Giants WR Plaxico Burress was suspended by the Giants for two weeks (one game and a bye week) for missing a team meeting on Monday. I heard that he was upset about the suspension because he'd be letting his team down by not playing. So, it's a little disappointing that he's agreeing to a settlement in which the monetary punishment isn't as harsh, but he still has to miss a game.
Now, I don't know what alternatives were tossed about, but I think the Giants are better off with Plaxico on the field. So, in a way, they're biting off their nose to spite their face on this one, although missing a game against the Seahawks shouldn't derail the teams push for the playoffs. However, it seems like the best alternative for both sides (assuming Burress' bank account isn't one of the sides - which is a big assumption) if for Burress to play, but give up a little extra money.
Personally, I think the Giants want Burress to follow team rules, but they also want him out on the field. Maybe, they think keeping him off the field this time will help keep him on the field in the long run. Who knows? I do know that he's missing a game ... and I'm not sure that needs to be the case. And, I think the Giants agreeing not to go after any additional money due to stipulations in the contract is a good faith effort on the part of the organization. Wouldn't both sides be better off if Plaxico gave up the original amount of money and got to play? Wouldn't that be fine with his teammates?
Friday, September 26, 2008
Hank is right ... kind of (or almost?)
I just got done reading Hank's thoughts in the most recent edition of The Sporting News. I don't disagree with his idea that the top 4 teams from each league should go to the playoffs. However, I do disagree that it's as simple as sending the teams with the four best records from each league to the playoffs. That doesn't solve the problem.
This season, the Yankees went 21-19 in 40 games against teams from the AL Central, 18-14 in 32 games against teams from the AL West, 10-8 in interleague games and are 38-31 (with 3 games left against the Red Sox) against the AL East. At the end of the season, the Yankees will have played 72 (of 162) games against their AL East brethren. That's 4 out of every 9 (or 44.4%, and, yes, the 4's keep repeating) against 4 of the 29 other MLB teams. They are averaging 18 games against teams in their division and just 8 against the other AL teams.
Baltimore is 21-49 against the other teams in the AL East. The Orioles are 46-43 against everyone else. The two top teams in the AL Central have identical 45-45 records against teams outside of their divisions. Detroit is the only AL Central team with a winning record outside the division (Cleveland also has a 45-45 mark). The Angels have winning records against the East, Central, West and NL.
The Angels, Rays, Red Sox and Yankees are the four AL teams with winning records against each division in the AL and against the NL. The Twins and White Sox have been handled by the AL East and the Cleveland Indians are .500 in their division and 6 games under in interleague play (how'd that happen?).
Based on record, the Yankees would be right in it this year. What if we got rid of interleague play (especially of the unbalanced variety) and balanced out the schedule? I'm going to throw out interleague play because the competition isn't readily comparable. I'm going to compute the win % for each team against the AL East, Central and West. Then, I'm going to add the three numbers together and divide the sum by 3.
Rays: .591
Red Sox: .607
Yankees: .546
Twins: .486
White Sox: .514
Indians: .528
Angels: .629
Interestingly, the Angels have been slightly better against the AL East than the AL West this year (emphasis on slightly ... and I'm not saying that it means the AL West is stronger than the AL East!). The Angels are good. The Red Sox and Rays are right behind them. Did you see who's leading the AL Central? The Indians (although, I threw out the interleague games and the difference in those games is the same as the separation between the Twins/White Sox and the Indians). But, based on this, maybe the AL East should have three teams in the playoffs?!?
Obviously, it's not "fair" to make adjustments like this when determining playoff teams. And, I didn't take into account that there are 4 AL West teams and 5 in each the Central and East. And, because no one is actually going to use this for anything, I won't take the time (maybe Roy will once he's finished with his PhD?). But, the point is, the number of games you have against each team does matter - and I don't think anyone would debate that.
So, if you want to have a postseason with the four most deserving teams from each league (I won't say "best" because injuries throughout the year can derail the "best" team and keep them from posting the best record), you need to balance the schedule (at least within the constraints of scheduling) and take the four teams with the best records. However, if you don't balance the schedule, taking the teams with the four best records doesn't guarantee you get the teams that play the best throughout the season. The Twins might end up with 1 more win than the Yankee this year, but Minnesota did that by torching the AL Central. They had a losing record against both the AL East and the AL West. I have nothing against the Twins, but they aren't going to be playing anyone from the AL Central in the playoffs!
This season, the Yankees went 21-19 in 40 games against teams from the AL Central, 18-14 in 32 games against teams from the AL West, 10-8 in interleague games and are 38-31 (with 3 games left against the Red Sox) against the AL East. At the end of the season, the Yankees will have played 72 (of 162) games against their AL East brethren. That's 4 out of every 9 (or 44.4%, and, yes, the 4's keep repeating) against 4 of the 29 other MLB teams. They are averaging 18 games against teams in their division and just 8 against the other AL teams.
Baltimore is 21-49 against the other teams in the AL East. The Orioles are 46-43 against everyone else. The two top teams in the AL Central have identical 45-45 records against teams outside of their divisions. Detroit is the only AL Central team with a winning record outside the division (Cleveland also has a 45-45 mark). The Angels have winning records against the East, Central, West and NL.
The Angels, Rays, Red Sox and Yankees are the four AL teams with winning records against each division in the AL and against the NL. The Twins and White Sox have been handled by the AL East and the Cleveland Indians are .500 in their division and 6 games under in interleague play (how'd that happen?).
Based on record, the Yankees would be right in it this year. What if we got rid of interleague play (especially of the unbalanced variety) and balanced out the schedule? I'm going to throw out interleague play because the competition isn't readily comparable. I'm going to compute the win % for each team against the AL East, Central and West. Then, I'm going to add the three numbers together and divide the sum by 3.
Rays: .591
Red Sox: .607
Yankees: .546
Twins: .486
White Sox: .514
Indians: .528
Angels: .629
Interestingly, the Angels have been slightly better against the AL East than the AL West this year (emphasis on slightly ... and I'm not saying that it means the AL West is stronger than the AL East!). The Angels are good. The Red Sox and Rays are right behind them. Did you see who's leading the AL Central? The Indians (although, I threw out the interleague games and the difference in those games is the same as the separation between the Twins/White Sox and the Indians). But, based on this, maybe the AL East should have three teams in the playoffs?!?
Obviously, it's not "fair" to make adjustments like this when determining playoff teams. And, I didn't take into account that there are 4 AL West teams and 5 in each the Central and East. And, because no one is actually going to use this for anything, I won't take the time (maybe Roy will once he's finished with his PhD?). But, the point is, the number of games you have against each team does matter - and I don't think anyone would debate that.
So, if you want to have a postseason with the four most deserving teams from each league (I won't say "best" because injuries throughout the year can derail the "best" team and keep them from posting the best record), you need to balance the schedule (at least within the constraints of scheduling) and take the four teams with the best records. However, if you don't balance the schedule, taking the teams with the four best records doesn't guarantee you get the teams that play the best throughout the season. The Twins might end up with 1 more win than the Yankee this year, but Minnesota did that by torching the AL Central. They had a losing record against both the AL East and the AL West. I have nothing against the Twins, but they aren't going to be playing anyone from the AL Central in the playoffs!
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
It's the division format's fault?
Silly me ... I thought that on the day the Yankees were eliminated from the playoffs they'd fade into the background. I should have known better. The Red Sox clinch a playoff berth and we get the following gem from Hank Steinbrenner:
"The biggest problem is the divisional setup in Major League Baseball. I didn't like it in the 1970s, and I hate it now. Baseball went to a multi-division setup to create more races, rivalries and excitement. But it isn't fair. You see it this season, with plenty of people in the media pointing out that Joe Torre and the Dodgers are going to the playoffs while we're not. This is by no means a knock on Torre -- let me make that clear -- but look at the division they're in. If L.A. were in the AL East, it wouldn't be in the playoff discussion. The AL East is never weak."
I wasn't around in the 1970's. I do remember the 4 division format (2 in the AL and 2 in the NL) we used to have. And, I remember the SF Giants being edged out by the Atlanta Braves after winning 103 games (the Braves won 104). Was that "fair"? That was the situation that year.
I'm fine with Hank speaking his mind, but a little discretion would go a long way. The World Series is contested between two teams, one from the AL and one from the NL. The Super Bowl pits one from the NFC against one from the NFC. The Western and Eastern Conference Champions meet in the NBA Finals. Recently, the NFC has been down a little bit, as has the Eastern Conference in basketball. But, there isn't a major professional sports league in the US that doesn't at least divide teams into two units.
So, why is Hank calling out the Los Angeles Dodgers? The Indianapolis Colts (AFC) don't keep the Dallas Cowboys (NFC) out of the playoffs. The Colorado Avalanche don't keep the Pittsburgh Penguins out of the Stanley Cup Playoffs. The Dodgers aren't keeping the Yankees out of the playoffs. The Red Sox and Rays are keeping the Yankees out of the playoffs. Right now, the Angels and White Sox would be the other two AL teams playing in the postseason. If Hank wants a target to gripe at, he should leave Torre alone and focus on Ozzie Guillen and the White Sox.
Chicago (the White Sox) leads the Central at 86-70. Hank's Yanks have compiled a record of 86-71 thus far this season. So, if the teams with the best four records from the AL made the playoffs, it would be a tight race down the stretch between those two, the Twins (85-72) and the Blue Jays (83-74), to a lesser extent.
In the NL, five teams (the Cubs, Brewers, Astros, Phillies and Mets) have better records than the NL West leading Dodgers. Additionally, Florida and St. Louis have the same number of wins and just one more loss than Torre's club.
And, theoretically, the unbalanced schedule should be leveling things out (because you play more games against teams in your division, so a certain number of losses have to be distributed within your division - look at the NFC East in football, where the combined record of the teams is 10-2, with both losses being in divisional match-ups ... the 4 teams are 8-0 outside of the division!). So, it's not unreasonable to think that the Yankees are the 4th best team in the AL and that the Dodgers are the 8th best team in the NL.
The problem with the Yankees is that they haven't been healthy this year. Sidney Ponson and Darrell Rasner were 3rd and 4th (behind Mussina - how did he win 19 games this year? - and Pettitte) in games started. Wang got hurt. Pavano ... well, what did you expect? Hughes and Kennedy weren't effective. Joba did a decent job, but couldn't stay healthy as a starter. The Yankees were relying on Hughes and Kennedy getting the job done, and it didn't happen. And, despite the outrageous payroll, they didn't have a lot of depth heading into the year.
Wang, Mussina, Pettitte, Hughes and Kennedy with Pavano possibly contributing a few starts? Where's the redundancy? Ponson wasn't there at the start of the year. They didn't want to use Joba in the rotation this year. Maybe the thought was that they'd be able to get the wild card (no one thought the Rays would get 95+ wins). Maybe they thought they'd outscore teams. Unfortunately, the offense wasn't elite this year - currently, they are 11th in MLB in runs scored.
The problem in the bloated Yankees roster. The Yankees have so much money they should be smart and overpay for less years. Yes, I said overpay. Instead of signing Player A for $90 million over 6 years ($15 million per year), offer him $50-55 million for 3 years ($16.67-18.33 million per year). If the player performs well, you end up paying them more in the long run. However, you don't end up with money tied up in contracts with players like Johnny Damon, Jason Giambi, Carl Pavano, etc. It's worth a shot, at least.
And, when I hear people mentioning the names Ben Sheets and AJ Burnett as possibilities for the Yankees, I get pretty excited. Why? I'm not a Yankees fan. Why should the Yankees go after injury-prone starters? They shouldn't. They should pay a premium for durable, high-quality pitchers because they can afford them.
The Yankees shouldn't be upset about the current playoff format. They should be upset that the team they put together didn't win 100 games! And, they should look at this as an opportunity to figure out a better way to put the team together as they move forward.
"The biggest problem is the divisional setup in Major League Baseball. I didn't like it in the 1970s, and I hate it now. Baseball went to a multi-division setup to create more races, rivalries and excitement. But it isn't fair. You see it this season, with plenty of people in the media pointing out that Joe Torre and the Dodgers are going to the playoffs while we're not. This is by no means a knock on Torre -- let me make that clear -- but look at the division they're in. If L.A. were in the AL East, it wouldn't be in the playoff discussion. The AL East is never weak."
I wasn't around in the 1970's. I do remember the 4 division format (2 in the AL and 2 in the NL) we used to have. And, I remember the SF Giants being edged out by the Atlanta Braves after winning 103 games (the Braves won 104). Was that "fair"? That was the situation that year.
I'm fine with Hank speaking his mind, but a little discretion would go a long way. The World Series is contested between two teams, one from the AL and one from the NL. The Super Bowl pits one from the NFC against one from the NFC. The Western and Eastern Conference Champions meet in the NBA Finals. Recently, the NFC has been down a little bit, as has the Eastern Conference in basketball. But, there isn't a major professional sports league in the US that doesn't at least divide teams into two units.
So, why is Hank calling out the Los Angeles Dodgers? The Indianapolis Colts (AFC) don't keep the Dallas Cowboys (NFC) out of the playoffs. The Colorado Avalanche don't keep the Pittsburgh Penguins out of the Stanley Cup Playoffs. The Dodgers aren't keeping the Yankees out of the playoffs. The Red Sox and Rays are keeping the Yankees out of the playoffs. Right now, the Angels and White Sox would be the other two AL teams playing in the postseason. If Hank wants a target to gripe at, he should leave Torre alone and focus on Ozzie Guillen and the White Sox.
Chicago (the White Sox) leads the Central at 86-70. Hank's Yanks have compiled a record of 86-71 thus far this season. So, if the teams with the best four records from the AL made the playoffs, it would be a tight race down the stretch between those two, the Twins (85-72) and the Blue Jays (83-74), to a lesser extent.
In the NL, five teams (the Cubs, Brewers, Astros, Phillies and Mets) have better records than the NL West leading Dodgers. Additionally, Florida and St. Louis have the same number of wins and just one more loss than Torre's club.
And, theoretically, the unbalanced schedule should be leveling things out (because you play more games against teams in your division, so a certain number of losses have to be distributed within your division - look at the NFC East in football, where the combined record of the teams is 10-2, with both losses being in divisional match-ups ... the 4 teams are 8-0 outside of the division!). So, it's not unreasonable to think that the Yankees are the 4th best team in the AL and that the Dodgers are the 8th best team in the NL.
The problem with the Yankees is that they haven't been healthy this year. Sidney Ponson and Darrell Rasner were 3rd and 4th (behind Mussina - how did he win 19 games this year? - and Pettitte) in games started. Wang got hurt. Pavano ... well, what did you expect? Hughes and Kennedy weren't effective. Joba did a decent job, but couldn't stay healthy as a starter. The Yankees were relying on Hughes and Kennedy getting the job done, and it didn't happen. And, despite the outrageous payroll, they didn't have a lot of depth heading into the year.
Wang, Mussina, Pettitte, Hughes and Kennedy with Pavano possibly contributing a few starts? Where's the redundancy? Ponson wasn't there at the start of the year. They didn't want to use Joba in the rotation this year. Maybe the thought was that they'd be able to get the wild card (no one thought the Rays would get 95+ wins). Maybe they thought they'd outscore teams. Unfortunately, the offense wasn't elite this year - currently, they are 11th in MLB in runs scored.
The problem in the bloated Yankees roster. The Yankees have so much money they should be smart and overpay for less years. Yes, I said overpay. Instead of signing Player A for $90 million over 6 years ($15 million per year), offer him $50-55 million for 3 years ($16.67-18.33 million per year). If the player performs well, you end up paying them more in the long run. However, you don't end up with money tied up in contracts with players like Johnny Damon, Jason Giambi, Carl Pavano, etc. It's worth a shot, at least.
And, when I hear people mentioning the names Ben Sheets and AJ Burnett as possibilities for the Yankees, I get pretty excited. Why? I'm not a Yankees fan. Why should the Yankees go after injury-prone starters? They shouldn't. They should pay a premium for durable, high-quality pitchers because they can afford them.
The Yankees shouldn't be upset about the current playoff format. They should be upset that the team they put together didn't win 100 games! And, they should look at this as an opportunity to figure out a better way to put the team together as they move forward.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Who Changed the Facemask Rule?
I was shocked when I heard that both college and professional football got rid of the 5-yard facemask penalty; all facemask violations are now 15-yard penalties. Who thought that was a good idea? Personally, I think it is one of the most asinine rule changes of modern time. Sure, sometimes the officials screwed up the enforcement of the previous set of rules (they'd give 5 yards when maybe they should have given 15 and vice versa). But, those errors were minor in the grand scheme of poor NCAA football and NFL officiating (need I remind people of the OU v. Oregon game I always reference because it is one of the worst examples of officiating ever, at any level ... and they had REPLAY!!!).
Now, the people who make the rules have laid out that touching the facemask (I'm not sure if this should get a penalty, but it does - an Oklahoma defender was flagged for 15 yards on an inconsequential drive earlier this season) is worthy of the same penalty as nearly decapitating someone by twisting their head around (or even changing the orientation of the helmet with respect to the player's head). Not only is this ridiculous (especially when you had a better system in place already), it's dangerous. Now, if you happen to get your hand in the facemask, you better make sure you get the guy down ASAP because you're probably going to cost your team 15 yards on the penalty, so you don't want to let the guy get an extra 5 dragging your butt down the field. What's one of the most effective ways to tackle a guy? Grab his facemask and rip him down. You're giving them 15 yards, you might as well make it worth it!
I think both entities (NCAA and NFL) should have gone to 3 facemask levels: 5, 10, and 15 yards - with the 15 yarder resulting in an automatic first down as before. The 10-yarder would bridge the gap between the "just barely grab" 5-yarder and the personal foul 15-yarder. Maybe that's just too much for the officials to handle?
P.S. I mentioned I saw one called when someone's hand just grazed the facemask and no grabbing occurred. I've also seen multiple people dragged down by their facemask this year (in both college and the NFL - Westbrook in the Eagles v. Cowboys game on one play) without a flag being thrown. Now, that's consistency!
Now, the people who make the rules have laid out that touching the facemask (I'm not sure if this should get a penalty, but it does - an Oklahoma defender was flagged for 15 yards on an inconsequential drive earlier this season) is worthy of the same penalty as nearly decapitating someone by twisting their head around (or even changing the orientation of the helmet with respect to the player's head). Not only is this ridiculous (especially when you had a better system in place already), it's dangerous. Now, if you happen to get your hand in the facemask, you better make sure you get the guy down ASAP because you're probably going to cost your team 15 yards on the penalty, so you don't want to let the guy get an extra 5 dragging your butt down the field. What's one of the most effective ways to tackle a guy? Grab his facemask and rip him down. You're giving them 15 yards, you might as well make it worth it!
I think both entities (NCAA and NFL) should have gone to 3 facemask levels: 5, 10, and 15 yards - with the 15 yarder resulting in an automatic first down as before. The 10-yarder would bridge the gap between the "just barely grab" 5-yarder and the personal foul 15-yarder. Maybe that's just too much for the officials to handle?
P.S. I mentioned I saw one called when someone's hand just grazed the facemask and no grabbing occurred. I've also seen multiple people dragged down by their facemask this year (in both college and the NFL - Westbrook in the Eagles v. Cowboys game on one play) without a flag being thrown. Now, that's consistency!
Across the line!
Speaking of lines and horrible officiating, how do they miss Donovan McNabb crossing the line of scrimmage before throwing a pass? Actually, how do they ever miss that play, whether it's McNabb or not? That no call bailed the Eagles out of a bad situation (along with the facemask call at the end of the play). Missing calls like that is unacceptable - though not quite as bad as blowing the play to, ultimately, cost the Chargers a game.
Why no clamor over the Jackson play?
The ball being returned to the Broncos after Cutler's fumble because of an "inadvertent" whistle caused quite the uproar. Why aren't Mike, Tony and Jaws raising the same type of stink after Jackson tossed the ball away before scoring a TD? You'd think that after what happened yesterday, the refs would make sure before blowing their whistles. So, why weren't the Cowboys allowed to grab the ball and take possession of the obvious fumble?
And why was DeSean Jackson tossing the ball away before actually crossing the goal line? Oh well, if the refs are just going to give you the ball at the 1, it's not quite as big a deal. Maybe he had a deal with Brian Westbrook ... or maybe he has Westbrook on his fantasy team and doesn't have himself - he wanted the 6 points from a Westbrook TD. Who knows?
And why was DeSean Jackson tossing the ball away before actually crossing the goal line? Oh well, if the refs are just going to give you the ball at the 1, it's not quite as big a deal. Maybe he had a deal with Brian Westbrook ... or maybe he has Westbrook on his fantasy team and doesn't have himself - he wanted the 6 points from a Westbrook TD. Who knows?
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Jay: Do the math, but use a calculator!
Apparently, Gary Sheffield hit the 250,000th HR (according to baseball reference) against the A's Monday night. It was Sheffield's 2nd of the game and 496th career HR. Jay Crawford (who I think does an excellent job on First Take) said "And with that home run ... we did the math, Pete and I, our producer did the math ... Gary Sheffield has accounted for 0.2% of all the home runs ever hit."
Kudos to them for getting that right - the amount of rounding is fairly insignificant. Dana Jacobsen asked "Did you do Bonds?" Crawford responded "Bonds, point 3." Again, good job Jay. Dana, not such a good job on your response "Ok, he should be more, shouldn't he be higher than that?"
Crawford followed up with "If you have 250 home runs, you accounted for 0.1% of all the home runs ever hit in baseball." Again, right on. Unfortunately, they didn't leave it there. Dana said "I would like to see someone with one home run, what's his percentage?" Without consulting the calculator, Crawford adlibed "It's point 000250."
No, Jay, it's not 0.00025%. The correct answer is 0.0004%. What is happening to math skills in this country? If you divide 100 by 25, you don't get 2.5 ... you get 4!
Kudos to them for getting that right - the amount of rounding is fairly insignificant. Dana Jacobsen asked "Did you do Bonds?" Crawford responded "Bonds, point 3." Again, good job Jay. Dana, not such a good job on your response "Ok, he should be more, shouldn't he be higher than that?"
Crawford followed up with "If you have 250 home runs, you accounted for 0.1% of all the home runs ever hit in baseball." Again, right on. Unfortunately, they didn't leave it there. Dana said "I would like to see someone with one home run, what's his percentage?" Without consulting the calculator, Crawford adlibed "It's point 000250."
No, Jay, it's not 0.00025%. The correct answer is 0.0004%. What is happening to math skills in this country? If you divide 100 by 25, you don't get 2.5 ... you get 4!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
