at their losses:
16-27, 21-30, 24-27, 16-19, 27-28, 29-51, 31-35, 21-24, 16-20, 17-20.
That's a crazy five games decided by three points or less. Two by four-seven and three by seven points or more. That sucks. I would be pissed if I was a Packers fan.
Now, of course, the Jets' losses:
10-19, 29-48, 13-16, 17-34, 14-24, 3-13, 17-24.
One by three or less. One by four-seven and five by seven or more.
This all means the Packers could have easily been 11-5 if they win a few more of the really close ones and one or two of the kind of close ones. The Jets, meanwhile, are pretty much where they should be.
The mistake people make is trying to compare Rodgers' season with Favre's. ... But do wins count for anything?
No. They count for everything.
Favre's Jets had nine compared to the Packers' six.
See above long-winded loss breakdown.
They beat three playoff-bound teams; the Packers defeated one. Favre's Jets gagged away their division lead in the last month, but they still had a chance at the playoffs. The Packers were officially eliminated with two weeks remaining in the season.
I'll give you the division thing, but counter with the AFC East played the AFC and NFC West. Those teams are garbage.
And the Pack beat the Vikings and Colts. That equals two playoff teams, not one.
Anyway, the move from the Packers to Jets doesn't absolve Favre from throwing a league-leading 22 interceptions. Some of those INTs were killers. But the same goes for Rodgers, whose late-game interceptions in Week 14 against Houston and Week 15 against Jacksonville ended comeback attempts. In fact, Rodgers was 0-8 in comeback situations this season.
But he also only threw 13 INTs and 6 more TDs than Favre. And what the fuck are "comeback siutations" anyway? Does being down 7-0 in the first quarter count? I bet it does.
I'm not blaming Rodgers for the mess. He wasn't perfect, but he also wasn't the problem -- just like Favre wasn't the main problem with the Jets. I see why Thompson was willing to make a leap of faith with Rodgers, but Favre's departure could have -- and should have -- been handled better by Packers management.
What I don't see is why it had to end this way, with some Packers fans reveling in the Jets' failures and Favre's injury and struggles. It's as if they can live with a 6-win season as long as Favre and the Jets suffer, too.
I could live with a six-win season too, as long as at least 70% of those 10 losses were winnable games. Oh, and my quarterback wasn't a 40-year-old dude with a TD to INT ratio of 1:1.
Dumb.
Just like this ... well you get it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)