On PTI yesterday, Michael Wilbon downplayed Fresno State's underdog status by stating that they were a 4 seed, so Villanova's win over Georgetown when the Wildcats were an eighth seed was a bigger upset. Wilbon stated something to the effect that an 8 seed is higher than a four seed, even if there are sixteen 4 seeds in baseball.
I'm not an expert on the history of all college sports, so I'm not going to proclaim Fresno State's vicoty in the 2008 College World Series as the greatest upset in the history of collegiate sports. I'm not even going to compare it to Villanova's run that culminated in a victory over a heavily favored Georgetown Hoyas squad. However, I am slightly annoyed by Wilbon.
Baseball divides 64 teams into 16 regions. In a given region, there are seeds 1-4. Thus, there are 16 of each. So, presumably, there are at least 48 teams (16x3) that are better than Fresno State - at least in the eyes of the people choosing teams and making brackets. Therefore, at best, Fresno State is equivalent to a #13 seed in the basketball tournament (48/4=12; the top 48 fill the 1-12 spots in each region). So, Fresno State, by seeding, is a bigger underdog than #8 Villanova. Wilbon's statement and reasoning were ridiculous. In "Wilbon's America", he would probably face jail time for such absurd comments.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Ump Bump
I'm watching ATH (recorded) and just listened to all four panelists bash the home plate ump (Brian Runge) in the Mets' loss to the Mariners on Tuesday. Sure, Runge initiated the contact with Mets Manager Jerry Manuel. So, in that regard, he was probably out-of-line. However, let's not get caught up in the trees with this one.
If we look back to the play that started the incident, Runge called a strike on a pitch to Carlos Beltran that looked like a strike. Apparently, Runge didn't particularly like the way Beltran was questioning the call. But, what was Beltran doing? You aren't supposed to argue balls and strikes and it isn't that smart to get on an ump about a call in the middle of an AB anyway. I'm not sure why Beltran thought it was a ball. If it was obviously a crappy call, I'd be a little more supportive of Mr. Beltran.
So, my point is that Beltran was the instigator in this incident. He was out-of-line to complain far before Runge was out-of-line to chest bump. It doesn't make what Runge did right, but I think the Mets involved need to take some responsibility for their roles in this instead of throwing it all on the umps.
In a related matter, I saw another HR call was missed. Replay showed the ball hit off the top of the fence and came back and the umps ruled it hit something beyond the fence and came back on the field. Replay would have come in handy, so I'm glad baseball is headed in that direction. How is this related to the Runge-Beltran-Manuel incident? Some people are worried that replay will slow down games. If we can bring in replay and get rid of ridiculous arguments like the one between Runge and Beltran and Manuel and Runge ... and Runge and Beltran again ... I think we'll end up ahead.
If Beltran thought the pitch was low ... just say "I thought that was low." and leave it at that. Obviously, Runge didn't feel that way. Did anything constructive come out of the argument? Manuel and Beltran both got tossed and we're talking about inappropriate actions of an ump ... I'm sure that's the solution all parties were looking! It's a win-win-win for the three of them.
If we look back to the play that started the incident, Runge called a strike on a pitch to Carlos Beltran that looked like a strike. Apparently, Runge didn't particularly like the way Beltran was questioning the call. But, what was Beltran doing? You aren't supposed to argue balls and strikes and it isn't that smart to get on an ump about a call in the middle of an AB anyway. I'm not sure why Beltran thought it was a ball. If it was obviously a crappy call, I'd be a little more supportive of Mr. Beltran.
So, my point is that Beltran was the instigator in this incident. He was out-of-line to complain far before Runge was out-of-line to chest bump. It doesn't make what Runge did right, but I think the Mets involved need to take some responsibility for their roles in this instead of throwing it all on the umps.
In a related matter, I saw another HR call was missed. Replay showed the ball hit off the top of the fence and came back and the umps ruled it hit something beyond the fence and came back on the field. Replay would have come in handy, so I'm glad baseball is headed in that direction. How is this related to the Runge-Beltran-Manuel incident? Some people are worried that replay will slow down games. If we can bring in replay and get rid of ridiculous arguments like the one between Runge and Beltran and Manuel and Runge ... and Runge and Beltran again ... I think we'll end up ahead.
If Beltran thought the pitch was low ... just say "I thought that was low." and leave it at that. Obviously, Runge didn't feel that way. Did anything constructive come out of the argument? Manuel and Beltran both got tossed and we're talking about inappropriate actions of an ump ... I'm sure that's the solution all parties were looking! It's a win-win-win for the three of them.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Molina Concussion
On today's St. Louis v. Boston game, Tim McCarver said the play resulting in Yadier Molina's concussion was a clean play by Eric Bruntlett. Bruntlett ran Molina over when Molina had his back to him attempting to catch a ball from 1B Albert Pujols.
I won't go into detail on my thoughts regarding blocking the plate and collisions. Personally, I don't see why catchers should be allowed to block home. If they weren't allowed to do it, there would be no need for people to try to run them over (except to knock the ball loose) ... so that shouldn't be allowed either. If MLB wants to limit injuries, don't let catchers (or players at any base) block the base/plate and suspend any runner who causes a major collision.
Getting back to the Molina play, it might not have been illegal, but it definitely wasn't "clean." There was no reason for Bruntlett to knock Molina over. One could argue that Bruntlett had to make up his mind before it was apparent whether or not Molina would be able to tag him. Maybe. But, I think Bruntlett screwed up. Molina wasn't blocking the plate. He was out in front of home waiting to accept the throw. He reached back around to his right (without turning around to face Bruntlett) to try to apply the tag. All Bruntlett had to do was slide in ... home plate was wide open. While it might not be an extremely "dirty" play, it was by no means "clean."
Moving on to other things, after a two-out, two-run single, McCarver mentioned that he tries not to give too many stats but wanted to point out that the Cardinals lead the majors in two-out hits. Joe Buck supported the importance of the stat by saying that two-out hits and RBI's are pointed to my coaches and managers as one of the most underrated stats. Then, Joe Buck gave the following jewel:
"For the Cardinals, they have 145 RBI's with two outs this season, second most in all of baseball. I guess a part that's interesting, and maybe it throws that theory out the window is the only team that leads them the Pittsburgh Pirates and the team right behind them the Texas Rangers."
Texas leads the league in runs scored. Pittsburgh is tied for 6th (out of 30 teams) in the league in runs despite ranking 21st in OBP and 18th in SLG. Texas is right behind Boston and the Chicago Cubs in OPS; Pittsburgh has the 18th best OPS in the league. The reason both Texas and Pittsburgh are hovering just below .500 is because they don't have any pitching. Texas ranks 29th in the league in ERA (4.99). What is the only team below them? You guessed it ... the Pittsburgh Pirates (5.05).
Texas and Pittsburgh not pitching well (to put it mildly) doesn't diminish the importance of two-out hits by the offense. If anything, it makes them more important (you need to capitalize on every opportunity because the pitching staff is sure to give up more runs). If anything, this points to the idea that no one baseball stat will correlate directly to W-L record. Toronto has the third best ERA in baseball. However, they just fired their manager and are below .500 and in last place in the AL East. Baltimore and Toronto are in the top 5 in Saves (a stat you can only get in a game you win), but they are 4th and 5th, respectively, in the AL East. SD has the 3rd fewest errors in the league, yet they are half a game out of the cellar in the NL West. Cincy is 12.5 games back in the NL Central, despite being 7th in the league in HR's.
I'm guessing that if you look at normal stats (OPS, ERA, etc.) and there is a disconnect between those stats and a team's record, you might be able to find that less flashy stats can explain some of it.
I won't go into detail on my thoughts regarding blocking the plate and collisions. Personally, I don't see why catchers should be allowed to block home. If they weren't allowed to do it, there would be no need for people to try to run them over (except to knock the ball loose) ... so that shouldn't be allowed either. If MLB wants to limit injuries, don't let catchers (or players at any base) block the base/plate and suspend any runner who causes a major collision.
Getting back to the Molina play, it might not have been illegal, but it definitely wasn't "clean." There was no reason for Bruntlett to knock Molina over. One could argue that Bruntlett had to make up his mind before it was apparent whether or not Molina would be able to tag him. Maybe. But, I think Bruntlett screwed up. Molina wasn't blocking the plate. He was out in front of home waiting to accept the throw. He reached back around to his right (without turning around to face Bruntlett) to try to apply the tag. All Bruntlett had to do was slide in ... home plate was wide open. While it might not be an extremely "dirty" play, it was by no means "clean."
Moving on to other things, after a two-out, two-run single, McCarver mentioned that he tries not to give too many stats but wanted to point out that the Cardinals lead the majors in two-out hits. Joe Buck supported the importance of the stat by saying that two-out hits and RBI's are pointed to my coaches and managers as one of the most underrated stats. Then, Joe Buck gave the following jewel:
"For the Cardinals, they have 145 RBI's with two outs this season, second most in all of baseball. I guess a part that's interesting, and maybe it throws that theory out the window is the only team that leads them the Pittsburgh Pirates and the team right behind them the Texas Rangers."
Texas leads the league in runs scored. Pittsburgh is tied for 6th (out of 30 teams) in the league in runs despite ranking 21st in OBP and 18th in SLG. Texas is right behind Boston and the Chicago Cubs in OPS; Pittsburgh has the 18th best OPS in the league. The reason both Texas and Pittsburgh are hovering just below .500 is because they don't have any pitching. Texas ranks 29th in the league in ERA (4.99). What is the only team below them? You guessed it ... the Pittsburgh Pirates (5.05).
Texas and Pittsburgh not pitching well (to put it mildly) doesn't diminish the importance of two-out hits by the offense. If anything, it makes them more important (you need to capitalize on every opportunity because the pitching staff is sure to give up more runs). If anything, this points to the idea that no one baseball stat will correlate directly to W-L record. Toronto has the third best ERA in baseball. However, they just fired their manager and are below .500 and in last place in the AL East. Baltimore and Toronto are in the top 5 in Saves (a stat you can only get in a game you win), but they are 4th and 5th, respectively, in the AL East. SD has the 3rd fewest errors in the league, yet they are half a game out of the cellar in the NL West. Cincy is 12.5 games back in the NL Central, despite being 7th in the league in HR's.
I'm guessing that if you look at normal stats (OPS, ERA, etc.) and there is a disconnect between those stats and a team's record, you might be able to find that less flashy stats can explain some of it.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Questionable Calls (or No-calls) in Game 6
I helped my mother-in-law move for 15 hours last Thursday, so I didn't get around to watching game 4 until Friday. So, I'll pay careful attention today and list each and every mistake I see during tonight's game.
Did Pau get the opening tip before the toss reached its peak?
On Kobe's first shot, he traveled. He caught the ball with his left foot in the air, put it down, then moved his right foot back towards his body (11:41 left in 1st).
I'll continue with comments.
Did Pau get the opening tip before the toss reached its peak?
On Kobe's first shot, he traveled. He caught the ball with his left foot in the air, put it down, then moved his right foot back towards his body (11:41 left in 1st).
I'll continue with comments.
MacMullan on Replay
I finally got around to watching yesterdays ATH this afternoon and I was amazed at the thoughts of Jackie MacMullan:
"Listen, I'm all for replay, I think we've made that clear all along here. But, I'm not sure, Tony, that I go along with the idea of doing it in the middle of the season. What about all those teams that already were penalized because the umpires got the score wrong like in the Mets-Yankees game earlier this year? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If you're gonna do it, you should do it across the board on an even playing field. If you institute it now, that's not the case. I don't go for this."
Kevin Blackistone thinks it's a good idea, while Tim Cowlishaw agrees with Jackie Mac.
Honestly, Cowlishaw and MacMullen couldn't be more wrong on this one. There is nothing wrong with bringing in replay on August 1st. MLB isn't changing any rules. Using replay merely helps eliminate human error on specific calls.
MacMullen implies that using replay ruins the fairness of human error. I don't think human error works that way in this case. Granted, if there are enough close HR calls, the umps should get approximately the same percentage right and wrong. The human error will probably even out. However, how long do we have to wait? Are there enough of these plays during a year that holding off on replay is going to help even things out? I really doubt it, which is why I think it's asinine to make the argument that instituting replay punishes teams like the Mets who were wronged by bad calls earlier in the season.
Some rules shouldn't be changed during the season. If MLB wanted to change the rule governing SB's to say runners can't leave the base until the ball leaves the pitcher's hand (I think that's the softball rule), it would adversely affect certain teams that have been built on speed. Guys like Juan Pierre, Ichiro, Jose Reyes and Jacoby Ellsbury wouldn't be as valuable. Or, making changes to the strike zone to widen the zone 5 inches on either side of the plate wouldn't be a good change. It would unfairly help teams with good control pitchers (remember the Atlanta Braves ten years ago?) who can consistently work in areas where batters can't hurt them. Greg Maddux is a lock for the Baseball Hall of Fame, but he's always been a lot easier to hit if he has to throw balls in the zone.
I'm not sure how many calls replay will affect. But, as we go down the home stretch of the baseball season, each and every game takes on added importance (because there is less time to recover from a game lost because of a crappy call). Thus, I'm all for any changes MLB wants to implement (within reason, obviously) to help umps get the calls right.
"Listen, I'm all for replay, I think we've made that clear all along here. But, I'm not sure, Tony, that I go along with the idea of doing it in the middle of the season. What about all those teams that already were penalized because the umpires got the score wrong like in the Mets-Yankees game earlier this year? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. If you're gonna do it, you should do it across the board on an even playing field. If you institute it now, that's not the case. I don't go for this."
Kevin Blackistone thinks it's a good idea, while Tim Cowlishaw agrees with Jackie Mac.
Honestly, Cowlishaw and MacMullen couldn't be more wrong on this one. There is nothing wrong with bringing in replay on August 1st. MLB isn't changing any rules. Using replay merely helps eliminate human error on specific calls.
MacMullen implies that using replay ruins the fairness of human error. I don't think human error works that way in this case. Granted, if there are enough close HR calls, the umps should get approximately the same percentage right and wrong. The human error will probably even out. However, how long do we have to wait? Are there enough of these plays during a year that holding off on replay is going to help even things out? I really doubt it, which is why I think it's asinine to make the argument that instituting replay punishes teams like the Mets who were wronged by bad calls earlier in the season.
Some rules shouldn't be changed during the season. If MLB wanted to change the rule governing SB's to say runners can't leave the base until the ball leaves the pitcher's hand (I think that's the softball rule), it would adversely affect certain teams that have been built on speed. Guys like Juan Pierre, Ichiro, Jose Reyes and Jacoby Ellsbury wouldn't be as valuable. Or, making changes to the strike zone to widen the zone 5 inches on either side of the plate wouldn't be a good change. It would unfairly help teams with good control pitchers (remember the Atlanta Braves ten years ago?) who can consistently work in areas where batters can't hurt them. Greg Maddux is a lock for the Baseball Hall of Fame, but he's always been a lot easier to hit if he has to throw balls in the zone.
I'm not sure how many calls replay will affect. But, as we go down the home stretch of the baseball season, each and every game takes on added importance (because there is less time to recover from a game lost because of a crappy call). Thus, I'm all for any changes MLB wants to implement (within reason, obviously) to help umps get the calls right.
Fair Officiating
On ESPN today, John Ireland mentioned the officiating was fair in game 5 of the NBA Finals in LA and cited the equal number of fouls (28) and FT attempts (31) for each side.
Whoa! Slow down there.
If there were 10 penalties for 75 yards enforced on each team in a football game, would you automatically presume that the officiating was "fair" in that contest? If both teams in a baseball game get the same percentage of strikes called by the plate ump, would that be an example of "fair" officiating? If two random students are given the exact same score on an exam, is that an example of "fair" grading?
If your elementary schooler provides an answer of 168, while his friend answers 142 to the following question: 12 x 14 = ______, do you think both students should receive the same amount of credit? If they both answer 168, then they should both get the same amount of credit.
It's possible that equal number of fouls and FT attempts occur in a game that is officiated fairly. However, fair officiating does not imply that the fouls and FT attempts will be equal, nor does an occurrence of similar numbers of fouls and FT attempts imply fair officiating in the contest.
If the Lakers commit 35 plays that should be called fouls, but only get called for 28 of them, while the Celtics should be whistled for 42 but only 28 are enforced, is that fair?
Additionally, Ireland is assuming fouls and FT attempts are the only important numbers. KG got his 1st foul on a marginal (at best) play when Derek Fisher was out of control on a fast break. I took a look at the replay multiple times and couldn't see what they were calling. Then, he got his 3rd foul on an absolutely ridiculous call, a clean strip where there was no contact on a shot attempt by Pau Gasol. As a result of this "foul trouble", Garnett's minutes were limited (I guess you could argue Garnett shouldn't have been putting himself in position for the officials to screw the calls up, but that's a weak argument) and further depleted the Celtics inside (they didn't have Kendrick Perkins), helping the Lakers win the rebound war after being hammered on the glass early in the series.
Moving away from fouls, calling or not calling traveling can impact the game a few points here and a few points there. Also, neglecting three-in-the-key or illegal defense can impact a game in an unfair fashion. Was it "fair" that the refs missed it that Derek Fisher's shot hit the rim at the end of the controversial game against the Spurs (the Barry-Fisher no call game)? By missing that call, they robbed the Lakers of a chance to get fouled and have a chance to go up 3 late and the result was that Kobe had to battle the shot clock and the Spurs had a chance to win the game after Kobe missed.
Basketball is a complicated game and to look at a couple numbers at the end of the game and cite them as evidence of "fairness" by the officials is ludicrous. Ireland might be right in saying that the officiating was pretty even in game 5, but I'd much prefer him citing his observation of the game than trying to fool people with meaningless statistics.
Whoa! Slow down there.
If there were 10 penalties for 75 yards enforced on each team in a football game, would you automatically presume that the officiating was "fair" in that contest? If both teams in a baseball game get the same percentage of strikes called by the plate ump, would that be an example of "fair" officiating? If two random students are given the exact same score on an exam, is that an example of "fair" grading?
If your elementary schooler provides an answer of 168, while his friend answers 142 to the following question: 12 x 14 = ______, do you think both students should receive the same amount of credit? If they both answer 168, then they should both get the same amount of credit.
It's possible that equal number of fouls and FT attempts occur in a game that is officiated fairly. However, fair officiating does not imply that the fouls and FT attempts will be equal, nor does an occurrence of similar numbers of fouls and FT attempts imply fair officiating in the contest.
If the Lakers commit 35 plays that should be called fouls, but only get called for 28 of them, while the Celtics should be whistled for 42 but only 28 are enforced, is that fair?
Additionally, Ireland is assuming fouls and FT attempts are the only important numbers. KG got his 1st foul on a marginal (at best) play when Derek Fisher was out of control on a fast break. I took a look at the replay multiple times and couldn't see what they were calling. Then, he got his 3rd foul on an absolutely ridiculous call, a clean strip where there was no contact on a shot attempt by Pau Gasol. As a result of this "foul trouble", Garnett's minutes were limited (I guess you could argue Garnett shouldn't have been putting himself in position for the officials to screw the calls up, but that's a weak argument) and further depleted the Celtics inside (they didn't have Kendrick Perkins), helping the Lakers win the rebound war after being hammered on the glass early in the series.
Moving away from fouls, calling or not calling traveling can impact the game a few points here and a few points there. Also, neglecting three-in-the-key or illegal defense can impact a game in an unfair fashion. Was it "fair" that the refs missed it that Derek Fisher's shot hit the rim at the end of the controversial game against the Spurs (the Barry-Fisher no call game)? By missing that call, they robbed the Lakers of a chance to get fouled and have a chance to go up 3 late and the result was that Kobe had to battle the shot clock and the Spurs had a chance to win the game after Kobe missed.
Basketball is a complicated game and to look at a couple numbers at the end of the game and cite them as evidence of "fairness" by the officials is ludicrous. Ireland might be right in saying that the officiating was pretty even in game 5, but I'd much prefer him citing his observation of the game than trying to fool people with meaningless statistics.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Bavetta
I was contemplating writing about Dick Bavetta after the game last night. Until I watched today's PTI, I had decided against it. However, Tony and Mike brought it to my attention that Bavetta is tied to the fixing of the game between the Lakers and Kings and allegations of helping home teams win playoff games. Or ... something like that.
Maybe this is because I know who Dick Bavetta is and couldn't match names to faces of many different NBA officials, but I tend to notice Bavetta more than I think I should during games. This thought jumped into my mind last night when I saw Bavetta call traveling on Paul Pierce very early in the game when it appeared Pierce was going to travel. While it appeared he was going to travel, he started his dribble before he actually traveled. But, Bavetta didn't see that ... he was already doing an overly dramatic (and energetic) traveling call and heading the other way before the play unraveled.
Did that turnover have a major impact on the game? Maybe. Perhaps, if the Celtics score on that possession, they wouldn't have been steamrolled in the first quarter and wouldn't have had to claw back from a huge (19 points) deficit. Or, maybe they would have turned the ball over later in the possession and things would have gone similarly. I don't think that call did a whole lot of damage and I'm not trying to say Bavetta was fixing the game.
But, why didn't Bavetta see what happened to Pierce? I think Bavetta anticipates calls. Traveling is rarely called in the NBA. In a chat with Roy today, he joked "I didn't know traveling was still illegal in the NBA." So, when I see it called, I usually take an extra look to make sure it is traveling. Frequently, the player called for traveling doesn't travel ... he just doesn't move in the "normal" or expected fashion. The official sees the odd movement and assumes a travel occurs. And, all too often, Dick Bavetta is making the call and then sprinting the other way.
Why is Bavetta so lively and animated? Is he trying to make sure we know he's still fit, even at 68 years old? Is he trying to draw attention to himself and become a celebrity - why did he race Barkley? And, why is Bavetta anticipating calls? Are his reactions not up to par? I don't really care what the reason is that Bavetta is messing up calls. I'd prefer that he not do it ... and if that's not possible, then he shouldn't be given the opportunity to do it.
Moving on to the subject of traveling:
KG was called for another travel in game 5. Granted, he traveled. But, it wasn't that bad ... he just let his pivot foot slide a little bit.
Derek Fisher traveled with just over 90 seconds left in the game when he received a pass after an offensive rebound by the Lakers. For those of you who don't remember the play, he caught the ball with a foot in the air. The airborne foot came down after he caught the ball. Then, he moved the other foot closer to his body. So ... he moved both of his feet after catching the ball. That's a no-no!
Why call traveling on Pierce and KG but not on Fisher? Hopefully, it isn't related to the colors. But, whatever the reason, if you're going to call traveling, call traveling. If you aren't, don't. You can't pick and choose ... and you can't, honestly, have missed Fisher traveling! Right?
Maybe this is because I know who Dick Bavetta is and couldn't match names to faces of many different NBA officials, but I tend to notice Bavetta more than I think I should during games. This thought jumped into my mind last night when I saw Bavetta call traveling on Paul Pierce very early in the game when it appeared Pierce was going to travel. While it appeared he was going to travel, he started his dribble before he actually traveled. But, Bavetta didn't see that ... he was already doing an overly dramatic (and energetic) traveling call and heading the other way before the play unraveled.
Did that turnover have a major impact on the game? Maybe. Perhaps, if the Celtics score on that possession, they wouldn't have been steamrolled in the first quarter and wouldn't have had to claw back from a huge (19 points) deficit. Or, maybe they would have turned the ball over later in the possession and things would have gone similarly. I don't think that call did a whole lot of damage and I'm not trying to say Bavetta was fixing the game.
But, why didn't Bavetta see what happened to Pierce? I think Bavetta anticipates calls. Traveling is rarely called in the NBA. In a chat with Roy today, he joked "I didn't know traveling was still illegal in the NBA." So, when I see it called, I usually take an extra look to make sure it is traveling. Frequently, the player called for traveling doesn't travel ... he just doesn't move in the "normal" or expected fashion. The official sees the odd movement and assumes a travel occurs. And, all too often, Dick Bavetta is making the call and then sprinting the other way.
Why is Bavetta so lively and animated? Is he trying to make sure we know he's still fit, even at 68 years old? Is he trying to draw attention to himself and become a celebrity - why did he race Barkley? And, why is Bavetta anticipating calls? Are his reactions not up to par? I don't really care what the reason is that Bavetta is messing up calls. I'd prefer that he not do it ... and if that's not possible, then he shouldn't be given the opportunity to do it.
Moving on to the subject of traveling:
KG was called for another travel in game 5. Granted, he traveled. But, it wasn't that bad ... he just let his pivot foot slide a little bit.
Derek Fisher traveled with just over 90 seconds left in the game when he received a pass after an offensive rebound by the Lakers. For those of you who don't remember the play, he caught the ball with a foot in the air. The airborne foot came down after he caught the ball. Then, he moved the other foot closer to his body. So ... he moved both of his feet after catching the ball. That's a no-no!
Why call traveling on Pierce and KG but not on Fisher? Hopefully, it isn't related to the colors. But, whatever the reason, if you're going to call traveling, call traveling. If you aren't, don't. You can't pick and choose ... and you can't, honestly, have missed Fisher traveling! Right?
Saturday, June 14, 2008
One comment on game 4
I'm not greatly offended by this, but Kobe Bryant travels regularly after catching the ball in the back court before he puts the ball on the floor. He did it multiple times in the fourth game of the finals. Where's the token call on that?
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
When should you make the call?
I won't spend a lot of time harping on the officiating from the third game of the NBA Finals. I didn't think it was particularly good, but it wasn't overly bad either. But, there is one call I have a problem with. The officials called PJ Brown for traveling when he came to a stop after catching a ball outside the three-point line. While the official didn't screw the call up (Brown did travel), travels like that happen all the time. If you are going to let everyone else get away with it, why whistle Brown for the violation? Radmanovich wasn't called for traveling when he obviously took an extra step before taking off for his break-away dunk near the end of game 2!
If you want an obvious, more egregious offense that gives a player an advantage, whistle Lamar Odom for carrying the ball bringing the ball up the court. Or, if you want to call a travel on Brown, call one palming violation on Odom.
And, while KG does travel (and got called for it, though not every time), so does Kobe. Maybe I'll blog real-time during game 4 (doubtful, because I have to help my mother-in-law move and will have to utilize my DVR). If not, I'll try to do a decent run-down of all (or most) of the awful missed (and made) calls a few hours after they happen.
If you want an obvious, more egregious offense that gives a player an advantage, whistle Lamar Odom for carrying the ball bringing the ball up the court. Or, if you want to call a travel on Brown, call one palming violation on Odom.
And, while KG does travel (and got called for it, though not every time), so does Kobe. Maybe I'll blog real-time during game 4 (doubtful, because I have to help my mother-in-law move and will have to utilize my DVR). If not, I'll try to do a decent run-down of all (or most) of the awful missed (and made) calls a few hours after they happen.
Tiger's Torrey Pines Challenge
Tony Romo shot an 84, Justin Timberlake shot a 98 and Matt Lauer came home with after 100 strokes. As I heard it, Tiger said no golfer with a 10 handicap could break 100 at the course as it is configured for the 2008 U.S. Open. Romo broke 100, but he has a 2.2 handicap. Timberlake and Lauer both have handicaps around 6. So, while Romo made it around at just 13-over par and Timberlake only took an extra 1.5 strokes per hole (27-over), they don't fit the 10 handicap criteria Tiger put out there.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Consistently Inconsistent
It happened again in the second game of the NBA Finals. And, again, an alternate interpretation was used by a referee. That makes three times in (I think) the last three games for the Boston Celtics.
What happened? Paul Pierce got a defender in the air, traveled, drew contact and hoisted up the shot. While each incident was slightly different, the differences were small enough for me to consider them as virtually the same play. I know Pierce traveled on the first two, and while I didn't get a great look at his feet on the one from Sunday night, the official called traveling, so I'm just going to assume that he traveled. In all three, Pierce definitely initiated the contact on a defender who was airborne (and not moving strictly up and down).
So, I was a little surprised when the official got the call right and whistled Pierce for traveling in the most recent incident. While I applaud the official for getting the call right, I'm more than a little bothered by the lack of consistency and this is a perfect example of the lack of game-to-game consistency of officiating in the NBA. These three plays should have the league up in arms and trying to come up with a solution to avoid problems like this in the future. Why? While this particular play isn't going to doom the league, it is inconsistencies of this nature that drive players (and coaches) nuts and lead to integrity questions.
Let me recap the three calls before we proceed. The first time, Pierce was whistled for an offensive foul. Then, he scored a 4-point play by hitting the FT after nailing the three while being fouled in the first game of the NBA Finals. In the most recent incident, he was called for a traveling violation. So, three instances of the same general play and three different calls.
What is the right call in that instance? I think the travel call. But, the previous officials have overlooked the travel and called the contact. But, if you aren't going to call traveling, what's the right call? If the same play is called three different times by three different officials (I'm not certain that is that case because I don't know who the officials were that called the three), it seems like there is a problem. And, if the call has anything to do with the defender who is guarding Paul Pierce then it is definitely a problem.
The call should not depend on the official. Different officials don't get different rules in their rule books (at least, I can't imagine that is what's going on). While different officials certainly interpret rules differently, I don't see that as a good thing. This isn't the supreme court, they are cut and dry rules to a sport. So, maybe less needs to be left up for interpretation.
And, the call should not depend on any other factors either. The offensive player has been a constant for us, but it doesn't need to be. And, if it's a travel when Paul Pierce does it, it should be a travel if Kobe does it or if Unknown Player does it. If it's an offensive foul, it should always be an offensive foul. Time and score shouldn't matter (did the Celtics' huge lead on Sunday make the travel call easier for the official?) and neither should the identity of the defender.
Maybe Pierce will create a similar situation later on in the NBA Finals and we'll be able to see how the official reacts to that situation. While I think Pierce should have been called for traveling on all three of the plays so far, I'm open to arguments in favor of either foul call. But, what I cannot support is the inconsistency because there is no place for inconsistency in officiating of sports.
What happened? Paul Pierce got a defender in the air, traveled, drew contact and hoisted up the shot. While each incident was slightly different, the differences were small enough for me to consider them as virtually the same play. I know Pierce traveled on the first two, and while I didn't get a great look at his feet on the one from Sunday night, the official called traveling, so I'm just going to assume that he traveled. In all three, Pierce definitely initiated the contact on a defender who was airborne (and not moving strictly up and down).
So, I was a little surprised when the official got the call right and whistled Pierce for traveling in the most recent incident. While I applaud the official for getting the call right, I'm more than a little bothered by the lack of consistency and this is a perfect example of the lack of game-to-game consistency of officiating in the NBA. These three plays should have the league up in arms and trying to come up with a solution to avoid problems like this in the future. Why? While this particular play isn't going to doom the league, it is inconsistencies of this nature that drive players (and coaches) nuts and lead to integrity questions.
Let me recap the three calls before we proceed. The first time, Pierce was whistled for an offensive foul. Then, he scored a 4-point play by hitting the FT after nailing the three while being fouled in the first game of the NBA Finals. In the most recent incident, he was called for a traveling violation. So, three instances of the same general play and three different calls.
What is the right call in that instance? I think the travel call. But, the previous officials have overlooked the travel and called the contact. But, if you aren't going to call traveling, what's the right call? If the same play is called three different times by three different officials (I'm not certain that is that case because I don't know who the officials were that called the three), it seems like there is a problem. And, if the call has anything to do with the defender who is guarding Paul Pierce then it is definitely a problem.
The call should not depend on the official. Different officials don't get different rules in their rule books (at least, I can't imagine that is what's going on). While different officials certainly interpret rules differently, I don't see that as a good thing. This isn't the supreme court, they are cut and dry rules to a sport. So, maybe less needs to be left up for interpretation.
And, the call should not depend on any other factors either. The offensive player has been a constant for us, but it doesn't need to be. And, if it's a travel when Paul Pierce does it, it should be a travel if Kobe does it or if Unknown Player does it. If it's an offensive foul, it should always be an offensive foul. Time and score shouldn't matter (did the Celtics' huge lead on Sunday make the travel call easier for the official?) and neither should the identity of the defender.
Maybe Pierce will create a similar situation later on in the NBA Finals and we'll be able to see how the official reacts to that situation. While I think Pierce should have been called for traveling on all three of the plays so far, I'm open to arguments in favor of either foul call. But, what I cannot support is the inconsistency because there is no place for inconsistency in officiating of sports.
Friday, June 06, 2008
You Make the Call
Recent discussions about instant replay in baseball have made me realize the error of my ways. Sports don't need replay. Human error by the officials is just part of the game. So, I've come up with an ingenious promotion to increase fan involvement in the games. Perhaps, we could use it to raise money for charity as well.
My proposal is that half the officiating crew for each game is made up of actual officials and that the other half are selected in some fashion (randomly among ticket holders who apply at least 30 minutes before a given game, highest bidder in an on-line auction the day of the game with the proceeds going to charity, etc.). I realize basketball games use 3 officials currently, but I'd implement 4 officials for NBA games. An extra set of eyes can't hurt, right? Maybe the extra official would notice that Paul Pierce traveled egregiously before drawing contact on his 4-point play last night. The funny thing is that he did a very similar thing (traveled and drew contact from an airborne defender) against the Pistons and he got called for an offensive foul. No fouls should have been called because he traveled on both occasions! But, I digress.
The positions would rotate game by game and the current number of officials should stay employed. The official officials would serve as backups in case something happened to any of the guest officials during action. So, every other game, we'd have an untrained umpire behind home plate in baseball games. Yeah, he (or she) might miss a few calls, but the trained umps currently employed miss calls too. Hopefully, the guest umps would be fairly consistent with their calls. If not, then we'll just have awkward arguments between players and fans and a little more human error than we're accustomed to.
This new system might also introduce a new wrinkle in home field advantage. But, in the end, it should equal out like the DH/pitcher hitting is supposed to even out in MLB interleague play. Teams do some ridiculous things to gain advantages (long grass at Notre Dame Stadium) and the current officials are far from infallible - there are numerous examples from college football officiating and replay to draw on for this one (see OU at UO).
I'm anticipating that Roger Goodell will rush to implement this for the upcoming football season and Bud Selig will be close behind (he might even want to test it in the playoffs this fall!). The NHL will jump at the opportunity to try to draw in extra fans with the promotion and David Stern has to view Average Joe as an upgrade over Tim Donaghy.
Obviously, I'm not really advocating this ridiculous idea. There is a reason that HS officials don't generally work professional games. They aren't good enough. The officials that work in MLB, the NBA, the NHL and the NFL are, generally, the best at what they do. So, if the leagues go through the trouble to screen officials and review officials because they want the very best officials (because better officials have less human error - remember, officials aren't there to have an impact on the game, they are there to officiate), why not use technology if can further reduce human error in a timely fashion? Tennis does it. Why don't the other sports investigate more progressive ways they can improve the overall officiating of games?
My proposal is that half the officiating crew for each game is made up of actual officials and that the other half are selected in some fashion (randomly among ticket holders who apply at least 30 minutes before a given game, highest bidder in an on-line auction the day of the game with the proceeds going to charity, etc.). I realize basketball games use 3 officials currently, but I'd implement 4 officials for NBA games. An extra set of eyes can't hurt, right? Maybe the extra official would notice that Paul Pierce traveled egregiously before drawing contact on his 4-point play last night. The funny thing is that he did a very similar thing (traveled and drew contact from an airborne defender) against the Pistons and he got called for an offensive foul. No fouls should have been called because he traveled on both occasions! But, I digress.
The positions would rotate game by game and the current number of officials should stay employed. The official officials would serve as backups in case something happened to any of the guest officials during action. So, every other game, we'd have an untrained umpire behind home plate in baseball games. Yeah, he (or she) might miss a few calls, but the trained umps currently employed miss calls too. Hopefully, the guest umps would be fairly consistent with their calls. If not, then we'll just have awkward arguments between players and fans and a little more human error than we're accustomed to.
This new system might also introduce a new wrinkle in home field advantage. But, in the end, it should equal out like the DH/pitcher hitting is supposed to even out in MLB interleague play. Teams do some ridiculous things to gain advantages (long grass at Notre Dame Stadium) and the current officials are far from infallible - there are numerous examples from college football officiating and replay to draw on for this one (see OU at UO).
I'm anticipating that Roger Goodell will rush to implement this for the upcoming football season and Bud Selig will be close behind (he might even want to test it in the playoffs this fall!). The NHL will jump at the opportunity to try to draw in extra fans with the promotion and David Stern has to view Average Joe as an upgrade over Tim Donaghy.
Obviously, I'm not really advocating this ridiculous idea. There is a reason that HS officials don't generally work professional games. They aren't good enough. The officials that work in MLB, the NBA, the NHL and the NFL are, generally, the best at what they do. So, if the leagues go through the trouble to screen officials and review officials because they want the very best officials (because better officials have less human error - remember, officials aren't there to have an impact on the game, they are there to officiate), why not use technology if can further reduce human error in a timely fashion? Tennis does it. Why don't the other sports investigate more progressive ways they can improve the overall officiating of games?
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Sox and Rays: Who's fault is it?
A fight broke out in the game between the Rays and the Red Sox today after James Shields intentionally threw at Coco Crisp in retaliation for a hard slide on Akinori Iwamura the previous night.
Was anyone surprised? I wasn't. Coco Crisp and Rays Manager John Madden got into a shouting match after the incident in which Madden believed Crisp slid too hard and late into Iwamura. Crisp plays outfield, so the most efficient technique to get retribution is throwing at him.
This might be the way problems in baseball are taken care of, but does that make it right? An eye for an eye? When does the cycle stop? Will it be over after Shields hits Crisp or will the Red Sox come back and nail one of the Rays?
I'm sure the league will have something to say about the incident. Crisp and Shields will, almost certainly, be suspended. Matt Kemp and Yorvit Torrealba were both suspended following their skirmish earlier in the week. Why doesn't the league step in preemptively?
If Coco Crisp violated the MLB code of ethics, then he should be suspended. By suspending Crisp, there wouldn't be a need for James Shields to throw at Crisp to retaliate. The result is that Crisp is still suspended, but Shields isn't suspended and MLB doesn't have another brawl on their record - I can't imagine the league office likes to see these incidents, which is why they suspend the players involved (unless they secretly like them but don't want to be seen as condoning them). Shields is only suspended because he was the starter for the Rays today. If Scott Kazmir had started, he probably would have been the one throwing at Crisp.
If the league doesn't feel Crisp did anything wrong, and no penalty was leveled against him, and Shields decided to throw at him then Shields (and only Shields) should be suspended for the intentional HBP. Of course, if Crisp charged the mound, he'd then be in the wrong and deserve a suspension as well.
The league should try to limit late, hard, takeout slides and intentional plunkings of players for the safety of the players. A system of penalties should be devised (either fines or suspensions) to discourage players from committing the violations. I thought the league was interested in speeding up the games. Brawls and shouting matches embarrass the league and waste time, although a segment of fans might find them entertaining. I'm all for watching a good fight, but I'd rather watch Faber v. Pulver or GSP v. Hughes or Griffin v. Rampage than anything involving baseball players. Basebrawls aren't good fights, for the most part.
Late slides would be penalized. Intentional plunkings would be penalized. Charging the mound would be penalized. Pushing the catcher when he's tagging you out after a dropped third strike would be penalized. That's about all you'd need, I think.
Somewhat related question: Generally, people don't have a problem with antics of pitchers after a big out (think K by Joba Chamberlain, Carlos Zambrano, etc.). But, people do have a problem with antics of hitters after a big hit (think HR by Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds, Manny Ramirez, etc.). Why the discrepancy? Why are hitters thrown at after admiring a tape measure HR if pitchers are fist-pumping after a big K? Aren't the pitchers showing up the hitters in much the same way that hitters are showing up the pitchers?
Was anyone surprised? I wasn't. Coco Crisp and Rays Manager John Madden got into a shouting match after the incident in which Madden believed Crisp slid too hard and late into Iwamura. Crisp plays outfield, so the most efficient technique to get retribution is throwing at him.
This might be the way problems in baseball are taken care of, but does that make it right? An eye for an eye? When does the cycle stop? Will it be over after Shields hits Crisp or will the Red Sox come back and nail one of the Rays?
I'm sure the league will have something to say about the incident. Crisp and Shields will, almost certainly, be suspended. Matt Kemp and Yorvit Torrealba were both suspended following their skirmish earlier in the week. Why doesn't the league step in preemptively?
If Coco Crisp violated the MLB code of ethics, then he should be suspended. By suspending Crisp, there wouldn't be a need for James Shields to throw at Crisp to retaliate. The result is that Crisp is still suspended, but Shields isn't suspended and MLB doesn't have another brawl on their record - I can't imagine the league office likes to see these incidents, which is why they suspend the players involved (unless they secretly like them but don't want to be seen as condoning them). Shields is only suspended because he was the starter for the Rays today. If Scott Kazmir had started, he probably would have been the one throwing at Crisp.
If the league doesn't feel Crisp did anything wrong, and no penalty was leveled against him, and Shields decided to throw at him then Shields (and only Shields) should be suspended for the intentional HBP. Of course, if Crisp charged the mound, he'd then be in the wrong and deserve a suspension as well.
The league should try to limit late, hard, takeout slides and intentional plunkings of players for the safety of the players. A system of penalties should be devised (either fines or suspensions) to discourage players from committing the violations. I thought the league was interested in speeding up the games. Brawls and shouting matches embarrass the league and waste time, although a segment of fans might find them entertaining. I'm all for watching a good fight, but I'd rather watch Faber v. Pulver or GSP v. Hughes or Griffin v. Rampage than anything involving baseball players. Basebrawls aren't good fights, for the most part.
Late slides would be penalized. Intentional plunkings would be penalized. Charging the mound would be penalized. Pushing the catcher when he's tagging you out after a dropped third strike would be penalized. That's about all you'd need, I think.
Somewhat related question: Generally, people don't have a problem with antics of pitchers after a big out (think K by Joba Chamberlain, Carlos Zambrano, etc.). But, people do have a problem with antics of hitters after a big hit (think HR by Sammy Sosa, Barry Bonds, Manny Ramirez, etc.). Why the discrepancy? Why are hitters thrown at after admiring a tape measure HR if pitchers are fist-pumping after a big K? Aren't the pitchers showing up the hitters in much the same way that hitters are showing up the pitchers?
Cliches won't help the M's
Last night, Mariners SP Carlos Silva (the loser in a 5-4 defeat at the hands of the Angels) provided the following quote:
"One thing in here is, I know everybody has to do their own job, but don't forget it's a team. A lot of people in here play for themselves ... Like, 'If I get my two hits, it's OK. That's my day. I made my day."
While I'll admit that I don't get many Seattle games in the OKC area (unless you count future Sonics games), I'm pretty sure that the problem with the Mariners is not that guys are getting theirs and it's just not fitting together as a team. Just look at the numbers for the starting pitchers. It's fairly apparent there aren't a lot of quality starts being logged. While Felix Hernandez has posted a solid 3.29 ERA. Erik Bedard's ERA, 4.47, would be palatable if he wasn't supposed to be the second ace of the staff. Miguel Batista (5.90 ERA), Carlos Silva (5.96 ERA) and Jarrod Washburn (6.56 ERA) round out the pitching staff. In 6 May starts, Silva managed just 27 innings and an ERA of 11.00. Not great for a guy making in excess of $8 million this year. Despite making $9.5 million this year, Batista has only had 3 good starts (6+ innings with 3 or less earned runs allowed) this season. Washburn has 4 such quality starts despite making close to $10 million this year. By my count, Bedard and Hernandez each have 6 QS's. But, Safeco is supposed to be a decent pitcher's park.
Sometimes, you get unlucky and don't string hits together at the right times. Or, the hitting and pitching don't coincide in a manner that allows you to win a lot of games. But, the pitching has just been bad to start the year. But, the starting pitchers shouldn't get all the blame for the putrid start.
Richie Sexson isn't hitting his weight (.200 vs. 240 lbs) and has an OBP of .277. Kenji Johjima and Jose Vidro are hitting in the .220's and Adrian Beltre still hasn't come close to reproducing the stats he put up in his walk year with the Dodgers. Somehow, he hit .334 with 48 HR's and 121 RBI's that year. While he may break the 30 HR barrier this year, his 13 in 59 games extrapolates to 36 over 162. Plus, his BA is a paltry (unless you compare it to Sexson's) .236. The Mariners were idiots to sign Beltre to the deal they cut him (he's making more than $13 million this year, which is a bargain when you consider Sexson's contract is north of $15 million this year). They should have seen 2004 for what it was, an aberration. Beltre had never hit more than 23 HR's previously and his previous high BA was .290. So, his numbers as a Mariner are in line with his numbers as a Dodger if you get rid of 2004. The problem is that the Mariners are paying him to be the 2004 Beltre. For whatever reason, he's not that guy. But, don't blame Adrian, blame the Mariners' overeager management on that one.
Ichiro, Betancourt, and Lopez are hitting in the .289-.305 range. But, Lopez and Betancourt have a combined 10 walks on the season in almost 500 combined plate appearances. So, they aren't exactly leading the world in OBP; Lopez has an OBP of just .315 and Betancourt is at .305. Neither of those numbers is good. KC is 2nd to last in the AL in OBP (as a team - they are ahead of Seattle) at .312. The only other Mariner regular over .250 is Raul Ibanez at .261, which is 30-40 points below where he's usually at.
The Mariners don't have the worst pitching in the AL, nor do they have the worst offense in the AL. They're close to Detroit in the running for 2nd worst pitching (ahead of Texas) and right there with Baltimore for 2nd worst hitting (ahead of KC). But, Texas has been the best offensive team in the AL and Detroit is close to the top (1 R behind Minnesota for 3rd in runs scored). And, Baltimore is in the middle of the pack in pitching. KC's pitching hasn't exactly been stellar, but, the Royals have the 3rd worst record in MLB (ahead of Seattle and Colorado). But, KC doesn't have a payroll in excess of $100 million like Seattle either.
But, to get back to the point, I think Carlos Silva is wrong. While it's great to be a team and have all those intangibles, the individual Mariners haven't put up the stats this year. People aren't getting two hits a game ... that's why half their regulars are under the .240 mark. They don't have anyone tearing it up (unless you count Ichiro on the basepaths). Adrian Beltre has 13 HR's. But, I wouldn't consider 35 HR's a year tearing it up for a corner IF hitting .236. The Mariners barely have a chance when Hernandez and Bedard aren't starting, and some of their starts will be wasted because the offense is ... well ... offensive! Maybe, if the pitchers start racking up decent starts and guys get a couple hits, the wins will start rolling in.
"One thing in here is, I know everybody has to do their own job, but don't forget it's a team. A lot of people in here play for themselves ... Like, 'If I get my two hits, it's OK. That's my day. I made my day."
While I'll admit that I don't get many Seattle games in the OKC area (unless you count future Sonics games), I'm pretty sure that the problem with the Mariners is not that guys are getting theirs and it's just not fitting together as a team. Just look at the numbers for the starting pitchers. It's fairly apparent there aren't a lot of quality starts being logged. While Felix Hernandez has posted a solid 3.29 ERA. Erik Bedard's ERA, 4.47, would be palatable if he wasn't supposed to be the second ace of the staff. Miguel Batista (5.90 ERA), Carlos Silva (5.96 ERA) and Jarrod Washburn (6.56 ERA) round out the pitching staff. In 6 May starts, Silva managed just 27 innings and an ERA of 11.00. Not great for a guy making in excess of $8 million this year. Despite making $9.5 million this year, Batista has only had 3 good starts (6+ innings with 3 or less earned runs allowed) this season. Washburn has 4 such quality starts despite making close to $10 million this year. By my count, Bedard and Hernandez each have 6 QS's. But, Safeco is supposed to be a decent pitcher's park.
Sometimes, you get unlucky and don't string hits together at the right times. Or, the hitting and pitching don't coincide in a manner that allows you to win a lot of games. But, the pitching has just been bad to start the year. But, the starting pitchers shouldn't get all the blame for the putrid start.
Richie Sexson isn't hitting his weight (.200 vs. 240 lbs) and has an OBP of .277. Kenji Johjima and Jose Vidro are hitting in the .220's and Adrian Beltre still hasn't come close to reproducing the stats he put up in his walk year with the Dodgers. Somehow, he hit .334 with 48 HR's and 121 RBI's that year. While he may break the 30 HR barrier this year, his 13 in 59 games extrapolates to 36 over 162. Plus, his BA is a paltry (unless you compare it to Sexson's) .236. The Mariners were idiots to sign Beltre to the deal they cut him (he's making more than $13 million this year, which is a bargain when you consider Sexson's contract is north of $15 million this year). They should have seen 2004 for what it was, an aberration. Beltre had never hit more than 23 HR's previously and his previous high BA was .290. So, his numbers as a Mariner are in line with his numbers as a Dodger if you get rid of 2004. The problem is that the Mariners are paying him to be the 2004 Beltre. For whatever reason, he's not that guy. But, don't blame Adrian, blame the Mariners' overeager management on that one.
Ichiro, Betancourt, and Lopez are hitting in the .289-.305 range. But, Lopez and Betancourt have a combined 10 walks on the season in almost 500 combined plate appearances. So, they aren't exactly leading the world in OBP; Lopez has an OBP of just .315 and Betancourt is at .305. Neither of those numbers is good. KC is 2nd to last in the AL in OBP (as a team - they are ahead of Seattle) at .312. The only other Mariner regular over .250 is Raul Ibanez at .261, which is 30-40 points below where he's usually at.
The Mariners don't have the worst pitching in the AL, nor do they have the worst offense in the AL. They're close to Detroit in the running for 2nd worst pitching (ahead of Texas) and right there with Baltimore for 2nd worst hitting (ahead of KC). But, Texas has been the best offensive team in the AL and Detroit is close to the top (1 R behind Minnesota for 3rd in runs scored). And, Baltimore is in the middle of the pack in pitching. KC's pitching hasn't exactly been stellar, but, the Royals have the 3rd worst record in MLB (ahead of Seattle and Colorado). But, KC doesn't have a payroll in excess of $100 million like Seattle either.
But, to get back to the point, I think Carlos Silva is wrong. While it's great to be a team and have all those intangibles, the individual Mariners haven't put up the stats this year. People aren't getting two hits a game ... that's why half their regulars are under the .240 mark. They don't have anyone tearing it up (unless you count Ichiro on the basepaths). Adrian Beltre has 13 HR's. But, I wouldn't consider 35 HR's a year tearing it up for a corner IF hitting .236. The Mariners barely have a chance when Hernandez and Bedard aren't starting, and some of their starts will be wasted because the offense is ... well ... offensive! Maybe, if the pitchers start racking up decent starts and guys get a couple hits, the wins will start rolling in.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Dear B.J., You Were Right
B.J. Upton should receive an apologetic text message from the home plate ump who ran him tonight. Upton was called out on strikes in the first inning on an outside curve from Josh Beckett. Hideki Okajima got him in the 8th on an inside pitch. Granted, both pitches were just off the plate, but if you have to go out of the zone inside and outside, it's hard to hit major league pitchers, especially ones of the caliber of Beckett and Okajima. Can't we automate this?
Evan's Take
Stephen A Smith joined Skip Bayless for 1st and 10 on ESPN 1st Take this morning. I couldn't believe some of the positions he took (or the arguments he made in support of those positions), so I figured I should put in my two cents.
First up, "Will he (Joba) work as a starter?" Stephen A says "I doubt it." One of his arguments was that people study you more and become more familiar with you when you start than when you close or set-up for a closer. He also mentioned Joba's age (22) as a reason why it's not really a good idea.
I'm not sure I would have transitioned Joba right now. But, down the road, Joba should turn into a decent starter assuming he can improve his control a bit. Last year, he walked 2.25/9 innings. This year, he's close to 5 walks per 9. Along with putting additional batters on, that stat suggests that he's missing his spots more, which could be one reason his batting average against and ERA are up from last year, although they remain fairly low. Chamberlain's ran his fastball into the high 90's against the Blue Jays in his first start of the year and, generally, has electric stuff. And, he's only 22. As he's eased into his starting role this year, he'll increase his inning total over previous years without the strain of making 30+ starts in his first major league season. With his stuff, if he can improve his ability to hit his spots and develop into a pitcher who pitches to good contact and saves himself, rather than pitching away from contact and trying to strike everyone out, there is no reason to assume he won't work out as a starter.
Smith mentioned batters becoming familiar with him. Jake Peavy isn't hurt that much by hitters seeing him multiple times per game. He won't post a 0.38 ERA starting (that was his 2007 ERA). He should also work on a change-up to help him get easy outs early in counts. Plus, if he struggles with his control and his ability to go deep in games, he can always transition back to the bullpen.
Moving on, we're faced with the question "(Are the Mets the) Best team in the NL East with Pedro?" Stephen A Smith went beyond the NL East and said they're the team to beat in the NL. Smith said that Pedro would give them "two quality pitchers." Has Stephen A Smith not heard of John Maine (3.91 ERA in 2007, 3.62 ERA in 2008). In 2006, Pedro posted a 4.48 ERA in 23 starts for the Mets. In 2004 with Boston, he posted a 3.90 ERA in 33 starts.
It's hard to imagine Pedro will remain healthy, but even if he does the Phillies have to at least be co-favorites in the NL East because Ryan Howard is bound to come around after a slow start, Jimmy Rollins has missed 40% of the games, Brett Myers has been awful to start the season, and the Phillies still lead the Mets by 4.5 games. The Mets have aging players in LF (Alou) and at 1B (Delgado), as well as a major problem at the back end of the rotation with Oliver Perez and Mike Pelfrey. And, I have yet to mention the status of NY Mets Manager Willie Randolph.
If Pedro is healthy and can match Santana start for start, Martinez might save Randolph's job. But, what is a healthy Pedro going to give you these days?
Next up: "How much do you root for him (Kobe Bryant)?" On a scale from 0 - 10, Stephen A says a 10. Smith said "I love stars who never, ever, cheat us. When we walk into an arena you know they are giving it all they've got." Skip Bayless came back by bringing up the 1st half of game 1 against the Spurs - when Phil Jackson said something to the effect that Kobe was in the Bermuda Triangle rather than the sideline triangle in the first half - to refute Smith's statement quoted above. Smith essentially told Skip he didn't know anything and said Kobe was helping Phil Jackson let the other players work through adversity to grow as players.
Hmmm. Is Stephen A Smith forgetting the series against Phoenix when Kobe refused to shoot? While it worked out in game 1 against the Spurs, Kobe's quirky spurts in games don't always work out for the best. While Kobe seems to give it his all in the off-season to improve his game, that doesn't always translate to the floor. Personally, I thought Kobe was a lot better off the ball against the Spurs when he was working off screens to lose Bruce Bowen and hitting open jumpers than when he was dominating the ball trying to do everything himself. Kobe should have recognized what he was doing successfully and continue to do that. It will be interesting to see how Kobe reacts the next time his team isn't the best team in the NBA. Will he demand a trade and sulk during portions of games, or will he try to figure out the best way to help his team win?
Sticking with the NBA, we move to Kevin Garnett and the question: "Underrated or overrated?" Skip Bayless says overrated and Smith says neither. Smith argues that Garnett is a star not because he scores 20 a game, or because he pulls 11 boards a game, or even because he's consistently on the all-defense team, but because of his complete game. Skip appreciates Garnett's leadership but doesn't like that he can't be counted on in the clutch.
I'm not as critical of Garnett as Skip is, but I don't think Stephen A Smith is getting it. Kevin Garnett is long, athletic and skilled. He can handle the ball and shoot well for a guy his size. And, it seems like he can score whenever he wants, whether it be on the block or off the dribble with his dribble to the left then step back shot. But, it seems like Garnett is looking to pass at the end of games rather than attempt the big shot. That's why Garnett is slightly overrated as a superstar. On physical attributes and skills alone, you'd definitely take Garnett over Tim Duncan. If you're picking team's for the NBA Finals, would Garnett come off the board before Duncan? That's the aspect Smith is missing.
"Is Michael Curry the right move?" Does it matter who coaches the Pistons? Joe Dumars got rid of Rick Carlisle. Larry Brown won an NBA Championship with the Pistons then moved on to NY (that's bad). Now, Flip Saunders is gone. Most of the players have remained constant, with the exception of the substitution of Antonio McDyess for Ben Wallace. Does it matter who coaches this team? Joe Dumars screwed up by taking Darko Milicic when he had the #2 overall pick in the 2003 NBA Draft. That draft went downhill after pick #8, although David West and Boris Diaw were selected #18 and #21 and K Perkins, L Barbosa and J Howard went #27-#29. But, the only bust in the top 8 was Darko. While the Pistons didn't have a chance for LeBron, they passed up Carmelo, Chris Bosh, Dwayne Wade, Chris Kaman, TJ Ford (who has had injuries) and Kirk Hinrich. So, Dumars should shoulder some blame, although he's picked up productive players with later picks in recent years.
I don't know if Curry is the right move because I don't know if there is a right move. How long will Curry get along with the players if they don't respond to him, which seemed to be the problem with Flip? If Curry can get Rasheed to play hard and dominate - like he should - consistently and help Tayshaun Prince regain his confidence, then it will be a good move. But, brining in Curry isn't going to solve their problem that they don't have a consistent go-to scorer for end of the game situations.
Next, is it good that Terrell Owens "Gets big contract from Cowboys?" Skip is notorious for bashing TO. Stephen A went the other way in support of TO getting the contract. I'll agree with Smith, but he missed the point again. The reason it is good that TO gets the contract from the Cowboys is that his contract won't be a distraction this year. Everyone knows football contracts aren't like baseball and basketball contracts. His new contract is in-line with his current level of productivity and he seems to be behaving himself as a Cowboy. If he screws up in the future or his productivity slips, Jerry Jones can get rid of him or try to get him to take a pay reduction (yeah right). The end of the contract will, probably, coincide with his decline in ability because of his age, so it seems like it's a good deal for both sides right now.
Just one more question and it's "Who wins the NBA Finals?" Stephen A Smith took the Lakers and soon after my DVR cut off the recording, so I didn't get to hear Skip. His assertion was that Kobe is too good for the balance of the Celtics. Maybe. But, if Perkins and Garnett can keep Gasol, Odom and Co. from dominating the boards and the Celtics are able to get something out of Tony Allen and do a decent job on Kobe, they might have a shot. Plus, the Lakers don't have Lindsey Hunter to harass the back-up PG's for Boston, so that's good for the Celtics. Additionally, Lamar Odom won't have a decided athleticism advantage in this series like he did against the Spurs. And, how are the Lakers going to match up against both Pierce and Allen, who came around late in the series against Detroit. I guess the Lakers could go small with Kobe against Pierce and Vujacic on Allen. It seems like Pierce and Allen would both be bad match-ups for Vlad Radmanovich. I'm inclined to pick the Lakers, too, but I'll have a better feel for things after I see game 1 and see how the teams match-up as currently constituted - I'm not sure I saw either of the Lakers v. Celtics games this year and both of them occurred before Gasol was acquired by LA.
First up, "Will he (Joba) work as a starter?" Stephen A says "I doubt it." One of his arguments was that people study you more and become more familiar with you when you start than when you close or set-up for a closer. He also mentioned Joba's age (22) as a reason why it's not really a good idea.
I'm not sure I would have transitioned Joba right now. But, down the road, Joba should turn into a decent starter assuming he can improve his control a bit. Last year, he walked 2.25/9 innings. This year, he's close to 5 walks per 9. Along with putting additional batters on, that stat suggests that he's missing his spots more, which could be one reason his batting average against and ERA are up from last year, although they remain fairly low. Chamberlain's ran his fastball into the high 90's against the Blue Jays in his first start of the year and, generally, has electric stuff. And, he's only 22. As he's eased into his starting role this year, he'll increase his inning total over previous years without the strain of making 30+ starts in his first major league season. With his stuff, if he can improve his ability to hit his spots and develop into a pitcher who pitches to good contact and saves himself, rather than pitching away from contact and trying to strike everyone out, there is no reason to assume he won't work out as a starter.
Smith mentioned batters becoming familiar with him. Jake Peavy isn't hurt that much by hitters seeing him multiple times per game. He won't post a 0.38 ERA starting (that was his 2007 ERA). He should also work on a change-up to help him get easy outs early in counts. Plus, if he struggles with his control and his ability to go deep in games, he can always transition back to the bullpen.
Moving on, we're faced with the question "(Are the Mets the) Best team in the NL East with Pedro?" Stephen A Smith went beyond the NL East and said they're the team to beat in the NL. Smith said that Pedro would give them "two quality pitchers." Has Stephen A Smith not heard of John Maine (3.91 ERA in 2007, 3.62 ERA in 2008). In 2006, Pedro posted a 4.48 ERA in 23 starts for the Mets. In 2004 with Boston, he posted a 3.90 ERA in 33 starts.
It's hard to imagine Pedro will remain healthy, but even if he does the Phillies have to at least be co-favorites in the NL East because Ryan Howard is bound to come around after a slow start, Jimmy Rollins has missed 40% of the games, Brett Myers has been awful to start the season, and the Phillies still lead the Mets by 4.5 games. The Mets have aging players in LF (Alou) and at 1B (Delgado), as well as a major problem at the back end of the rotation with Oliver Perez and Mike Pelfrey. And, I have yet to mention the status of NY Mets Manager Willie Randolph.
If Pedro is healthy and can match Santana start for start, Martinez might save Randolph's job. But, what is a healthy Pedro going to give you these days?
Next up: "How much do you root for him (Kobe Bryant)?" On a scale from 0 - 10, Stephen A says a 10. Smith said "I love stars who never, ever, cheat us. When we walk into an arena you know they are giving it all they've got." Skip Bayless came back by bringing up the 1st half of game 1 against the Spurs - when Phil Jackson said something to the effect that Kobe was in the Bermuda Triangle rather than the sideline triangle in the first half - to refute Smith's statement quoted above. Smith essentially told Skip he didn't know anything and said Kobe was helping Phil Jackson let the other players work through adversity to grow as players.
Hmmm. Is Stephen A Smith forgetting the series against Phoenix when Kobe refused to shoot? While it worked out in game 1 against the Spurs, Kobe's quirky spurts in games don't always work out for the best. While Kobe seems to give it his all in the off-season to improve his game, that doesn't always translate to the floor. Personally, I thought Kobe was a lot better off the ball against the Spurs when he was working off screens to lose Bruce Bowen and hitting open jumpers than when he was dominating the ball trying to do everything himself. Kobe should have recognized what he was doing successfully and continue to do that. It will be interesting to see how Kobe reacts the next time his team isn't the best team in the NBA. Will he demand a trade and sulk during portions of games, or will he try to figure out the best way to help his team win?
Sticking with the NBA, we move to Kevin Garnett and the question: "Underrated or overrated?" Skip Bayless says overrated and Smith says neither. Smith argues that Garnett is a star not because he scores 20 a game, or because he pulls 11 boards a game, or even because he's consistently on the all-defense team, but because of his complete game. Skip appreciates Garnett's leadership but doesn't like that he can't be counted on in the clutch.
I'm not as critical of Garnett as Skip is, but I don't think Stephen A Smith is getting it. Kevin Garnett is long, athletic and skilled. He can handle the ball and shoot well for a guy his size. And, it seems like he can score whenever he wants, whether it be on the block or off the dribble with his dribble to the left then step back shot. But, it seems like Garnett is looking to pass at the end of games rather than attempt the big shot. That's why Garnett is slightly overrated as a superstar. On physical attributes and skills alone, you'd definitely take Garnett over Tim Duncan. If you're picking team's for the NBA Finals, would Garnett come off the board before Duncan? That's the aspect Smith is missing.
"Is Michael Curry the right move?" Does it matter who coaches the Pistons? Joe Dumars got rid of Rick Carlisle. Larry Brown won an NBA Championship with the Pistons then moved on to NY (that's bad). Now, Flip Saunders is gone. Most of the players have remained constant, with the exception of the substitution of Antonio McDyess for Ben Wallace. Does it matter who coaches this team? Joe Dumars screwed up by taking Darko Milicic when he had the #2 overall pick in the 2003 NBA Draft. That draft went downhill after pick #8, although David West and Boris Diaw were selected #18 and #21 and K Perkins, L Barbosa and J Howard went #27-#29. But, the only bust in the top 8 was Darko. While the Pistons didn't have a chance for LeBron, they passed up Carmelo, Chris Bosh, Dwayne Wade, Chris Kaman, TJ Ford (who has had injuries) and Kirk Hinrich. So, Dumars should shoulder some blame, although he's picked up productive players with later picks in recent years.
I don't know if Curry is the right move because I don't know if there is a right move. How long will Curry get along with the players if they don't respond to him, which seemed to be the problem with Flip? If Curry can get Rasheed to play hard and dominate - like he should - consistently and help Tayshaun Prince regain his confidence, then it will be a good move. But, brining in Curry isn't going to solve their problem that they don't have a consistent go-to scorer for end of the game situations.
Next, is it good that Terrell Owens "Gets big contract from Cowboys?" Skip is notorious for bashing TO. Stephen A went the other way in support of TO getting the contract. I'll agree with Smith, but he missed the point again. The reason it is good that TO gets the contract from the Cowboys is that his contract won't be a distraction this year. Everyone knows football contracts aren't like baseball and basketball contracts. His new contract is in-line with his current level of productivity and he seems to be behaving himself as a Cowboy. If he screws up in the future or his productivity slips, Jerry Jones can get rid of him or try to get him to take a pay reduction (yeah right). The end of the contract will, probably, coincide with his decline in ability because of his age, so it seems like it's a good deal for both sides right now.
Just one more question and it's "Who wins the NBA Finals?" Stephen A Smith took the Lakers and soon after my DVR cut off the recording, so I didn't get to hear Skip. His assertion was that Kobe is too good for the balance of the Celtics. Maybe. But, if Perkins and Garnett can keep Gasol, Odom and Co. from dominating the boards and the Celtics are able to get something out of Tony Allen and do a decent job on Kobe, they might have a shot. Plus, the Lakers don't have Lindsey Hunter to harass the back-up PG's for Boston, so that's good for the Celtics. Additionally, Lamar Odom won't have a decided athleticism advantage in this series like he did against the Spurs. And, how are the Lakers going to match up against both Pierce and Allen, who came around late in the series against Detroit. I guess the Lakers could go small with Kobe against Pierce and Vujacic on Allen. It seems like Pierce and Allen would both be bad match-ups for Vlad Radmanovich. I'm inclined to pick the Lakers, too, but I'll have a better feel for things after I see game 1 and see how the teams match-up as currently constituted - I'm not sure I saw either of the Lakers v. Celtics games this year and both of them occurred before Gasol was acquired by LA.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
Waiting Game
No offense to Tom Petty, but waiting isn't that hard, it's just annoying.
It seems like it's been quite some time since the last NBA game. Granted, it was only a couple days ago (Friday) that the Celtics finished off the Pistons to win the Eastern Conference. However, with three more days without games to start the work week, am I the only one wondering why the Celtics and Lakers aren't getting things started until Thursday?
Maybe there is a perfectly sensible reason that I don't know about. If so, could someone please clue me in? Aside from the lay-off, which just gives ESPN Classic more opportunities to show old Magic v. Bird footage, the league's insistence on playing only on Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday makes no sense if they are starting on Thursday given the 2-3-2 format of the finals.
The first two games are in Boston, slated for Thursday and Sunday. Then, the middle three games will be Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday (if necessary). If the series has to go back to Boston, the games will be on Tuesday and Thursday. So, travel across the country will occur between Sunday and Tuesday games. There are two off days between games 1 and 2 and between games 4 and 5 when no travel is necessary, while travel from Boston to LA (and back) occurs when games are scheduled approximately 48 hours apart.
Wouldn't it be better to start the series in Boston this Tuesday. The league knew Friday that it got it's throwback series wish. Isn't three free days enough time to schedule the games, have LA travel, hype the match-up and sell tickets (I think they'll go fairly quickly)? Then, the first two games in Boston would be Tuesday and Thursday. Then, cross-country travel could occur when there is an extra day between games (there isn't a need for two off days, but if you are going to have them, you might as well use them efficiently). The games in LA would be Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday. Then, you'd have the other long break (Thursday-Sunday) to fly back to Boston for the final two games. I must be missing something, because it seems like the obvious solution.
It seems like it's been quite some time since the last NBA game. Granted, it was only a couple days ago (Friday) that the Celtics finished off the Pistons to win the Eastern Conference. However, with three more days without games to start the work week, am I the only one wondering why the Celtics and Lakers aren't getting things started until Thursday?
Maybe there is a perfectly sensible reason that I don't know about. If so, could someone please clue me in? Aside from the lay-off, which just gives ESPN Classic more opportunities to show old Magic v. Bird footage, the league's insistence on playing only on Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday makes no sense if they are starting on Thursday given the 2-3-2 format of the finals.
The first two games are in Boston, slated for Thursday and Sunday. Then, the middle three games will be Tuesday, Thursday and Sunday (if necessary). If the series has to go back to Boston, the games will be on Tuesday and Thursday. So, travel across the country will occur between Sunday and Tuesday games. There are two off days between games 1 and 2 and between games 4 and 5 when no travel is necessary, while travel from Boston to LA (and back) occurs when games are scheduled approximately 48 hours apart.
Wouldn't it be better to start the series in Boston this Tuesday. The league knew Friday that it got it's throwback series wish. Isn't three free days enough time to schedule the games, have LA travel, hype the match-up and sell tickets (I think they'll go fairly quickly)? Then, the first two games in Boston would be Tuesday and Thursday. Then, cross-country travel could occur when there is an extra day between games (there isn't a need for two off days, but if you are going to have them, you might as well use them efficiently). The games in LA would be Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday. Then, you'd have the other long break (Thursday-Sunday) to fly back to Boston for the final two games. I must be missing something, because it seems like the obvious solution.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
