Buster Olney reported that the likelihood of free agent 1B Mark Teixeira signing with the Baltimore Orioles is slim, unless the O's increase their offer. He says the other teams pursuing Teixeira "have gone beyond Baltimore's proposal for the slugging first baseman."
According to Olney's column, the Orioles offer is believed to be for 7 years and $150 million. The Nationals' offer is reportedly 8 years for $160 million. Olney starts his column with the following sentence: "Unless free agent Mark Teixeira is willing to give the Orioles a major hometown discount, it does not appear he will be playing in Baltimore."
What? Taking the offer from the Orioles instead of the Nationals (or any other team - Red Sox, Angels, etc. - with a similar 8 year deal) is not giving Baltimore a "major hometown discount". As long as Teixeira is worth $10 million dollars seven years from now, it's the same amount of money. And, because he's only 28 and plays 1B, his value is likely to remain high into his late 30's. In all likelihood, he'd actually be better off financially (in the short term and the long term) taking $150 over 7 ($21.4 million per year) instead of $160 over 8 ($20 million per year).
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Monday, December 08, 2008
Playoffs?
So, you want an 8-team playoff in college football. Who are your 8? The top 8 in the BCS, Avg. computer rankings, and polls are:
BCS Computers AP Coaches Harris
OU OU UF OU UF
UF UT OU UF OU
UT UF UT UT UT
Ala TTU Ala Ala(T-4) Ala
USC Utah USC USC(T-4) USC
Utah Ala PSU PSU PSU
TTU USC Utah Utah Utah
PSU BSU TTU TTU TTU
The polls like Penn State (as #6), while the computers think Boise State (#8, w/PSU at #9) is deserving of a top 8 spot. Seven choices (OU, Florida, Texas, Alabama, USC, Utah and Texas Tech) are consensus selections.
But, are you really going to keep out an undefeated team (Boise State). And, if they are included, who goes? Who's the better team: Texas Tech or Penn State? The computers think Texas Tech by a wide margin (remember, Tech is #2 in one ranking and 3rd in two others, while Penn State ranges from 8th to 10th in the rankings). What about participation from the ACC and/or Big East? If you go to the top 16, you'll surely include the top 8 ... but there will be a debate about who should be in and who should be out as you pick 14, 15, 16. And, if you go to 4, who are your top 4 this year? Is USC in or out? If, they're in, then, who's out?
We need more separation of teams at the top ... and we need more games between teams at the top to separate them. We don't "need" a playoff. It might be fun ... but we "need" to improve the regular season whether a playoff is implemented or not!
BCS Computers AP Coaches Harris
OU OU UF OU UF
UF UT OU UF OU
UT UF UT UT UT
Ala TTU Ala Ala(T-4) Ala
USC Utah USC USC(T-4) USC
Utah Ala PSU PSU PSU
TTU USC Utah Utah Utah
PSU BSU TTU TTU TTU
The polls like Penn State (as #6), while the computers think Boise State (#8, w/PSU at #9) is deserving of a top 8 spot. Seven choices (OU, Florida, Texas, Alabama, USC, Utah and Texas Tech) are consensus selections.
But, are you really going to keep out an undefeated team (Boise State). And, if they are included, who goes? Who's the better team: Texas Tech or Penn State? The computers think Texas Tech by a wide margin (remember, Tech is #2 in one ranking and 3rd in two others, while Penn State ranges from 8th to 10th in the rankings). What about participation from the ACC and/or Big East? If you go to the top 16, you'll surely include the top 8 ... but there will be a debate about who should be in and who should be out as you pick 14, 15, 16. And, if you go to 4, who are your top 4 this year? Is USC in or out? If, they're in, then, who's out?
We need more separation of teams at the top ... and we need more games between teams at the top to separate them. We don't "need" a playoff. It might be fun ... but we "need" to improve the regular season whether a playoff is implemented or not!
Head-to-head
I recently read an article that gave the UT v. OU score and said the game wasn't as close as the score indicated. Really? Anyway, I'm not going to get into that. And, I'm not going to debate the merits of Texas or Oklahoma. But, I am going to say that head-to-head shouldn't be the be-all/end-all that it is regarded to be.
If Team A beats Team B head-to-head, what does that really mean in the grand scheme of things? Does it mean that Team A is better than Team B? UT fans would argue that, but I think it's hard for Browns fans to argue that Cleveland is better than the NY Giants based on the MNF game earlier this season (the Giants only loss before Sunday). Utah beat TCU this year to win the MWC. But, is Utah better than TCU? I'm not sure. It was a close game at Utah. What if that game had been in Fort Worth? Would Boise State be in a BCS bowl? Would a one-loss TCU team (with the only blemish being at OU) be in a BCS game as a one-loss "mid-major"?
Many things go into a head-to-head match-up. Maybe, one team just doesn't match up well against another team. Maybe home field advantage played a small role. Perhaps, weather conditions favored one side over the other. It's even conceivable that a bad call swayed the outcome to some extent. Or, there may have been injuries that prevented a team from being 100% in that game, or maybe subsequent injuries hurt a previously powerful team. If Tim Tebow broke his leg on the last play of the SEC Championship, would people still be voting UF #1? Would they still vote them ahead of Alabama?
In the case of three teams that play, each ending with one win and one loss, we have a "rock, paper, scissors" situation. If Team A beats Team B but loses to Team C, while Team B beat Team C, what then? Rock smashes scissors. But, paper covers rock ... and scissors cut paper. So, which is best? What happens if you introduce "brick" to the trio of "rock, paper, scissors". Well, obviously, scissors are out of luck. However, paper benefits. What if we introduce "cardboard"? Or "box-cutters"?
The "best" teams often lose, especially when confronted with enough opponents/contests. MJ's Bulls lost games. The Patriots lost to the Giants in the Super Bowl last year. The Cowboys lost to the Rams this year. Does that mean that the Rams are better than the Cowboys? Obviously, it would be absurd to say that the Rams were a better team than the Cowboys. The idea that head-to-head isn't the ultimate trump card extends to situations where teams only lose a few games as well, especially when teams don't play most of the teams. If you get into A beat B and C beat D and E beat F and C beat A but lost to Q and this and that, you won't be able to come up with a consensus winner. There's a reason why they came up with computer rankings (computers are better at processing large amounts of data than human's are) ... and there is a reason OU is #1 in all 6 of the computer rankings, while four different teams (Texas, Florida, Texas Tech and Utah) all hold down the #2 spot in at least one computer's rankings.
If Team A beats Team B head-to-head, what does that really mean in the grand scheme of things? Does it mean that Team A is better than Team B? UT fans would argue that, but I think it's hard for Browns fans to argue that Cleveland is better than the NY Giants based on the MNF game earlier this season (the Giants only loss before Sunday). Utah beat TCU this year to win the MWC. But, is Utah better than TCU? I'm not sure. It was a close game at Utah. What if that game had been in Fort Worth? Would Boise State be in a BCS bowl? Would a one-loss TCU team (with the only blemish being at OU) be in a BCS game as a one-loss "mid-major"?
Many things go into a head-to-head match-up. Maybe, one team just doesn't match up well against another team. Maybe home field advantage played a small role. Perhaps, weather conditions favored one side over the other. It's even conceivable that a bad call swayed the outcome to some extent. Or, there may have been injuries that prevented a team from being 100% in that game, or maybe subsequent injuries hurt a previously powerful team. If Tim Tebow broke his leg on the last play of the SEC Championship, would people still be voting UF #1? Would they still vote them ahead of Alabama?
In the case of three teams that play, each ending with one win and one loss, we have a "rock, paper, scissors" situation. If Team A beats Team B but loses to Team C, while Team B beat Team C, what then? Rock smashes scissors. But, paper covers rock ... and scissors cut paper. So, which is best? What happens if you introduce "brick" to the trio of "rock, paper, scissors". Well, obviously, scissors are out of luck. However, paper benefits. What if we introduce "cardboard"? Or "box-cutters"?
The "best" teams often lose, especially when confronted with enough opponents/contests. MJ's Bulls lost games. The Patriots lost to the Giants in the Super Bowl last year. The Cowboys lost to the Rams this year. Does that mean that the Rams are better than the Cowboys? Obviously, it would be absurd to say that the Rams were a better team than the Cowboys. The idea that head-to-head isn't the ultimate trump card extends to situations where teams only lose a few games as well, especially when teams don't play most of the teams. If you get into A beat B and C beat D and E beat F and C beat A but lost to Q and this and that, you won't be able to come up with a consensus winner. There's a reason why they came up with computer rankings (computers are better at processing large amounts of data than human's are) ... and there is a reason OU is #1 in all 6 of the computer rankings, while four different teams (Texas, Florida, Texas Tech and Utah) all hold down the #2 spot in at least one computer's rankings.
Monday, December 01, 2008
Attention KH: It was the computers
Kirk Herbstreit thinks Texas should represent the Big 12 South in KC on Saturday against Missouri. He thinks the head-to-head win in the Red River Shootout/Rivalry should be the deciding factor. That's fine. That's his opinion.
Kirk Herbstreit might be my favorite CFB analyst. However, I can't help but call him out for saying tonight that he thinks the "style" points of recent weeks led to the Sooners overtaking the Longhorns in the BCS rankings. He also mentioned the Sooners playing in prime time games as a reason that OU might have edged out Texas.
I think Texas is good. I think OU is slightly better. But, I'd love to see more good football to figure it out on the field. If you don't now what I'm talking about, please see my previous CFB posts. But, I think the system did everyone a favor - in the long run - by allowing the Sooners to go to KC instead of the Longhorns. Obviously, Texas isn't happy about it now.
But, OU gained ground on the Longhorns because they kept winning and the Longhorns lost to Texas Tech. And, after everything was said and done, OU had better wins than the UT. That's why the computers like OU. UT ended the year slightly ahead of OU in the combined poll portions of the BCS (just one point behind in the coaches' poll and six ahead in the Harris - although the Harris poll has about twice as many total points ... so the difference between the teams was about three times as high in the Harris as in the coaches', rather than 6 ... but, I digress). But, OU gained ground in the computers because TCU and Cincinnati moved up, while Missouri dropped significantly following the loss to KU. Plus, OU played at OSU, a very solid team that Texas had already played.
OU: 7. Texas Tech (65-21), 11. TCU (35-10), 13. Cincy (52-26), at 14. OSU (61-41)
UT: 2. OU (45-35), 14. OSU (28-24), 20. Missouri (56-31).
There is a reason the computers like OU, and I don't think it's style points and prime time games. It's because OU played tougher teams. And, the difference was the non-conference schedule. While Rice is contending in C-USA, they aren't an elite team. FAU is 6-6 and was just 4-3 in the Sun Belt. Arkansas and UTEP were both 5-7.
OU played Chattanooga, which is a total joke. And, UW ended up having a tough year, although they did play BYU tough with Jake Locker. The only full games Locker played were against Oregon, OU and BYU. But, the beef of the non-conference schedule for OU were, obviously, the games against TCU and Cincinnati. TCU was close to running the table in the MWC (they had a lead late at Utah) and Cincy won the Big East. Those two teams ended up being ranked higher than the second best team that Texas beat (OSU - who also lost to OU).
I think the pollsters were torn. OU lost head-to-head to Texas, but the Sooners lost first. People always say that losses early aren't as bad as losses late in the season. OU was impressive late in the season, but Texas had a pretty good showing against A&M to end the year as well. Well, obviously, the pollsters were torn. But, if you look at the computers, you see the key.
You often hear fight commentators say "You can't leave it in the hands of the judges ... if you don't finish the fight, anything can happen." Well, the same thing applies to CFB. Texas could round up tougher games (undoubtedly, so could OU). When no one on your non-conference schedule ends up in the top 25 at the end of the season and your competition has two non-conference wins over top 15 teams, who do you think the computers will prefer? I think this is a good precedent and I hope it creates more competitive non-conference games in the future.
But, I'm also a realist. I realize that coaches are walking the line trying to minimize the chance of losing while maximizing their status in the rankings. You want to play good teams, as long as you aren't going to lose the games ... because losses are, generally, really bad in CFB. So, this year went to OU. I think that is reasonable the way everything turned out.
Of course, part of the problem for coaches is that you never know how things will turn out. LSU, Auburn, WVU and Clemson were all mulling around the top 10 when the season began. Wisconsin, Kansas, Tennessee, and South Florida were all in the top 20. TCU and Cincy were "Others receiving votes".
And, this inability to forecast into the future is all the more reason to move to a system like the one I have advocated previously, where the non-conference games are systematically scheduled after the conference season to figure out where teams actually fall.
P.S. Jesse Palmer is on talking about "style points", "prime time television" and "losing early." I'd love to see the computer formulas ... but I'm guessing (pretty sure, actually) prime time TV isn't among the parameters.
Kirk Herbstreit might be my favorite CFB analyst. However, I can't help but call him out for saying tonight that he thinks the "style" points of recent weeks led to the Sooners overtaking the Longhorns in the BCS rankings. He also mentioned the Sooners playing in prime time games as a reason that OU might have edged out Texas.
I think Texas is good. I think OU is slightly better. But, I'd love to see more good football to figure it out on the field. If you don't now what I'm talking about, please see my previous CFB posts. But, I think the system did everyone a favor - in the long run - by allowing the Sooners to go to KC instead of the Longhorns. Obviously, Texas isn't happy about it now.
But, OU gained ground on the Longhorns because they kept winning and the Longhorns lost to Texas Tech. And, after everything was said and done, OU had better wins than the UT. That's why the computers like OU. UT ended the year slightly ahead of OU in the combined poll portions of the BCS (just one point behind in the coaches' poll and six ahead in the Harris - although the Harris poll has about twice as many total points ... so the difference between the teams was about three times as high in the Harris as in the coaches', rather than 6 ... but, I digress). But, OU gained ground in the computers because TCU and Cincinnati moved up, while Missouri dropped significantly following the loss to KU. Plus, OU played at OSU, a very solid team that Texas had already played.
OU: 7. Texas Tech (65-21), 11. TCU (35-10), 13. Cincy (52-26), at 14. OSU (61-41)
UT: 2. OU (45-35), 14. OSU (28-24), 20. Missouri (56-31).
There is a reason the computers like OU, and I don't think it's style points and prime time games. It's because OU played tougher teams. And, the difference was the non-conference schedule. While Rice is contending in C-USA, they aren't an elite team. FAU is 6-6 and was just 4-3 in the Sun Belt. Arkansas and UTEP were both 5-7.
OU played Chattanooga, which is a total joke. And, UW ended up having a tough year, although they did play BYU tough with Jake Locker. The only full games Locker played were against Oregon, OU and BYU. But, the beef of the non-conference schedule for OU were, obviously, the games against TCU and Cincinnati. TCU was close to running the table in the MWC (they had a lead late at Utah) and Cincy won the Big East. Those two teams ended up being ranked higher than the second best team that Texas beat (OSU - who also lost to OU).
I think the pollsters were torn. OU lost head-to-head to Texas, but the Sooners lost first. People always say that losses early aren't as bad as losses late in the season. OU was impressive late in the season, but Texas had a pretty good showing against A&M to end the year as well. Well, obviously, the pollsters were torn. But, if you look at the computers, you see the key.
You often hear fight commentators say "You can't leave it in the hands of the judges ... if you don't finish the fight, anything can happen." Well, the same thing applies to CFB. Texas could round up tougher games (undoubtedly, so could OU). When no one on your non-conference schedule ends up in the top 25 at the end of the season and your competition has two non-conference wins over top 15 teams, who do you think the computers will prefer? I think this is a good precedent and I hope it creates more competitive non-conference games in the future.
But, I'm also a realist. I realize that coaches are walking the line trying to minimize the chance of losing while maximizing their status in the rankings. You want to play good teams, as long as you aren't going to lose the games ... because losses are, generally, really bad in CFB. So, this year went to OU. I think that is reasonable the way everything turned out.
Of course, part of the problem for coaches is that you never know how things will turn out. LSU, Auburn, WVU and Clemson were all mulling around the top 10 when the season began. Wisconsin, Kansas, Tennessee, and South Florida were all in the top 20. TCU and Cincy were "Others receiving votes".
And, this inability to forecast into the future is all the more reason to move to a system like the one I have advocated previously, where the non-conference games are systematically scheduled after the conference season to figure out where teams actually fall.
P.S. Jesse Palmer is on talking about "style points", "prime time television" and "losing early." I'd love to see the computer formulas ... but I'm guessing (pretty sure, actually) prime time TV isn't among the parameters.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
