Desmond Howard, on the Saturday morning ESPN college football show, explained that the reason the Notre Dame Fighting Irish weren't higher in the polls - and were slipping - was because they weren't racking up any style points. He pointed to their offensive numbers being down as the reason they weren't as stylish to voters. Howard was a good college football player. In fact, he was a Heisman trophy winner at Michigan. However, it's not all about the offense. At least I don't think it should be.
"Style points" should be marginally important because there aren't many losses accumulated at the top of the rankings. How do you decide who the best one-loss team is? Strength of schedule and associated "style points," right? But, you don't have to rack up tons of offense or huge margins of victory to make yourself look good. What you have to do is control the game. This is where Desmond Howard was off-base.
Last weekend, my neighbor was out-of-town so he gave me his tickets for the CU v. OU game. Oklahoma won 24-3, but only led 10-0 until the start of the 4th quarter. But, that 10 point lead was dominant because, until the CU scoring drive in the 4th quarter, CU had 6 yards passing on one completion. When you factor in the 2.5 yards per rush the Buffs were racking up, it becomes apparent that CU wasn't doing much offensively. In fact, Colorado gained just 5 first downs the entire game and finished with 113 total yards. The OU offense was conservative playing against the wind in the 2nd and 3rd quarters because they could be. It was a dominant OU performance because the Sooners controlled the game and it was never in doubt. It's similar to the Jacksonville Jaguars' dominating MNF performance against the Pittsburgh Steelers earlier this year. The margin of victory doesn't capture the control one team had.
Notre Dame may have slipped a little because they needed a long TD pass - helped by some iffy UCLA defense - to pull out a last-minute victory a week ago. And, it wasn't the first such victory. Michigan State choked away a lead against the Irish. And, the Irish were in peril in their opener against Georgia Tech pretty much the entire game.
Along the same lines, why is USC still in the top 10? It's been more than a month since the Trojans last beat a team by more than 7, and they weren't in the difficult part of the schedule. Since beating Arizona 20-3, they've narrowly defeated Washington State, Washington and Arizona State and lost to Oregon State. USC beat one-loss Arkansas early in the season, but that was before Mitch Mustain learned how to be a functional college QB as a freshman. Plus, the Razorbacks may just be a one-trick pony. Arkansas ambushed a distracted Auburn team the week before the Tigers were set to match up with the Florida Gators. I won't be surprised if both LSU and Tennessee knock off the Hogs later this year. The other USC win was 28-10 at home against Nebraska. Whose Huskers have knocked off some of the elite teams in college football this year: LA Tech, Nicholls State, Troy, Kansas, Kansas State and Iowa State. Wow. Impressive. That's why it's important to look at the "body of work" instead of just the results and the names.
And, I'm still trying to figure out what voters actually look for.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Riley-ing Things Up
Mike Riley and his Oregon State Beavers gave the talking heads even more reason to ramble yesterday. They gave the USC Trojans a loss, to go with all the close victories they've piled up in their conference schedule. Now, there are only 5 BCS conference teams remaining: two in the Big 10 (Ohio State and Michigan) and three in the Big East (West Virginia, Rutgers and Louisville). There are four games between those five teams - Michigan at Ohio State, West Virginia at Louisville, Rutgers at WVU, and Louisville at Rutgers - that will leave, at most, one one-loss team from each the Big Ten and Big East. The only other D-1 school with a chance to go undefeated is Boise State. Thus, there is no easy way out for the BCS. They won't have a match-up between two major unbeatens, USC and Ohio State/Michigan.
If one of the Big East teams runs the table, they will, in all likelihood, be up against some big-name one-loss schools. Texas as the Big 12 champion is a possibility. USC or California out of the Pac-10. Florida or Auburn as the SEC champ. Notre Dame has only one loss, and that loss is to Michigan. And, finally, the loser of the late-season 1 v. 2 Big 10 showdown. I am aware that B.C. or Wake Forest could finish as a one-loss ACC champ, but there is no way I'd put a one-loss ACC team over an undefeated Big East team. That would be asinine.
So, I'm going to help sort through this all for you. I'm hoping Charlie Weis will take a look. He may be befuddled, but the landscape will clear and Notre Dame will land in a BCS game, if they win out.
The following games are scheduled for the remainder of the season:
Michigan at Ohio State, WVU at Louisville, Rutgers at WVU, Louisville at Rutgers, Oregon at USC, Cal at USC, Notre Dame at USC, LSU at Tennessee, Tennessee at Arkansas, Georgia at Auburn, Florida at FSU, Boston College at Wake Forest, Virginia Tech at Wake Forest, and Big 12, ACC, and SEC title games.
Starting out West, the Pac-10 will have, at most, one one-loss team. Cal has three relatively easy games and the showdown at USC. If Notre Dame beats USC, Notre Dame will have one loss and a good win. So, between USC, ND and Cal, there will be, at most, two one-loss teams and possibly none, if USC beats Cal and ND but loses to Oregon. Texas seems to be sitting pretty, with only an early-season loss to Ohio State. The most likely one-loss team escaping from the ACC is B.C., but B.C. has a non-conference schedule that makes you wonder if they used to be in the Big East ... oh wait, they defected from the Big East. The loser of the Michigan v. Ohio State game will have one loss. If it's Michigan in a close game, they'll have a claim to a neutral site shot in the BCS title game.
So, we're left with the Big East, where there may not be an undefeated team. More likely, one of the teams will be in on discussion for the title game. And, in the SEC, there are four one-loss teams and it's not unreasonable to think three of them will end the regular-season that way, although the cleaner scenario would be if Tennessee beat Arkansas and lost to LSU, leaving one-loss teams Auburn and Florida to battle in the SEC title game. That would leave one one-loss SEC team and they'd be the conference champ.
And, if Oklahoma wins out, they'll have a loss to Texas and the travesty that happened in Eugene. So, I think they should be considered as a one-loss team at that point, but they won't be in on the national title game talk.
So, at worst, at the end of the season we'll have:
Michigan and Ohio State (one undefeated and one with one loss)
USC (one loss) or Cal (one loss) or Cal and Notre Dame (one loss each)
Texas (one loss) and Oklahoma
Auburn and Arkansas or Florida (one loss) or Tennessee and Auburn or Florida (one loss)
Could Auburn, Florida and Tennessee end the season with one-loss?
B.C. or Wake Forest (one loss)
and whatever happens in the Big East.
So, it's still a little bit of a mess, but a one-loss Notre Dame team gets in a BCS bowl. It's a shame that one loss can, and two losses almost certainly does, eliminate you from national title contention. It limits the chances coaches take with non-conference games and that's not good, right? I like seeing Notre Dame v. USC and Ohio State v. Texas. But, that's the way it is right now. People tend not to look at the results, they'd rather consider just the records and a little bit of extra information. It's easier.
If one of the Big East teams runs the table, they will, in all likelihood, be up against some big-name one-loss schools. Texas as the Big 12 champion is a possibility. USC or California out of the Pac-10. Florida or Auburn as the SEC champ. Notre Dame has only one loss, and that loss is to Michigan. And, finally, the loser of the late-season 1 v. 2 Big 10 showdown. I am aware that B.C. or Wake Forest could finish as a one-loss ACC champ, but there is no way I'd put a one-loss ACC team over an undefeated Big East team. That would be asinine.
So, I'm going to help sort through this all for you. I'm hoping Charlie Weis will take a look. He may be befuddled, but the landscape will clear and Notre Dame will land in a BCS game, if they win out.
The following games are scheduled for the remainder of the season:
Michigan at Ohio State, WVU at Louisville, Rutgers at WVU, Louisville at Rutgers, Oregon at USC, Cal at USC, Notre Dame at USC, LSU at Tennessee, Tennessee at Arkansas, Georgia at Auburn, Florida at FSU, Boston College at Wake Forest, Virginia Tech at Wake Forest, and Big 12, ACC, and SEC title games.
Starting out West, the Pac-10 will have, at most, one one-loss team. Cal has three relatively easy games and the showdown at USC. If Notre Dame beats USC, Notre Dame will have one loss and a good win. So, between USC, ND and Cal, there will be, at most, two one-loss teams and possibly none, if USC beats Cal and ND but loses to Oregon. Texas seems to be sitting pretty, with only an early-season loss to Ohio State. The most likely one-loss team escaping from the ACC is B.C., but B.C. has a non-conference schedule that makes you wonder if they used to be in the Big East ... oh wait, they defected from the Big East. The loser of the Michigan v. Ohio State game will have one loss. If it's Michigan in a close game, they'll have a claim to a neutral site shot in the BCS title game.
So, we're left with the Big East, where there may not be an undefeated team. More likely, one of the teams will be in on discussion for the title game. And, in the SEC, there are four one-loss teams and it's not unreasonable to think three of them will end the regular-season that way, although the cleaner scenario would be if Tennessee beat Arkansas and lost to LSU, leaving one-loss teams Auburn and Florida to battle in the SEC title game. That would leave one one-loss SEC team and they'd be the conference champ.
And, if Oklahoma wins out, they'll have a loss to Texas and the travesty that happened in Eugene. So, I think they should be considered as a one-loss team at that point, but they won't be in on the national title game talk.
So, at worst, at the end of the season we'll have:
Michigan and Ohio State (one undefeated and one with one loss)
USC (one loss) or Cal (one loss) or Cal and Notre Dame (one loss each)
Texas (one loss) and Oklahoma
Auburn and Arkansas or Florida (one loss) or Tennessee and Auburn or Florida (one loss)
Could Auburn, Florida and Tennessee end the season with one-loss?
B.C. or Wake Forest (one loss)
and whatever happens in the Big East.
So, it's still a little bit of a mess, but a one-loss Notre Dame team gets in a BCS bowl. It's a shame that one loss can, and two losses almost certainly does, eliminate you from national title contention. It limits the chances coaches take with non-conference games and that's not good, right? I like seeing Notre Dame v. USC and Ohio State v. Texas. But, that's the way it is right now. People tend not to look at the results, they'd rather consider just the records and a little bit of extra information. It's easier.
What is pass interference?
I was happy to see the USC Trojans lose today in Corvallis, OR. A couple calls by the refs baffled me, though. The first was a pass interference call when the Oregon State DB had great position and had the best chance to catch the ball. The USC receiver was behind him and reached around to break it up. If anything, the call should have been offensive pass interference. The actual call: PI against the Beavers. I have no idea why that call was made. I assume that the official just screwed up horribly, but I can't be sure.
Keeping with the USC v. OSU theme, what was the replay official thinking saying Steve Smith was in-bounds on the catch they reviewed? I'll admit, it was a close play in real-time, but you can see that he obviously landed out-of-bounds in the slow-motion replays. There was no reason not to reverse the call and rule it incomplete. But, they didn't. Yet another reason to celebrate the USC loss!
Then, in the UT v. TTU game, there was another somewhat dubious PI call. Late in the game, with Texas sitting on a 4-point lead playing keep-away from the Red Raiders, Texas QB Colt McCoy threw to the right sideline for a receiver. A Texas Tech defender was between the receiver and the underthrown ball and didn't really make a play on it. But, the Texas receiver only made enough of an effort to make contact with the defender to draw the penalty. It was a cheap call on a crappy throw that helped Texas salt away the game.
Obviously, the defender isn't supposed to hit the offensive player before someone touches the ball. But, the defensive player is supposed to at least be in the vicinity of the offensive player, right? I think we're all agreed on that. So, the defender will be on one side of the offensive player. Let's assume we have a play similar to the two I mentioned above, with the WR running along the right sideline and the defensive back between the WR and QB. If the QB throws the ball out in front of the WR and the defensive back rides him out-of-bounds or impedes his progress to the ball, I can see that being PI. But, if the ball is thrown in-line with them in front of both of them, is the defender supposed to get out of the way and let the WR step in and catch it? I don't think so. Should the defender go for the ball? In an ideal world, yeah. But, does he have an obligation to? Why can't the defender just maintain his position? If the WR makes contact, that should be offensive pass interference. The QB shouldn't make such a crappy throw. Right?
Keeping with the USC v. OSU theme, what was the replay official thinking saying Steve Smith was in-bounds on the catch they reviewed? I'll admit, it was a close play in real-time, but you can see that he obviously landed out-of-bounds in the slow-motion replays. There was no reason not to reverse the call and rule it incomplete. But, they didn't. Yet another reason to celebrate the USC loss!
Then, in the UT v. TTU game, there was another somewhat dubious PI call. Late in the game, with Texas sitting on a 4-point lead playing keep-away from the Red Raiders, Texas QB Colt McCoy threw to the right sideline for a receiver. A Texas Tech defender was between the receiver and the underthrown ball and didn't really make a play on it. But, the Texas receiver only made enough of an effort to make contact with the defender to draw the penalty. It was a cheap call on a crappy throw that helped Texas salt away the game.
Obviously, the defender isn't supposed to hit the offensive player before someone touches the ball. But, the defensive player is supposed to at least be in the vicinity of the offensive player, right? I think we're all agreed on that. So, the defender will be on one side of the offensive player. Let's assume we have a play similar to the two I mentioned above, with the WR running along the right sideline and the defensive back between the WR and QB. If the QB throws the ball out in front of the WR and the defensive back rides him out-of-bounds or impedes his progress to the ball, I can see that being PI. But, if the ball is thrown in-line with them in front of both of them, is the defender supposed to get out of the way and let the WR step in and catch it? I don't think so. Should the defender go for the ball? In an ideal world, yeah. But, does he have an obligation to? Why can't the defender just maintain his position? If the WR makes contact, that should be offensive pass interference. The QB shouldn't make such a crappy throw. Right?
Saturday, October 28, 2006
World Series MVP
David Eckstein? In the decisive game 5, Eckstein was credited with two hits. Neither of the "hits" left the infield. One was a grounder Brandon Inge made a diving stop on. Inge had plenty of time to throw out Eckstein, but the throw was wild. Inge was charged with an error, but only to allow Eckstein to move from 1st to 2nd. It should have been a two-base error and Eckstein shouldn't have got a hit. Later in the game, Eckstein was given a hit on a grounder to shortstop after Carlos Guillen bobbled the ball and threw to 1st late. Guillen made an error ... that's why the routine grounder didn't result in an out. Eckstein should have been hitless in game 5, not 2-4. Plus, one of his hits in game 4 was a double after Curtis Granderson slipped on what should have been a harmless fly ball to center. Without those three gifts, Eckstein would have piled up 5 hits in the five World Series games. So, instead of being 8 for 22 (.364 avg.), he should have been 6 for 22 (.273 avg.) and would have been even worse had Granderson not slipped. That's hardly MVP worthy. What about Yadier Molina or Scott Rolen?
Sean Casey had a much better series than Eckstein. He was 9 for 17 (.529 avg.) and had a 2-run HR and 2 doubles in game 5. He was the Tigers' offense and almost single-handedly kept them alive. Eckstein wasn't the MVP ... but I guess he was on the winning side and had the scorekeeper in his pocket.
Sean Casey had a much better series than Eckstein. He was 9 for 17 (.529 avg.) and had a 2-run HR and 2 doubles in game 5. He was the Tigers' offense and almost single-handedly kept them alive. Eckstein wasn't the MVP ... but I guess he was on the winning side and had the scorekeeper in his pocket.
Friday, October 27, 2006
When should Carpenter pitch?
This is a follow-up to my earlier post about Leyland using Verlander tonight. Unlike the Tigers, who have to maximize the probability that they will win the next three games, the Cardinals need to minimize that probability. During the regular season, you want the expected value of all the games to be maximized, not the product of the probabilities. That's not the case now.
Just for kicks, what if the probabilities of the Tigers winning the following match-ups was as listed:
Verlander v. Weaver: 50%
Rogers v. Carpenter: 50%
Robertson v. Reyes: 50%
The expected number of wins for each team would be 1.5 if all three games were played, with the likelihood of the Tigers winning all three being 12.5% (1 in 8).
Well, what if the probabilities were as follows:
Rogers v. Weaver: 90%
Verlander v. Carpenter: 20%
Robertson v. Reyes: 50%
The expected number of wins for the Tigers would be 1.6 (1.4 for the Cards), but the likelihood of the Tigers winning all three would drop to 9%.
During the regular season, you'd love to sacrifice one game in a 3 or 4 game set in order to win the rest of them. If you have a 100% chance of winning 3 games and a 0% chance in the other, you'll pile up a lot of wins. But you have no chance of winning all of them (not that it's likely you'll win 162 in a row anyway).
What does any of this have to do with when Carpenter pitches? Well, the best chance the Cards have - if the series goes back to Detroit - is probably matching Carpenter up in game 7 (if it's necessary) against Robertson. Kenny Rogers hasn't allowed a run in three post-season starts. Chris Carpenter isn't as good a pitcher on the road as he is at home, so I'd favor Rogers in game 6. But, Robertson hasn't been as hot as Rogers, so the Cardinals best shot would be trying for a miraculous performance from Reyes in game 6 - and not exposing him to the pressure of game 7 of the World Series - and using Carpenter as the fall back option in game 7.
I'd say Carpenter against Rogers is probably 30% and Reyes v. Robertson in game 7 is a little less. So, the chances that they'd win one of those games is about 50%. However, Reyes has some shot, maybe 10% against Rogers, and Carpenter is probably about 60% against Robertson. That would give them a 64% shot at winning, much better odds than if they match ace v. ace in game 6.
Just for kicks, what if the probabilities of the Tigers winning the following match-ups was as listed:
Verlander v. Weaver: 50%
Rogers v. Carpenter: 50%
Robertson v. Reyes: 50%
The expected number of wins for each team would be 1.5 if all three games were played, with the likelihood of the Tigers winning all three being 12.5% (1 in 8).
Well, what if the probabilities were as follows:
Rogers v. Weaver: 90%
Verlander v. Carpenter: 20%
Robertson v. Reyes: 50%
The expected number of wins for the Tigers would be 1.6 (1.4 for the Cards), but the likelihood of the Tigers winning all three would drop to 9%.
During the regular season, you'd love to sacrifice one game in a 3 or 4 game set in order to win the rest of them. If you have a 100% chance of winning 3 games and a 0% chance in the other, you'll pile up a lot of wins. But you have no chance of winning all of them (not that it's likely you'll win 162 in a row anyway).
What does any of this have to do with when Carpenter pitches? Well, the best chance the Cards have - if the series goes back to Detroit - is probably matching Carpenter up in game 7 (if it's necessary) against Robertson. Kenny Rogers hasn't allowed a run in three post-season starts. Chris Carpenter isn't as good a pitcher on the road as he is at home, so I'd favor Rogers in game 6. But, Robertson hasn't been as hot as Rogers, so the Cardinals best shot would be trying for a miraculous performance from Reyes in game 6 - and not exposing him to the pressure of game 7 of the World Series - and using Carpenter as the fall back option in game 7.
I'd say Carpenter against Rogers is probably 30% and Reyes v. Robertson in game 7 is a little less. So, the chances that they'd win one of those games is about 50%. However, Reyes has some shot, maybe 10% against Rogers, and Carpenter is probably about 60% against Robertson. That would give them a 64% shot at winning, much better odds than if they match ace v. ace in game 6.
Leyland Holds Gambler for Game 6
Quick question: how do you win the World Series (or any 7 game series)? Obviously, the answer is that you win four games. So, under what situation will the Tigers have a chance to win the 2006 World Series? If, and only if, the series is tied 3-3 after six games. So, the Tigers have to win two in a row to even have a shot at a game to knock off the Cardinals. Each of the next three games for the Tigers is as important as the others because if they lose any of them, their season will be done. If you'd rather lose the World Series in six games than five, then you should quit reading this post right now. Either way, you lose ... so I don't really see much difference.
Therefore, I don't understand why people think Jim Leyland should throw Kenny Rogers out against Jeff Weaver in St. Louis for the fifth game. To get to game 7, you have to win both games 5 and 6, so Kenny Rogers is just as valuable in game 6 as he is in game 5. Perhaps, it would be better to throw Rogers in game 5, but not because he's the ace of the Tigers. You only pitch Rogers in game 5 if doing so gives you the best opportunity to win the series, not just one more game.
The Cardinals are pitching Jeff Weaver in game 5. Without another rainout, I think the Cards will be forced into throwing Anthony Reyes in one of the games in Detroit, if there are any games in Detroit. The other game in Detroit, assuming the Tigers keep winning, they will face Cards ace Chris Carpenter. Justin Verlander is the next guy up in the four-man rotation, having started game 1. And, Verlander had a much better road ERA than Rogers this year (3.91 to 4.41), while they had similar home ERA's (3.31 to 3.27). So, by the bulk numbers, Verlander is the better choice to start on the road. Additionally, while Rogers has been lights out in the postseason (3-0, 23 IP, 0 RA in 3 GS), how many innings has Rogers thrown on the road during the postseason? 0. Leyland didn't throw him in Oakland, where Rogers has been excellent during his career. Why should Leyland throw him in St. Louis when he can try to match ace v. ace in game 6 (if LaRussa puts Carpenter out there)?
Verlander hasn't been great in the postseason, but the Tigers have a better chance with him against Weaver than with him against Carpenter. And, in the end, the probability of the Tigers winning the World Series is the product of the probability that they win each of the remaining three games. So, if they have a 50% chance in each game, they have a 1/8 probability of taking the series. It's Leyland's job as a manager to align his rotation in the way that maximizes the probability: P(Tigers win game 5)*P(Tigers win game 6)*P(Tigers win game 7). Whether or not that also maximizes the probability that the Tigers win game 5 is irrelevant! Irrelevant!
Therefore, I don't understand why people think Jim Leyland should throw Kenny Rogers out against Jeff Weaver in St. Louis for the fifth game. To get to game 7, you have to win both games 5 and 6, so Kenny Rogers is just as valuable in game 6 as he is in game 5. Perhaps, it would be better to throw Rogers in game 5, but not because he's the ace of the Tigers. You only pitch Rogers in game 5 if doing so gives you the best opportunity to win the series, not just one more game.
The Cardinals are pitching Jeff Weaver in game 5. Without another rainout, I think the Cards will be forced into throwing Anthony Reyes in one of the games in Detroit, if there are any games in Detroit. The other game in Detroit, assuming the Tigers keep winning, they will face Cards ace Chris Carpenter. Justin Verlander is the next guy up in the four-man rotation, having started game 1. And, Verlander had a much better road ERA than Rogers this year (3.91 to 4.41), while they had similar home ERA's (3.31 to 3.27). So, by the bulk numbers, Verlander is the better choice to start on the road. Additionally, while Rogers has been lights out in the postseason (3-0, 23 IP, 0 RA in 3 GS), how many innings has Rogers thrown on the road during the postseason? 0. Leyland didn't throw him in Oakland, where Rogers has been excellent during his career. Why should Leyland throw him in St. Louis when he can try to match ace v. ace in game 6 (if LaRussa puts Carpenter out there)?
Verlander hasn't been great in the postseason, but the Tigers have a better chance with him against Weaver than with him against Carpenter. And, in the end, the probability of the Tigers winning the World Series is the product of the probability that they win each of the remaining three games. So, if they have a 50% chance in each game, they have a 1/8 probability of taking the series. It's Leyland's job as a manager to align his rotation in the way that maximizes the probability: P(Tigers win game 5)*P(Tigers win game 6)*P(Tigers win game 7). Whether or not that also maximizes the probability that the Tigers win game 5 is irrelevant! Irrelevant!
Related:
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Busch Whacked
The turf in centerfield reached out and grabbed Curtis Granderson, resulting in a double by David Eckstein that opened the door for a couple runs for St. Louis. Here's hoping the soggy turf isn't a major reason the Cards end up winning the World Series, if they do win it all. Maybe that is why you should try to get all the baseball games in before the weather starts to turn. Or, we can all do our part to help global warming create a longer summer for everyone. SUV's unite!
Touchy Tiki
Last week, Tiki Barber let it be known that he will be retiring at the end of the season. Since then, he's caught some flack from members of the media and struck back on his radio show on Sirius Radio.
Tiki Barber has the right to retire at the end of the season. A few RB's have retired before their skills greatly diminished, including Barry Sanders and Robert Smith fairly recently. It's Barber's call. I don't know if he's doing it because he doesn't find it enjoyable anymore or if he's trying to get out while he is still healthy. Maybe there is a reason that no one but Barber and his circle know about.
Barber isn't being widely criticized for, potentially, retiring at the end of the season. The biggest media complaint is that Barber leaking this information in the middle of the season will cause a distraction for his teammates. Barber took offense to that and cited his performance and the Giants' performance on MNF against the Cowboys as evidence that it isn't a distraction. If Tiki Barber is as smart as people say he is, then he should know that argument doesn't hold much water. Performance may be linked to being distracted or not being distracted, but you don't know how the Giants would have performed if Barber hadn't let the info slip out. To some degree, Barber's announcement is a distraction. It might not be a major distraction or result in any drop in performance, but answering questions and having the extra media attention will be distracting to someone at some point in time.
Barber ripped Michael Irvin for saying that Barber is quitting and insinuated that Irvin is lacking in character. According to former Dallas Cowboys QB Troy Aikman, Irvin was a great teammate and a great guy in the locker room. Away from the field, maybe Irvin has run into trouble. But, Irvin has great character as it relates to being on a football team. It's Barber's right, but he's retiring before he's given his all to his team. Irvin went out injured and couldn't play anymore. Aikman had too many concussions. Emmitt Smith ran for years and played in Arizona after Dallas no longer wanted him. Irvin might not understand walking away.
There is some merit to Irvin's claim that Barber is quitting. If a starting HS QB decides not to play his senior year because he wants to do the school musical to impress a girl, wouldn't you say he was quitting on his team? The Giants have invested in Barber and have yet to maximize the return, although they've done pretty well. Barber is giving the franchise some warning, but it would be nice to know at least a year in advance so you could draft a potential replacement and groom him for a year. So, is Barber quitting? I'd say to some extent, but it's definitely not like walking out on your team halfway through the season.
And, along the same lines, I agree that Barber is being selfish. I pulled this definition for selfish off the m-w.com website:
concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
Why is Barber retiring? He's looking out for his own well-being and seeking his advantage by letting it be known early on so suitors can line up for his services after the year is over. What about the without regard for others part? Well, don't you think the Giants are a better team with Tiki than without? I'd say so. Selfish? Definitely. Now, everyone has to be a little bit selfish at times and he isn't hurting the team dramatically, if at all, other than that he won't be around in subsequent seasons. But, there isn't anything not selfish about this whole topic. He's looking out for #21 ... #21 on the NY Giants!
Tiki Barber has the right to retire at the end of the season. A few RB's have retired before their skills greatly diminished, including Barry Sanders and Robert Smith fairly recently. It's Barber's call. I don't know if he's doing it because he doesn't find it enjoyable anymore or if he's trying to get out while he is still healthy. Maybe there is a reason that no one but Barber and his circle know about.
Barber isn't being widely criticized for, potentially, retiring at the end of the season. The biggest media complaint is that Barber leaking this information in the middle of the season will cause a distraction for his teammates. Barber took offense to that and cited his performance and the Giants' performance on MNF against the Cowboys as evidence that it isn't a distraction. If Tiki Barber is as smart as people say he is, then he should know that argument doesn't hold much water. Performance may be linked to being distracted or not being distracted, but you don't know how the Giants would have performed if Barber hadn't let the info slip out. To some degree, Barber's announcement is a distraction. It might not be a major distraction or result in any drop in performance, but answering questions and having the extra media attention will be distracting to someone at some point in time.
Barber ripped Michael Irvin for saying that Barber is quitting and insinuated that Irvin is lacking in character. According to former Dallas Cowboys QB Troy Aikman, Irvin was a great teammate and a great guy in the locker room. Away from the field, maybe Irvin has run into trouble. But, Irvin has great character as it relates to being on a football team. It's Barber's right, but he's retiring before he's given his all to his team. Irvin went out injured and couldn't play anymore. Aikman had too many concussions. Emmitt Smith ran for years and played in Arizona after Dallas no longer wanted him. Irvin might not understand walking away.
There is some merit to Irvin's claim that Barber is quitting. If a starting HS QB decides not to play his senior year because he wants to do the school musical to impress a girl, wouldn't you say he was quitting on his team? The Giants have invested in Barber and have yet to maximize the return, although they've done pretty well. Barber is giving the franchise some warning, but it would be nice to know at least a year in advance so you could draft a potential replacement and groom him for a year. So, is Barber quitting? I'd say to some extent, but it's definitely not like walking out on your team halfway through the season.
And, along the same lines, I agree that Barber is being selfish. I pulled this definition for selfish off the m-w.com website:
concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others
Why is Barber retiring? He's looking out for his own well-being and seeking his advantage by letting it be known early on so suitors can line up for his services after the year is over. What about the without regard for others part? Well, don't you think the Giants are a better team with Tiki than without? I'd say so. Selfish? Definitely. Now, everyone has to be a little bit selfish at times and he isn't hurting the team dramatically, if at all, other than that he won't be around in subsequent seasons. But, there isn't anything not selfish about this whole topic. He's looking out for #21 ... #21 on the NY Giants!
NFL Power Rankings
| Record | Best | Worst | Comment | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ind | 6-0 | 1 | 3 | Unbeaten and on top of this list until they fall … that's how this list works. |
| 2 | Chi | 6-0 | 2 | 7 | Suspect offense, dominant D. We've seen this Bears team before. |
| 3 | NYG | 4-2 | 3 | 8 | Despite touchy Tiki, Giants sit atop of NFC East. |
| 4 | NO | 5-1 | 4 | 31 | Brees-ing their way up the list so far. |
| 5 | NE | 5-1 | 5 | 13 | Is there a more lucky QB than Tom Brady? |
| 6 | Cin | 4-2 | 5 | 20 | Bengals over Panthers in a cat-fight thanks to Delhomme's INT. |
| 7 | Min | 4-2 | 7 | 29 | Quick, name 5 Vikings! No, Leif Erikson doesn't count. |
| 8 | Ten | 1-5 | 8 | 30 | Fluke rise due to Redskins' bipolar disorder. |
| 9 | KC | 3-3 | 9 | 22 | Please, hold Trent Green out a while longer. Huard is fine and the team isn't good enough to sacrifice a career. |
| 10 | Den | 5-1 | 4 | 22 | Broncos can leap to #1 with a win over Indy in a classic O v. D match-up. |
| 11 | NYJ | 4-3 | 11 | 29 | Pennington and Ferguson or Leinart? |
| 12 | Bal | 4-2 | 10 | 20 | Why can't the Ravens score? |
| 13 | TB | 2-4 | 10 | 20 | Bucs are mediocre and that's not good in the NFC South. |
| 14 | Atl | 4-2 | 6 | 21 | Incredible feet, quick release, strong arm … the read-option with drop back capability should be devastating with Vick running it. |
| 15 | Dal | 3-3 | 15 | 15 | Stuck at #15 all season. Too bad Romo is starting, it may disrupt the mediocrity … Parcells is hoping for the better. |
| 16 | Hou | 2-4 | 16 | 32 | How did the Texans dismantle former #1 Jacksonville? |
| 17 | Det | 1-6 | 11 | 29 | Less than 20 ppg for Kitna, Jones, and a stable of #1 receivers. What gives? |
| 18 | Phi | 4-3 | 4 | 19 | Westbrook for MVP, not McNabb! |
| 19 | SD | 4-2 | 9 | 19 | Plus 93 points in 6 games with 2 losses … impressive or disappointing? |
| 20 | Car | 4-3 | 6 | 20 | Focus Panthers. The division is too tough to slack off like last year. |
| 21 | Pit | 2-4 | 1 | 21 | Rooney's complaining because he thought the bribe covered officiating for the super bowl and the following regular season, right? |
| 22 | SF | 2-4 | 4 | 27 | At least they have the Cards in the division. |
| 23 | StL | 4-2 | 4 | 27 | Last three wins: Arizona, Detroit, GB. 4-2 record is soft, real soft. |
| 24 | GB | 2-4 | 24 | 28 | Why did Favre come back? Why doesn't GB trade him? |
| 25 | Jax | 3-3 | 1 | 25 | Focus Jags. The AFC is too deep to throw away easy games. |
| 26 | Cle | 1-5 | 21 | 31 | 88 points is more than the Broncos have managed. Unfortunately, the Browns' defensive line is playing solid D in the Mile High City. |
| 27 | Oak | 1-5 | 26 | 31 | No reason to watch Oakland now, they won a game. |
| 28 | Sea | 4-2 | 2 | 28 | I thought the Seahawks would avoid the Super Bowl loser jinx. Injuries to their star backfield aren't helping. |
| 29 | Buf | 2-5 | 11 | 29 | The Sabres are kicking ass! Does that count for anything? |
| 30 | Was | 2-5 | 3 | 30 | The loss to the Titans hurt … bad. |
| 31 | Ari | 1-6 | 23 | 31 | Denny Green should fire himself after the Oakland debacle. The Raiders are horrible … what does that say about his Cards? They were unprepared for the game Sunday and that is unacceptable. |
| 32 | Mia | 1-6 | 17 | 32 | Saban needs to sink the ship to secure a good draft position. Calvin Johnson opposite Chris Chambers would be nice. |
Who Jacked Up TJ?
ESPN football analyst Tom Jackson does a "Jacked Up" segment. What I don't understand is why he doesn't show the best hits of the weekend in said segment. When he started it a couple years ago, the hits seemed like the most violent and vicious of the weekend. Now ... ehhhh, they're ok. Is this league directed? It seems like the league is trying to minimize the really big hits, especially to QB's and WR's. Maybe they didn't want the most brutal plays of the week displayed on the NFL's flagship broadcast, Monday Night Football. You can't have it both ways. I can't play IM sports. I either have to play just for fun or really competitively, I can't dim the switch. You can't dumb down "Jacked Up" and make it worthwhile, either.
Cloudy in Pittsburgh
Your judgement often gets clouded when things aren't going your way. In the worst game of my HS bball career, I almost decapitated my best friend after he got in my path towards a ref after another awful officiating call. So, I can almost understand Pittsburgh Steelers exec. Dan Rooney criticizing the officials after a loss to the Atlanta Falcons dropped them to 2-4. Almost.
Rooney has about as much right to complain about the officiating as Kevin Federline has to complain about his luck in life. The officials gift wrapped last year's super bowl for the Steelers. That game was far more important than any regular season game the mediocre Steelers will play this year. They've shown time and time again that this year's team isn't really a bona fide contender for the crown. Nevertheless, Rooney popped off after his Steelers lost again.
I'm fine with officials being called out. I don't think the league should fine coaches, execs and owners if they have a valid point. For instance, the Bengals complaining about the personal foul on the Justin Smith sack of Bruce Gradkowski a couple weeks back is totally legit. Even Scott Linehan, while he was wrong, had a better beef than Rooney when he complained about the illegal formation call at the end of the recent Seahawks-Rams game. From what I understand, Rooney had complaints about two calls: (1) a false start penalty resulting in a 10-second run-off and regulation expiring and (2) a tripping penalty on the kicker for tripping Atlanta return specialist Allen Rossum.
The false start penalty was the right call. There was a false start. The 10-second run-off rule was put into effect for just that kind of play. If he hadn't moved, they probably would have been flagged for a 5-yard illegal formation penalty for not having 7 players on the line of scrimmage - I figured he was moving up to avoid that call. This was an easy call and couldn't be made any other way. You can't just ignore a false start.
The second complaint by Rooney seems like a throw-in because he was pissed off and needed more than one offense to make his point. The officials are always going to blow one call, but if they blow two, that really killed our chances. Rooney couldn't just complain about the false start because, though that may have been his biggest complaint, he has no leg to stand on on that front. There is a little bit of wiggle room on the tripping call. People fall in different ways and it's entirely possible that the trip was not intentional. On the other hand, you'd have to be a die-hard Steelers fan to say that it was undoubtedly unintentional. The refs had to make a split second decision and I think they made a fair call.
Neither of the calls were bad enough to complain publicly about. This wasn't the refs blatantly giving the ball to the Falcons after they illegally touched - and didn't even recover - an onsides kick. One call was definitely correct, the other was marginal but only affected field position. The Falcons beat the Steelers. Pittsburgh is 2-4. Rooney should be irate, but not with the officials, with his team.
Rooney has about as much right to complain about the officiating as Kevin Federline has to complain about his luck in life. The officials gift wrapped last year's super bowl for the Steelers. That game was far more important than any regular season game the mediocre Steelers will play this year. They've shown time and time again that this year's team isn't really a bona fide contender for the crown. Nevertheless, Rooney popped off after his Steelers lost again.
I'm fine with officials being called out. I don't think the league should fine coaches, execs and owners if they have a valid point. For instance, the Bengals complaining about the personal foul on the Justin Smith sack of Bruce Gradkowski a couple weeks back is totally legit. Even Scott Linehan, while he was wrong, had a better beef than Rooney when he complained about the illegal formation call at the end of the recent Seahawks-Rams game. From what I understand, Rooney had complaints about two calls: (1) a false start penalty resulting in a 10-second run-off and regulation expiring and (2) a tripping penalty on the kicker for tripping Atlanta return specialist Allen Rossum.
The false start penalty was the right call. There was a false start. The 10-second run-off rule was put into effect for just that kind of play. If he hadn't moved, they probably would have been flagged for a 5-yard illegal formation penalty for not having 7 players on the line of scrimmage - I figured he was moving up to avoid that call. This was an easy call and couldn't be made any other way. You can't just ignore a false start.
The second complaint by Rooney seems like a throw-in because he was pissed off and needed more than one offense to make his point. The officials are always going to blow one call, but if they blow two, that really killed our chances. Rooney couldn't just complain about the false start because, though that may have been his biggest complaint, he has no leg to stand on on that front. There is a little bit of wiggle room on the tripping call. People fall in different ways and it's entirely possible that the trip was not intentional. On the other hand, you'd have to be a die-hard Steelers fan to say that it was undoubtedly unintentional. The refs had to make a split second decision and I think they made a fair call.
Neither of the calls were bad enough to complain publicly about. This wasn't the refs blatantly giving the ball to the Falcons after they illegally touched - and didn't even recover - an onsides kick. One call was definitely correct, the other was marginal but only affected field position. The Falcons beat the Steelers. Pittsburgh is 2-4. Rooney should be irate, but not with the officials, with his team.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Entitled Irish
I have a friend (at least I consider him a friend) at the University of Football in America in South Bend, Indiana. He's my source for Fighting Irish football news and he claims that since the loss to Michigan early in the season, students have been analyzing what needs to happen to get Notre Dame into a title game come January. He thinks it's foolish and a waste of time because the fact remains that Notre Dame isn't playing well. If Ohio State beats Michigan and the Wolverines end the season with one loss, would you put ND in the title game over Michigan? Seems absurd because Michigan clobbered the Irish in South Bend this year.
Charlie Weis may have a point in complaining about the Irish being jumped in polls when they won. Maybe he doesn't. Personally, I think Florida got robbed in the Auburn loss. My main argument is "who cares?" Why are preliminary BCS standings released? The BCS doesn't mean anything until the end of the season. Might BCS standings affect future votes in polls by some voters? That doesn't seem like a good situation.
ND is 6-1. They lost to Michigan. They have wins over BCS conference teams Georgia Tech, Penn State, Michigan State, Purdue, Stanford, and UCLA. They still have UNC, Army, Navy, and Air Force. Those should be wins for the Irish. And, they have the big game with USC. If they beat USC, they might have a claim for a BCS game. If they don't, they lack any really significant wins - with Georgia Tech being the best team the Irish have beaten. Plus, if they are blown out, they won't have come close in their two marquee games. Notre Dame is a solid team, but there are a bunch of solid teams out there. They're in a pack with numerous 1-loss teams and a few 2-loss teams. We still have over a month to figure out who's who on the college football landscape this year and it's too early for Charlie Weis to be complaining about losing ground after another shaky win.
Despite the ND struggles this year, if the Irish finish the year 11-1 they will have a claim to a BCS bowl. The title game? Probably not, unless they dismantle USC and a few other things happen. ND always plays a tough schedule with a couple blockbusters. They play teams from across the nation. This year, it's been a lot of ACC, Pac-10 and Big 10 teams. However, the previous two years they played Pittsburgh (Big East) and Tennessee (SEC). Notre Dame doesn't have any conference games so they have to play big names and I think they could add a couple more per season. Losses to Michigan and USC won't be damning, but it's hard to prop yourself up when your big win is Georgia Tech.
Charlie Weis may have a point in complaining about the Irish being jumped in polls when they won. Maybe he doesn't. Personally, I think Florida got robbed in the Auburn loss. My main argument is "who cares?" Why are preliminary BCS standings released? The BCS doesn't mean anything until the end of the season. Might BCS standings affect future votes in polls by some voters? That doesn't seem like a good situation.
ND is 6-1. They lost to Michigan. They have wins over BCS conference teams Georgia Tech, Penn State, Michigan State, Purdue, Stanford, and UCLA. They still have UNC, Army, Navy, and Air Force. Those should be wins for the Irish. And, they have the big game with USC. If they beat USC, they might have a claim for a BCS game. If they don't, they lack any really significant wins - with Georgia Tech being the best team the Irish have beaten. Plus, if they are blown out, they won't have come close in their two marquee games. Notre Dame is a solid team, but there are a bunch of solid teams out there. They're in a pack with numerous 1-loss teams and a few 2-loss teams. We still have over a month to figure out who's who on the college football landscape this year and it's too early for Charlie Weis to be complaining about losing ground after another shaky win.
Despite the ND struggles this year, if the Irish finish the year 11-1 they will have a claim to a BCS bowl. The title game? Probably not, unless they dismantle USC and a few other things happen. ND always plays a tough schedule with a couple blockbusters. They play teams from across the nation. This year, it's been a lot of ACC, Pac-10 and Big 10 teams. However, the previous two years they played Pittsburgh (Big East) and Tennessee (SEC). Notre Dame doesn't have any conference games so they have to play big names and I think they could add a couple more per season. Losses to Michigan and USC won't be damning, but it's hard to prop yourself up when your big win is Georgia Tech.
Monday, October 23, 2006
McNabb for Bucs MVP
A few weeks ago, I wrote a post dismissing McNabb as a shoe-in for MVP, despite gaudy early-season numbers. Essentially, I said things would get worse for McNabb as the schedule got more difficult. After torching Dallas, he's posted his two worst games in losses to New Orleans and Tampa Bay. Against the Saints, he compiled a 91.5 passer rating, had his least yards passing and threw his 2nd pick of the year. Yesterday, against the Bucs, he threw three picks (2 were returned for TD's by CB Ronde Barber) and posted a passer rating of 83.3. Before these last two games, his low for the season was 99.3 (against the NY Giants in the Eagles' first loss).
McNabb is now 2nd in the league in passer rating (behind Indianapolis Colts QB and meat-cutting fan Peyton Manning). More importantly, his Eagles have lost two in a row and aren't in first place in the NFC East. If Jacksonville can right the ship this week, Philly could be 4-4 at the halfway point of the season ... and you can hang the TB loss right on McNabb's head.
McNabb is now 2nd in the league in passer rating (behind Indianapolis Colts QB and meat-cutting fan Peyton Manning). More importantly, his Eagles have lost two in a row and aren't in first place in the NFC East. If Jacksonville can right the ship this week, Philly could be 4-4 at the halfway point of the season ... and you can hang the TB loss right on McNabb's head.
Gambler into Foreign Substances?
Video replays show discoloration at the base of Detroit P Kenny Rogers' left thumb in the 1st inning of last night's game. Similar video footage from Rogers' two previous post-season starts (one against the Yankees and the other against the A's) showed Rogers had similar discoloration in the same spot during those games. Something is reproducible. Maybe he is able to put the pine tar on his hand in the same spot over and over. The scientific community would applaud the reproducibility. Or, maybe the way he grabs the rosin bag results in the same pattern each time he takes the mound.
I don't know what was on Rogers' hand, nor do I really care. Maybe it was dirt. Perhaps it was a foreign substance; apparently, most major league pitchers use pine tar (60-70% is a number I heard thrown around). And, if Rogers did use pine tar, or something similar, to help him grip the ball on a cold night, I don't have a problem with that. Baseball is a warm-weather sport played during the summer. I grew up in Alaska and I pitched when it was just above freezing, raining, and windy. By the end of the game, you can barely spread your fingers and every pitch is a palm ball because that's the only grip you can manage. Obviously, the elements weren't that adverse for Rogers, but let them use pine tar, or something else, if they are going to continue to schedule games in 30-40 degree weather.
I don't know what was on Rogers' hand, nor do I really care. Maybe it was dirt. Perhaps it was a foreign substance; apparently, most major league pitchers use pine tar (60-70% is a number I heard thrown around). And, if Rogers did use pine tar, or something similar, to help him grip the ball on a cold night, I don't have a problem with that. Baseball is a warm-weather sport played during the summer. I grew up in Alaska and I pitched when it was just above freezing, raining, and windy. By the end of the game, you can barely spread your fingers and every pitch is a palm ball because that's the only grip you can manage. Obviously, the elements weren't that adverse for Rogers, but let them use pine tar, or something else, if they are going to continue to schedule games in 30-40 degree weather.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Big East Revisited ... Again
The Big East is, apparently, 32-8 in non-conference games. Big East teams are 11-7 against teams from other BCS conferences (Pac-10, ACC, Big 10, Big 12, SEC). That means that Big East teams are 21-1 against teams from non-BCS conferences. It is good that teams from the Big East are beating teams that they should beat. Unfortunately, I don't think the Big East has a marquee win this year.
West Virginia: Marshall, Eastern Washington, Maryland (ACC), East Carolina, Mississippi State (SEC) - (5-0), (2-0)
Pittsburgh: Virginia (ACC), Citadel, Toledo, Central Florida, Michigan State (Big 10) - Loss - (4-1), (1-1)
Louisville: Kentucky (SEC), Temple, Miami (ACC), Kansas State (Big 12), Middle Tennessee State - (5-0), (3-0)
Rutgers: North Carolina (ACC), Illinois (Big 10), Ohio, Howard, Navy - (5-0), (2-0)
South Florida: McNeese State, Florida International, Central Florida, North Carolina (ACC), Kansas (Big 12) - Loss - (4-1), (1-1)
Connecticut: Rhode Island, Indiana (Big 10), Army, Wake Forest (ACC) - Loss, Navy - Loss - (3-2), (1-1)
Syracuse: Illinois (Big 10), Miami (OH), Wyoming, Wake Forest (ACC) - Loss, Iowa (Big 10) - Loss - (3-2), (1-2)
Cincinnati: Eastern Kentucky, Miami (OH), Akron, Ohio State (Big 10) - Loss, Virginia Tech (ACC) - Loss - (3-2), (0-2)
Just checking myself, that is 32 wins with 11 against BCS conference schools. And, I count 8 losses with 7 of those against BCS schools. Poor UConn, they are the only team to lose to a non-BCS conference school (Navy).
Where is the signature win for the conference? ACC losers Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina (x2), and Miami aren't among the top 25 teams in the country. The big name, Miami, beat the Houston Cougars at home by 1 point. Wake Forest is in the AP top 25 but not the USA Today list, but the Demon Deacs won their games against the Big East. MS State and Kentucky aren't among the dominant teams in the SEC ... they're bottom feeders. Indiana and Illinois (x2) reside in a similar spot in the Big 10. And, Kansas State can't even compete in the Big 12 North!
If one of the top Big East teams(WVU, Louisville, Rutgers) runs the table, they may be worthy of playing for a national championship. Unfortunately, while the league has done well in the W & L column, the strength of schedule is ridiculous. No Big East team has beaten a top 10 team from another conference. No top 15's or top 20's. None of the top 25. Miami is in the "others receiving votes" in the AP and USA Today polls.
Is there another BCS conference with the same shortcoming? Michigan beat Notre Dame and Ohio State beat Texas. Check the Big 10 off the list. USC beat Nebraska and Arkansas. The Pac-10 is represented. Tennessee knocked off #11 California. The SEC got it done despite having only 4 non-conference games per team instead of the Big East's 5.
Each Big East team plays 5 non-conference games (8 teams in the conference, so 7 games are accumulated playing everyone else). How can they not find time to schedule solid teams from someplace?
Oklahoma went to Eugene and beat the Oregon Ducks ... oh, wait ... what happened? Oregon won? No they didn't. That would be the big Big 12 win, if the Pac-10 officiating crew wasn't either corrupt or blind ... take your pick. Texas Tech beat UTEP, who is 4-2 but not in the top 25. But, the Big 12 does have the defending national champion Texas Longhorns. The ACC has a near miss with GA Tech losing to Notre Dame, 14-10. Florida State has a date with Florida later in the year and Ga Tech takes on Georgia, too. So, there are possibilities there for the ACC to right the ship.
So, recapping, Big East ... NOPE! Big 10, SEC, and Pac-10 ... CHECK! Big 12 ... ROBBED! ACC ... JURY'S OUT! Look for this topic to be revisited once more (at least) if a Big East team ends the season undefeated and is lobbying for a spot in the title game.
West Virginia: Marshall, Eastern Washington, Maryland (ACC), East Carolina, Mississippi State (SEC) - (5-0), (2-0)
Pittsburgh: Virginia (ACC), Citadel, Toledo, Central Florida, Michigan State (Big 10) - Loss - (4-1), (1-1)
Louisville: Kentucky (SEC), Temple, Miami (ACC), Kansas State (Big 12), Middle Tennessee State - (5-0), (3-0)
Rutgers: North Carolina (ACC), Illinois (Big 10), Ohio, Howard, Navy - (5-0), (2-0)
South Florida: McNeese State, Florida International, Central Florida, North Carolina (ACC), Kansas (Big 12) - Loss - (4-1), (1-1)
Connecticut: Rhode Island, Indiana (Big 10), Army, Wake Forest (ACC) - Loss, Navy - Loss - (3-2), (1-1)
Syracuse: Illinois (Big 10), Miami (OH), Wyoming, Wake Forest (ACC) - Loss, Iowa (Big 10) - Loss - (3-2), (1-2)
Cincinnati: Eastern Kentucky, Miami (OH), Akron, Ohio State (Big 10) - Loss, Virginia Tech (ACC) - Loss - (3-2), (0-2)
Just checking myself, that is 32 wins with 11 against BCS conference schools. And, I count 8 losses with 7 of those against BCS schools. Poor UConn, they are the only team to lose to a non-BCS conference school (Navy).
Where is the signature win for the conference? ACC losers Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina (x2), and Miami aren't among the top 25 teams in the country. The big name, Miami, beat the Houston Cougars at home by 1 point. Wake Forest is in the AP top 25 but not the USA Today list, but the Demon Deacs won their games against the Big East. MS State and Kentucky aren't among the dominant teams in the SEC ... they're bottom feeders. Indiana and Illinois (x2) reside in a similar spot in the Big 10. And, Kansas State can't even compete in the Big 12 North!
If one of the top Big East teams(WVU, Louisville, Rutgers) runs the table, they may be worthy of playing for a national championship. Unfortunately, while the league has done well in the W & L column, the strength of schedule is ridiculous. No Big East team has beaten a top 10 team from another conference. No top 15's or top 20's. None of the top 25. Miami is in the "others receiving votes" in the AP and USA Today polls.
Is there another BCS conference with the same shortcoming? Michigan beat Notre Dame and Ohio State beat Texas. Check the Big 10 off the list. USC beat Nebraska and Arkansas. The Pac-10 is represented. Tennessee knocked off #11 California. The SEC got it done despite having only 4 non-conference games per team instead of the Big East's 5.
Each Big East team plays 5 non-conference games (8 teams in the conference, so 7 games are accumulated playing everyone else). How can they not find time to schedule solid teams from someplace?
Oklahoma went to Eugene and beat the Oregon Ducks ... oh, wait ... what happened? Oregon won? No they didn't. That would be the big Big 12 win, if the Pac-10 officiating crew wasn't either corrupt or blind ... take your pick. Texas Tech beat UTEP, who is 4-2 but not in the top 25. But, the Big 12 does have the defending national champion Texas Longhorns. The ACC has a near miss with GA Tech losing to Notre Dame, 14-10. Florida State has a date with Florida later in the year and Ga Tech takes on Georgia, too. So, there are possibilities there for the ACC to right the ship.
So, recapping, Big East ... NOPE! Big 10, SEC, and Pac-10 ... CHECK! Big 12 ... ROBBED! ACC ... JURY'S OUT! Look for this topic to be revisited once more (at least) if a Big East team ends the season undefeated and is lobbying for a spot in the title game.
Randolph uses right bullets but misses elusive Cards
Former Phillies 1B and current ESPN analyst John Kruk was critical of Mets Manager Willie Randolph for his handling of his bullpen in the Mets 3-1 game 7 loss to the St. Louis Cardinals in the NLCS. Kruk thought Mets closer Billy Wagner should have been in the game in the top of the ninth, with the score tied 1-1, instead of Mets set-up man Aaron Heilman. I disagree.
I agree with Kruk that Wagner is the best reliever the Mets have and you want to go down with your best pitcher on the mound, not your #2 reliever, if you are going to have to swallow a loss to end your season. Do you want Michael Jordan taking the last-second jump shot? Tiger Woods standing over a tournament-clinching putt on 18?
However, last night's game wasn't setting up to be a one-shot deal. It was a tied game. The game could have lasted indefinitely, it's one of the enduring traits about baseball. The game was tied 1-1 with the bottom portion of each team's line-up due up in the ninth. The Cardinals had Edmonds, Rolen, and Molina due up in the top of the ninth. That's 5-7 in the St. Louis line-up. Heilman had just manuevered through the top of the order in the 8th, getting Eckstein, Spiezio (hitting for Wilson) and Encarnacion, with an intentional walk of Albert Pujols with 2 outs. Potentially, Heilman could work through two more innings without much danger if he could get Edmonds-Rolen-Molina, then Belliard-pinch hitter-Eckstein. Then, Billy Wagner could come in to face Spiezio, Pujols, Encarnacion, Edmonds, etc.
The Mets had the bottom of their order due up in the ninth. That was probably a contributing factor to not bringing in Wagner. The Mets would be trying to push across a run with Valentin-Chavez-pinch hitter, the 7-9 spots in the order, starting the inning. If you have the top of your order up in the ninth and think you'll score runs to win the game, you might be more willing to burn Heilman and bring in Wagner. That wasn't the case, though.
It's one of those inconvenient rules in baseball that you can't bring players back into the game after you take them out. So, Randolph couldn't use Heilman for the 8th, then Wagner for the 9th and 10th, then come back with Heilman. A bullpen has a few bullets, but how many of them do you actually trust to hit the target? Wagner had even had troubles during the series. Heilman seemed like he was breezing along. You don't want to waste a valuable commodity like that by removing him after just one inning. You also don't want to waste a valuable commodity like Wagner against the weak part of the opposition's line-up.
Willie Randolph shouldn't be second guessed. His decision to leave Heilman in the game was fine. Not only was it not a bad decision, it was the correct decision. If the game had gone to the 14th tied at 1 and the Mets had to use Steve Trachsel because they'd brought Wagner in in the 9th, people would be bemoaning the fact that Randolph wasn't more careful burning through his quality relievers. Heilman made a bad pitch at a bad time to Yadier Molina. His changeup didn't sink and moved back over the fat part of the plate. Molina took advantage. That kind of thing happens. Pitchers make bad pitches. Wainwright hung some curves in the bottom half of the ninth, but the Met hitters didn't take advantage. That is why you play the games. It isn't always a strategical decision that loses the game ... and in this case, it just wasn't in the cards for the Mets.
I agree with Kruk that Wagner is the best reliever the Mets have and you want to go down with your best pitcher on the mound, not your #2 reliever, if you are going to have to swallow a loss to end your season. Do you want Michael Jordan taking the last-second jump shot? Tiger Woods standing over a tournament-clinching putt on 18?
However, last night's game wasn't setting up to be a one-shot deal. It was a tied game. The game could have lasted indefinitely, it's one of the enduring traits about baseball. The game was tied 1-1 with the bottom portion of each team's line-up due up in the ninth. The Cardinals had Edmonds, Rolen, and Molina due up in the top of the ninth. That's 5-7 in the St. Louis line-up. Heilman had just manuevered through the top of the order in the 8th, getting Eckstein, Spiezio (hitting for Wilson) and Encarnacion, with an intentional walk of Albert Pujols with 2 outs. Potentially, Heilman could work through two more innings without much danger if he could get Edmonds-Rolen-Molina, then Belliard-pinch hitter-Eckstein. Then, Billy Wagner could come in to face Spiezio, Pujols, Encarnacion, Edmonds, etc.
The Mets had the bottom of their order due up in the ninth. That was probably a contributing factor to not bringing in Wagner. The Mets would be trying to push across a run with Valentin-Chavez-pinch hitter, the 7-9 spots in the order, starting the inning. If you have the top of your order up in the ninth and think you'll score runs to win the game, you might be more willing to burn Heilman and bring in Wagner. That wasn't the case, though.
It's one of those inconvenient rules in baseball that you can't bring players back into the game after you take them out. So, Randolph couldn't use Heilman for the 8th, then Wagner for the 9th and 10th, then come back with Heilman. A bullpen has a few bullets, but how many of them do you actually trust to hit the target? Wagner had even had troubles during the series. Heilman seemed like he was breezing along. You don't want to waste a valuable commodity like that by removing him after just one inning. You also don't want to waste a valuable commodity like Wagner against the weak part of the opposition's line-up.
Willie Randolph shouldn't be second guessed. His decision to leave Heilman in the game was fine. Not only was it not a bad decision, it was the correct decision. If the game had gone to the 14th tied at 1 and the Mets had to use Steve Trachsel because they'd brought Wagner in in the 9th, people would be bemoaning the fact that Randolph wasn't more careful burning through his quality relievers. Heilman made a bad pitch at a bad time to Yadier Molina. His changeup didn't sink and moved back over the fat part of the plate. Molina took advantage. That kind of thing happens. Pitchers make bad pitches. Wainwright hung some curves in the bottom half of the ninth, but the Met hitters didn't take advantage. That is why you play the games. It isn't always a strategical decision that loses the game ... and in this case, it just wasn't in the cards for the Mets.
Sylvester and Tweety
A few weeks ago, the Detroit Tigers and the St. Louis Cardinals entered the MLB playoffs with the worst performances in their last fifty games ever—19-31 and 22-28 respectively. Of course, the sensationalism is a bit frivolous: baseball has been sending eight teams to the playoffs only relatively recently. Still, raise your hand if you expected this unlikely pairing in the World Series. . . . That's what I thought.
But why don't we expect it by now? Wild card teams won the World Series three years in a row! (Granted, the Cardinals are not a wild card team. But they did have the worst record among playoff teams.) How do we account for this?
One proposal that has been made specifically with the Houston Astros in mind is that playoff teams don't need a full field of starting pitchers. If they have three good ones—e.g. Oswalt, Pettitte, Clemens—they can make it past teams with better overall starting pitching. But, the Astros haven't won the World Series lately.
I'm going to suggest something completely different. And I'm going to do so without any evidence. Feel free to ignore everything I'm about to say. Maybe the home field advantage that baseball and other sports try to give teams in playoff series doesn't really work. I mean, did they ever do any analysis before constructing the 2-2-1 or 2-3-2 systems? It's great to have the first two games at home, we can probably all agree. But those games will never completely decide a series. Whereas games three and four (of five), or four and five (of seven), may be decisive. And those games are always at home for the team that is supposed to have a disadvantage.
If I can dig up some data and some free time, I'll try to confirm or debunk this intuition in the next few days. Until then, just think about it.
But why don't we expect it by now? Wild card teams won the World Series three years in a row! (Granted, the Cardinals are not a wild card team. But they did have the worst record among playoff teams.) How do we account for this?
One proposal that has been made specifically with the Houston Astros in mind is that playoff teams don't need a full field of starting pitchers. If they have three good ones—e.g. Oswalt, Pettitte, Clemens—they can make it past teams with better overall starting pitching. But, the Astros haven't won the World Series lately.
I'm going to suggest something completely different. And I'm going to do so without any evidence. Feel free to ignore everything I'm about to say. Maybe the home field advantage that baseball and other sports try to give teams in playoff series doesn't really work. I mean, did they ever do any analysis before constructing the 2-2-1 or 2-3-2 systems? It's great to have the first two games at home, we can probably all agree. But those games will never completely decide a series. Whereas games three and four (of five), or four and five (of seven), may be decisive. And those games are always at home for the team that is supposed to have a disadvantage.
If I can dig up some data and some free time, I'll try to confirm or debunk this intuition in the next few days. Until then, just think about it.
Related:
Thursday, October 19, 2006
The dirty details
Evan's not the only one who's annoyed by Rodney Harrison's late hits. In a preseason poll, 23% of NFL players voted Rodney Harrison the dirtiest. I wonder who Rodney voted for? Not himself, obviously. Says Harrison,
The Patriots safety leads the list by a wide margin. Joey Porter and Jon Runyan come in second, each with 6% of the 361 votes. Now, I have no idea how Sports Illustrated conducted the poll. But it's hard to argue with these results. Imagine we thought that Porter, Runyan, and Harrison were all equally dirty—say 12% each—and that this outcome was just a statistical anomaly. Then the statistics would say, "No! Not a chance!" Okay, there's a chance. But it's like one in a trillion (according to a chi-squared test treating all other votes as one bin). I don't think that's what happened.
No, the NFL players think Rodney Harrison plays dirty, just like Evan thinks.
All I can say is as many guys as say I'm a dirty player, just as many come up and tell me they admire how I play, the hard work, the commitment, the toughness. That's the pride you're looking for. I take pride in that.Does that mean 23% of the league admires him for his toughness, too? I'm guessing no. I'm guessing he's as deluded about his image as he is about his play.
The Patriots safety leads the list by a wide margin. Joey Porter and Jon Runyan come in second, each with 6% of the 361 votes. Now, I have no idea how Sports Illustrated conducted the poll. But it's hard to argue with these results. Imagine we thought that Porter, Runyan, and Harrison were all equally dirty—say 12% each—and that this outcome was just a statistical anomaly. Then the statistics would say, "No! Not a chance!" Okay, there's a chance. But it's like one in a trillion (according to a chi-squared test treating all other votes as one bin). I don't think that's what happened.
No, the NFL players think Rodney Harrison plays dirty, just like Evan thinks.
Related:
If one is good, three are definitely better!
Back in the good old days of the double reverse pass, SF 49'er dominance (heck, NFC dominance) and football not at all resembling Chinese Checkers, pass rushers were allowed to hit the QB as long as they only took a couple steps after the ball was released. Unnecessary roughness was, oddly, called when plays were unnecessarily rough in the football context. Strange.
I've watched as the league office and officials cracked down, moving from a couple to less than two, then one. Can you imagine if the NBA only allowed one step after you picked up your dribble before you took off for a lay-up? Now, as Cincinnati Bengal Justin Smith learned against Tampa on Sunday, you have to coddle the QB as you take him down, even on a sack. Not only can you not be unnecessarily rough if you want to avoid a penalty, you also have to be extra careful not to let them get injured. Maybe the officials were on heightened alert because Chris Simms had his spleen ruptured; Simms was the Bucs starting QB before being sidelined with the injury. Justin Smith received a 15-yard penalty for routinely sacking the QB. That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen.
I think I have a way to improve the situation that is evolving with the treatment of QB's in the NFL. You can't go low, you can't go high, you can't lead with your helmet, and now you can't tackle them regularly. Maybe they should have flags! Now that I actually wrote that, it seems like that might be the next step for the NFL, though it isn't the recommendation I have in mind. The solution to the roughing the passer epidemic is a graduated system. Roughing the passer is currently 15 yards. Not all roughing the passer fouls are created equal, so why is there a uniform penalty. There are two face mask levels. I think there should be three face mask levels (5, 10, and 15 instead of just 5 and 15). Running into the kicker results in 5 yards, roughing the kicker gives the opponents 15 yards.
There should be multiple levels of roughing the passer, too. I'd lobby for three. If Justin Smith tackles another QB a little too hard, give him a 5 yard penalty. It would be applied to the end of the play and not an automatic first down. Serious offenses would garner the 15 yard penalty and an automatic first down. The medium level would be for slightly late hits that aren't that vicious, going low or high lightly, and other similar infractions. The 10-yarders would also be tacked on to the end of the play, with no automatic first down.
The NFL rules are evolving and that is fine. The QB position is valuable to the league and also to individual teams. I don't really want to watch Indy play without Peyton Manning. Who is the backup for Cincy now that Kitna is in Detroit? Doug Johnson or Anthony Wright. Personally, I'd love to see Tom Brady go down, but I doubt many NE fans want to see Matt Cassell with his hands under center. The penalties need to evolve with the rules, though. Fifteen yards for something that wasn't a foul last year is absurd. It's bad for the game and there is a simple solution. Graduated levels. The punishment should fit the crime. You don't line up the firing squad for someone who steals a pack of gum from the neighborhood 7-Eleven ... at least not in America!
I've watched as the league office and officials cracked down, moving from a couple to less than two, then one. Can you imagine if the NBA only allowed one step after you picked up your dribble before you took off for a lay-up? Now, as Cincinnati Bengal Justin Smith learned against Tampa on Sunday, you have to coddle the QB as you take him down, even on a sack. Not only can you not be unnecessarily rough if you want to avoid a penalty, you also have to be extra careful not to let them get injured. Maybe the officials were on heightened alert because Chris Simms had his spleen ruptured; Simms was the Bucs starting QB before being sidelined with the injury. Justin Smith received a 15-yard penalty for routinely sacking the QB. That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen.
I think I have a way to improve the situation that is evolving with the treatment of QB's in the NFL. You can't go low, you can't go high, you can't lead with your helmet, and now you can't tackle them regularly. Maybe they should have flags! Now that I actually wrote that, it seems like that might be the next step for the NFL, though it isn't the recommendation I have in mind. The solution to the roughing the passer epidemic is a graduated system. Roughing the passer is currently 15 yards. Not all roughing the passer fouls are created equal, so why is there a uniform penalty. There are two face mask levels. I think there should be three face mask levels (5, 10, and 15 instead of just 5 and 15). Running into the kicker results in 5 yards, roughing the kicker gives the opponents 15 yards.
There should be multiple levels of roughing the passer, too. I'd lobby for three. If Justin Smith tackles another QB a little too hard, give him a 5 yard penalty. It would be applied to the end of the play and not an automatic first down. Serious offenses would garner the 15 yard penalty and an automatic first down. The medium level would be for slightly late hits that aren't that vicious, going low or high lightly, and other similar infractions. The 10-yarders would also be tacked on to the end of the play, with no automatic first down.
The NFL rules are evolving and that is fine. The QB position is valuable to the league and also to individual teams. I don't really want to watch Indy play without Peyton Manning. Who is the backup for Cincy now that Kitna is in Detroit? Doug Johnson or Anthony Wright. Personally, I'd love to see Tom Brady go down, but I doubt many NE fans want to see Matt Cassell with his hands under center. The penalties need to evolve with the rules, though. Fifteen yards for something that wasn't a foul last year is absurd. It's bad for the game and there is a simple solution. Graduated levels. The punishment should fit the crime. You don't line up the firing squad for someone who steals a pack of gum from the neighborhood 7-Eleven ... at least not in America!
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
The New Orleans Saints: Brees, Bush and Payton
The Jim Haslett-led Saints of the last few years had been classified as enigmatic. They'd lose games they weren't supposed to, win games they weren't supposed to, suffer through lengthy losing skids and then turn around and reel off a few in a row. They were a .500'ish team quarterbacked by Aaron Brooks, who experts say is one of the more talented QB's in the league, but isn't the QB you'd want for your team.
Last year, Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans. The Saints were displaced. Jim Haslett and Aaron Brooks were no longer wanted. They practiced in San Antonio and played seemingly everywhere. The Saints were not the 2nd worst team in the league last year. Hurricane Katrina and the resulting circumstances put New Orleans in a position to get the USC star with the #2 pick. The poor play also allowed them to cut ties with Haslett, who'd been rumored to be on the hot seat for a couple years, and Brooks, who never quite got New Orleans over the hump.
The replacements, QB Drew Brees and Head Coach Sean Payton have been widely praised for the turnaround. Brees has played pretty well and has developed into a quality starting QB (7th in QB rating this year) in the NFL, something Brooks never seemed to do. Sean Payton has led the Saints to a 5-1 record. Reggie Bush has 480 yards from scrimmage, that's an average of 80 per game ... 80*16=1280 yards per scrimmage for the season (his current pace). Plus, he's contributing on punt returns. Those three are being hailed for turning the team around.
In 2001, the Saints were 7-9. The next year, they finished 9-7. Then, in 2003 and 2004 they posted 8-8 records. The Saints have been mediocre for years, just look at the graph (sorry, my Apple PowerBook is the reason "Wins" is upside down). They aren't an awful franchise. Last year's 3-13 record was an aberration, not a trend. This year, the Saints are 5-1 with wins over Cleveland (1-4), Green Bay (1-5), Atlanta (3-2), Tampa Bay (1-4) and Philadelphia (4-2). The two big wins, over Atlanta and Philly were at home in the renovated Superdome in front of enthusiastic - to say the least - fans. The only blemish on their record is a road loss to 4-2 Carolina, a quality opponent.
You never know how an NFL season is going to materialize, but it seems like the toughest part of the Saints' schedule is still to come. Tampa Bay has been playing better recently and they are, along with San Francisco, the easy games remaining on the schedule. They have division foes Carolina and Atlanta again, along with the big 3 from the AFC North, Baltimore, Cincinnati and Pittsburgh. They also have 3 more games against the NFC East: at Dallas and NY Giants and home for the 'Skins. Hey, shouldn't they play that Saints - Giants game in the Superdome in New Orleans and just say the Giants are the home team to make up for last year?
The Saints should be better this year with Brees and Bush, over Brooks and whoever they would have taken with a mid first round draft pick. But, they aren't going to go 14-2. They shouldn't have much trouble getting to .500, but 11 wins would be an accomplishment given the remaining schedule and Deuce McAllister's ailing hamstring. That would be a significant improvement, but it's not fair to compare them to the 2005 Saints who really didn't have much of a chance ... compare them to all the years before that.
Last year, Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans. The Saints were displaced. Jim Haslett and Aaron Brooks were no longer wanted. They practiced in San Antonio and played seemingly everywhere. The Saints were not the 2nd worst team in the league last year. Hurricane Katrina and the resulting circumstances put New Orleans in a position to get the USC star with the #2 pick. The poor play also allowed them to cut ties with Haslett, who'd been rumored to be on the hot seat for a couple years, and Brooks, who never quite got New Orleans over the hump.
The replacements, QB Drew Brees and Head Coach Sean Payton have been widely praised for the turnaround. Brees has played pretty well and has developed into a quality starting QB (7th in QB rating this year) in the NFL, something Brooks never seemed to do. Sean Payton has led the Saints to a 5-1 record. Reggie Bush has 480 yards from scrimmage, that's an average of 80 per game ... 80*16=1280 yards per scrimmage for the season (his current pace). Plus, he's contributing on punt returns. Those three are being hailed for turning the team around.
In 2001, the Saints were 7-9. The next year, they finished 9-7. Then, in 2003 and 2004 they posted 8-8 records. The Saints have been mediocre for years, just look at the graph (sorry, my Apple PowerBook is the reason "Wins" is upside down). They aren't an awful franchise. Last year's 3-13 record was an aberration, not a trend. This year, the Saints are 5-1 with wins over Cleveland (1-4), Green Bay (1-5), Atlanta (3-2), Tampa Bay (1-4) and Philadelphia (4-2). The two big wins, over Atlanta and Philly were at home in the renovated Superdome in front of enthusiastic - to say the least - fans. The only blemish on their record is a road loss to 4-2 Carolina, a quality opponent.
You never know how an NFL season is going to materialize, but it seems like the toughest part of the Saints' schedule is still to come. Tampa Bay has been playing better recently and they are, along with San Francisco, the easy games remaining on the schedule. They have division foes Carolina and Atlanta again, along with the big 3 from the AFC North, Baltimore, Cincinnati and Pittsburgh. They also have 3 more games against the NFC East: at Dallas and NY Giants and home for the 'Skins. Hey, shouldn't they play that Saints - Giants game in the Superdome in New Orleans and just say the Giants are the home team to make up for last year?
The Saints should be better this year with Brees and Bush, over Brooks and whoever they would have taken with a mid first round draft pick. But, they aren't going to go 14-2. They shouldn't have much trouble getting to .500, but 11 wins would be an accomplishment given the remaining schedule and Deuce McAllister's ailing hamstring. That would be a significant improvement, but it's not fair to compare them to the 2005 Saints who really didn't have much of a chance ... compare them to all the years before that.
Go North young man!
Reggie Bush is a very talented athlete with speed, quickness, and good hands. He's adept at lining up in the backfield or out wide at WR and can also hurt you in the return game. However, Bush is doing his team damage with his indecisiveness and desire to bust a big play on every snap.
University of Oklahoma RB Adrian Peterson was praised earlier this year for making the most of what is available to him on every run, rather than dancing around looking for a home run on every play. Peterson gained 1925 yards as a freshman. You can put up big numbers while not fulfilling potential, obviously. Now, that isn't to say that big plays won't come, but you shouldn't actively seek them out. Peterson had two 40+ yard runs against Iowa State, including the 53-yard TD run on which Peterson suffered a broken collarbone.
On one play in the Saints-Eagles game Sunday, the Saints ran a sweep to the left. LT Jamaal Brown was blocking Eagles S Sean Considine. Considine was on the sideline side of Brown for at least one of two reasons: (1) Considine was trying to prevent Bush from getting to the sideline and was attempting to force him back inside and/or (2) Brown was trying to kick him out wide so Bush could get downfield quicker and leave himself more room to manuever, rather than head straight for the sideline and then cutting it upfield. Bush needed to cut it upfield right away. He had a huge, gaping even, hole between the tackle and guard. The Eagles had one defender coming in to fill the hole, but the hole was big enough that it needed 3 defenders to fill. Bush needed to make that guy miss and then head for the endzone.
However, looking for a path where no defenders were, Bush danced, allowing the hole to close a little bit, and headed for the sideline. Brown had no choice but to hold to keep Considine off Bush and the little yardage Bush gained along the sideline was negated by the holding penalty. The dancing allowed the defense to improve their position and Bush's proximity to the sideline decreased his effectiveness in space. So, rather than a positive gain and potential for a big play if Bush could juke one defender, the Saints were backed up by a needless penalty.
Bush is a great talent, but this is the type of mistake he can't continue to make if he is going to be a legitimate great in the NFL. He can be a star dancing, but Matt Leinart is already a star, so that's not saying much.
On a related note, I'm getting tired of all-purpose yards being thrown around like they are a meaningful stat. Or, as FOX did for Bush, touches and yards. Against the Eagles, Bush had 11 runs for 25 yards (2.3 ypc with a long of 7 yards), 4 catches for 35 yards (8.8 ypc), and 29 yards on 3 punt returns (9.7 ypr). So, on 18 touches, Bush had 89 all-purpose yards. That's an average of almost 5 yards per touch. What does it mean? Not much, really.
Reggie Bush shouldn't be judged on just his rushing yardage. He is on pace for just over 500 yards rushing. That's not fair. Reggie Bush is a big contributor in the passing game; Bush is on track for 100+ receptions and 750+ yards receiving. That is how he should be used. Deuce McAllister is a better every down back than Bush. The Houston Texans passed on Bush at least in part because they thought Domanick Davis was a fine every down back and Bush would just be an accessory for the offense, and they thought Mario Williams would fill a bigger need. But, 1300 yards from scrimmage as a rookie in the NFL would be a solid accomplishment, and I wouldn't be surprised to see his numbers improve as the year goes on. He might rack up 1500 yards from scrimmage, and that is the number that I want to see. Give me yards from scrimmage, not all-purpose yards because if a player returns kicks, that's usually at least 20 yards per pop. The Saints had 3 different people return kickoffs against the Eagles and they all averaged over 20 yards per return, although Bush wasn't one of them (he just did punt returns). But, punt returns are usually 8-10 yards per, so if you get a lot of opportunities, you'll rack up considerable yardage. So, what I want to know is how Bush ranks as a punt returner. Bush is in the top tier (#8), racking up an average of 10.7, trailing Devin Hester, Kevin Faulk, Dante Hall, Terrence Wilkins, Dennis Northcutt, Allen Rossum, and Wes Welker. So, there are 32 teams and Bush is #8, so he's ahead of returners for 75% of the teams. That's solid, but not spectacular. But, lumped in with his yards from scrimmage, he's a good, not great, player.
University of Oklahoma RB Adrian Peterson was praised earlier this year for making the most of what is available to him on every run, rather than dancing around looking for a home run on every play. Peterson gained 1925 yards as a freshman. You can put up big numbers while not fulfilling potential, obviously. Now, that isn't to say that big plays won't come, but you shouldn't actively seek them out. Peterson had two 40+ yard runs against Iowa State, including the 53-yard TD run on which Peterson suffered a broken collarbone.
On one play in the Saints-Eagles game Sunday, the Saints ran a sweep to the left. LT Jamaal Brown was blocking Eagles S Sean Considine. Considine was on the sideline side of Brown for at least one of two reasons: (1) Considine was trying to prevent Bush from getting to the sideline and was attempting to force him back inside and/or (2) Brown was trying to kick him out wide so Bush could get downfield quicker and leave himself more room to manuever, rather than head straight for the sideline and then cutting it upfield. Bush needed to cut it upfield right away. He had a huge, gaping even, hole between the tackle and guard. The Eagles had one defender coming in to fill the hole, but the hole was big enough that it needed 3 defenders to fill. Bush needed to make that guy miss and then head for the endzone.
However, looking for a path where no defenders were, Bush danced, allowing the hole to close a little bit, and headed for the sideline. Brown had no choice but to hold to keep Considine off Bush and the little yardage Bush gained along the sideline was negated by the holding penalty. The dancing allowed the defense to improve their position and Bush's proximity to the sideline decreased his effectiveness in space. So, rather than a positive gain and potential for a big play if Bush could juke one defender, the Saints were backed up by a needless penalty.
Bush is a great talent, but this is the type of mistake he can't continue to make if he is going to be a legitimate great in the NFL. He can be a star dancing, but Matt Leinart is already a star, so that's not saying much.
On a related note, I'm getting tired of all-purpose yards being thrown around like they are a meaningful stat. Or, as FOX did for Bush, touches and yards. Against the Eagles, Bush had 11 runs for 25 yards (2.3 ypc with a long of 7 yards), 4 catches for 35 yards (8.8 ypc), and 29 yards on 3 punt returns (9.7 ypr). So, on 18 touches, Bush had 89 all-purpose yards. That's an average of almost 5 yards per touch. What does it mean? Not much, really.
Reggie Bush shouldn't be judged on just his rushing yardage. He is on pace for just over 500 yards rushing. That's not fair. Reggie Bush is a big contributor in the passing game; Bush is on track for 100+ receptions and 750+ yards receiving. That is how he should be used. Deuce McAllister is a better every down back than Bush. The Houston Texans passed on Bush at least in part because they thought Domanick Davis was a fine every down back and Bush would just be an accessory for the offense, and they thought Mario Williams would fill a bigger need. But, 1300 yards from scrimmage as a rookie in the NFL would be a solid accomplishment, and I wouldn't be surprised to see his numbers improve as the year goes on. He might rack up 1500 yards from scrimmage, and that is the number that I want to see. Give me yards from scrimmage, not all-purpose yards because if a player returns kicks, that's usually at least 20 yards per pop. The Saints had 3 different people return kickoffs against the Eagles and they all averaged over 20 yards per return, although Bush wasn't one of them (he just did punt returns). But, punt returns are usually 8-10 yards per, so if you get a lot of opportunities, you'll rack up considerable yardage. So, what I want to know is how Bush ranks as a punt returner. Bush is in the top tier (#8), racking up an average of 10.7, trailing Devin Hester, Kevin Faulk, Dante Hall, Terrence Wilkins, Dennis Northcutt, Allen Rossum, and Wes Welker. So, there are 32 teams and Bush is #8, so he's ahead of returners for 75% of the teams. That's solid, but not spectacular. But, lumped in with his yards from scrimmage, he's a good, not great, player.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Flavor of the Week
I might have to road trip to Arizona, but I think the Matt Leinart slurpee will be available at 7-Eleven this week. Why? Because Leinart can throw short passes with great efficiency? Because in a MNF matchup between the Arizona Cardinals and Chicago Bears, Rex Grossman played like a Florida QB product?
I'm not going to bash Leinart. He's been decent, but the Bears didn't bring their A, B, or C game to the desert, at least not offensively. Leinart started the game with a bang, going 5-5 on the Cardinals' first drive, which ended with Bryant Johnson taking a Leinart pass into the end zone. The offensive coordinator put Leinart and the WR's in a position to succeed with short, safe pass plays on the drive. The execution was solid, but the scheme tore a hole into the Bears ... or maybe they were just warming up. Since that 12 play, 77 yard drive, the Cards have scored just once on a possession they started in their own territory. The result of that drive was their third FG of the game.
When you turn the ball over 6 times (4 INT's and 2 fumbles lost) as Rex Grossman has, you usually won't win the game. However, the Chicago Bears have scored two TD's of their own on returns of fumbles. But, the Chicago defense has made this a game. Other notable Arizona drives include:
My wife wants me to explain to her why the Cardinals were running the ball late in the game, instead of throwing more short passes to try to get into better position for a FG. I can't. James averaged 1.5 ypc and I was surprised the number was that high when I looked at the boxscore because the Bears were stuffing the run all night long. Leinart was making fairly solid decisions, why not let him throw?
I think Matt Leinart is what he is ... just like Big Ben is what he is. Leinart wasn't the reason the Cards were up by 20 and he isn't the reason they lost the game. But, I don't think he's the savior Mike, Joe and TK were making him out to be on the MNF broadcast. I'm surprised the Bears didn't press the receivers more early and force Leinart to beat them long, because it's readily apparent that Leinart can make good reads and throws on short stuff if he's aware of what's coming.
On the other hand, I think the gunslinger in Rex Grossman came out tonight and he didn't do his receivers or the defense any favors with all the mistakes he was making. He was putting his defense in the position that his defense usually puts the other team's defense in, and the Cards were able to capitalize, sort of. Rex was pressing, the Bears weren't running the ball despite Jones and Benson putting up okay rushing numbers: averages of 3.5 and 4.0 ypc, respectively. Rex was too busy slinging the ball around for 148 yards on 14-37 with 4 INT's! The Bears were never that far behind because you knew their defense would hold if given a reasonable position on the field. Why throw 37 times and run 13? The Bears need to figure that out or there will be many more days like this and a better team (Carolina, Seattle, etc.) will knock them off come January.
I'm not going to bash Leinart. He's been decent, but the Bears didn't bring their A, B, or C game to the desert, at least not offensively. Leinart started the game with a bang, going 5-5 on the Cardinals' first drive, which ended with Bryant Johnson taking a Leinart pass into the end zone. The offensive coordinator put Leinart and the WR's in a position to succeed with short, safe pass plays on the drive. The execution was solid, but the scheme tore a hole into the Bears ... or maybe they were just warming up. Since that 12 play, 77 yard drive, the Cards have scored just once on a possession they started in their own territory. The result of that drive was their third FG of the game.
When you turn the ball over 6 times (4 INT's and 2 fumbles lost) as Rex Grossman has, you usually won't win the game. However, the Chicago Bears have scored two TD's of their own on returns of fumbles. But, the Chicago defense has made this a game. Other notable Arizona drives include:
- 3 plays for 25 yards resulting in TD number 2 and a 14-0 lead
- a missed FG after going backwards after starting at the Chicago 29
- a FG after starting on the Chicago 33 and fizzling after gaining 10 yards
- a FG after starting on the Chicago 32 and making it to the 10 yard line
My wife wants me to explain to her why the Cardinals were running the ball late in the game, instead of throwing more short passes to try to get into better position for a FG. I can't. James averaged 1.5 ypc and I was surprised the number was that high when I looked at the boxscore because the Bears were stuffing the run all night long. Leinart was making fairly solid decisions, why not let him throw?
I think Matt Leinart is what he is ... just like Big Ben is what he is. Leinart wasn't the reason the Cards were up by 20 and he isn't the reason they lost the game. But, I don't think he's the savior Mike, Joe and TK were making him out to be on the MNF broadcast. I'm surprised the Bears didn't press the receivers more early and force Leinart to beat them long, because it's readily apparent that Leinart can make good reads and throws on short stuff if he's aware of what's coming.
On the other hand, I think the gunslinger in Rex Grossman came out tonight and he didn't do his receivers or the defense any favors with all the mistakes he was making. He was putting his defense in the position that his defense usually puts the other team's defense in, and the Cards were able to capitalize, sort of. Rex was pressing, the Bears weren't running the ball despite Jones and Benson putting up okay rushing numbers: averages of 3.5 and 4.0 ypc, respectively. Rex was too busy slinging the ball around for 148 yards on 14-37 with 4 INT's! The Bears were never that far behind because you knew their defense would hold if given a reasonable position on the field. Why throw 37 times and run 13? The Bears need to figure that out or there will be many more days like this and a better team (Carolina, Seattle, etc.) will knock them off come January.
A Wee Bit Bitter?
Scott Linehan is complaining about the "integrity of the 10-second runoff." He wasn't complaining about it before his St. Louis Rams lost to the Seahawks on a last second 54-yard FG. The Seahawks were flagged for an illegal formation with less than 10 seconds left ... if they'd been flagged for a false start, the game would have been over. Unfortunately for Linehan, no one was moving on the Seahawks' side of the ball.
Linehan has a point, in theory, if you don't have to attempt to have a legal formation. Linehan, as reported by the AP, came up with the idea to just have WR's Isaac Bruce and Tory Holt run a play while having the rest of the team not run downfield. If Bruce snaps it to Holt, it will be an illegal formation, but if everyone else is just standing still, there will be no runoff. Hypothetically, that is correct. However, the league doesn't need to have a 10-second runoff for normal illegal formations, such as one receiver forgetting that he needs to line up on the line of scrimmage instead of one yard back from it. The league should add an addendum to the rule preventing teams from obviously taking advantage of loopholes allowing penalties to aide the team that is penalized ... that's the reason for the 10-second runoff in the first place.
However, Linehan's timing is a little bit off. He wanted a 10-second runoff yesterday so his Rams would beat the Seahawks and remain in 1st place. The Rams weren't cheated, they just happened to lose. So, it sounds like sour grapes for Linehan ... and while he has a point, it's not one that is applicable to the recent game, so he would have been much better served to wait a few days, or weeks, before bringing light to the potential loophole.
Linehan has a point, in theory, if you don't have to attempt to have a legal formation. Linehan, as reported by the AP, came up with the idea to just have WR's Isaac Bruce and Tory Holt run a play while having the rest of the team not run downfield. If Bruce snaps it to Holt, it will be an illegal formation, but if everyone else is just standing still, there will be no runoff. Hypothetically, that is correct. However, the league doesn't need to have a 10-second runoff for normal illegal formations, such as one receiver forgetting that he needs to line up on the line of scrimmage instead of one yard back from it. The league should add an addendum to the rule preventing teams from obviously taking advantage of loopholes allowing penalties to aide the team that is penalized ... that's the reason for the 10-second runoff in the first place.
However, Linehan's timing is a little bit off. He wanted a 10-second runoff yesterday so his Rams would beat the Seahawks and remain in 1st place. The Rams weren't cheated, they just happened to lose. So, it sounds like sour grapes for Linehan ... and while he has a point, it's not one that is applicable to the recent game, so he would have been much better served to wait a few days, or weeks, before bringing light to the potential loophole.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Too many plays for replay?
On Cold Pizza's 1st and 10 on ESPN, Chicago White Sox C A.J. Pierzynski said that there are too many plays in a baseball game to use replay. He was serving as a guest on the one-year anniversary of the play against the Angels when A.J. ran to first after the "dropped?" third strike. So, I'm going to watch the entire Cardinals-Mets game (game 2 of the NLCS) to see how many plays would benefit from being upheld or overturned by replay. I have it on DVR, so I'm not going to be missing any of the action, even as I type. I'm not going to be commenting on balls and strikes. Replay isn't the solution for balls and strikes, automation is.
The top of the first was uneventful, with the Cardinals going three up, three down. Reyes kicked off the bottom of the 1st in style against Cardinal ace Chris Carpenter, hitting a double then moving to 3rd on a sac bunt by Lo Duca. Carpenter got robbed on the 0-1 pitch to Carlos Beltran, which definitely helped Beltran draw a walk. Carpenter got robbed on the BB issued to David Wright, too, with time being called just prior to a flyout by Wright because a beach ball came onto the field. But, the 1st base ump waddling in was somewhat entertaining. The tag on David Wright on the groundout by Shawn Green could use a quick replay, though it will confirm that Eckstein's swipe tag missed Wright, so the call on the field was correct. So, through one inning, one replay is necessary.
The ball hit by Spiezio off Carlos Delgado's glove could use a cursory glance, but it would be upheld quickly as a fair ball. The Mets are starting to get on the home plate umpire, just a half inning after the Cards were getting on him. At least he's not favoring one team. Did I just hear Carpenter cuss after fouling back the 2-1 pitch? The pitch Carpenter struck out on most certainly wasn't a strike ... that was horrible. The double by Chavez could be quickly reviewed, but a quick look would confirm that it was 1-2 feet inside the line. The play at first on the sac bunt by Maine could be looked at too, but it was readily aparent that he was out. The Mets tacked on another run ... so after two it's 4-2 with 4 potential replays but nothing real complicated so far in the game.
Jim Edmonds tried to check his swing on an 0-1 pitch in the top of the 3rd. Check swings are often controversial, but I think automation, rather than replay, is the way to deal with those. So, there will be no more talk about check swings, at least as replay pertains to check swings. We're now tied at 4 after the Edmonds homer. The 3rd is done, with the replay count remaining at 4.
SB's are often close, but not Eckstein's. The throw skipped by Jose Reyes, allowing the Cardinal SS to go to 3rd. Duncan couldn't get him in, though. Chavez is gone. Tucker should have tried to get out of the way of that ball. He stuck his back leg forward as he turned and just got nicked. That's ridiculous. He shouldn't get first for that. Tucker should be fined (or suspended) for his slide, too. He jumped over the bag to try to take out Eckstein. He's not going hard into the base, he's going hard into the defender and that shouldn't be tolerated. Whether or not Reyes beat the throw to first could be looked at, but it was obvious that he made it. Man, Reyes is quick. Lo Duca is gone at first, so through 4, it's 4-4 with 5 replays all confirming calls on the field.
Pujols, Edmonds and Spiezio: three up, three down. Beltran's grounder to Pujols could use a look, but it wasn't really that close. No controversy on Delgado's 2nd homer ... although the ball does seem to be carrying well in NY tonight. I thought Edmonds' fly out went a long way for the way he hit it. The play at first on Wright's grounder should be reviewed, I think, although I haven't seen a replay yet. LaRussa argued, though. It was close and from the view from behind Pujols, it's difficult to tell when he actually catches the ball. Maybe Belliard should have fielded it cleanly or not bounced the throw. The last two outs were uneventful. So, we have 6 replays with one needing more than one look through 5 innings.
Molina just took his battery mate out of the game with his single to left. It's probably about time, considering the way Carpenter has labored through the first five. Hey, Bradford's night is over now too ... enter Feliciano to face the left-handed John Rodriguez. That was a weak AB for the Cards' pinch-hitter. What was the call on the Anderson Hernandez K? Does he think he made contact? That could be reviewed, although it doesn't look like he made contact. What is Josh Hancock doing walking Jose Reyes? I know he hit 19 HRs this year, but you have to make him put it in play. Reyes just scored on the Lo Duca double that was obviously fair. That run is a gift from Hancock. Wow, Belliard made a great play to get Beltran. You can take a look at whether or not the throw beat Beltran, but it got him by a half a step and the review isn't really necessary. Might as well, though. What surprised me was that Belliard would have time to make that play. Delgado's gone, inning over. Two replays, one worth a couple looks and one worth just one. That's 8 replays with 2 of those being a little bit in-depth in the first 6 innings.
So, to update, only about a minute is necessary for the reviews in the first 2/3rd of the game. The six easy ones just need one look, and can be performed while the ball is returning to the pitcher and the pitcher is getting the sign for the next pitch. The play at first on Wright and the Hernandez strikeout would benefit from a couple different angles to make sure the on-field call is correct, but they are straightforward calls that should be quickly resolved. At most, a minute is needed for each if the replays are readily available, and they should be.
It's the top of the 7th, two down, and how did Pujols pull a 97 mph fastball that far foul? Did he think the Mets borrowed Joel Zumaya for his AB? Pujols has great stats through his first 5 years, but comparing him to Barry Bonds based only on AVG., HR and RBI isn't really fair. Bonds was a speedy lead-off hitter and great defensive LF early in his career. Pujols probably has Bonds beat through 5, but not by as much as those stats say. I'm not sure what's more surprising: (1) that Pujols is looking this bad at the plate or (2) that Mota has yet to get Pujols out with Albert looking so off-balance. Pujols' ball was well-struck and obviously fair. He got a crappy bounce, though, and it allowed Chavez to hold him to a single. I didn't like the walk to Reyes and I don't like the 4-pitch walk to Edmonds, although Mota is making Spiezio look silly with his changeup. After two changes, Spiezio yanks a 99 mph fastball foul to the stands down the right side. That's as odd as Pujols' foul ball. He just yanked another fastball to right. That was a great call. It should be reviewed, but the right call was made. There was an odd sound that made me think the ball hit off something behind the fence, but the replay clearly shows it hits Green's glove and then comes back into the field. The triple by Spiezio should have been reviewed, but the review would have been quicker than Tony coming out to argue and then the umpires getting together to talk about it. The replay was pretty obvious and the call was simple.
As we hit the 7th inning stretch, with 9 replays (3 in some detail), I'm glad I picked an interesting game to watch every pitch. Wright's gone. Green's grounder to Pujols was obviously fair, a few feet inside the line. And, Chavez routinely grounds out to 2nd after the Valentin single.
Molina's one-out single was obviously fair. Preston Wilson's 0-1 foul ball was obviously foul. It is odd seeing Wilson in a Cards uniform. Why would the Astros trade a starter to a division rival? I know they wanted to make room for Luke Scott, and they should have dealt Wilson, but not to the team in front of you in the NL Central. Maybe they thought they were too far behind to make a run. Oops. Or, maybe they knew how horrible Wilson was this year and were trying to sabotage the red birds. Just as I'm typing this, Wilson whiffs. Eckstein's HR-distance foul ball wasn't really close ... 10-15 feet to the right would have been close. Eckstein is pretty good at fouling balls off. Impressive, kind of. Annoying? Certainly. It was nice of Fox to show a guy spitting chewing tobacco into a plastic bottle after a couple more foul balls. Finally, Eckstein's gone ... and so is the top half of the eighth.
With one out, Reyes singles and then Lo Duca is issued a 4-pitch walk. How hard is it to throw strikes? You're a major league pitcher! I'm not sure Kinney threw any strikes to Reyes either. I thought both the pitches Reyes swung at were a little up and away. Beltran was beat by Eckstein's throw by half a step on the DP he grounded into. Take a quick look, nothing more, if you want.
So Taguchi, the defensive replacement, just took Wagner deep. I know, I'm a few hours behind. Pujols just put a good swing on a hit to left. After the grounder to 2nd by Edmonds, Met relievers have thrown 104 pitches. Maine threw 88. That is a lot of pitches for one team in a regular game. Take a quick look at the Spiezio ball down the line, but that's all you'll need. Three runs are in against Wagner and it hasn't just been bleeders. Encarnacion didn't nail that grounder to right, but there haven't been any real cheap hits in this flurry. I am surprised Wagner was removed with 2 outs, though. I'm skipping over a lot of the commentary. They're referencing pitch count, but why not take Wagner out after the Encarnacion single? One pitch is all it took Roberto Hernandez to end the top half of the inning. Again, no major replays necessary in this half inning.
Delgado strikes out to start the bottom half of the 9th ... and we get to hear him cursing at himself. Lovely. Fox is on top of it tonight. Scott Rolen made a nice play to get David Wright; I'm surprised it wasn't a close play at first, but it wasn't. A groundout to Belliard ends the game. Cards win 9-6 to even the series at 1-1.
So, recapping, 11 plays could have a look by replay. That would be overdoing it, but I didn't want to be too selective because I wanted to give A.J. the benefit of the doubt. Only 3 plays in the entire game need more than a cursory look and none of them should take more than a minute. You get the plays right and remove doubt about whether or not the umps are doing a good job. Pierzynski's assertion that there are too many plays in a baseball game to use replay is pure idiocy and it's time for MLB to look into using replay for the betterment of the game. Fortunately, this game didn't need replay because the umps did a good job. But, we all know that umps screw up calls and that's why you have replay as a crutch to support the umps, not undermine them.
The top of the first was uneventful, with the Cardinals going three up, three down. Reyes kicked off the bottom of the 1st in style against Cardinal ace Chris Carpenter, hitting a double then moving to 3rd on a sac bunt by Lo Duca. Carpenter got robbed on the 0-1 pitch to Carlos Beltran, which definitely helped Beltran draw a walk. Carpenter got robbed on the BB issued to David Wright, too, with time being called just prior to a flyout by Wright because a beach ball came onto the field. But, the 1st base ump waddling in was somewhat entertaining. The tag on David Wright on the groundout by Shawn Green could use a quick replay, though it will confirm that Eckstein's swipe tag missed Wright, so the call on the field was correct. So, through one inning, one replay is necessary.
The ball hit by Spiezio off Carlos Delgado's glove could use a cursory glance, but it would be upheld quickly as a fair ball. The Mets are starting to get on the home plate umpire, just a half inning after the Cards were getting on him. At least he's not favoring one team. Did I just hear Carpenter cuss after fouling back the 2-1 pitch? The pitch Carpenter struck out on most certainly wasn't a strike ... that was horrible. The double by Chavez could be quickly reviewed, but a quick look would confirm that it was 1-2 feet inside the line. The play at first on the sac bunt by Maine could be looked at too, but it was readily aparent that he was out. The Mets tacked on another run ... so after two it's 4-2 with 4 potential replays but nothing real complicated so far in the game.
Jim Edmonds tried to check his swing on an 0-1 pitch in the top of the 3rd. Check swings are often controversial, but I think automation, rather than replay, is the way to deal with those. So, there will be no more talk about check swings, at least as replay pertains to check swings. We're now tied at 4 after the Edmonds homer. The 3rd is done, with the replay count remaining at 4.
SB's are often close, but not Eckstein's. The throw skipped by Jose Reyes, allowing the Cardinal SS to go to 3rd. Duncan couldn't get him in, though. Chavez is gone. Tucker should have tried to get out of the way of that ball. He stuck his back leg forward as he turned and just got nicked. That's ridiculous. He shouldn't get first for that. Tucker should be fined (or suspended) for his slide, too. He jumped over the bag to try to take out Eckstein. He's not going hard into the base, he's going hard into the defender and that shouldn't be tolerated. Whether or not Reyes beat the throw to first could be looked at, but it was obvious that he made it. Man, Reyes is quick. Lo Duca is gone at first, so through 4, it's 4-4 with 5 replays all confirming calls on the field.
Pujols, Edmonds and Spiezio: three up, three down. Beltran's grounder to Pujols could use a look, but it wasn't really that close. No controversy on Delgado's 2nd homer ... although the ball does seem to be carrying well in NY tonight. I thought Edmonds' fly out went a long way for the way he hit it. The play at first on Wright's grounder should be reviewed, I think, although I haven't seen a replay yet. LaRussa argued, though. It was close and from the view from behind Pujols, it's difficult to tell when he actually catches the ball. Maybe Belliard should have fielded it cleanly or not bounced the throw. The last two outs were uneventful. So, we have 6 replays with one needing more than one look through 5 innings.
Molina just took his battery mate out of the game with his single to left. It's probably about time, considering the way Carpenter has labored through the first five. Hey, Bradford's night is over now too ... enter Feliciano to face the left-handed John Rodriguez. That was a weak AB for the Cards' pinch-hitter. What was the call on the Anderson Hernandez K? Does he think he made contact? That could be reviewed, although it doesn't look like he made contact. What is Josh Hancock doing walking Jose Reyes? I know he hit 19 HRs this year, but you have to make him put it in play. Reyes just scored on the Lo Duca double that was obviously fair. That run is a gift from Hancock. Wow, Belliard made a great play to get Beltran. You can take a look at whether or not the throw beat Beltran, but it got him by a half a step and the review isn't really necessary. Might as well, though. What surprised me was that Belliard would have time to make that play. Delgado's gone, inning over. Two replays, one worth a couple looks and one worth just one. That's 8 replays with 2 of those being a little bit in-depth in the first 6 innings.
So, to update, only about a minute is necessary for the reviews in the first 2/3rd of the game. The six easy ones just need one look, and can be performed while the ball is returning to the pitcher and the pitcher is getting the sign for the next pitch. The play at first on Wright and the Hernandez strikeout would benefit from a couple different angles to make sure the on-field call is correct, but they are straightforward calls that should be quickly resolved. At most, a minute is needed for each if the replays are readily available, and they should be.
It's the top of the 7th, two down, and how did Pujols pull a 97 mph fastball that far foul? Did he think the Mets borrowed Joel Zumaya for his AB? Pujols has great stats through his first 5 years, but comparing him to Barry Bonds based only on AVG., HR and RBI isn't really fair. Bonds was a speedy lead-off hitter and great defensive LF early in his career. Pujols probably has Bonds beat through 5, but not by as much as those stats say. I'm not sure what's more surprising: (1) that Pujols is looking this bad at the plate or (2) that Mota has yet to get Pujols out with Albert looking so off-balance. Pujols' ball was well-struck and obviously fair. He got a crappy bounce, though, and it allowed Chavez to hold him to a single. I didn't like the walk to Reyes and I don't like the 4-pitch walk to Edmonds, although Mota is making Spiezio look silly with his changeup. After two changes, Spiezio yanks a 99 mph fastball foul to the stands down the right side. That's as odd as Pujols' foul ball. He just yanked another fastball to right. That was a great call. It should be reviewed, but the right call was made. There was an odd sound that made me think the ball hit off something behind the fence, but the replay clearly shows it hits Green's glove and then comes back into the field. The triple by Spiezio should have been reviewed, but the review would have been quicker than Tony coming out to argue and then the umpires getting together to talk about it. The replay was pretty obvious and the call was simple.
As we hit the 7th inning stretch, with 9 replays (3 in some detail), I'm glad I picked an interesting game to watch every pitch. Wright's gone. Green's grounder to Pujols was obviously fair, a few feet inside the line. And, Chavez routinely grounds out to 2nd after the Valentin single.
Molina's one-out single was obviously fair. Preston Wilson's 0-1 foul ball was obviously foul. It is odd seeing Wilson in a Cards uniform. Why would the Astros trade a starter to a division rival? I know they wanted to make room for Luke Scott, and they should have dealt Wilson, but not to the team in front of you in the NL Central. Maybe they thought they were too far behind to make a run. Oops. Or, maybe they knew how horrible Wilson was this year and were trying to sabotage the red birds. Just as I'm typing this, Wilson whiffs. Eckstein's HR-distance foul ball wasn't really close ... 10-15 feet to the right would have been close. Eckstein is pretty good at fouling balls off. Impressive, kind of. Annoying? Certainly. It was nice of Fox to show a guy spitting chewing tobacco into a plastic bottle after a couple more foul balls. Finally, Eckstein's gone ... and so is the top half of the eighth.
With one out, Reyes singles and then Lo Duca is issued a 4-pitch walk. How hard is it to throw strikes? You're a major league pitcher! I'm not sure Kinney threw any strikes to Reyes either. I thought both the pitches Reyes swung at were a little up and away. Beltran was beat by Eckstein's throw by half a step on the DP he grounded into. Take a quick look, nothing more, if you want.
So Taguchi, the defensive replacement, just took Wagner deep. I know, I'm a few hours behind. Pujols just put a good swing on a hit to left. After the grounder to 2nd by Edmonds, Met relievers have thrown 104 pitches. Maine threw 88. That is a lot of pitches for one team in a regular game. Take a quick look at the Spiezio ball down the line, but that's all you'll need. Three runs are in against Wagner and it hasn't just been bleeders. Encarnacion didn't nail that grounder to right, but there haven't been any real cheap hits in this flurry. I am surprised Wagner was removed with 2 outs, though. I'm skipping over a lot of the commentary. They're referencing pitch count, but why not take Wagner out after the Encarnacion single? One pitch is all it took Roberto Hernandez to end the top half of the inning. Again, no major replays necessary in this half inning.
Delgado strikes out to start the bottom half of the 9th ... and we get to hear him cursing at himself. Lovely. Fox is on top of it tonight. Scott Rolen made a nice play to get David Wright; I'm surprised it wasn't a close play at first, but it wasn't. A groundout to Belliard ends the game. Cards win 9-6 to even the series at 1-1.
So, recapping, 11 plays could have a look by replay. That would be overdoing it, but I didn't want to be too selective because I wanted to give A.J. the benefit of the doubt. Only 3 plays in the entire game need more than a cursory look and none of them should take more than a minute. You get the plays right and remove doubt about whether or not the umps are doing a good job. Pierzynski's assertion that there are too many plays in a baseball game to use replay is pure idiocy and it's time for MLB to look into using replay for the betterment of the game. Fortunately, this game didn't need replay because the umps did a good job. But, we all know that umps screw up calls and that's why you have replay as a crutch to support the umps, not undermine them.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Butterfly Effect
Recently, I've been seeing adds for a 2nd Butterfly Effect movie. I thought the first one was pretty good ... Ashton Kutcher surprised me with the fact that he is actually a solid actor, given the correct role. What does this have to do with sports? The movie, not so much. The butterfly effect, a little more. I lobbied for certain rules governing bad calls in college football games. At some point, though, you have to just allow bad calls to be a part of any sport. But, if we limit the bad calls, we limit the potential alteration of the outcome due to the bad calls.
The idea is that a bad call in the 1st inning of a baseball game can change everything that occurs from then on out. There isn't a set amount of time that elapses during baseball play, unlike in football or basketball. In baseball, even if you're down 18 with 2 outs left in the 9th, you have a shot. The chances of a comeback are slim, but not none, even if it has never happened. So, in baseball, anything can happen. That is why baseball needs replay and a computerized ball/strike program.
I don't know how accurate the technology is that shows the relationship between the pitch and the strike zone. But, I think the potential is there for the system to revolutionize balls and strikes in MLB. Calibrate it and validate it in every park. Keep umps there in case it fails, but use the technology, it's far superior to the human umpires for calling balls and strikes, just as the tennis system is superior to the line judges. Use the technology for what it is good at. I'm pretty good at math, but I don't run through seemingly endless computations when I can set up a computer model to do it for me. It's common sense. Develop the technology and make sure it works, then use it! Measure each of the players before each season to set up the vertical criteria for the strike zone and then let the technology do its magic.
There aren't that many close calls in baseball. Use replay for home runs. Use replay for foul balls (let the play go if it's close). There was a ball that knocked up chalk in the playoffs that was ruled foul. It landed between the 3rd base ump and the ump down the left field line. How did they get it wrong? Why are they allowed to get it wrong? Have someone upstairs reviewing every play. Take a couple looks at the close ones and get them right! At least give it a try. What is the harm in seeing if it would work in spring training?
The idea is that a bad call in the 1st inning of a baseball game can change everything that occurs from then on out. There isn't a set amount of time that elapses during baseball play, unlike in football or basketball. In baseball, even if you're down 18 with 2 outs left in the 9th, you have a shot. The chances of a comeback are slim, but not none, even if it has never happened. So, in baseball, anything can happen. That is why baseball needs replay and a computerized ball/strike program.
I don't know how accurate the technology is that shows the relationship between the pitch and the strike zone. But, I think the potential is there for the system to revolutionize balls and strikes in MLB. Calibrate it and validate it in every park. Keep umps there in case it fails, but use the technology, it's far superior to the human umpires for calling balls and strikes, just as the tennis system is superior to the line judges. Use the technology for what it is good at. I'm pretty good at math, but I don't run through seemingly endless computations when I can set up a computer model to do it for me. It's common sense. Develop the technology and make sure it works, then use it! Measure each of the players before each season to set up the vertical criteria for the strike zone and then let the technology do its magic.
There aren't that many close calls in baseball. Use replay for home runs. Use replay for foul balls (let the play go if it's close). There was a ball that knocked up chalk in the playoffs that was ruled foul. It landed between the 3rd base ump and the ump down the left field line. How did they get it wrong? Why are they allowed to get it wrong? Have someone upstairs reviewing every play. Take a couple looks at the close ones and get them right! At least give it a try. What is the harm in seeing if it would work in spring training?
It won't have happened until it happens!
To the best of my recollection, Berra never said that, though he may have. Everyone is giving up on the A's because they lost the first two games at home. No team has ever won a series after losing the first two games at home. Well, why don't the Athletics pack up and go home. The Tigers will represent the AL in the World Series this year. If the Cards beat the Mets in the first two, they can go straight to the WS too! Right?
Wrong! No team had ever come back from an 0-3 deficit until the Red Sox did. The funny thing is that nothing has ever happened until it happens. I got a "B" (87%, I believe) on my 1st college exam. It was in Physics I and I screwed up a rectilinear motion problem where a cop chases down a speeding motorist because I forgot the part in the instructions about there being a maximum velocity for the police cruiser. Oops! It still haunts me to this day. Every exam the rest of my undergraduate career - that I saw my score on - resulted in me receiving an "A" (sometimes, you don't know exactly how you do on final exams). Strange things happen. I screwed up a simple physics problem. The Yankees coughed up a 3-0 lead to the hated Red Sox. The A's have Rich Harden and Dan Haren in games 3 and 4 against Kenny Rogers and Jeremy Bonderman. The Tigers aren't great, there is no reason the A's can't catch some wins on the backs of their starting staff.
Wrong! No team had ever come back from an 0-3 deficit until the Red Sox did. The funny thing is that nothing has ever happened until it happens. I got a "B" (87%, I believe) on my 1st college exam. It was in Physics I and I screwed up a rectilinear motion problem where a cop chases down a speeding motorist because I forgot the part in the instructions about there being a maximum velocity for the police cruiser. Oops! It still haunts me to this day. Every exam the rest of my undergraduate career - that I saw my score on - resulted in me receiving an "A" (sometimes, you don't know exactly how you do on final exams). Strange things happen. I screwed up a simple physics problem. The Yankees coughed up a 3-0 lead to the hated Red Sox. The A's have Rich Harden and Dan Haren in games 3 and 4 against Kenny Rogers and Jeremy Bonderman. The Tigers aren't great, there is no reason the A's can't catch some wins on the backs of their starting staff.
Throw it to me!
Drew Bledsoe attempted 13 passes to Terrell Owens. Woody Paige, on 1st and 10 today, pointed out that the WR with the most balls thrown his way last weekend was Buffalo Bill Lee Evans. Unfortunately, Bledsoe wasn't getting the ball to his star receiver. Owens caught 3 balls for 45 yards, dropped another, and had another go off his hands that may actually have been intended for the guy behind him.
Terrell Owens needs to shut up. I think he should take a leadership role on the sideline and he can yell all he wants. But, he should keep it in house and not talk to the media. For some reason, the media wants to stir stuff up between "The Player" and "The Coach." Maybe football teams need two games a week so there isn't so much downtime for the media circus? No matter what Owens says, the media is going to spin it to try to build the next rift between Owens and a QB or coach. Maybe it's Owens' fault, maybe it's not. Maybe he is throwing Bledsoe under the bus, maybe he isn't. But, someone needs to take him aside and keep him away from the media. He's a big star whether he does interviews or not.
But, the idea that Bledsoe throwing the ball in the vicinity of TO 13 times should appease Owens is ridiculous. Many of the balls weren't even close to catchable, at least not by Owens. The Eagles caught a couple of them for INT's. Two that were on Owens' hands weren't good throws, especially for as short as they were. Owens should have caught them, but Bledsoe wasn't on target. The Cowboys are using TO mostly on short routes, so Bledsoe should be able to get him the ball. If he was running deep on every play, then you wouldn't expect him to see as many balls. Owens wasn't complaining about the number of balls, he was frustrated by Bledsoe's inability to get the ball to him. I think it's a valid concern. Maybe it isn't totally Bledsoe's fault, but the seven sacks were contributed by Bledsoe's inability to move in the pocket and get the ball out quickly, to someone.
Bledsoe challenged the Eagles to blitz because he was going to get the ball into the hands of TO, Terry Glenn, and Jason Witten. What happened? Was it scheme? Was it the line folding? Bledsoe not making the right reads? The receivers not beating the defenders? Something was wrong and it needs to be corrected ... TO may be part of the problem, but he is not THE PROBLEM.
Terrell Owens needs to shut up. I think he should take a leadership role on the sideline and he can yell all he wants. But, he should keep it in house and not talk to the media. For some reason, the media wants to stir stuff up between "The Player" and "The Coach." Maybe football teams need two games a week so there isn't so much downtime for the media circus? No matter what Owens says, the media is going to spin it to try to build the next rift between Owens and a QB or coach. Maybe it's Owens' fault, maybe it's not. Maybe he is throwing Bledsoe under the bus, maybe he isn't. But, someone needs to take him aside and keep him away from the media. He's a big star whether he does interviews or not.
But, the idea that Bledsoe throwing the ball in the vicinity of TO 13 times should appease Owens is ridiculous. Many of the balls weren't even close to catchable, at least not by Owens. The Eagles caught a couple of them for INT's. Two that were on Owens' hands weren't good throws, especially for as short as they were. Owens should have caught them, but Bledsoe wasn't on target. The Cowboys are using TO mostly on short routes, so Bledsoe should be able to get him the ball. If he was running deep on every play, then you wouldn't expect him to see as many balls. Owens wasn't complaining about the number of balls, he was frustrated by Bledsoe's inability to get the ball to him. I think it's a valid concern. Maybe it isn't totally Bledsoe's fault, but the seven sacks were contributed by Bledsoe's inability to move in the pocket and get the ball out quickly, to someone.
Bledsoe challenged the Eagles to blitz because he was going to get the ball into the hands of TO, Terry Glenn, and Jason Witten. What happened? Was it scheme? Was it the line folding? Bledsoe not making the right reads? The receivers not beating the defenders? Something was wrong and it needs to be corrected ... TO may be part of the problem, but he is not THE PROBLEM.
Pitch to Pujols?
Baseball is set up so that you can minimize the effectiveness of certain opposing players by pitching around them. Is it good? Bad? Maybe it depends on your allegiance. I tend to support situational intentional walks (think runners on 2nd and 3rd in a tie game with one out in the bottom of the 9th), while I dislike IBB's issued primarily based on the batter in the box (think pitching team is up 2 in the bottom of the 9th with the bases loaded and Bonds up ... and he's issued an IBB to force in a run to decrease the lead to 1). That's just one take on it, though ... mine.
Some in the media have suggested that baseball is unlike other sports because you can take the other team's best player out of the game in baseball. Well, that isn't entirely true. Plus, you can do similar things in other sports to minimize key players. If you intentionally walk Pujols every time up, he probably won't compile many RBI's. However, he will always be on base and available to score runs. Additionally, all the RBI opportunities Pujols would have are passed on to the guy hitting behind him. And, as my brother so eloquently pointed out earlier in a conversation on the issue, "he still gets to play defense." And, to steal a line from the same conversation: true that!
So, you can't totally take a player out of the game in baseball. But, the point is well taken. So, what about basketball? Well, ever hear of the box-and-one or the triangle-and-two. Essentially, in the box-and-one, one defender plays man-on-man and the other four play zone. In a triangle-and-two, three play zone while two play man-on-man, either on one or two offensive players. So, you can minimize the effectiveness of certain players with these types of defenses. Also, you can not help off certain players or run a double team at them every time they do get the ball. In a summer camp before my senior year in HS, a kid from out-of-town was getting some hype so when my team played his, I hounded him the entire game, denying him the ball and harrassing him the couple times he did get his hands on it. Turns out, he wasn't all that good, at least not against good defense.
Well, you can't do that in football! Really? You can double team Dwight Freeney or chip him with a back every passing play. You can put 8 or 9 in the box to minimize the effectiveness of a star RB (or a crappy one). You can shade safeties over to a side of a big play WR, or just straight up double team him. You can drop 9 into coverage consistently to try to keep Peyton Manning from picking your secondary apart. I'd transition to hockey, but I think if you're going to catch on, you've already done it, so another example would just be superfluous, much like this recent verbiage. Oh well. Roy can edit it if he wants.
And, so ends Part 1 of this two part (at least) post. Stay tuned for one potential fix and why it is necessary to bring baseball more in-line with the other major sports.
Some in the media have suggested that baseball is unlike other sports because you can take the other team's best player out of the game in baseball. Well, that isn't entirely true. Plus, you can do similar things in other sports to minimize key players. If you intentionally walk Pujols every time up, he probably won't compile many RBI's. However, he will always be on base and available to score runs. Additionally, all the RBI opportunities Pujols would have are passed on to the guy hitting behind him. And, as my brother so eloquently pointed out earlier in a conversation on the issue, "he still gets to play defense." And, to steal a line from the same conversation: true that!
So, you can't totally take a player out of the game in baseball. But, the point is well taken. So, what about basketball? Well, ever hear of the box-and-one or the triangle-and-two. Essentially, in the box-and-one, one defender plays man-on-man and the other four play zone. In a triangle-and-two, three play zone while two play man-on-man, either on one or two offensive players. So, you can minimize the effectiveness of certain players with these types of defenses. Also, you can not help off certain players or run a double team at them every time they do get the ball. In a summer camp before my senior year in HS, a kid from out-of-town was getting some hype so when my team played his, I hounded him the entire game, denying him the ball and harrassing him the couple times he did get his hands on it. Turns out, he wasn't all that good, at least not against good defense.
Well, you can't do that in football! Really? You can double team Dwight Freeney or chip him with a back every passing play. You can put 8 or 9 in the box to minimize the effectiveness of a star RB (or a crappy one). You can shade safeties over to a side of a big play WR, or just straight up double team him. You can drop 9 into coverage consistently to try to keep Peyton Manning from picking your secondary apart. I'd transition to hockey, but I think if you're going to catch on, you've already done it, so another example would just be superfluous, much like this recent verbiage. Oh well. Roy can edit it if he wants.
And, so ends Part 1 of this two part (at least) post. Stay tuned for one potential fix and why it is necessary to bring baseball more in-line with the other major sports.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Ball, don't bawl over the ball
NBA players are in an uproar over the new synthetic ball being used by the NBA. What are they worried about, sloppier play? Worse shooting? If the officials were switching back and forth between the different models then I'd say the players had something to gripe about, but it's still round, it still bounces, and the fact of the matter is that half the players can't shoot no matter what ball is in play.
College QB Rating Update
Colt McCoy for Heisman! Absurd? Well, Texas QB Colt McCoy is right below Ohio State QB Troy Smith in the QB rating rankings. Ok, maybe that's a little far fetched. Smith's Buckeyes beat McCoy's Longhorns in Austin earlier this season and Smith is ahead of McCoy in the rankings.
However, what about Nebraska QB Zac Taylor? Taylor has more yards, more yards per attempt, and the same number of INT's (2) as Smith. He has 13 TD's to Smith's 15, but has taken one less sack and has a higher QB rating. Or, there is Erik Ainge of Tennessee. He has more yards and yards per attempt than Smith. He also has a higher rating and higher completion percentage. He has 5 INT's and only 14 TD's, but he has led the Volunteers to a 5-1 record with victories over California and Georgia. Tennessee's only loss is to Florida. Ainge has 2 games with 300+ yards (Air Force and Memphis) and was 11-18 for 291, 4 TD's and 1 INT against UC-Berkeley. That is a Heisman-worthy performance! Why isn't Ainge getting Heisman hype?
Troy Smith is 25th in yards among D-1A QB's. That isn't even 80th percentile. Houston Cougars QB Kevin Kolb has almost 500 yards more than Smith (1756 to 1261) with 14 TD's and 1 INT. Kolb almost led his Cougs to a win at Miami. Houston lost to the U by 1 point. Texas Tech QB Graham Harrell has 18 TD's. Smith is 21st in yards per attempt (8.5), behind leader Tyler Palko (10.2), Bobby Reid of Oklahoma State, Paul Thompson of Oklahoma, Kolb, Florida's Chris Leak, and numerous others. Again, Smith is solid, but it's WAY too early to give him the Heisman. Plus, he shouldn't even be among the leaders based on his play thus far.
However, what about Nebraska QB Zac Taylor? Taylor has more yards, more yards per attempt, and the same number of INT's (2) as Smith. He has 13 TD's to Smith's 15, but has taken one less sack and has a higher QB rating. Or, there is Erik Ainge of Tennessee. He has more yards and yards per attempt than Smith. He also has a higher rating and higher completion percentage. He has 5 INT's and only 14 TD's, but he has led the Volunteers to a 5-1 record with victories over California and Georgia. Tennessee's only loss is to Florida. Ainge has 2 games with 300+ yards (Air Force and Memphis) and was 11-18 for 291, 4 TD's and 1 INT against UC-Berkeley. That is a Heisman-worthy performance! Why isn't Ainge getting Heisman hype?
Troy Smith is 25th in yards among D-1A QB's. That isn't even 80th percentile. Houston Cougars QB Kevin Kolb has almost 500 yards more than Smith (1756 to 1261) with 14 TD's and 1 INT. Kolb almost led his Cougs to a win at Miami. Houston lost to the U by 1 point. Texas Tech QB Graham Harrell has 18 TD's. Smith is 21st in yards per attempt (8.5), behind leader Tyler Palko (10.2), Bobby Reid of Oklahoma State, Paul Thompson of Oklahoma, Kolb, Florida's Chris Leak, and numerous others. Again, Smith is solid, but it's WAY too early to give him the Heisman. Plus, he shouldn't even be among the leaders based on his play thus far.
ALCS
I know, I'm a day late. But, I'd like to congratulate Jay Mariotti on his pick of the A's in today's game. That went about as well as Jay jumping on the Minnesota Twins' bandwagon. The A's have a solid pitching staff. However, the Tigers led the league in ERA. They earned their stripes this season and mowed down an impressive Yankee line-up in the division series. Did I mention the Tigers led the entire league (NL included) in ERA? Maybe it was all the games against weak sisters like the Twins, White Sox, and Indians. Sure, they got to beat up on KC, but the A's got to whip on the AL West and the Yanks had both the O's and D-Rays to push around, although they somehow struggle with Tampa. Maybe Steinbrenner tells them to take it easy on 'em. I imagine there will be some solid pitching match-ups later in the series and the A's will probably win some games. But why is everyone dismissing the Tigers prematurely? It doesn't make sense.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Heisman race: mid-season update
I know, this is a post related to college football. But, I think someone needs to shed a little light on the Heisman race. Or, perhaps, someone needs to detract a little from the hype machine that is pumping up Troy Smith. Conveniently, the media overlooks poor performances when they want to. For the aforementioned Smith, his game was the controversial win against Penn State. Smith was 12-22 in that game, with one TD and two INT's. He managed only 115 yards through the air against the Nittany Lions and the offense really struggled. Overhyped Ohio State WR Tedd Ginn Jr. managed just 2 catches for 15 yards in that game.
I noticed something a little troubling looking at Ginn's stats that translates to Smith's. That isn't entirely surprising, as the QB is throwing to the WR, but stats aren't always closely related. But, the only two games Ginn has gone over the 100 yard mark receiving have been the two games Troy Smith has posted a QB rating over 200 (I'm not sure how the college QB rating is computed and how it differs from the NFL rating, but they are different — I think). Those two games were against major powerhouses: (1) Northern Illinois and (2) Bowling Green. Is it a coincidence that the four games against BCS conference schools have been the worst statistically for Ginn and Smith, against Texas (without a starting CB who was suspended for the game after being arrested on drug and gun charges), Cincinnati, Penn State and Iowa? Maybe. Or, maybe Ohio State's big guns struggle a little with stiffer competition and pick on weaker foes.
Troy Smith for Heisman is ridiculous. Troy Smith is a solid QB on the number 1 team in the country. But, when did that qualify you for a Heisman? How many times has he gone over 300 yards? 0. How many times has he gone over 250? 2 — against NIU and Texas. Texas is a major national power. But, Troy Smith wasn't working against Texas at full strength. Remember, Tarell Brown wasn't playing against Ohio State. He played against Oklahoma and OU QB Paul Thompson threw for 209 yards. Brown and Ross are a great tandem. Ross can't cover Ginn and Gonzalez by himself. In the last 4 games, Smith's high for yards is 203, against Cincy. Smith is a good athlete, but he doesn't beat people with his feet. He's been praised for not running and being patient in the pocket. But, his passing numbers aren't good enough to justify winning the Heisman if he's not hurting people with his feet. Vince Young could throw for 225 because he was making plays on designed runs and running off broken plays. Smith is averaging about 10 ypg, with most of his yardage against Bowling Green.
Calvin Johnson, on the other hand, has had two games that he hasn't reached 100 yards in. He's 4 for 6 getting to 100. Johnson, a junior WR for the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets put up 111 yards and 1 TD against ND, 165 and 2 against Virginia, 115 and 2 against Va Tech, and 133 and 1 against Maryland. His two down games were against Troy (9 receiving yards, 21 rushing yards) and Samford (26 yards and two TD's). He puts up numbers without any other major threats. Reggie Ball has to get him the ball, but he just makes plays ... big plays. He's a game-changing receiver on the outside and he has stepped up in the biggest games against the best opponents, something that can't be said of Mr. Smith.
Similarly, OU RB Adrian Peterson went for 211 yards at Oregon. His lowest rushing total of the year in 5 games was Saturday against Texas. He only gained 109 yards. Texas hadn't allowed 100 yards to a team all year. They held Ohio State to 79 yards and Ohio State was winning that game. They held Big 12 foe Iowa State to 27 yards. Peterson hasn't laid an egg this year and shouldn't be punished for a bad call by officials who can't tell whether a ball travels forward or not. Dave Revsine said Peterson lacked awareness by not going after the ball. You don't have to pick up an incomplete pass to prevent the other team from running it in for a TD ... I think Peterson was aware of that and that is probably why he didn't go try to pick it up. Peterson lit UW up for 165 and 2 TD's, and Washington is looking better than people thought they were going to be. Peterson is also returning kicks, giving him those all important all-purpose yards! Obviously, I'm being sarcastic. But, if you praise Bush for accumulating them, you have to give a little credit to AD for his, even if they are just kicking it away from Reggie Smith.
I'm not lobbying for Johnson or Peterson for the Heisman at this point. They'd be my top two, although I'll throw Slaton into the mix as soon as his WVU Mountaineers play someone. You don't have to play for the best team in the nation to win the Heisman. Vince didn't win it last year. It's too early to give it to anyone, especially someone with lackluster numbers like Troy Smith. He's been good, but not great. He's been fairly consistent, but he laid an egg against Penn State and it might have cost them if the officials had realized the guy running in for the pick 6 actually lost the ball before he got into the end zone. Troy Smith has been on the radar since before the season, and the ability of his Buckeyes to keep winning through the 1st half of the season has made him the favorite (for whatever reason) to win the Heisman. Why? I can't even begin to fathom the rationale.
I noticed something a little troubling looking at Ginn's stats that translates to Smith's. That isn't entirely surprising, as the QB is throwing to the WR, but stats aren't always closely related. But, the only two games Ginn has gone over the 100 yard mark receiving have been the two games Troy Smith has posted a QB rating over 200 (I'm not sure how the college QB rating is computed and how it differs from the NFL rating, but they are different — I think). Those two games were against major powerhouses: (1) Northern Illinois and (2) Bowling Green. Is it a coincidence that the four games against BCS conference schools have been the worst statistically for Ginn and Smith, against Texas (without a starting CB who was suspended for the game after being arrested on drug and gun charges), Cincinnati, Penn State and Iowa? Maybe. Or, maybe Ohio State's big guns struggle a little with stiffer competition and pick on weaker foes.
Troy Smith for Heisman is ridiculous. Troy Smith is a solid QB on the number 1 team in the country. But, when did that qualify you for a Heisman? How many times has he gone over 300 yards? 0. How many times has he gone over 250? 2 — against NIU and Texas. Texas is a major national power. But, Troy Smith wasn't working against Texas at full strength. Remember, Tarell Brown wasn't playing against Ohio State. He played against Oklahoma and OU QB Paul Thompson threw for 209 yards. Brown and Ross are a great tandem. Ross can't cover Ginn and Gonzalez by himself. In the last 4 games, Smith's high for yards is 203, against Cincy. Smith is a good athlete, but he doesn't beat people with his feet. He's been praised for not running and being patient in the pocket. But, his passing numbers aren't good enough to justify winning the Heisman if he's not hurting people with his feet. Vince Young could throw for 225 because he was making plays on designed runs and running off broken plays. Smith is averaging about 10 ypg, with most of his yardage against Bowling Green.
Calvin Johnson, on the other hand, has had two games that he hasn't reached 100 yards in. He's 4 for 6 getting to 100. Johnson, a junior WR for the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets put up 111 yards and 1 TD against ND, 165 and 2 against Virginia, 115 and 2 against Va Tech, and 133 and 1 against Maryland. His two down games were against Troy (9 receiving yards, 21 rushing yards) and Samford (26 yards and two TD's). He puts up numbers without any other major threats. Reggie Ball has to get him the ball, but he just makes plays ... big plays. He's a game-changing receiver on the outside and he has stepped up in the biggest games against the best opponents, something that can't be said of Mr. Smith.
Similarly, OU RB Adrian Peterson went for 211 yards at Oregon. His lowest rushing total of the year in 5 games was Saturday against Texas. He only gained 109 yards. Texas hadn't allowed 100 yards to a team all year. They held Ohio State to 79 yards and Ohio State was winning that game. They held Big 12 foe Iowa State to 27 yards. Peterson hasn't laid an egg this year and shouldn't be punished for a bad call by officials who can't tell whether a ball travels forward or not. Dave Revsine said Peterson lacked awareness by not going after the ball. You don't have to pick up an incomplete pass to prevent the other team from running it in for a TD ... I think Peterson was aware of that and that is probably why he didn't go try to pick it up. Peterson lit UW up for 165 and 2 TD's, and Washington is looking better than people thought they were going to be. Peterson is also returning kicks, giving him those all important all-purpose yards! Obviously, I'm being sarcastic. But, if you praise Bush for accumulating them, you have to give a little credit to AD for his, even if they are just kicking it away from Reggie Smith.
I'm not lobbying for Johnson or Peterson for the Heisman at this point. They'd be my top two, although I'll throw Slaton into the mix as soon as his WVU Mountaineers play someone. You don't have to play for the best team in the nation to win the Heisman. Vince didn't win it last year. It's too early to give it to anyone, especially someone with lackluster numbers like Troy Smith. He's been good, but not great. He's been fairly consistent, but he laid an egg against Penn State and it might have cost them if the officials had realized the guy running in for the pick 6 actually lost the ball before he got into the end zone. Troy Smith has been on the radar since before the season, and the ability of his Buckeyes to keep winning through the 1st half of the season has made him the favorite (for whatever reason) to win the Heisman. Why? I can't even begin to fathom the rationale.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
What the **** is going on?
I spent the day flipping between baseball and college football, along with unloading hundreds of pumpkins from an 18-wheeler. I end the day wondering if this will be my last college football related post of the 2006 season. It almost seems worthless to watch college football anymore, it's a joke. From Pete Carroll and his #3 USC Trojans sneaking WR Steve Smith in from the sidelines on a fake FG (similar to a play Oregon used in a bowl game against OU last year) to Arkansas having a player hide behind the line of scrimmage on a running play against #2 Auburn. I was rooting against USC and for Arkansas, but I thought both the plays were bush league. Those types of plays should be outlawed. It's akin to breaking the huddle with 12 guys and running someone off the field.
Then, in the Red River Shootout, OU TE Joe Jon Finley was called for offensive pass interference on a big first down catch. How was it pass interference? I thought the ball had to be in the air when contact was made for it to be pass interference. That definitely wasn't the case. It seems like Finley should be allowed to push the defender before the pass is in the air because it was right near the line of scrimmage where tight ends often are blocking. What on Earth was the flag for?
Then, in the second half, Texas took the lead on a TD pass to Texas WR Sweed. Sweed pushed off of OU CB Wolfe. Wolfe was running stride for stride with Sweed, then all of a sudden, there was space in between the players. Wow, it coincided with the time when Sweed put his hand on Wolfe's shoulder and gave him a little shove. THAT is pass interference! Those were big plays.
Then, trailing 21-10, OU QB Paul Thompson threw a swing pass to Adrian Peterson that Peterson wasn't able to handle. A Texas defender picked up the incompletion and ran it in for the final points (aside from the subsequent PAT) of the game. You can't score on an incomplete pass! I know, but apparently the refs weren't able to figure out that it was a forward pass and not a lateral. Way to go zebras! OU made some mistakes, but it would be nice to have a big game where there aren't egregious officiating errors to point to afterwards that definitely affect the outcome.
Speaking of crappy officiating, let's move back out to the left coast and the UW-USC game. Why wasn't time added to the clock? The clock should have been stopped with 4 or 5 seconds to move the chains, not 2. There was plenty of time for a Husky attempt to beat the Trojans. Then, inexplicably, it took them way too long to spot the ball and wind the clock. Then, time expired before Washington could get off another play. What? I have no idea what the clock person and officials were doing. I don't know if Pete Carroll has them in his pocket or if they are just inept, but it looks more and more like both are probably true the more USC games I watch.
Which leaves me wondering: why watch college football? It's pretty much a big money-making, athlete exploiting joke on so many levels that it really isn't funny. Maybe I'll spend next Saturday painting the trim on my house, out on the lake with my waverunner, or taking down wallpaper. Anyone have any other ideas for ways I can productively use my Saturday?
Then, in the Red River Shootout, OU TE Joe Jon Finley was called for offensive pass interference on a big first down catch. How was it pass interference? I thought the ball had to be in the air when contact was made for it to be pass interference. That definitely wasn't the case. It seems like Finley should be allowed to push the defender before the pass is in the air because it was right near the line of scrimmage where tight ends often are blocking. What on Earth was the flag for?
Then, in the second half, Texas took the lead on a TD pass to Texas WR Sweed. Sweed pushed off of OU CB Wolfe. Wolfe was running stride for stride with Sweed, then all of a sudden, there was space in between the players. Wow, it coincided with the time when Sweed put his hand on Wolfe's shoulder and gave him a little shove. THAT is pass interference! Those were big plays.
Then, trailing 21-10, OU QB Paul Thompson threw a swing pass to Adrian Peterson that Peterson wasn't able to handle. A Texas defender picked up the incompletion and ran it in for the final points (aside from the subsequent PAT) of the game. You can't score on an incomplete pass! I know, but apparently the refs weren't able to figure out that it was a forward pass and not a lateral. Way to go zebras! OU made some mistakes, but it would be nice to have a big game where there aren't egregious officiating errors to point to afterwards that definitely affect the outcome.
Speaking of crappy officiating, let's move back out to the left coast and the UW-USC game. Why wasn't time added to the clock? The clock should have been stopped with 4 or 5 seconds to move the chains, not 2. There was plenty of time for a Husky attempt to beat the Trojans. Then, inexplicably, it took them way too long to spot the ball and wind the clock. Then, time expired before Washington could get off another play. What? I have no idea what the clock person and officials were doing. I don't know if Pete Carroll has them in his pocket or if they are just inept, but it looks more and more like both are probably true the more USC games I watch.
Which leaves me wondering: why watch college football? It's pretty much a big money-making, athlete exploiting joke on so many levels that it really isn't funny. Maybe I'll spend next Saturday painting the trim on my house, out on the lake with my waverunner, or taking down wallpaper. Anyone have any other ideas for ways I can productively use my Saturday?
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Psychological jujitsu and pitching rotations
Evan and I once (he may not remember) played a card game called "psychological jujitsu" I had discovered in a book. It works like this:
Both of the players are given one suit of a standard deck of playing cards. A third suit is shuffled and placed face down between the players. (The fourth suit is discarded.) One at a time, the cards in the middle deck are turned over. Each player chooses one of his/her own cards as a bid, and they are revealed simultaneously and discarded. The player with the higher bid wins the card in the middle. The goal is to win the most points, where each card counts its value from 1 to 13.
Psychological jujitsu is not a sport, if that's what you're wondering. But I think it is related to the issue of pitching rotations in general, and playoff starters in particular.
The differences are numerous:
The justification at the time was that Robertson was tough on lefties. The Yankees line-up is certainly loaded therewith. But their list of righties—Jeter, Sheffield, Rodriguez, Posada (switch-hitter)—is no walk in the park. Is it crazy to think that perhaps Leyland was willing to risk losing game 1 to try to increase Detroit's chances of winning the series as a whole? And is that what he did?
Both of the players are given one suit of a standard deck of playing cards. A third suit is shuffled and placed face down between the players. (The fourth suit is discarded.) One at a time, the cards in the middle deck are turned over. Each player chooses one of his/her own cards as a bid, and they are revealed simultaneously and discarded. The player with the higher bid wins the card in the middle. The goal is to win the most points, where each card counts its value from 1 to 13.
Psychological jujitsu is not a sport, if that's what you're wondering. But I think it is related to the issue of pitching rotations in general, and playoff starters in particular.
The differences are numerous:
- each game is worth the same,
- game outcomes are not deterministic given starter selection,
- starters can be reused given enough rest.
The justification at the time was that Robertson was tough on lefties. The Yankees line-up is certainly loaded therewith. But their list of righties—Jeter, Sheffield, Rodriguez, Posada (switch-hitter)—is no walk in the park. Is it crazy to think that perhaps Leyland was willing to risk losing game 1 to try to increase Detroit's chances of winning the series as a whole? And is that what he did?
Related:
Free with every column: stupidity!
Sports Illustrated columnist Dr. Z proved my point in his power rankings. First, he bashed the CBS crew doing the game between the Bengals and Patriots for not mentioning that the Patriots were playing a 4-2-5 defense with newly signed Hank Poteat as the starting nickelback. Dr. Z writes in the column "you'd never know it from CBS' No. 1 announcing crew because they don't bother with trivial details such as this, but the Pats opened against the Bengals in a 4-2-nickel". Perhaps Dr. Z should get his memory checked because the team most definitely did divulge that information. I was tuned into the game and remember that little tidbit. Many of the announcers are just about worthless, but at least get your facts right when you are bashing them.
The second issue I have with his column is his assessment that "[Saints LB Scott] Fujita's foul [on Panthers WR Stever Smith], while potentially more dangerous than what Haynesworth did, was on the other side of the field, away from the play, and not noticed by many." He may be on to something that it wasn't as readily noticed by the masses. However, to say that it was potentially more dangerous, is absurd. Fujita could have put Smith out for the year with a broken leg or blown out knee. So, Fuijta should be suspended, and a suspension of five games seems like a suitable penalty. Haynesworth stepped on Gurode's exposed face twice with cleats. He took spikes to another player's face, with quite a bit of force behind the spikes. He could have ruined Gurode's career by puncturing an eye. Career vs. season, I'm going with Haynesworth's as the more dangerous act. Plus, while I'm not going to make excuses for Fujita and think he should be punished, he dove at Smith's legs once (at least as far as I know). Haynesworth stepped on Gurode's face twice! It's possible that Fujita figured out after his first dive that maybe he shouldn't do that any more. Haynesworth's brain didn't check in and tell him that he shouldn't keep after it ... that's dangerous.
Leaving Dr. Z alone for a bit and moving on to other football action from last week, I'm a little put off by all the criticism of NY Jets Head Coach Eric Mangini. That game wasn't on in my home market, and while I have a new 2006 Nissan Pathfinder and a new waverunner, I haven't convinced my wife that we need NFL Sunday Ticket, yet. So, I'm saying I didn't see the game. But, it seems like Mangini was taking a lot of risks. Sometimes, risks work out (onsides kick), sometimes they don't (4th and goal interception instead of taking the FG). Sure, you have to be smart about when you do certain things, but if they had scored a TD on 4th and goal, everyone would be praising Mangini for that. If they hadn't recovered the onsides kick, everyone would be bashing him for that. He was taking risks because that is what he felt gave his team the best chance to beat the Indianapolis Colts. I'm not going to second guess him because he put them in a great position to steal that game. You have to ignore the actual result when analyzing calls, and I don't think that is being done nationally in this instance.
The second issue I have with his column is his assessment that "[Saints LB Scott] Fujita's foul [on Panthers WR Stever Smith], while potentially more dangerous than what Haynesworth did, was on the other side of the field, away from the play, and not noticed by many." He may be on to something that it wasn't as readily noticed by the masses. However, to say that it was potentially more dangerous, is absurd. Fujita could have put Smith out for the year with a broken leg or blown out knee. So, Fuijta should be suspended, and a suspension of five games seems like a suitable penalty. Haynesworth stepped on Gurode's exposed face twice with cleats. He took spikes to another player's face, with quite a bit of force behind the spikes. He could have ruined Gurode's career by puncturing an eye. Career vs. season, I'm going with Haynesworth's as the more dangerous act. Plus, while I'm not going to make excuses for Fujita and think he should be punished, he dove at Smith's legs once (at least as far as I know). Haynesworth stepped on Gurode's face twice! It's possible that Fujita figured out after his first dive that maybe he shouldn't do that any more. Haynesworth's brain didn't check in and tell him that he shouldn't keep after it ... that's dangerous.
Leaving Dr. Z alone for a bit and moving on to other football action from last week, I'm a little put off by all the criticism of NY Jets Head Coach Eric Mangini. That game wasn't on in my home market, and while I have a new 2006 Nissan Pathfinder and a new waverunner, I haven't convinced my wife that we need NFL Sunday Ticket, yet. So, I'm saying I didn't see the game. But, it seems like Mangini was taking a lot of risks. Sometimes, risks work out (onsides kick), sometimes they don't (4th and goal interception instead of taking the FG). Sure, you have to be smart about when you do certain things, but if they had scored a TD on 4th and goal, everyone would be praising Mangini for that. If they hadn't recovered the onsides kick, everyone would be bashing him for that. He was taking risks because that is what he felt gave his team the best chance to beat the Indianapolis Colts. I'm not going to second guess him because he put them in a great position to steal that game. You have to ignore the actual result when analyzing calls, and I don't think that is being done nationally in this instance.
Related:
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
