There's a Catch

NBA Flow and more

2009-05-26T23:13:00.003-05:00

Who's more qualified to talk about flow than a PhD student working on shallow-water modeling?

While some people are pointing the blame at the officials for the lack of "flow" in the conference finals series pitting the Lakers against the Nuggets and the Cavs against the Magic, I think the majority of the blame belongs elsewhere. Now, don't get carried away and think I'm saying that the officiating has been excellent in the playoffs. That definitely hasn't been the case ... and more on that subject later. No, the blame belongs on the players, coaches and commentators.

Obviously, the players are the ones committing the fouls being called by the officials. From Andrew Bynum's two-handed hatchet job on Chris "Birdnest" Andersen to Dante Jones' two-hand shove to the back of Kobe Bryant to Anderson Varejao attempting to hug Dwight Howard to prevent, to no avail, an easy two - which Howard made 3, even if he got his 6th technical foul for celebrating after muscling in the lay-up - it's the players who are committing the fouls. Sure, some of the contact could be let go, but there are a lot of fouls that are obvious, too. And, why are there so many blatant fouls? Well ... I'm glad you asked.

It's the coaches and commentators. I'm lumping them together because I think they are jointly (though not necessarily equally) responsible for helping the players think that they should be fouling extra in the playoffs. I'm not sure when the "no lay-ups" idea started to pick up steam, but the scope has been widened in recent year to include "no fast breaks". If you're going to foul Dwight Howard every time he gets close to the basket, he's going to march to the FT line quite a bit. But, it certainly doesn't stop there. West hammered Pietrus on a baseline drive to the basket today in the game 4 victory by the Magic. LeBron James took almost 20 FTs because the Magic didn't want him getting to the rim and dunking. Rashard Lewis reached in, Pietrus slid in front and picked up blocking fouls, etc. But, this type of behavior is nothing new. What is relatively new is fouling to prevent fast breaks. Rather than try to play defense in open court situations, players have started to look for opportunities to commit fouls to stop the play to make the other team take it out of bounds if the defense is at any disadvantage. Phil Jackson thought Dante Jones tripping Kobe Bryant was unsportsmanlike. Well, I tend to agree, but I also think it's unsportsmanlike to grab LeBron or Kobe at half court to prevent him from being able to go one on one at another defender as he approaches the basket on a break.

Certainly, there have been fouls called that shouldn't have been. Dwight Howard's 6th foul in game 3 comes to mind. He had a clean block of LeBron and the ref just blew the call. Howard was whistled for another foul today when LeBron bounced off him and missed a fallaway. It looked like Howard was in legal guarding position to me. I'm sure that if I reviewed the tapes of the other games - fortunately, I don't have them, so I won't be doing that - I would find numerous other phantom fouls. But, for every phantom foul, I could probably find at least two more that could have been called ... the Jones trip of Kobe comes to mind right off the bat.

*****

Hyperbole?
Moving on to other topics, I've blasted Jay Mariotti a little bit before, but I couldn't let this gem (from Around the Horn today) slide: "Here's the disparity, 58-40 rebounding, Denver all over the boards led by "Birdman" Anderson, in my opinion the best player on the court ..." Really Jay? Chris Anderson is the best player on the court in the Lakers v. Nuggets series? Hmmm. Chris Anderson has been effective and, frankly, I don't understand why more players don't play like he does. He's puts his length and athleticism to good use by being active rebounding, blocking shots in help defense, and getting easy baskets by crashing the boards and cutting to the basket. He seems to know his limitations - although he did throw up a three-pointer yesterday - and does a good job playing to his strengths and staying away from his weaknesses. You don't often see him pulling down defensive rebounds and leading the break a la Magic Johnson. Anderson's play reminds me a lot of the way Tyson Chandler played last year on a Hornets team that made a strong playoff run. But, while Anderson has been relatively productive, he's only been in double digits in scoring once in the four playoff games against the Lakers. And, while he pulled down 14 rebounds in game 4, he accumulated a total of just 16 in the first three games of the series. He's also averaging 2 blocks while playing approximately half the minutes against Los Angeles. Kobe is the best player on the court when those teams collide. Chauncey Billups is also very good. Carmelo Anthony, Pau Gasol, Nene, etc.

Where does the league stand?
The NBA rules allow teams to foul intentionally to prevent teams from attempting three-pointers to tie games. The Lakers did this in game 1 against the Nuggets. But, the NBA rules also allow teams to advance the ball by using a time out. The Cavs did this at the end of game 2, which helped them pull out a victory to tie the series at 1-1. I don't get it. While the advancing the ball rule allows teams better opportunities to come back in late game situations, intentional fouls not being called intentional allows teams to preserve leads late by making the game a FT contest and draining the clock. Advancing the ball adds excitement ... intentional fouls drain the energy out of games. Personally, I would have the rules be exactly opposite. Intentional fouls would be called intentional fouls, which would result in teams at least having to be more clever in the way they foul, although if I were really in charge, the penalty for regular fouls would be more severe, so teams would not want to foul. But, I digress. I would also not allow teams to advance the ball. While it is certainly more difficult to score from 94 feet away than from 40 feet away, if the other team takes the lead with 2 seconds left, too bad. Figure out a way to get someone a decent look at the basket. We won a game in HS my junior year (I don't remember exactly what my role in the play was, but it wasn't a big one) on a last second, full-court play our coach drew up during a time out. I think we beat NM-Highlands on a play when I was at Mines on a full-court play with just a couple seconds on the clock as well. Valpo. Duke-Kentucky. Pro players hit crazy shots all the time at the ends of quarters, there is no reason to give teams an unfair advantage by allowing them to advance the ball. If a football team scores a TD with less than two minutes left, the other team doesn't automatically get to advance the ball if they call a time out. That would be ridiculous. The team that scored the TD kicks off from the same spot you kick-off from if you score at any point in the game (assuming there aren't any penalties). The only case I can think of for advancing the ball is to "add excitement" ... but, if that's the case, why does the league allow the intentional fouling?

Unsportsmanlike Conduct Helps LA Beat Denver

2009-05-19T22:53:00.002-05:00

There are many distasteful things about the NBA these days, but the one that is getting increasing amounts of attention is the "play" to foul intentionally at the end of a game if you are up by 3 in the final seconds to prevent teams from having an opportunity to tie the game with a three-pointer. By sending your opponent to the line, you force them to get an offensive rebound off a FT to have a chance to prolong the game. I'm all for strategy, but I think the premise that you can intentionally benefit by committing an intentional foul - obviously it's not going to be called intentional, though - is ludicrous.

If the defense commits a foul intentionally, why isn't an intentional foul called? If it wasn't intentional, why else would Derek Fisher be fouling J.R. Smith at half court? I didn't see that happening earlier in the game.

Taking the foul is an unsportsmanlike attempt to manipulate the rules just because there isn't a provision in the rules that doesn't prevent it. It's along the same lines as the Hack-a-<* Insert name of bad FT shooter here *> strategy. In an ideal world, you wouldn't have to write in rules to prevent these types of actions. However, as long as someone is trying to gain an advantage by going by the letter of the law and not the spirit of the law, there will be a need to more specifically define the rules to address the perpetrators.

The Surface Matters!

2009-01-30T17:43:00.002-05:00

Nadal is 12-6 against Federer ... so, Nadal's obviously the favorite in the Australian Open final, right? And, Nadal is 5-2 against Roger in grand slam events ... so it's a done deal, right? That's what ESPN would have you think. But, it's not that simple. Nadal has done a lot of damage against Federer in Paris, on the clay, at the French Open. Nadal also got Federer at Wimbledon last year. However, despite taking over the #1 ranking last year (from Federer), Nadal wasn't victorious at either hard court slam last year. In fact, Nadal hasn't even made a hard court GS final before this year. Maybe Nadal has turned the corner and will finally prevail in a hard court slam. Or, maybe Federer is back on top after a down year following a bout with mono. Either way, we can only hope that people are a little more diligent with presentation of statistics in the future.

The problem with Utah

2009-01-07T14:05:00.002-05:00

With Rick Reilly dismissing the Florida v. Oklahoma game, stating that Utah is the actual national champion, I feel obligated to argue against the Utes.

While the Mountain West was a solid conference this year, Utah didn't do enough in the Mountain West (which, let's face it, isn't the SEC or Big 12) or in non-conference play to warrant a top 2 ranking heading into bowl season, in spite of their 12-0 regular season.

You can't bring the Alabama win into the discussion because you can't use a bowl win as a justification that a team should have been in a different bowl because that information isn't available when the bowl match-ups are constructed.

Thus, Utah is left with victories over the following teams (rankings are final BCS ranks and all records are regular season records):
11. TCU (10-2)
16. BYU (10-2)
Oregon State (8-4)
Air Force (8-4)
Colorado State (6-6)
UNLV (5-7)
New Mexico (4-8)
Wyoming (4-8)
Michigan (3-9)
Utah State (3-9)
San Diego State (2-10)
Weber State - FCS

At the end of the season, the Utes held 2 wins over top 25 teams. How does that compare to OU and UF? OU beat Texas Tech (#7), TCU (#11), Cincinnati (#12), Oklahoma State (#13), and Missouri (#21). That's five top 25 wins for the Sooners. UF only had two - Alabama (#4) and Georgia (#15) - but the rest of the Gators' schedule was much more difficult that the schedule for the Utes, with non-conference drubbings of Miami and Florida State and conference tilts with LSU, Vandy and South Carolina (plus, the loss to Ole Miss). And, Florida made up for a lack of top 25 competition by taking teams to the woodshed. Before the SEC Championship game, every Florida win was by at least 23 points and the last 8 were all by at least 28. That's a dominant stretch.

Utah didn't have a particularly rough schedule and they barely squeaked out quite a few games. I'm not in favor of running up the score. Beating a team by 50 isn't necessarily more impressive than winning by 30, but winning by 3 makes you wonder. And, while Utah won all of their games, they had multiple squeakers, including two against teams with losing records (25-23 over Michigan and 13-10 over New Mexico). Utah also pulled two out at home: agaisnt Oregon State the week after the Beavers upset USC (31-28) and late against TCU, 13-10. While TCU put up an impressive record, they failed to show anything in non-conference play (beating Stephen F. Austin, Stanford and SMU) that makes you believe they are an elite team. Sure, they beat a mediocre Pac-10 team, but they were outclassed early in the season by OU (35-10) before OU even got rolling. The other prominent MWC team, BYU, displayed it's superiority (yes, that's sarcasm seeping through) by beating up on the bottom-feeders in the Pac-10 (UCLA and Washington) ... and UW would have had a chance to win in OT if the refs hadn't insanely penalized Jake Locker, but that's neither here nor there. So, the Mountain West has three teams in the top 16 based on what? The ability to beat decent competition? Ahhh ... their pretty good records. The three MWC juggernauts marquee win is Utah over Oregon State at home by 3 points with the Beavers coming down after taking down Pac-10 giant USC.

Hmmm ... I'm not sure Utah is such a clear cut choice to play for the national title. A good story ... maybe. Deserving of consideration ... probably, because they finished the regular season undefeated (but, so did Boise State ... and the Broncos went to Eugene and beat the Oregon Ducks - who finished 2nd in the Pac-10, ahead of the Beavers) 37-32). But, come on, are you really ready to say Utah would beat OU, UF, UT, or USC for the national title? I'm not.

Arguments for All

2009-01-06T16:57:00.003-05:00

Now that USC, Texas and Utah have won their BCS bowl games, coaches from each of the squads are calling for a national championship. Hmmm ... not everyone can win it, but everyone thinks they should. The problem is, everyone has an argument. I'm going to go through those arguments, neglecting the bowl games because I'm giving the arguments for the teams to play in the national title game. I'm going to go through them in order of the final BCS ranking (pre-bowl season).

1. Oklahoma - The argument for Oklahoma is simple ... the Sooners were the winner of one of the best conferences in football. The offense is incredible and the team is peaking at the right time. They split with Texas and Texas Tech, but the loss to Texas was relatively early in the season (and OU led in the 4th quarter 35-30) and the Sooners smashed an undefeated Tech squad. Plus, OU handily beat Cincinnati and TCU. The Bearcats won the Big East and the Horned Frogs took Utah to the wire at Utah.

2. Florida - The Gators only loss was by 1 point to a solid Ole Miss squad and the margin of victory was a missed extra point. A missed extra point. The Gators won the SEC, which is historically the best conference in football. And, aside from the 31 UF allowed to Mississippi in the 4th game of the season, Florida has allowed a maximum of 21 points. It's possible that offenses in the SEC aren't great this year, but Florida, obviously, has a solid D to go with a dynamic offense.

3. Texas - The argument for the Longhorns centers on their victory over OU on a neutral site. The loss was a last second loss at Texas Tech at the end of a rough stretch in the season (OU, Missouri, Oklahoma State, TTU).

4. Alabama - Nick Saban's squad was the only team to complete the regular season undefeated in a "BCS conference". Sure, they lost to UF in the SEC Championship Game, but how 'bout a rematch? Florida and Georgia are the only teams that put up more than 21 points on us and those teams are led by a couple decent (catch the sarcasm?) quarterbacks (Tebow and Stafford). Bama beat LSU and Georgia on the road and smashed Clemson to kick off the season. The SEC is the best conference ... why shouldn't Alabama get another shot at Florida?

5. USC - The Trojans have been really good for quite some time ... and this is just a continuation. The loss to Oregon State was a fluke. The defense is really good and the offense showed that it can put up a lot of points against teams from the state of Washington. The Trojans smashed Ohio State in a marquee early-season showdown and gave up a season-high 27 points against the Beavers. Oklahoma, Florida, Texas and Alabama can't say the most points they allowed was 27. USC didn't schedule any non-BCS conference schools and allowed 3 or less points in 6 games, 7 or less in 8 games, and 10 or less in 10 of 12 games. Defense wins championships ... and the USC defense is pretty dang good.

6. Utah - The Utes are undefeated. They haven't lost, how can you not allow them to play for the national title? The Mountain West is a good conference, too. Plus, Utah scheduled 2 big non-conference games, although the Michigan win doesn't look quite so good ... but how were the Utes supposed to know when they scheduled the match-up? Utah beat the same Oregon State team that beat USC the week before!

7. Texas Tech - The Red Raiders beat Texas. By splitting with Texas and OU, aren't they just as worthy as the others to represent the Big 12 South in post-season play? Sure, the non-conference schedule was lacking, but Utah played Weber State and Utah State in non-conference matches!

8. Penn State - The Nittany Lions smashed Oregon State early in the season ... if you want to use the Beavers as a benchmark, you have to put Penn State above Utah and USC. Penn State won the Big 10(11) and the only loss was a one-point loss at Iowa in bad weather. Penn State allowed 24 points twice ... that's even less than the most points USC allowed! And, Penn State posted 40+ 7 times, including 5 times against teams from BCS conferences. Offense and defense, what more could you want?

9. Boise State - The Broncos finished the regular season undefeated. Boise State beat Oregon. Boise State allowed 10 or less 8 times and scored 40+ 6 times. Only twice did Boise State allow more than 16 points. Not everyone can be in BCS conferences ... Boise State is undefeated ... how can you keep them out?

Obviously, each of these teams can be argued against as well. Maybe I'll do that soon ... it's more fun, anyway.

Orioles falling behind?

2008-12-17T14:11:00.002-05:00

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).

Playoffs?

2008-12-08T15:29:00.002-05:00

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!

Head-to-head

2008-12-08T15:00:00.002-05:00

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.

Attention KH: It was the computers

2008-12-01T00:39:00.002-05:00

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.

Baseball Economics

2008-11-17T22:36:00.002-05:00

Brewers GM Doug Melvin might be a very intelligent man, but I couldn't help but cringe when I read one of his comments on the NY Yankees' pursuit of CC Sabathia:

“It sounds like they’re overbidding. If the speculation is true that we’ve offered CC $100 million, why would you offer $140 million? Why wouldn’t you offer $110 million?”

Speculation was that the Brewers offered CC $100 million over 5 years. The Yankees' offer was a six-year deal. Making a 6-year, $110 million offer shouldn't sway Sabathia toward the pinstripes. That's less per year than the offer from the Brewers! Melvin might have been much better off giving a per year figure, perhaps stating that the Yankees don't need to offer $23.3 million per year when the Brewers' offer was for a meager $20 million per.

I see where Melvin is coming from, but I'm not sure he has enough perspective on this issue. His point is that the Yankees are outbidding the other teams by more than a few million dollars. But, does he fail to realize that the Yankees might have to do that to get Sabathia?

The Yankees are an attractive location for players who want to win championships, because the team is always in the mix. Sure, they haven't won the World Series lately (was the last time really the 2000 Subway Series against the Mets?), but they have the resources, and management desire, to try to win every year.

However, there are also a lot of issues working against them, especially with Sabathia. First, not everyone wants to be in the circus that is associated with being a member of the NY Yankees. Sabathia seems content to play in smaller markets with a little less spotlight. And, he's from the left coast ... so location, location, location isn't working for the Yanks. Additionally, Sabathia is a good hitter. If he goes back to the AL, he gives up most of his opportunities at the dish and has to pitch to the opposing DH's.

So, maybe the Yankees feel that they need to give Sabathia $3 million extra per year and a sixth year to get him to sign on for 6 years in NYC pitching in the AL. Maybe it's enough ... maybe it's not. But, I think the Yankees really want Sabathia and are willing to overspend a little bit for the guy they want - and if the Brewers are willing to go $20 million per, I don't really think the Yankees are overspending.

You can tie in the NFL? Really?

2008-11-17T11:18:00.002-05:00

Apparently, Philadelphia Eagles QB Donovan McNabb didn't know you could tie in the NFL:

"I've never been part of a tie. I never even knew it was in the rule book. I was looking forward to getting the opportunity to get out there and try to drive to win the game. But unfortunately with the rules, we settled with a tie."

I was flabbergasted when I heard this. I'm not sure when I first became aware of that particular NFL rule, but I'm sure I had yet to finish elementary school at the time. For a QB in the NFL to not know the rule is incredible, and not in a good way.

And, the relative infrequency of this result leads me to believe that the current system is fine. If you don't score in the 15-minute period, you don't really deserve to win. The Eagles had three full possessions in OT: (1) 4 plays, 19 yards, (5) 5 plays, 9 yards and (3) 3 plays, 9 yards. The Eagles turned the ball over 4 times and converted just 3 of 18 3rd downs (although, they were 1 for 1 on 4th down). They averaged less than 6 yards per pass and less than 4 yards per rush against the previously 1-8 Bengals.

If you want to argue that it's not fair if you don't get a chance to play offense in OT, fine, I'll listen. But, if you want to argue that you should just keep playing ... no way. Ties are a part of football. There isn't any reason they shouldn't be. It's not inequitable to only give teams 15 extra minutes to score. Get a few first downs and get in FG position!

All that being said, this was an awful result for the Eagles. They'd be tied with the Redskins and Cowboys at 6-4 if they had defeated the Bengals. Oops. Now, they're a half game back. They're 1.5 back of the Bucs and 0.5 back of the Falcons from the NFC South. So, rather than being 1 game back of one team and tied with 3 others in the NFC Wild Card race, they now sit in 5th place in the race for 2 spots.

I disagree with President-Elect Obama

2008-11-17T10:39:00.003-05:00

Apparently, Barack Obama doesn't read "There's a Catch." In a recent interview, he said "We should be creating a playoff system. 8 teams, that would be three rounds to determine a national champion, it would add three extra weeks to the season - you could trim back on the regular season. I don't know any serious fan of college football who has disagreed with me on this ..."

And, while I don't like the BCS, I've heard a lot of serious fans of college football say that they don't want a playoff because it would devalue the regular season. I don't agree with them, but they're out there.

If Obama wants to sacrifice regular season games to implement a playoff, non-conference games will be cut. This will further reduce the information we have about which conference(s) are the best. Right now, Pac-10 teams play 3 non-conference games. If you cut two games out of the regular season to implement a playoff, you're left with 1 non-conference game. There will be even fewer chances to lose during the regular season under that scenario, so teams will be even less likely to schedule difficult non-conference game. In addition, they'll probably play the non-conference game first in their schedule to prep for conference play. While Ohio State has been playing huge non-conference games to kick off the season lately, not many other teams want to do that. Teams with just eight conference games would be left with just two non-conference games. What are the chances that Brown, Meyer, Miles, Saban, Stoops, etc. schedule top 10 foes for those contests?

It isn't as easy as just taking 8 teams. How do you pick the 8 teams? Right now, Utah, Boise State and Ball State are all undefeated in non-BCS conferences. We could have a three-way tie for 1st place in the Big 12 South at the end of the season. It's possible that USC will not win the Pac-10, despite having just one loss and being ranked in the top 8.

If you take the champs from the 6 BCS conferences and then the next two highest ranked teams, it's unlikely any of the non-BCS undefeateds would make the field of 8. Barring anything drastic (Tech getting steamrolled in Norman AND the Sooners getting taken out by the Cowboys in Stillwater), at least two of the Big 12 South teams will be in the top 6 at the end of the season. Also, if Florida beats Alabama in the SEC Championship game, those two will still both be ahead of the highest ranked non-BCS team, Utah. So, the two non-champs would be from the SEC and Big 12.

I don't like Obama's idea, obviously, and these are a few of the reasons:
1. It increases the penalty for any loss
2. We have even less information about how Conference X compares to Conference Y
3. Is it reasonable to expect some teams to go to bowls while others are playing in a playoff? And, if you lose in the first or second round of the playoffs, do you still get to go to a New Year's Day bowl?
4. With even less information about how the conferences compare, how do you pick the top 8 teams? What if 5 or 6 of the top 8 are from two conferences?

Sure, the current system is flawed, but the changes that need to occur aren't trivial.

The Tromble Plan for CFB

2008-11-05T16:55:00.002-05:00

We're headed for another disaster with the BCS. Penn State appears to be headed for an undefeated season, which should allow them to get into the national title game without being one of the two best teams in the country. And, we might have a scenario where the other team in the national title game is taken from a one-loss crew including USC, Texas, OU/Texas Tech/OK State, Alabama, Florida. And, we could have multiple undefeateds from the non-BCS conferences: Boise State, Utah and Ball State that would be left out.

I've seen a clip of Barack Obama on ESPN multiple times today (the same clip, multiple times) calling for an 8-team playoff. My question is: which 8 teams get to play?

For kicks, I'm going to play out the rest of the season in a reasonable manner.
SEC: Alabama and Florida win out the rest of the regular season, but UF takes down the Crimson Tide in the SEC Championship game. Alabama and Florida each have 1 loss on the season.
Big 10: Penn State continues on undefeated.
Pac 10: USC rolls the remainder of the season, winning the conference with just the loss to Oregon State.
Big 12: Texas wins out. Texas Tech beats OK State and loses at OU. But, OU loses to OK State in Stillwater. So, Texas and Texas Tech have one loss each, with Tech having the tie-breaker of head to head. OU and OSU each have two losses. I set it up this way because I didn't want the worst-case scenario. It's entirely possible that we could have three teams from the Big 12 South with just one loss at the end of the year, but let's not go there for now.
ACC and Big East: Someone wins each of those conferences with just 2 losses on the season, let's call it WVU and Florida State.
Other conferences: TCU takes out Utah, but Utah beats BYU. TCU and Utah each finish the season with one loss (TCU's only loss is at OU early in the season). Boise State and Ball State run the table.

If you want an 8-team playoff with all undefeateds and the winners of the 6 "BCS" Conferences, you'd get the following field:
Ball State
Boise State
Florida
Florida State
Penn State
Texas Tech (via tie-breaker over Texas, presuming a win over the Big 12 North champ)
USC
WVU

If you leave out Ball State and Boise State, you could insert Texas and Alabama. But, is it fair to leave out undefeated teams?

We don't need a playoff added on to the current format, we need a better system for figuring out who the best teams are!

Who was the best team in the NFL last year? It was the Patriots. They didn't win the Super Bowl, but they were the best team. Does the best team in college basketball usually win the national title? That's debatable, but the 64-team single elimination tourney isn't the best way to have the best team win. The larger the single-elimination tournament, the more likely that the best team will lose to a team they shouldn't lose to. Maybe you hit a bad match-up ... maybe your team has a bad game ... maybe you get shafted by the refs ... who knows? The solution is a systematic way to determine who the best two teams are ... then having them play in the national title game, winner take all. How do you determine the two best teams? Well, you get intelligent people to write code that analyzes results from the entire season to rank teams.

The current system doesn't work because there aren't enough meaningful results. And, it's going to take a governing body controlling scheduling to fix the problem. Here's how you do it.

1. Have teams play two pre-season games to get ready for the season schedule.
2. The season schedule starts with conference play, with 8 games for most teams over 9 weeks (teams in conferences with 10 (or 11) teams would play all 9 weeks).
3. Conference championships would be the next week, plus a meeting between the winners of the Big 10 and Pac 10 (site rotating between the Rose Bowl and some Big 10 country site).
4. Also, during conference championship week, the non-conference schedule would start for teams that aren't in conference title games. Then, for the rest of the season (3 or 4 more games), teams would continue to be matched up.
5. At the end of the season, the rankings would list teams from 1-nt, where nt is the number of teams, whatever it happens to be that year. The top x will go to bowls (x is equal to 2 times the number of bowls that year). There are two options for the championship: i) the top 2 teams play for the national title or ii) the top 4 play a single elimination tourney with the national title game being played the week between the NFL Conference Finals and the Super Bowl.

How does the scheduling work? Has everyone out there taken the GRE? If the first math question is 1+1= ? ... and you answer 2, then you'll get a tougher question. If you get it wrong, well ... uh oh. Perhaps the next question is: 2+x=8 ... you say x=6 and get a more difficult question. The third question is x^2=4. If you say that x=2, you get it wrong (x can be either 2 or -2) and you get an easier question for the next one. In this way, the system can more accurately gauge your actual aptitude than with a set bank of questions that everyone answers. It would take some flexibility by fans, but I'm sure people would make accommodations on short notice for these games. Perhaps, you could even lock in certain weeks that were guaranteed home games, although the opponent would be up in the air. I would start by suggesting that match-ups are scheduled between 2-3 weeks in advance, based on the rankings at that point. The previous year's rankings could be used to help create the early season rankings, because non-conference results will be non-existent.

We think the Big 12 is the best conference, but we don't really know. Maybe it's the SEC. Wouldn't it be nice is we could line up the following set of games one weekend to help us figure things out (kind of like the ACC-Big 10 challenge in BB):
Texas v. Florida
TTech v. Alabama
OU v. Georgia
OK State v. LSU
Missouri v. Mississippi
Kansas v. Vandy
Nebraska v. South Carolina
A&M v. Auburn
K-State v. Kentucky
CU v. Arkansas
Baylor v. Miss. State
Iowa State. v. Tennessee

Based on the results of the games, the rankings would be reshuffled. And, by having lots of meaningful results, we could sift through the teams and actually figure out who the best teams are.

Or, we can continue to watch Alabama play Arkansas State and OU host Chattanooga. And, we'd be able to work in Boise State, TCU, Utah, BYU, and Ball State against strong teams from "BCS" conferences to see if they are legit or not. Tulsa was undefeated until they lost (barely) to Arkansas last week. Who else did Tulsa beat in non-conference games: North Texas, New Mexico and Central Arkansas. If Tulsa had beat Arkansas and finished undefeated, would we really know if they were any good?

NFL Replay Challenge

2008-10-29T18:17:00.002-05:00

I heard Peter King is saying that the NFL might change the booth review to the last 5 minutes (from the last two minutes). This minor change would help prevent teams who have used all their timeouts from getting hosed at the end of games (see Falcons v. Eagles last week).

Here's a suggestion for the NFL: don't force teams to use a timeout for a challenge. Give teams an option. If they have a timeout, they can forfeit it in the event of a bad challenge. An alternative is the teams are penalized 10 yards if they lose their challenge. Teams can challenge as much as they want, but each time they lose one, it costs them. Don't limit the challenges, just make the penalty for losing them sufficient to discourage excessive challenging. The current system forces coaches to consider the likelihood that the refs will screw up later in the game. That shouldn't be the case ... so change the rule!

What exactly is an "opportunity"?

2008-10-06T10:50:00.002-05:00

People are still harping on TO for complaining about wanting the ball more after the loss to the Redskins a week ago. Sure, Owens was "thrown to" a bunch of time (17, I think), had a couple drops, 7 catches and two runs. So, he wasn't exactly frozen out, but don't mistake 17 balls going his direction with Romo giving him 17 opportunities to catch the ball.

Had I known the outcome of the game before it happened (as well as TO's comments), I would have taped the game and charted the throws to TO. Then, I'd be able to answer how many actual, realistic opportunities TO had to make catches in that game. Obviously, he had more than a few because he made 7 catches. But, really, the numbers are less relevant than I think people think they are.

If Player A is thrown to 10 times, but is unable to get his hands on any ball, whereas Player B is thrown to 5 times and makes 5 catches, who's really more involved? If a QB has a guy he throws to if no one is open, that WR will have inflated "thrown to" numbers without a comparable increase in actual opportunities to make catches. Should TO be happy that he is the intended receiver on a play when the ball is knocked down by a guy at the line?

I'm not entirely sure, but I would imagine the only thing worse than not getting the ball thrown your way is to have uncatchable balls thrown your way. Wide receivers want to make plays, but their ability to make plays is contingent on the play of other players. If WR's don't get open, that's their fault. If the ball doesn't get there when they are open, that's when problems are bound to occur.

The 32 is not the 35

2008-10-04T14:33:00.002-05:00

I'm watching the OU v. Baylor game, and I can't believe that awful officiating. One play in particular, Baylor had a 7 yard run on first down from the 25. He was obviously stopped at the 32 before being pushed back a couple of yards on the tackle. Much to my surprise, the next play was run from the 35 yard line ... and it was 1st and 10. Fortunately, I have the game taped, so I was able to verify that I'm not going crazy and that the officials missed the mark by 3 yards! It wasn't half a yard or a yard ... it was three. Now, later on the drive, the officials are measuring to see if it's a first down ... why not just move the ball forward 3 yards and give it to them?

Now, what's the difference between 1st and 10 at the 35 or 2nd and 3 at the 32? Not a whole lot. I'm not arguing that OU was adversely affected by the call ... I'm just saying that officiating crews shouldn't be making mistakes like that. And, why doesn't someone in the replay booth say something about the obvious error?

And, this wasn't the only marginal call. Baylor intercepted Bradford near the end zone in the 1st quarter, only to have the play called back by a marginal (at best) interference call that had no bearing on the play - I'm not even sure what the actual interference was. But OU was flagged for a personal foul for a late hit out-of-bounds that was far less egregious than a play later in the game by a Baylor player that didn't draw a flag. Then, there was the play that resulted in a Bradford interception where it sure looked like the ball hit the ground before being corralled by the Baylor player, although the interception was just as good as a punt for the Sooners (3rd down interception from midfield that gave Baylor the ball at the 10 - 40 yards net).

Plaxico: money or a game?

2008-09-26T23:44:00.003-05:00

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?

Hank is right ... kind of (or almost?)

2008-09-26T23:01:00.003-05:00

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!

It's the division format's fault?

2008-09-23T22:41:00.002-05:00

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.

Who Changed the Facemask Rule?

2008-09-15T22:13:00.002-05:00

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!

Across the line!

2008-09-15T22:10:00.002-05:00

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?

2008-09-15T20:55:00.002-05:00

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?

Jay: Do the math, but use a calculator!

2008-09-09T12:08:00.003-05:00

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!

Homer or Hypocrite?

2008-08-26T14:37:00.002-05:00

Yesterday on PTI, JA Adande and Michael Wilbon were given AJ Pierzynski's interference play against the Tampa Bay Rays as a topic. JA Adande read the prompter "What do you know? There's a controversial baseball play and AJ Pierzynski's right in the middle of it. This one happened when the White Sox played the Tampa Bay Rays Sunday. Pierzynski was caught in a rundown, he pulled a Vlade Divac worthy flop, and somehow suckered the umpires into calling interference. So, Wilbon, do you applaud your boy's trickery, or should he be punished and the umpires suspended for making a mockery of the game."

Wilbon's answer is as appalling as Pierzynski's actions, although not unexpected: "Come on, baseball's based historically on these types of plays and all kinds of cheating ... Pierzynski is just smart ... Pierzynski knows how to get away with little things, it's savvy ... He made a smart play for his team which was about to get swept by Tampa in a battle of what had been first place teams, the White Sox salvaged that game, they go back into first ..."

Where does Wilbon stand on performance-enhancing drugs? If you condone Pierzynski's actions, you have to support all the steroid and HGH users for trying to help their teams, too ... right? Isn't it "smart" if you can get your chemist to manufacture a product that will help you out and not be detected by league testing?

Or, is it possible that Wilbon enjoys Pierzynski's antics more than similar shenanigans from other players because AJ plays for the Chicago White Sox? As long as one of Wilbon's home town teams benefits, everything is perfect.

Personally, I think Pierzynski should be suspended for a couple games for intentionally deceiving the umpires and baiting them into making an awful call. Additionally, the umpires involved should be suspended a game for allowing themselves to be duped like that. They should have been able to see that Pierzynski wasn't interfered with; it was obvious that Pierzynski went out of his way to try to create contact (emphasis on the "try to create" because there wasn't any meaningful contact). It should be looked at on a case by case basis, but Pierzynski doesn't get the benefit of the doubt with me because he has a track-record. At some point, enough is enough. Pierzynski is a good player, but he should be told emphatically by the league that this type of action is unacceptable.

If Wilbon wants to praise Pierzynski, whatever. While baseball doesn't mean a whole lot in the grand scheme of things, Wilbon's opinions on PTI (while I do like PTI) are even less important. So, if he wants to say something outrageous (maybe that's what he was doing on this one?) every once in a while, well, it'll help keep the debate strong. If both people were right, there wouldn't be much debating.

Phelps: Best Athlete?

2008-08-20T15:02:00.002-05:00

Michael Phelps has been the talk of the 2008 Olympics thus far, and rightfully so. Phelps set 7 world records during his 17 heat race to a record 8 gold medals. Phelps is a dominant intermediate distance swimmer. He blew away the field in the 400 IM, 200 butterfly (even with the goggle problem), 200 freestyle and 200 IM. He also showed he is the best butterflier in the world by edging Milorad Cavic in the 100 by 0.01 seconds in his most difficult individual test. He also swam the butterfly leg of the 4x100 medley relay for the US. While Phelps didn't swim any breast or backstroke events, his splits in the IM's demonstrated that he is more than adequate at both of those strokes.

Phelps is a great overall swimmer and he is terrific off the turn with his underwater dolphin kick. However, Phelps is hurt in some people's eyes (Skip Bayless, for one) by his inability to show that he is the fastest swimmer on the planet. He didn't attempt the 50 or 100 free, and his split in the lead-off leg of the 4x100 free relay showed that, while Phelps is fast, he's not in the same category in that event as the elite speed freestylers in the world. I imagine he'd be less suited for the 50 free because it doesn't allow him to use his superior endurance/speed combination or his great turns.

So, while Phelps' accomplishments are record-setting and should be applauded, they don't necessitate him being labeled as the greatest Olympic athlete of all time. In fact, I think making that claim based solely on the numbers does a disservice to every Olympic athlete, including Phelps. If you look at numbers of medals as the basis for your decision, you gloss over the actual accomplishments. The accomplishment is winning the 200 butterfly and setting a new WR, or the 200 freestyle, or the ... well, you get the point.

Phelps competes in a sport that allows him to win multiple gold medals. In fact, a swimmer could compete solely in the freestyle and win the 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1500, 4x100 medley relay, 4x100 freestyle relay, and 4x200 freestyle relay. So, without being able to do the breaststroke, backstroke or butterfly, a great freestyler could win 9 gold medals. Sure, it would take an incredible swimmer, but the best a basketball player can do is one gold medal per Olympics (in basketball).

Usain Bolt just set world records in the 100 and 200, laying claim to his position as the world's fastest man. Mark Spitz previously won 7 gold medals in swimming. Usain Bolt is the only man to ever win gold in both the 100 and 200 while setting new WR's in both. Carl Lewis and Jesse Owens never did that. So, you can't just dismiss Bolt because he isn't going to win 8 gold medals. He does what he does better than anyone else ever has, and he's not a one trick pony. He has terrific high end speed and a good enough start to dominate the 100. And, he has enough endurance to cruise to victory in the 200. Of course, Usain Bolt isn't an elite long jumper (to the best of my knowledge) like Carl Lewis was. And, can Usain Bolt sing? Remember Carl Lewis' rendition of the national anthem? Oh yeah, Carl Lewis couldn't really sing either ... but he was a heck of a track athlete.

Michael Phelps has to propel his body through water. While he's unmatched at what he does, he just has to swim. In the decathlon, you have to run the 100m, 400m, 1500m and 110m hurdles. You also have to throw the discuss, shot put and javelin. To top it off, you have to long jump, high jump and pole vault. So, you have to run fast and be able to run relatively quickly over a fairly long distance. Plus, you have to be able to clear objects while running fast. You have to throw three totally different objects. And, you have to be able to jump horizontally, vertically, and launch yourself into the air using a pole. The array of skills required for the decathlon, to me, is far more diverse than the skills required of Michael Phelps. But, you could argue that decathletes aren't able to win any of the 10 events by themselves, so they don't have to be as good at each of the skills as a swimmer who is swimming the 200 free or the 100 butterfly. But, you have to admit that being a good freestyler/breakstroker/backstroker/butterflier doesn't adversely affect a swimmer's ability in the other strokes. However, that isn't true for decathletes. Have you seen the world-class discuss and shot put throwers? They are much thicker than the best 1500m runners in the world, who generally have a much different body shape than the top 100m sprinters in the world.

And, I don't think you can neglect athletes from sports that force you to react to something that an opponent does. And, no, someone going out fast in the 400 IM doesn't count. Michael Phelps knew if he crushed world records, he would be hard to beat. So, it was all about swimming his race (and getting help from teammates in the relays). In his closest race, the 100 fly, he set a new Olympic record, but didn't set the world record. In baseball, basketball, boxing, soccer, volleyball, etc., you have to be able to react to actions of your opponents. Don't you remember that Rocky movie with Ivan Drago?!?

I'm not an Olympic history expert. I didn't see Carl Lewis in 1984. I didn't see Jesse Owens run or Mark Spitz swim. So, I'm not going to throw out a pick for the best Olympic athlete ever. But, I do know you need more than medal counts to figure out the best athlete. If a gymnast won 7 gold medals (individual all-around, and all six event finals), he'd (yes, it's a he because the women only have 4 event finals, so the most a female gymnast could win is 6 gold medals - 5 individual + 1 team) come up one short of Phelps' record. Do you want him to win the 100m and 110m hurdles as well? Come on.

Manny being subversive

2008-08-20T09:51:00.002-05:00

Manny Ramirez finally got his wish, he was banished from Red Sox Nation and sent to Hollywood to play for the Los Angeles Dodgers. I know, I know ... this is old news. Well, it was brought back to the forefront (for me) when I read a column in the Sporting News written by Detroit RP Todd Jones. The column, titled "In an ugly divorce, Manny beat Boston to the punch", Jones seems to defend Manny's actions.

Jones brings up the Twins' treatment of Torii Hunter and Johan Santana, stating that below market contracts were offered, then the terms were leaked so "The play looks greedy, and the team takes the high road." He said "Manny smelled that coming" and that "if the Red Sox didn't want to pick up his options, they would start a discreet campaign to turn the city against him." Jones points to the situation of Nomar Garciaparra as a case when the Red Sox did this previously.

While Jones does write that "I'm not condoning how Manny got out of Boston," I think he's surrounded by too many trees to see the forest. First, I'll get the Nomar case out of the way. Nomar was offered a fairly lucrative multi-year deal by the Red Sox. He turned it down and then his career took a downward trend. The Twins aren't a big market club. They can only afford to pay a couple veterans big money, and spending $20 million per year on a pitcher isn't a wise investment. The Twins can't wrap one third of their payroll into a guy who's going out there once every five days, especially for multiple years. If Santana got seriously hurt in the first year of a six year deal, the Twins would be crippled financially for years. If Hunter and Santana wanted to stay in Minnesota, they could have accepted slightly below market deals.

Moving back to the Ramirez situation, tanking like Manny did was ridiculous, even by Ramirez's standards. If Manny knew that the Red Sox weren't going to pick up his options for 2009 and 2010, as Jones contends, then why didn't Manny just go all out and try to post the best numbers he could in his last year in Boston? If he knew he wasn't going to be in Boston next year, then he knew he'd be a free agent this winter. While he has been on fire since joining the Dodgers (.424 BA, 6 HR's, 21 RBI in 16 games), he failed to show he could produce for the entire season after having a sub-par (for Manny) 2007 season - maybe he was tanking a little last year, too? Even worse, Manny showed the kind of behavior he is capable of if he isn't happy. No GM with a solid head on his shoulders is going to give Manny the long-term deal he's looking for because of the possibility that Manny will decide that he doesn't want to play hard. At that point, it will be the GM's problem and said GM will have to figure out how to maximize value in a trade (as Theo did in Boston) to pass the buck or figure out how to make Manny happy (good luck).

I'm not sure what went wrong for Manny in Boston, but I think the situation is further evidence that the compensation system in baseball needs to be reworked. The salary structure up front for stars like Ryan Braun, Miguel Cabrera, Ryan Howard, Prince Fielder, etc. is out-of-whack. Similarly, veterans shouldn't be on 7-year, guaranteed money deals. If Manny could have left Boston (or Boston could have kicked Manny to the curb to pursue A-Rod) years ago, this whole fiasco never would have materialized. And, maybe the Mariners would have a few more wins for all the millions they've spent this year. But, unfortunately, I know a new, improved system isn't on the horizon.

Medal Count - Who cares?

2008-08-18T13:08:00.002-05:00

Yes, I know, the Olympic medal count is sacred. Winning the overall (and gold) medal count proves the athletic superiority of your country! Right.

The only thing the medal count is useful for is counting medals. You can see which country has won the most medals. You can see if a country won more medals than in previous games, although this is tricky if the number of events changes. When did synchronized diving become an Olympic sport?

Now, divers can not only win their regular diving events, they can also team up and win the synchronized diving competition. Nice. While there may (and I stress the word "may") be demand for synchronized diving, I find the event to be ridiculous. While the judging in diving hurts it in my sports definition, the additional judging required in the synchronized event essentially eliminates it from any consideration, at least in my eyes. What's next, 3 people diving side-by-side-by-side in harmony? How 'bout 4? I can hardly wait!

Many of the best athletes in the United States play football, baseball and basketball. Hockey and soccer are other team sports that suck up large athletic resources of many countries. And, while basketball, hockey, soccer and baseball (at least this year) are Olympic sports, there is only 1 medal at stake, even though there are at least 12 players on each of those teams. And, while a country might have more than one individual (track events, among others) or team (beach volleyball) in some sports, you only get one entry per country in the large team sports.

So, what's my point? Not all sports are treated equally when it comes to medal allotment. Michael Phelps won 8 gold medals at this Olympics. If Nastia Liukin and her teammates on the USA gymnastics team had swept everything, she would have won 6 gold medals (team, individual all-around, and event finals on the uneven bars, vault, floor and balance beam). Phelps won three relays, the 200 free, two IM's, and the 100 and 200 butterfly. He didn't compete in the 100 and 200 breast and back or the 50, 100, 400, 800 or 1500 free, or any of the ones I may have left off the list.

So, even if you can simplify it down and say that only Olympic events determine the worth of a country's athletes, which you can't, it doesn't make sense to base things solely off medals. But, I guess, if your country's doing well in the medal count, you can go ahead and taunt people from other countries ... but I won't be doing that.

What did Sapp say?

2008-08-11T15:25:00.003-05:00

During NFL Live today, Warren Sapp offered the following while praising Brett Favre: "pressure only busts a pipe, and I think he's not made of PCP."

PCP is the abbreviation for phencyclidine, a dissociative drug. Sapp was looking for PVC, which is the abbreviation for the common thermoplastic polymer polyvinyl chloride.

However, it's hard to bust on Sapp too much for a simple slip of the tongue like this one. On the other hand, the idea that LBJ or Kobe taking the massive money being talked about from a team in Europe will automatically lead to David Stern opening up a European NBA division is ludicrous in a much more offensive fashion. At this point, I'm not sure who I first heard this idea from (I think it was someone on ATH or PTI). But, that's neither here nor there.

The problem with that thought is that I seriously doubt LeBron James wants to play in Greece (over NY) if the money is the same. So, unless Stern is going to allow the European teams to circumvent the salary structure associated with the rest of the NBA, James isn't going to reside on the other side of the Atlantic while playing in the NBA. I don't always know what Stern is thinking, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't want to shift the power in the NBA to Europe by allowing European squads in his league to pay free agents whatever they want. Stern won't allow it and neither will the North American owners.

If Stern thinks Kobe and LeBron (and others stars) might actually leave the NBA, he might have to rethink the current salary structure in the game - which wouldn't be a bad idea, if you ask me. Or, is it possible that Kobe and LeBron are posturing and are just using the prospect of a big European deal to get more money in the NBA?

Hornets in OKC

2008-07-04T00:40:00.002-05:00

Yeah, I know, it's the Seattle team coming to OKC, not the Hornets. And, in the wake of the settlement between Seattle and the team formerly known as the Sonics, I caught some discussion between an ESPNews anchor and someone from a sports radio station in OKC. The anchor was asking if OKC could support a team long-term. Near the end of the interview, the anchor mentioned that the Sonics were a 20 win team and they weren't a playoff team like the New Orleans Hornets. So, it might be harder for fans to get behind the new team than it was to root for the Hornets.

I know the Hornets were good this year. But, they weren't in OKC this year. They won the stacked Southwest Division with 56 wins (tied with San Antonio and one game ahead of Houston). However, they won 38 games the first year in OKC and won 39 games the second year in OKC. The first year in OKC was PG Chris Paul's rookie season and he was injured part of his second year. Additionally, Peja Stojakovic barely played in 06-07 because of injuries. What I don't understand is why the anchor on ESPNews didn't know that the Hornets weren't nearly as good in previous years as they were this year. In fact, the Hornets won just 18 games the year before they came to OKC. Yeah, that's why they got Chris Paul. But, the Hornets still drew well that first year in OKC, despite coming at the last minute (Hurricane Katrina hit August 29th, 2005) and not being particularly good.

The new OKC team should get plenty of support, although I'm not really going out on a limb in saying that they probably won't make the playoffs this coming season. Kevin Durant, Jeff Green and Russell Westbrook were all high draft picks in the last two drafts. So, theoretically, the team will improve (Durant and Westbrook are just 19 years old). And, for what it's worth, the leading scorer (Durant) and the leading rebounder (Nick Collison) both played their college ball in the Big 12. Maybe 18 year old Serge Ibaka will turn into the force in the middle this team has lack just when the other youngsters are hitting their stride and the OKC team will be a contender in a few years. If not, maybe they'll at least be an exciting, uptempo team.

But, whether or not OKC supports the new team like they supported the Hornets isn't the point. The point is that the Hornets weren't a playoff team the years they made OKC home. In fact, 38 wins in 05-06 was considered a major achievement by many. So, it probably won't matter that the new team isn't challenging the Bulls for the win record any time soon. And, anchors on ESPNews should know their stuff before they do interviews!

When is PTI not PTI?

2008-07-04T00:14:00.002-05:00

When Tony and Mike aren't there.

Today, we got another round of Adande and Mariotti. Things were going relatively well until they got to talking about former Pittsburgh Penguin Marian Hossa. Hossa, apparently, turned down $35 million over 5 years from the Penguins to take a 1 year deal with the Stanley Cup Champion Detroit Red Wings for $7.45 million.

Mariotti started the segment on Hossa with the following "For those tired of greed in sports, let me offer up one Marian Hossa." He then gave the numbers of the deals from the Penguins and Wings, as well as mentioning reports that he had offers of up to $81 million with other teams.

Marian Hossa scored 43 goals and had 57 assists the year before last. Last season was a down year, he scored 29 goals and had 37 assists in his time with the Atlanta Thrashers and the Penguins. So, I don't think this is a story for those tired of greed. Hossa turned down a long-term deal at an average of $7 million per year to play one season at $7.45 million (that's more than $7 milion) and look for a bigger deal next year. Hossa is 29 years old and shouldn't be on the decline just yet. That's what he's banking on. If he had signed for $7.45 million over 5 years with Detroit, that would have been a story.

Later on, Mariotti provided this gem: "Everybody loves Crosby and Malkin, why would you leave that and go to Detroit? I understand the Red Wings are a dynasty, a hallowed name in hockey, but come on ... $35 million ... $7 million ... duh, this is pretty dumb if you ask me."

I don't know why Hossa signed the deal he did. Did he just want a 1 year deal to improve his stock for next year? Did he want out of Pittsburgh? Did he want to play for Detroit and didn't care about the length of the contract? If anyone has great insight, post a comment. But, Mariotti comparing $35 million over 5 years to $7.45 million over 1 year and saying turning down the 5 year deal for the 1 year deal is dumb is idiotic on Mariotti's part. If Hossa suffers a career-ending injury next year, then it probably wasn't the best idea to turn down a long-term deal. But, Hossa is apparently willing to accept that amount of risk. Plus, he has the potential to improve his stock and cash in big next summer. If he can get $10 million per year for 4 years after next season, he'll wind up with $47.45 million over 5 years instead of $35 million. It seems like a no-brainer to sign the one-year deal this year in that scenario.

We'll see what happens. Maybe turning down the deal with the Penguins was stupid. If the Red Wings tank next year and the Penguins win it all, it will look like the wrong call. Or, maybe Hossa will hoist the Stanley Cup with Detroit. I know that at this point I don't know what's going to happen. And, that's why Mariotti's comments are absolutely ridiculous.

Wilbon on Seedings

2008-06-27T15:36:00.002-05:00

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.

Ump Bump

2008-06-26T00:22:00.003-05:00

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.

Molina Concussion

2008-06-21T15:10:00.002-05:00

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.

Questionable Calls (or No-calls) in Game 6

2008-06-17T20:20:00.003-05:00

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.

MacMullan on Replay

2008-06-17T15:51:00.002-05:00

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.

Fair Officiating

2008-06-17T12:47:00.002-05:00

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.

Bavetta

2008-06-16T22:15:00.003-05:00

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?

One comment on game 4

2008-06-14T07:18:00.002-05:00

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?

When should you make the call?

2008-06-11T22:40:00.003-05:00

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.

Tiger's Torrey Pines Challenge

2008-06-11T10:02:00.002-05:00

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.

Consistently Inconsistent

2008-06-10T10:05:00.002-05:00

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.

You Make the Call

2008-06-06T11:15:00.002-05:00

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?

Sox and Rays: Who's fault is it?

2008-06-05T22:06:00.002-05:00

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?

Cliches won't help the M's

2008-06-05T13:01:00.003-05:00

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.

Dear B.J., You Were Right

2008-06-04T21:00:00.002-05:00

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

2008-06-04T16:13:00.002-05:00

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.

Waiting Game

2008-06-01T23:22:00.002-05:00

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.

On Proposed NBA Rule Changes

2008-05-29T00:11:00.002-05:00

I think the NBA is moving in the right direction if they start passing out fines for players flopping. It's getting ridiculous and there is no need for it in basketball (or soccer, for that matter).

Unfortunately, the league is missing the boat by not addressing the rules that allow the "Hack-A-Shaq" strategy for the majority of the game. The following quote came from Stu Jackson:

"But in the end, there wasn't enough support to change it. ... There was a feeling that by changing the rule you would be essentially rewarding a player for a lack of skill by allowing him to stay in the game."

There isn't anything wrong with Jackson saying that. But, I still disagree that you are rewarding a player for a lack of skill. You aren't rewarding him for a lack of skill if you change it, you are unfairly penalizing him for lacking a certain skill by not changing it. Shaq isn't a good FT shooter. If you don't give him the ball on offense, he should rarely be put in the situation that he has to shoot FT's. It's possible that someone (driving a big-rig) will run him over when he's setting a screen, thus sending him to the line. But, that's pretty unlikely.

FT shooting is a skill. So is ball-handling. Ditto for three-point shooting. If you can make Shaq shoot FT's, why not put in a rule that allows you to force DeSagana Diop to bring the ball upcourt? By not forcing Diop to handle the ball in the open court, aren't you "essentially rewarding a player for a lack of skill by allowing him to stay in the game"? And, while Jason Kapono led the league in three-point FG percentage at 48.3%, his Toronto teammate, PG TJ Ford, shot just 29.4% from behind the arc. There isn't a rule that allows you to force TJ Ford to shoot 24-footers, rather than trying to beat his man off the dribble. Aren't you "essentially ..." (do I really need to include the entire sentence?)? Diop is on the court to defend and rebound. Ford is out there to create off the dribble and lead an uptempo style offense.

"Hack-A-Shaq" isn't good for basketball, just like forcing Diop to handle the ball against pressure in the open court and forcing Ford to shoot from beyond the arc wouldn't be good for the game. So, why protect the rule that allows the "Hack-A-Shaq" strategy (and I use that term loosely)? It would be great if everyone in the league had a skill set similar to the one possessed by the likes of Kobe Bryant, LeBron James (with a little better "J"), Tracy McGrady, Manu Ginobli (without the flopping), Paul Pierce, Steve Nash, Dirk Nowitzki, etc. But, that's not the case.

I love watching Tyson Chandler play because he knows his role. He rebounds and plays defense. And, if Chris Paul throws it up by the rim, Chandler slams it down. More long, young, athletic players need to take a long, hard look at Chandler's impact on games. However, he doesn't shoot FT's well. He's limited on the offensive end in general, and I'm sure he doesn't have a great stroke from downtown. Does that mean he shouldn't be allowed to run alongside Chris Paul and his fellow Hornets? Come on.

Who needs technology?

2008-05-28T23:12:00.002-05:00

Baseball needs replay. On Friday, October 13th, 2006, I wrote a post about the number of plays that might need a look during a game. I was on the conservative side (anything that might possibly need a review made my list) and the number was still relatively small. In the entire game (game 2 of the NLCS), I reached to find 11 that might be worth one look, with only three needing more than a cursory glance. As it turned out, the umps did a fantastic job in that game. Replay would have been worthless, the umps didn't miss any calls that replay would have overturned.

But, it is obvious from all the disputed HR's this year that replay is necessary - although I did enjoy watching Dmitri Young legging out a triple. While it is probably too early to bring in technology for balls and strikes and replay for rulings on check swings, can we at least agree that replay should be used for HR's?

Apparently not.

I can be stubborn and opinionated. However, I've been known to respect valid arguments contrary to my position. The problem is that most of the people speaking out against replay aren't making valid arguments.

In response to someone asking if replay should be used on HR's, one ESPN contributor (I think it was someone on baseball tonight, but I'm not sure exactly who) argued that using replay for HR's (which Steve Phillips is in favor of) isn't a good idea because HR's aren't the only important plays in baseball games. I'll agree that HR's aren't the only plays that the umps should try to get right. However, they are easy to replay and are pretty cut and dry usually. Thus, that would be a good place to start implementing replay. It would get replay into baseball and would prevent awful calls like the overrule on the Delgado foul pole homer against the Yankees that changed a correct call to an incorrect one.

Have you ever tried to mount a shelf to a wall? One of the first steps is to find the studs. While this isn't the only important part of the process, if you don't get it right, the end product might be sub-optimal. Sure, if conditions are right and you have the necessary expertise, you can determine where the studs are without a stud finder. But, if you have a stud finder, why not use it? It's a way to improve the chances that you get that step correct!

Someone else argued against replay by saying that the NFL uses replay and often doesn't get the calls correctly, even with replay. I will agree that replay in football is not optimal - anyone affiliated in any way with the University of Oklahoma can tell you that (OU got quacked in Eugene!). But, the argument is flawed. Whether or not a ball clears the fence is pretty cut and dry. Either it did, or it didn't. That is a much easier call than determining if a fumble went out of bounds before it went over the goal line when you don't have a perfect angle. It's also an easier call than whether or not a receiver would have come down in bounds if he hadn't been pushed by a defender (which is no longer a problem because they got rid of the force out rule) or the exact location of forward progress of a runner with a pile of bodies obscuring the view. Baseball replays would be, generally, much more straight forward than many of their football counterparts. Home run replays would be similar to the FG replay when the ball hit the neck on the goal post behind the crossbar and bounced back onto the field. It was obviously a good FG, just like it was obvious that the ball A-Rod hit went over the fence and only bounced back onto the field after it hit the stairs beyond the fence.

While replay in football might not be perfect, replay has been very successful in tennis. A fellow grad student in my department is a tennis fan and is convinced that it does wonders for players by allowing them to forget about the last play and play the next play because they don't have to worry about whether or not they got hosed by the official on the last play. If a player thinks the umpire missed a call, he can challenge and Hawk-eye tells it like it is. If Hawk-eye shows the ump missed it, then the player is right and benefits from the challenge. If Hawk-eye shows the call was right, then the player realizes the ump isn't screwing him over and he can move on to play the next play, which is where the focus needs to be.

And, yet another person put out the lame argument that games have been played for years without replay. Thus, obviously, there is no need to use replay now. What?

According to wikipedia, the first "medical" x-ray image was created in 1895. What happens if you think you broke your arm? You go to the doctor and get an x-ray. CT scans haven't always been available, but doctors use those now. MRI's, heart monitors, blood pressure monitors, etc. If additional technology can improve something without being obtrusive, why not use it?

I can come up with lots of examples, but I'll stop with just one more. We are in a very active tornado year. Meteorologists are able to forecast severe weather. So, residents can know in advance (usually a day or two around here) whether or not there is a decent chance of severe weather - tornadoes, hail, strong winds, etc. I'm pretty sure the meteorologists use technology (models, atmospheric pressure, temperature, and humidity measurements, etc.) to predict the severe weather - although meteorology isn't my specialty. The predictions allow storm chasers to know where they should position themselves. Then, using radar and reports from storm chasers, the meteorologists are able to keep the public advised about areas of severe weather, which is why entire towns can be destroyed by tornadoes and only a handful of people die in the devastation. In a related matter, as bad as Hurricane Katrina was, imagine if the warnings weren't issued leading up to the event and no one evacuated. Technology can be helpful, baseball, get with the program.

Lack of Effort?

2008-05-28T22:44:00.002-05:00

Jeff Van Gundy criticized the Boston Celtics for a lack of effort when they were caught off-guard in transition, allowing Tayshaun Prince to draw a foul on a drive to the basket and get FT's with 3:24 remaining in the 3rd quarter of game five. Van Gundy said "That's just bad, that's just bad effort by the Celtics" as Prince's 2nd FT was going through.

Van Gundy correctly pointed out that "the Pistons weren't even running hard" and "you should never get beaten down the floor" after a made basket. The problem is that Van Gundy was off the mark on his criticism. It wasn't a lack of effort that was the problem in this instance, it was a lack of concentration. While neither of them is acceptable, especially in game five of the Eastern Conference Finals with the series knotted up at 2-2, Van Gundy should be able to tell the difference and correctly relate the information to the public.

From the replay, it looks like Boston SF Paul Pierce was trying to pick up the man bringing up the ball, Detroit PG Chauncey Billups. He pointed to Prince, seemingly directly someone else to guard Detroit's SF. Unfortunately for Boston, PG Rajon Rondo was right next to Pierce looking to guard Billups. So, while both Rondo and Pierce were back on defense, one of them - presumably Pierce - was out of position. On subsequent (and preceding) possessions, Rondo is guarding Billups and Pierce is checking Prince.

Effort and concentration are two entirely different things. To paraphrase OU Football Coach Bob Stoops' thoughts on the Sooners' secondary in recent years, if your players run fast in the wrong direction, they are even farther out of position. While OU's secondary didn't lack hustle, problems with concentration hurt because the effort wasn't productive. If you are concentrating, but don't put out a solid effort, you won't be at your best. But, even if you are giving it your all, you get into a similar amount of trouble if you aren't able to focus on the task at hand, which was what happened in allowing Prince to get to the FT line.

Brown on Maxiell

2008-05-28T20:58:00.003-05:00

PJ Brown was whistled for two fouls on attempted lob dunks by Jason Maxiell in the fifth game of the series between Detroit and Boston. On the first one, the officials called it a flagrant one.

While Mike Breen agreed with the flagrant call, Mark Jackson and Jeff Van Gundy disagreed. Then, after the second play, Jackson and Van Gundy said it was the exact same play. I hope they were just kidding around. If not, they have no business being on NBA telecasts, because they obviously don't understand what is going on.

On the first foul, PJ Brown didn't make a play on the ball. He didn't jump and contacted Maxiell as Maxiell grabbed the ball. Maxiell was off the ground and was above the rim. Brown's hands might have made it to Maxiell's elbow. While Brown didn't blatantly push Maxiell out-of-bounds or even foul Maxiell particularly hard, he didn't make a play on the ball either. The call seemed to be in line with similar rulings during the regular season and playoffs.

On the second one, Brown met Maxiell at the ball. In fact, Doc Rivers and the Boston fans thought Brown got to the ball first. Maxiell went for the ball with two hands and Brown only got one hand on it, so there may have been a foul with Brown's other arm, I'm not really sure exactly what the official called. Obviously, this was a case of Brown making a play on the ball.

Van Gundy and Jackson saying the two plays were exactly the same is just ridiculous. The first one was obviously a foul, the second one probably should have been a no call (and not like the no call at the end of the Spurs v. Lakers game last night). Brown made a play on the ball on the second one and he didn't on the first. Van Gundy and Jackson may have a legitimate argument that there wasn't excessive enough contact by Brown on the first one to warrant a flagrant foul, but by taking the absurd position they did after the second one, their opinions lost all credibility.

Can the NBA be saved?

2008-05-27T23:08:00.002-05:00

I just finished a post that centered on a missed foul call at the end of the fourth game in the series between the Lakers and Spurs (I'm not sure what Reggie Miller is doing saying it was a foul but it was a good no call ... isn't that a little contradictory?). Anyway, moving on ... some may think I'm being critical of the referees. Perhaps, to some extent, I am. But, I don't think you can channel all the blame for "poor" officiating on the officials.

From my perspective, it is almost impossible to officiate NBA games correctly. Fortunately, I have a solution, so stay tuned. But, first, let me outline the problem. Traveling, flopping, illegal screens, palming, etc. are so prevalent that officials' hands are tied. If you call an illegal screen, or three-in-the-key, at one end, you almost have to call one on the other side to even things out later on. But, there are so many violations that you can't even come close to calling them all. If you called Tim Duncan for every moving screen, either he wouldn't set screens or he'd pick up a lot of "cheap" fouls.

There are two ways for the NBA to go. The first, the "status quo" approach, is for officials to go on trying to manage the madness. They will continue to call the occasional blatant travel and illegal screen. They'll ignore some flops and give good actors calls based on other ones. And, the players will continue to try to stretch the limits of what they can get away with.

Or, the league can try to get a handle on things. It will be painful at first. It will be ugly early on. But, in the end, the league will get the game of basketball back. The solution is to call every illegal screen. Additionally, officials need to call traveling. If Bruce Bowen (watch him, he does) moves both feet after catching the ball before he shoots, call it a travel - he did it late in game 3 (I think) to put the Spurs up 84-78.

Additionally, the league should think about ratifying the way fouls are dealt with. I don't like watching a parade of FT's. I can't imagine fans enjoy games with 60-80 FT's between the teams. Additionally, a foul call should penalize the team that commits the foul. So, a system should be implemented that penalizes the offending team enough that they choose not to foul so frequently. Instead of 2 FT's for a regular shooting foul and 3 for a foul on a 3-pointer, the shooter could get 3 for a normal FG and 4 if they are behind the line. Similarly, if they make the shot, instead of one additional FT, they would be given two. And, the officials should call more intentional fouls for fouls committed that don't include reasonable plays on the ball. Hopefully, the additional FT's would remove unintentional intentional fouls from the game. But, in the event that they don't - you might still foul Shaq if he's going up for a lay-up - an intentional foul would still warrant two shots and the ball out-of-bounds.

Don't worry, I still have a couple more modifications. If you penalize players enough for fouls, you don't need disqualifications because of 6 personal fouls. If a left tackle gets 3 false starts and 4 holding penalties in a football game, he isn't kicked out by the refs (he might be benched by his coach). Why? He's breaking the rules and committing fouls. But, he's also hurting his team with each violation. Why not apply the same principle to basketball? This will keep us from absurd situations like the Celtics v. Nets multi-OT game from a few years back when Brian Scalabrine was the best player on the floor at the end because of all the DQ's. Okay, that might be hyperbole, but I thought it was ridiculous that the best players from both teams were on the bench in a playoff game because they'd fouled out in OT.

And, finally, team fouls only apply to unintentional, non-shooting fouls. This will limit the number of FT's you get for fouls that don't take place in the offensive zone. You don't get FT's if you take a charge. Why should you get FT's if you are fouled going for a defensive rebound? That's ridiculous. However, if you don't ever get FT's on those fouls and the number of fouls doesn't matter, you can foul the crap out of people going for offensive rebounds without any problem. So, you can have 3 (seems reasonable, right?) such fouls per quarter without any penalty, but the opponent starts getting 3 FT's for every violation starting with number four. Note: ticky-tack touch fouls where no advantage is gained don't need to be called in the flow of action.

What game does the NBA want? Do they want basketball? Or, do they want street ball? It's time to choose, and I'd go for the former.

No Foul? How 'bout a travel?

2008-05-27T23:00:00.002-05:00

It looked like LA Lakers' G Derek Fisher fouled SA Spurs' G Brent Barry on the Spurs' last possession. No foul was called and Barry missed a last-second 3 that would have given the Spurs a much-needed victory to even the series.

Anyone who knows me - or has read this blog - knows that I'm not a Spurs fan. But, how do the refs let that one go? It was obviously a foul ... or a travel. There was no way Barry would get three FT's on that one. Why? He traveled (switched pivot feet - take a look for yourself) before he got the shot up. So, if he is fouled, travels, then shoots, he obviously wasn't fouled on the shot.

Speaking of traveling. Did anyone see Tim Duncan's dunk (after a travel) in the first half? Or, did people see when Manu Ginobli caught the ball on the wing and switched pivot feet at least twice (illegal the last time I checked) before putting the ball on the floor? Of course, I'm pretty sure Kobe traveled on his last break-away dunk, after Ginobli and Oberto (I think) fumbled a hand-off.

Doug Collins and Points Per Shot

2008-05-15T00:35:00.002-05:00

At the end of the Jazz v. Lakers game, Doug Collins spent some time running through "the Bryant efficiency numbers," which are just the points per shot. The idea is fine. Sure, you don't want Kobe getting to the FT line because he shoots a good percentage and might be converting old-fashioned three-point plays. Like with any player, you'd like them to take as many shots as you can get them to take to get however many points they get. If Kobe takes 35 shots to get 25 points, you're probably better off than if he only takes 15 shots to get 25 points.

Maybe Gregg Popovich is just trying to improve the efficiency numbers for Shaquille O'neal and Melvin Ely when he employs the ridiculous hack-a-(insert name of poor FT shooter) strategy. See, even if Shaq (or Kobe on an off day) goes 1-6 from the line, they still get an extra point without adding any FGA. However, I doubt Shaq bricking 5 of 6 is probably going to benefit the Suns.

If you want to wrap FT's and FG's together, adjust the FGA so you are dividing the points by the number of possessions a player is using up. And, it might help if you subtract out FT points earned via technical fouls, as those aren't directly related to a player's offensive efficiency (one could argue some might be related because of defensive three seconds). I'd probably excluded FT's that result due to fouls that occur outside the offensive zone (like loose ball fouls at the other end of the court) because they aren't related to offensive efficiency either.

Spygate

2008-05-13T17:30:00.002-05:00

If I hadn't spent time around high school students in math and science classes the last couple of years, I would be flabbergasted by the commentary on the lack of new information in the "spygate" saga. While Matt Walsh may not have added any new information, the lack of new information does not prove that the Patriots didn't tape the Rams' walk-through before the Super Bowl.

Think back to geometry for a second. If an angle is right (90 degrees), it's not acute (less than 90 degrees). However, if it's not acute, it could be right or it could be obtuse (greater than 90 degrees). So, back to "spygate", if Walsh had tapes of the walk-through, then someone taped said walk-through. Apparently, Walsh doesn't. But, all you can conclude from that is that Walsh doesn't have it. You should not jump to the conclusion that there is no possible way that such a tape exists. Logically, you can't jump to that conclusion.

If someone throws a perfect game in baseball, you know that he also threw a shutout. However, if you are told that a pitcher through a shutout, you'd be a fool (and wrong almost all the time) to assume that the pitcher threw a perfect game - although, with the lack of complete games these days, you might jump to the conclusion that the guy threw a no-hitter.

Matt Walsh already said he wasn't the source that said the Patriots taped the Rams' walk-through. It's possible that someone made that up. However, shouldn't the league try to investigate that potential lead before closing the "spygate" case? Well, they should if the end goal is to determine everything the Patriots did that may have violated league rules. But, is that what the league is most interested in? Probably not. While the league is probably concerned that teams aren't gaining unfair advantages, I seriously doubt they want to open the Pandora's box of the Patriots (or other teams) actively cheating and using illegally obtained information to win playoff games. If the Patriots did tape the walk-through and analysis of the game determined that the Patriots probably won the game because of the information, then what?

Orlando v. Detroit - Game 2

2008-05-06T23:05:00.002-05:00

At the end of the 3rd quarter in game 2 between the Magic and Pistons, there was a clock malfunction. Chauncey Billups ended up hitting a 3-pointer. The problem was, it took more than the 5.1 seconds the Pistons had for Billups to get the shot off. So, if the play had gone as it did and the clock had been running, the shot wouldn't have been allowed. The result would have been three fewer points for the Pistons.

I'm not going to say that the Magic would have won if the shot had been waived off. But, I'm not going to dismiss the possibility either. The game was close late, with the Pistons pulling away (they won 100-93) with FT's late. Anyone who knows anything about basketball knows that the Magic wouldn't have been fouling to put the Pistons on the line if Orlando was ahead late.

I find the entire situation to be distasteful for a couple of reasons. First, the officials reviewed the play and couldn't get it right. The official statement today was that it took approximately 5.7 seconds before Billups got the shot up. I don't know how hard it is to get a stop watch and let the footage go and see that it took more than 5.1 seconds. So, the officials (i) don't have the resources/authority to get the call right, (ii) aren't competent, or (iii) didn't want to upset the home fans. None of those possibilities is really all that promising.

Second, I don't see why it's a shot/no shot situation. Why wasn't the entire play done over? The shot definitely shouldn't have counted, but how were the Pistons supposed to know when they needed to get the shot up if the clock wasn't working? It seems like the play should have stopped when the clock malfunctioned, which was right after the ball was in-bounded ... so why not do the whole thing over? Then, it's as fair as it's going to get (considering the clock stoppage) for both teams.

What's wrong with blocking shots?

2008-05-05T23:34:00.002-05:00

Rajon Rondo is 6'1" tall. Marvin Williams is 6'9". Why did Williams decide to hug Rondo instead of trying to block his shot?

It seems to be part of an epidemic that is sweeping the NBA. While Tyson Chandler, Josh Smith, Dwight Howard and assorted other players are still inclined to try to block shots, many of their peers are resigned to just taking fouls rather than challenging shots in an attempt to block them.

Maybe Williams (who claims to be friends with Rondo) knows Rondo struggles at the charity stripe (61.1% this season). Maybe Williams decided that the expected value of Rondo taking him to the rack is more than the expected value of Rondo taking two FT's. Unfortunately, if this was his rationale, I doubt he factored in getting called for a flagrant foul and being ejected.

I haven't talked to Williams (or heard his take on the incident - which looked worse than I think it actually was), but I think he probably thought the safer play was to grab Rondo and try to hold him up than to potentially collide with Rondo in the air. I wouldn't argue with him. But, what would have happened if Williams had challenged the shot?

If Williams had been careful not to foul, Rondo probably would have scored, but Williams might have been able to make the block. If he had gone for the block, there is a reasonable chance he would have made the block and been whistled for the foul. But, with that size advantage, it's not unreasonable to think that he should have been able to prevent Rondo from making the shot.

Thoughts on Tuesday (central)

2008-04-29T23:07:00.002-05:00

I'm sure I've mentioned it before, but I don't enjoy the way Tony Parker plays basketball. Amare Stoudemire just "tripped" Parker ... I didn't see that. I realize Tony Parker is French, but that's not why I dislike him. He's married to Eva Longoria (soon to be the 2nd most famous sports-related Longoria?) - who cares?

While Parker is somewhat lacking as a shooter (he's never shot 80% from the FT line and has only been over 34% from 3-pt range once in his career), he is very difficult to keep out of the paint and does a good job finding open teammates off his penetration. And, when Parker is shooting well from outside, he is very difficult to guard (at least that's how it looks from the comfort of my couch).

My problem with Parker is another referee-related issue. Parker initiates contact and then flops. A good example is when he jumped perpendicular to the direction he was driving (which was straight towards the basket), hit Amare in the face with the ball, flopped, and got free throws.

I'm fine with drawing contact, but that's not what Parker does. Parker commits offensive fouls and, miraculously, gets calls from the refs to send him to the line. And, to top it off, he whines and complains about the contact. If LeBron wants to talk to the refs after being whacked across the head or being shoved with both hands by a 7-footer, fine. I don't think that's what he was hoping would happen on his drives. Parker is determining the outcome and complaining about it. It's like buying a puppy and then being distraught when it grows into a full-size dog. WTF did you think was going to happen?

Celtics v. Hawks

Why aren't the people who came off the bench in the skirmish being suspended? I thought we learned last year that there wasn't room for interpretation. Isn't that what David Stern told us about that rule? That's why Stoudemire (and Boris Diaw?) wasn't eligible for a game against the Spurs last year.

I haven't seen the incident between Garnett and Pachulia, but the ESPN ticker says Kendrick Perkins and Marvin Williams admitted to leaving the bench. Maybe they weren't moving with as much fervor as the Phoenix players did last year, but I thought that the rule was the rule. Yet another NBA ruling (or lack thereof) that makes absolutely no sense at all.

Shoving LeBron

2008-04-22T22:54:00.002-05:00

Skip Bayless argued that Brendan Haywood was unjustly ejected from the Wizards v. Cavs game 2 on First Take this morning. While I agree with a lot of what Skip says (I might be in the minority there), I'm not in his camp on this one. Haywood is 7-footer. He was in great position (well, not so great considering who was coming down the lane ... but if it had been someone normal) to go up and challenge the shot. At that point, he has two choices: (1) he can challenge the shot and try for the block -maybe resulting in a foul - or (2) he can choose not to challenge the shot and let LBJ go unabated to the rim. Did you notice that I didn't outline an option that consists of Haywood shoving an airborne LBJ with both hands with not attempt to make a play on the ball?

While this type of play may have been common place in the late 80's and 90's, do we really want to revert to a time when teams like the Pat Riley led Knicks were a dominant force?

On a related note, I just happened to play a game of pick-up basketball last night. Most of the guys in the game were significantly shorter and smaller than I am. So, I wasn't surprised that every time I had the ball remotely close to the basket at least two of them were pushing and grabbing me to prevent me from making "easy" baskets. While I don't particularly mind getting fouled in normal basketball games, it's annoying to get flagrantly hacked every time you shoot from remotely close to the rim in pick-up games ... which is why I usually just run the point, try to create for others and shoot pull-ups and 3's. Fouls are supposed to penalize the offender. But, in pick-up games, if you nail someone so they can't shoot a lay-up, they just get the ball up top. Call me a purist, but that's not how it's supposed to be.

Another reason I don't root for the Spurs

2008-04-22T22:35:00.003-05:00

The Spurs are making a mockery of the NBA playoffs by fouling Shaq. What's worse, the refs are enabling them. Shaq just tried to dodge Brent Barry so that he wouldn't get fouled. It looked like something you'd see in a weekend flag football game, not an NBA playoff game. The fouls were obviously intentional (unless the Spurs just find Shaq irresistible - not likely), why aren't they called as such?

For all the flack the NHL has taken in recent years, at least they were proactive in making a rule change to uphold the integrity of the game. When a moron on the Rangers decided to dance in front of Devils G Martin Brodeur in order to screen him from seeing the action, the NHL made a rule change before the next contest in the series. They saw an obvious loophole and shut it off ASAP! David Stern should get a clue and do the same thing with the Hack-a-(insert name of poor FT shooter). Why wait until the off-season? Not allowing this absurd strategy (and I use that word reluctantly) doesn't favor a particular team. It favors the integrity of the game of basketball. Plus, it keeps the clock running.

Unfortunately, we've reached a point in society where people are always looking to cheat the system and get whatever advantage they can. I had to read "Teaching with Love and Logic" this semester and one of the things that stuck with me is an example about rules. One teacher had over 300 rules, each with a consequence if the rule was broken. One day, a male student threw a dead fish at one of the female students. "No throwing fish at girls" was not on the list. While obviously highly inappropriate, there wasn't a rule against it. How was the student supposed to know he wasn't supposed to throw fish at girls? I'll let you answer that one.

If Kurt Thomas fouls Shaq trying to block his shot, that's fine. Shaq gets a couple FT's (he just missed both of them). But, Brent Barry shouldn't be chasing Shaq around in the backcourt trying to grab him 50-60 feet from the basket. He doesn't have Kevin Love range, does he?

Give it to the Raptors

2008-04-04T09:31:00.002-05:00

The Atlanta Hawks pulled out an OT victory over the Toronto Raptors earlier this week. Mike Bibby hit a 3 to tie it with 0.5 seconds. Then, the Raptors appeared to win it at the end of regulation on an alley-oop to PG TJ Ford. Ford layed it in as the buzzer sounded ... or, as it turned out, right after the buzzer sounded. So, the game went to OT and the Hawks prevailed.

What's the problem? Why should Toronto be awarded the victory? The clock, which was supposed to start when TJ Ford touched the ball, started a couple tenths of a second early. What's the big deal? What's a couple of tenths of a second? Well, Ford released the ball right after (probably less than 0.1 s) the clock hit 0.0. So, had the clock started at the right time, Ford would have got the shot off. Am I 100% sure? No. But, I'm almost certain.

Did I mention that the game was in Atlanta? The Hawks were already forced to replay the end of a game they had won at home this year. Their victory over the Heat was wiped off the board and they were forced to replay the final portion of the game when it was determined that Shaquille O'neal hadn't fouled out.

I'm not calling for the personnel in Atlanta to lose their jobs. And, I don't think the final 0.5 seconds should be replayed. Rather, TJ Ford's bucket should count and OT should be wiped off the board. The clock expired on the Ford shot. The Ford shot was good. The Ford shot put the Raptors up 2 at the end of regulation. The Raptors won the game. It's that simple if you rule that Ford took less than 0.5 s to get the shot off, which I'm almost certain he did.

The officials should have counted the basket. But, if they aren't sure, it's better to let the game go to OT then to make the wrong decision. However, the league needs to step in and make it right. It shouldn't be a replay situation. Why make the Raptors score in 0.5 s again? This isn't a reverse U.S. v. USSR Olympics situation. You can't keep playing the situation until Toronto doesn't score. The win should just be awarded to Toronto, and David Stern should step up and give them what they deserve.

UNC in NC

2008-03-19T23:19:00.002-05:00

There are 4 #1 seeds in the NCAA tournament, obviously. UCLA is the #1 in the West. Their reward? Trips to Anaheim and Phoenix (potentially) on their way to the final four. North Carolina has an even more favorable road. While UCLA has to cross the CA/AZ border, UNC gets to stay in state in trips to Raleigh and Charlotte as the #1 in the East. So, the committee rewarded UNC and UCLA for good seasons by letting them stay close to home.

What about the other #1 seeds, Kansas and Memphis? As the #1 in the Midwest, KU is slated for Omaha and Detroit. Memphis, the #1 in the South, starts in Little Rock and faces a potential Elite 8 match-up with Texas in Houston, TX.

Why do UNC and - to a lesser extent, maybe - UCLA get to stay home while KU and Memphis are given what's left? Well, I heard someone on ESPN say that the sites are determined years in advance, so that's just the way it worked out. Ehhhhh. While that might not be wrong, it's not a sufficiently formulated position.

I will grant you that it might not be reasonable to wait until the #1 seeds are chosen to determine the sites for the tournament. But, if Kansas doesn't get to play in Kansas City and St. Louis, why should UNC get to play in Raleigh and Charlotte? They shouldn't. If Memphis can't play in Memphis and Nashville, UCLA shouldn't be in Anaheim and Phoenix. UNC doesn't have to be the #1 in the East. They could easily be the #1 in the South. Memphis could play in Raleigh and Charlotte as the #1 in the East. KU could go to Anaheim and Phoenix as the #1 in the West and UCLA could head the Midwest region and play in Omaha and Detroit.

The tournament selection committee should be as equitable as possible for all teams. Obviously, that isn't the case right now. I'm pretty sure the committee could find reasonable match-ups adhering to the criterion that no team will have a "home" game. The rule could state that no team will have the possibility of playing in their home state or a neighboring state in the first week. The same rule could apply for the second week (Sweet 16 and Elite 8 rounds), or you could limit it to just not being able to play in the home state. If you make it to the Final Four in your home area, at least you've had to play four neutral site games to get there. It isn't feasible to only select sites in states that don't have any teams that could possibly make a Final Four run. I don't think there is a large clamoring for the Final Four to go to Alaska, Idaho or the Dakotas (I know, I'm leaving some states out)!

A few comments on the field of 64 (now 65)

2008-03-17T10:08:00.002-05:00

ESPN analyst/consultant Bobby Knight recently put out the idea of expanding the field to 128 teams. Knight claims that such an expansion would allow all the deserving teams to get a bid to the tourney. Maybe.

Knight argues that some "bubble teams" are left out of the tourney because their spots are stolen by undeserving automatic bid teams (presumably, he's talking about teams like Coppin State, Mount St. Mary's, Georgia, etc.). By expanding the field, you can easily include Va Tech, Arizona State, Mississippi, Illinois State, UMass, etc. Or, in previous years, maybe Knight would have been in the tournament a few more times.

As you increase the number of teams you include in the tournament, you decrease the likelihood that you will leave a team out that is capable of making a long run in the tournament. This is one reason I'm still in favor of including all the teams in division 1. If you include everyone, you give everyone a fair shot (or as fair as you can get) in a single elimination tournament. It would add an extra week, but you could accommodate the extra week (3 extra rounds) by eliminating conference tournaments.

What happens if you expand the field to 128? The same thing that happens now. There will still be bubble teams. There will still be the last four in and the last four out. There will still be spots "stolen" by undeserving automatic bid teams. As long as you have at-large bids decided by a panel of people comparing resumes, people will feel slighted. If you can create criteria (such as winning your conference tournament) to define the field, then coaches and players would know what they were shooting for. But, that said, I'm not sure how you can do that. If you limit the field to teams with winning records, you'll have people scheduling easy non-conference games to bolster their win-loss record. That's not productive. You could use the RPI or some other such ranking and take the automatic bids and the next however many at-large teams are needed off the RPI list. But, I think you would need to make the RPI formula public so coaches knew what was being asked of them.

Eliminate the mess by including everyone. Then, the only question is how to do the seeding. Sometimes, coaches feel a little shafted by seeding. But, I think the pain of being left out of the tourney is much worse. Teams could be seeded using the RPI list (or some other index) with a little bit of tweaking to avoid certain matchups. The first round wouldn't be complete, as you just need to cut the field to 256 at that point. Then, you have 8 full rounds to determine a national champ. So, you have to win 8 games in a row to win it all, but the first two rounds should be no problem for the legitimate title contenders.

Storming the Court

2008-03-08T19:35:00.002-05:00

I remember the good old days when games ended and courts weren't stormed. I long for those days. It's disgusting that fans think they belong on the playing surface after the game. It's even more aggravating to me that the fans often don't wait for the game to end to act like hooligans.

The latest instance was in the Cal v. UCLA game today. When the Bruins knocked the ball out of bounds late with less than a second left, the fans stormed the court. I thought storming the court was supposed to be reserved for big upset. UCLA over Cal most definitely doesn't qualify. The bigger problem, as I see it, was that the fans stormed the court before the game was over. That should NEVER happen. And, I was very disappointed with the actions of the officials.

A couple weeks ago, in a game between teams that aren't in BCS conferences, the home team tied the game as time expired. The crowd rushed the court, maybe not realizing that their team hadn't won the game and that overtime was necessary. The result was a technical foul and the visiting team started OT with a lead ... bizarre, I know. I may not remember correctly, but I think both teams scored the same number of points in OT, so it would have been a double OT game (theoretically) if the fans hadn't screwed up.

What happened on Saturday? The fans stormed the court before the game ended but the home team UCLA Bruins were not penalized. What's the rule? Why is it a technical foul on the home team in one case and not in the other? Cal was down one. Given an opportunity at 2 FT's from a technical foul, they might have pulled the game out (they might have won if there had been a foul call on the late TO ... and it looked from the angle that I saw that the ball was touched last by a Bruin ... so I'm not sure why UCLA got the ball).

You might not believe me, but I really don't have anything against UCLA. I don't care for the contact they get away with on the defensive end ... it's not as fun to watch basketball when the defense is mugging the offense. The fact of that matter is that they were helped out by the officials in both games against the bay area teams, and if they had lost because their crowd stormed the court, then that would have been the best-case scenario for me.

Then, maybe the coaches would lean on their presidents to keep students and other fans off the floor after games. One or two publicized incidents of the students being rounded up after they storm the courts and given tickets or fines (I'd think they'd want to keep all those street shoes off the courts and it can't be safe for the players or fans) might serve as additional deterrent. If you just send them back to their seats to reload so they can do it again when the game is actually over, without any penalty to their team, what kind of message are you sending? It's not a good one.

Who is Blake Carroll?

2008-03-08T17:01:00.002-05:00

On the ABC broadcast of the Missouri v. OU game this afternoon, the announcer called OU freshman Blake Griffin "Blake Carroll." Griffin is one of a pair of brothers (the other being Taylor) who play a lot for the Sooners. Carroll? To the best of my knowledge, no one by that name plays for OU. Where did Blake Carroll come from? Get it together, guys.

Home Cookin' for UCLA

2008-03-07T01:16:00.002-05:00

I didn't watch the entire Stanford v. UCLA game, but the Bruins got at least a little help against the Cardinal. Stanford went up 2 with just over 7 seconds left in regulation. On the Bruins' ensuing possession, Darren Collison had his shot blocked cleanly. Fortunately for the Bruins, one official thought he was fouled. He motioned that he got him down low, with the body. Umm ... there may have been some contact, but no one in their right mind would have called a foul on it. I think the official probably anticipated and just screwed it up. Rather than UCLA ball out-of-bounds with 2 seconds left, they had one of the best FT shooters in the nation at the line.

I don't understand why the officials let Kevin Love hook on every post move (they call that on other players) and ride the opposing guards when he is hedging on ball screens (it's a pretty obvious foul). And, I'll only briefly mention the incredibly low toss of the jump ball in OT ... I don't think either guy would have needed to jump. It was a good thing for Love and the Bruins.

Oh, and that intentional foul in OT? That was a joke ... but it was just par for the course.

NBA Europe

2008-02-13T19:53:00.002-05:00

The PTI guys were all in favor of David Stern's apparent plan to attempt to create a 5-team division consisting of teams in Europe.

I don't get it. That would give the league 7 divisions of 5 teams. Last time I checked, 7 is a prime number. What does that mean? Well, it's only divisible by 1 and itself. Do any of the major sports leagues have 3 divisions? 5 divisions? Nope. We've seen 4, 6 and 8. Why? They aren't prime, they are divisible by 2, allowing an even split between the AL/NL, AFC/NFC, East/West, etc. So, what - Mr. Stern - are you proposing as a system to determine playoff teams? Maybe we could add an NBA Far East (which would go in the Western Conference, of course) too!

On "Bad" Officiating

2008-02-13T01:34:00.003-05:00

Skip Bayless liked the foul call in the Villanova v. Georgetown game. While I usually appreciate Skip's point of view (even if I don't agree with it), I'm not sure I'm buying his claim that there was a "collision". There was a minimal amount of contact far from the basket. In all likelihood, Georgetown wouldn't have got a shot off, much less make a basket to prevent OT. While it might not have been a bad call by rule, if you apply the spirit of the rule (as my HS coach always questioned "Advantage gained?") ... well ... let's just say it wasn't the best call that could have been made. The best call would have been a no call.

In the Rutgers v. Tennessee game, I'm not sure what caused the clock to stop. But, from my view of the replay, it appears that Kia Vaughn (I think that's who it was) is pulling down Nicky Anosike as soon as Anosike grabs the rebound, which is about the same time the clock stopped (maybe 0.1 seconds later - which would have been 0.1 seconds left on the clock). What I don't know is why the Scarlet Knight decided to pull Anosike down from behind. I'm pretty sure Anosike wouldn't have been able to get the shot off before the clock expired if the clock had been running properly. The problem was, she was blatantly fouled before she was able to put the ball back up. Maybe the clock stopped because a whistle blew when Anosike was fouled? It's a difficult loss for Rutgers, but I don't think the officiating really caused them to lose it.

What goes around ...

2008-02-13T01:23:00.002-05:00

Is anyone surprised Indiana is facing violations related to improper phone calls? But, what was Indiana thinking hiring Sampson away from Oklahoma despite infractions in his time in Norman? At the time, I thought it was suspicious that they were protecting themselves by putting language in the contract related to violations. If they were worried about additional violations and wanted to withhold money based on violations, why hire Sampson in the first place?

Stop 'em at 16-0

2008-02-03T10:53:00.000-05:00

Today, I'm facing one of the toughest decisions I've had to make in quite some time: do I root for the Patriots or the Giants? Usually, I'd cheer for anyone playing the Patriots. But, if the Patriots finish their season 19-0, then maybe we won't have to hear from Mercury Morris and his cohorts every year. Then, we'll have two undefeated teams ... neither should be as annoying as the original.

But, does anyone really care which team I'll be cheering for (I'm still not sure who that will be)? I doubt it, although I'm not sure anyone will care about where I'm going with this post.

If there is evidence of more widespread cheating than has already be uncovered, I think there is only one suitable penalty. I don't want to see fines. Does $250K really hurt the Patriots? I don't want to see draft picks taken away. The Pats lost their 1st rounder, but not the much more valuable 1st rounder they received from the SF 49ers. The NFL needs to make an example of the Patriots because the Patriots have continually defied the league - I can't imagine the NFL is excited about the sideline attire of the Pats head coach.

If you aren't going to use fines and removal of draft picks, then what? My response would be to stop them at 16-0 for the next five seasons ... if they get there, that is. Otherwise, stop them at 12-4, 9-7, 6-10 or 3-13. Yep, a postseason ban for 5 years. If they've been cheating since at least the Super Bowl against the Rams six years ago, they deserve to be punished for a similar length of time. Unless you can find out exactly what happened, I would stay away from trying to change the history. But, you need to offer up a deterrent to similar rogue organizations in the future.

Who will this hurt? First and foremost, it hits the organization and owners of the team. That is where it should start. Even if the owner doesn't know about the actions of the coaches and personnel, the buck stops at the top. This kind of ruling will hurt the team because it won't be able to go to the postseason. Additionally, the team will no longer be a desirable place to play.

Second, there should be a hiring/firing freeze on coaches and personnel. If people want to come work for the Patriots, that is fine. But, no one on the staff should be allowed to leave and accept another job. It makes me sick that college coaches (Indiana's Sampson) rack up violations at one school (Oklahoma) and then just leave the penalties at the school when they take a different job. Violations should follow coaches, especially if they initiate the split (like Sampson did). It's a joke. If coaches want to leave the Patriots, they should be banned from another NFL job until the end of the penalty.

Finally, the players will be affected. But, haven't you heard that you win some and you lose some? Many people joined the Patriots to make Super Bowl runs. Well, if they benefit from cheating, why shouldn't they be punished for it. The Patriots should be required to honor all current contracts. No cuts! Why? The Patriots shouldn't be allowed to gain good will with players by saving Tom Brady and his teammates from having to play under the ban. If they allowed their stars to go elsewhere, don't you think they might be willing to come back in flocks when the ban was lifted? Additionally, the Pats should be required to put a quality product on the field (to the extent that they are able), so replacing a playoff caliber team with members of the dance and cheerleading squads, as well as some beer and hot dog vendors is not okay.

Not in Love with Love

2008-02-02T23:31:00.001-05:00

Kevin Love is a very productive college basketball player. However, I don't understand the infatuation with him. Sure, he is a good outlet passer. I'll give you that. But, he doesn't finish strong above the rim inside. In fact, early in the Arizona game, he was in perfect position to go strong to the rim and backed the ball out because he was afraid of Jawann McClellan blocking his shot. He backed it out, then drove around his defender and scored. Jay Bilas thought that was outstanding ... I'm not so sure.

Then, shortly thereafter (it may have been the next UCLA possession), Love received the ball on the run outside the 3-pt line. He immediately put the ball on the floor. However, between the first and second dribble, he palmed the ball blatantly (I think he also pinned it against his side simultaneously) before proceeding to the basket. After being stopped, he was bailed out by the official on a hideous up fake, jump into the defender combo.

Is Kevin Love the next Mehmet Okur or Brad Miller? With his lack of explosiveness, it's hard to see him being a dominant low post scorer in the NBA. If he can't take it to McClellan (who averages less than 1 block per game), is he going to be able to take it to Marcus Camby, Greg Oden, Dwight Howard, Tim Duncan, etc. in the NBA? Love is a space eater with good skills for a post player. And, he has more height than Danny Fortson or Corliss Williamson. But, while Okur and Miller have both been all-stars (once each, right? ... I didn't check my facts on that one), I wouldn't consider either of them to be franchise players. Okur is the 3rd option for the Jazz (Boozer and Williams) and Miller was a similar piece for the Kings (Bibby, Peja, Webber). Sean May is another wide body who was very productive in college (at UNC) who hasn't transitioned seamlessly to the NBA. He was a lottery pick who has been a 10 and 6 guy for the Bobcats playing about half the game.

While I'd rather have Love than OU PF Blake Griffin, I don't think he is the player K-State PF Michael Beasley is. Love is a great piece in the UCLA Bruin team puzzle. Thoughts of the NBA should wait a while. His athleticism needs to improve, as well as his effectiveness scoring in traffic. I guess he can do that playing limited minutes collecting a pay check at the next level, but why not enjoy college for a while?

A Steal of a Deal?

2008-02-02T11:44:00.000-05:00

The common perception following announcement of a trade between the Mets and the Twins was that the Mets stole Johan Santana from the low-budget Twins. Generally, it is accepted that the package from the Mets was worse than the compensation the Red Sox and Yankees were willing to give the Twins at the winter meetings.

Johan Santana is a very good pitcher. The Mets probably should have won the NL East last year and are a clear favorite heading into 2008. Subtract an aging Tom Glavine and add Santana (and Pedro Martinez for a year ... if he's healthy), the Mets should be better.

But, as part of the deal, Santana is getting 7 years (the one remaining on his contract and six more) guaranteed. And, he's not coming at a bargain like Jake Peavy (~$17 million per), Santana will receive just more than $150 million, an average of approximately $21.5 million per year.

It is way too early to determine whether or not this deal is a steal for the Mets. If Santana pitches well and the Mets don't win, what have they actually gained? Or, what if all the innings on Santana's arm start to catch up with him? Santana isn't a big guy (standing just 6 ft tall), will turn 29 this spring and has logged 200+ innings in each of the last four years. If, 3 years down the road, Santana starts dealing with injury issues consistently (like Pedro Martinez did), the Mets won't be getting great bang for their buck.

I'm not sure the Twins got great value for Santana, but it might be lose-lose in this deal because the Mets could have waited a year, signed Santana for a similar deal, and not had to deal Gomez and Co.

Win the Time of Possession

2008-01-15T22:11:00.000-05:00

Do the Chargers have a chance to beat the now 17-0 Patriots? Of course. But a legitimate chance?

Well, Jim Fassel has a plan. On ESPN First Take this morning he reported that New England has averaged about 3 points per possession this season, and he suggested that if San Diego can hold them to seven possessions in the game, they'll only need to beat 21 points, and they'll have a chance in the fourth quarter.

Is this a good strategy?

Seven possessions for the Patriots means about fifteen possessions total, or about four minutes per possession. So, then, the Chargers strategy should be to keep the ball for at least four minutes at a time?

What kind of football strategy is that? Your goal is not to hold onto the ball, biding your time before you punt! Your goal is to put it in the end zone. Score touchdowns! Time of possession is a side effect.

It is common practice in all walks of life to confuse correlation with causation. Well-intentioned people get ahold of statistics, take them out of their context, and reach downright silly conclusions as a result.

The Chargers may very well win the game this weekend. And, in doing so, they may very well limit the Patriots to seven possessions. Even less likely, the Patriots may score exactly twenty-one points in the process, though I think we can reasonably rule out seven field goals. But even if these things do occur, the Chargers won't have won the game because they only let the Patriots have the ball seven times. Rather, the Patriots will have seen the ball just seven times because the Chargers were winning the game.

When an offense is playing well, it retains possession of the ball for long stretches at a time. Often, the result is points on the board. Thus, there is a strong correlation between scoring and time of possession. Poor performing offenses have lots of three-and-outs, and don't hold the ball very long. They also don't score any points.

Time of possession may well be an important indicator of offensive—and defensive—success. But it is not a worthwhile goal in its own right. If you hold the ball for a long time but ultimately punt it away, the most you can hope to gain is field position. And against an offense like New England's, that isn't worth as much as it used to be.

When it comes right down to it, if the Chargers want another trip to the Super Bowl, they have to score more points than the Pats. Everybody knows that. And if the Patriots get just seven possessions, the Chargers get no more than eight. If they can do more in those eight than Tom Brady and company in their seven, they will win. But if not, then the number of possessions is irrelevant. After all, the Jaguars held New England to seven possessions in their match-up on Saturday. Look where it got them.

Manning was Quite Good

2008-01-15T16:46:00.000-05:00

Peyton Manning has received a lot of grief in the last couple days (following their loss to the Chargers) and I'm not really sure why. The Colts did lose the game, but Manning compiled a near 100 QB rating, which is pretty respectable. If you take out the ridiculous Eric Weddle INT when a very catchable ball bounced right off Kenton Keith's hands right to the defender, Manning would have completed 70% of his passes for 400+ yards with 3 TD's and 1 INT (on a ball off Reggie Wayne's hands). That's a decent afternoon.

Peyton Manning may not have played his best game ever, but he was sharp early (didn't he complete his first 14 passes?) and the Colts were hurt badly on the Marvin Harrison fumble in the 1st quarter when they were driving for a 14-0 lead. I don't buy the announcers take that Harrison being rusty caused him to fumble. I think he fumbled because he's a fragile WR who avoids contact at all costs. It looked, to me, like Harrison was trying to figure out a way to get down on the ground before the defense could get a lick on him. In fact, I was hoping he'd do that ... and I figured he would because he ALWAYS does. However, with all the Chargers around him, he was unable to get down and ended up in an unfamiliar position trying to spin away from defenders and he got nailed. That one is on Harrison.

If the Colts got points out of that drive (they almost certainly would have being close to the Charger 20), it might have changed the whole dynamic of that game. Another big play was the Weddle INT. Keith might have made a first down (or TD) and the Colts would have got at least a few points out of the drive. The Colts were in FG range again late in the game (at the SD 7) and went for it on 4th down trailing by 4.

I'm not saying Manning played perfectly, but he was pretty good. The running backs managed just 50 yards on 17 carries (less than 3 yards per), forcing the team to be one-dimensional late and decreasing Peyton's efficiency. It's easy to blame the starting QB for wins and losses, but I don't think it's the right thing to do in this case. Manning played like Manning does (his QB rating was 98 this year) and the Colts just didn't get it done.

"Kansas Confirmation"?

2008-01-04T10:31:00.000-05:00

ESPN's Heather Dinich wrote an article titled "It took till last game, but Kansas proved it belonged." What an idiotic thing to write about the KU victory in the Orange Bowl. The Jayhawks beat the Virginia Tech Hokies and definitely deserve recognition for having a solid season. But, the fact remains that the Missouri Tigers should have been in the Orange Bowl on the strength of their season in which they lost to only 1 team (Oklahoma - albeit twice) and beat KU. Missouri also took down Illinois in their non-conference schedule. Who did KU play non-conference?

Missouri throttled Arkansas 38-7. I would say that Missouri made a decent case that they should have played a more dangerous opponent than the 8-4 Razorbacks. In fact, if anything was "confirmed" in the last few days (aside from that OU needs to take a hard look at bowl prep and defensive strategies), I'd say it was that the Missouri Tigers should have been playing in a BCS game. Kansas is a good team, but they lost to Missouri straight up and have not done anything this year to prove that it was better than their rival ... thus, they definitely didn't prove they belonged in the Orange Bowl over Missouri.

Time or Space: which is more important?

2007-12-14T01:27:00.000-05:00

In tonight's Broncos v. Texans game (which I saw because I get the NFL Network), Broncos CB Dre Bly intercepted a tipped Sage Rosenfels pass in the 3rd quarter that led to a Denver TD that cut the Texans' lead to 17-13.

On the play, an official threw a flag for pass interference, which would have nullified the interception. However, on the play, a Denver defender underneath the Houston receiver tipped the ball, causing it to go over the receiver and the defender who was interfering with the receiver into Dre Bly's arms. The officials decided to pick up the flag because they said the tip occurred before the defender made contact with the receiver.

Replays clearly showed that the defender made contact with the receiver before the ball was tipped. So, in time, it was pass interference. (Note: I know replay isn't allowed on pass interference ... I'm just saying I saw replays and they clearly showed this.)

On the other hand, the ball was tipped before it got to the receiver. In fact, the ball was tipped in such a manner that the ball wasn't catchable for the receiver. So, in the space world, it wasn't pass interference because of the tip and the uncatchable nature of the ball.

By rule, I think the officials got it wrong. I think that because the PI occurred (in time) before the ball was tipped, the guy who threw the flag was right on. However, I think the officials got it right if you are not going by the letter of the law, but rather by the spirit of the rule. The pass interference had no impact on the play. If there hadn't been a guy interfering with the receiver, Bly still would have had the opportunity to make the interception. I'm just wondering what grade the officials will get when they are reviewed. Maybe the officials involved will fill us in.

Hollinger's Ratings

2007-12-14T00:57:00.000-05:00

John Hollinger uses a true shooting percentage (TS%) in his player ratings. He claims "True Shooting Percentage calculates what a player's shooting percentage would be if we accounted for free throw and 3-pointers." He uses the following formula:

TS% = (Total points x 50) / (FGA + 0.44*FTA)

For the mathematically challenged out there (JB, I'm talking to you), I'll break this down a bit. The multiplication of the total points by 50 is, essentially, a multiplication by 100 to get a percentage and not a decimal value and a division by 2 because there are 2 points per regular FG made. That's as far as I'm going to explain it.

While I appreciate the attempt by Hollinger to adjust for 3-pointers and free throws, I don't think Hollinger does it correctly. I'll illustrate my concerns using a few easy examples.

1. A made 2-pointer: this is the baseline and an excruciatingly easy problem. If you make a 2-pointer, your shooting percentage on the shot and your TS% are both 100%. This makes sense.

TS% = (2 x 50) / (1 + 0.44*0)
TS% = 100 / 1
TS% = 100

2. Shooting 2 of 3 on 3-pointers: this also works out well ... the correction for 3-pointers is fine. If you make 2/3rds of your 3-point attempts, you score 6 points, which is like making 3 of 3 2-pointers ... so going 2 of 3 from 3 should nets a TS% of 100 as well. Check it out.

TS% = (6 x 50) / (3 + 0.44*0)
TS% = 300 / 3
TS% = 100

3. A 2-shot foul: here, we find a problem. If you get fouled on a shot and make both FT's, that's like making the shot (if you get 2 FT's, you've obviously missed the shot you were fouled on). So, your TS% should be 100. Let's see what we get. Remember, if you are fouled on the shot and don't make it, it doesn't count as a FGA.

TS% = (2 x 50) / (0 + 0.44*2)
TS% = 100 / 0.88
TS% = 114 (I rounded to the nearest whole number)

So, based on Hollinger's formula, you are a better player if you get fouled on all your shots and then just make your FT's, rather than just making shots. Weird.

4. An "And 1": this is another problem scenario. An "And 1" (an old-fashioned 3-point play) should result in the same TS% as a regular 3-pointer because you are getting 3 points on one possession. Both of them should yield a TS% of 150. Let's see if they do.

Regular 3-pointer
TS% = (3 x 50) / (1 + 0.44*0)
TS% = 150

"And 1" (you get one FGA and one FTA)
TS% = (3 x 50) / (1 + 0.44*1)
TS% = 150 / 1.44
TS% = 104

When you convert an "And 1", not only is your TS% not as good as if you'd scored the same number of points in the same number of possessions just nailing 3-pointers, your TS% (104) isn't even as good as your TS% if you miss the shot and make the two resulting FT's (114). This is, obviously, flawed. The formula says the better player is the one who makes two FT's when he's fouled on a shot, not the guy who makes the shot and his one additional FT. Yep, 2 points is definitely better than 3. Wait a second, no it's not.

I haven't read Hollinger's document on where his formulas come from. I think I know how he came up with the TS% formula. But, I think it's an oversimplification of a problem that really isn't that difficult. Information should be available on "And 1's" and "1-and-1's" which would allow Hollinger to accurately calculate the TS%.

Anyone out there want to tell me I'm wrong?

Joakim Noah

2007-12-14T00:42:00.000-05:00

I'm not bullish on Chicago Bulls rookie Joakim Noah ... and I don't see what all the excitement is about. First, if the refs called his OBVIOUS offensive fouls on all his screens, he'd never be able to stay in a game (well, he might adapt). Second, he's a serviceable bench player now and I don't know that his ceiling is all that high. He's a PF shooting less than 40% from the floor. And, while he's shooting 80% from the line, he doesn't have a good enough post up game to get himself to the line on a consistent basis. And, while I haven't seen many Bulls games, when I've seen him he hasn't looked all that active for an "energy guy."

Where next?

2007-12-12T08:21:00.000-05:00

Bobby Petrino left the Atlanta Falcons to take the Arkansas job. Things didn't seem to be working out in Atlanta, so the move to Arkansas isn't all that alarming. Leaving the Falcons with three games left ... that's a little alarming. I'm not going to rag on Petrino for his obvious lack of commitment to jobs ... his track record speaks for itself. My question is: where will Petrino go from here?

Is it possible that Petrino will be stuck at Arkansas long enough to regain some credibility before his next job? Arkansas leaned heavily on Darren McFadden this year, and McFadden is almost certainly not going to be suiting up for the Razorbacks next year. Peyton Hillis, Robert Johnson and Marcus Monk were seniors last year. Felix Jones may be back next year, but will he be as effective without McFadden carrying the bulk of the load. Casey Dick almost certainly will be back, but he threw for less than 1500 yards this year and no one returning had even 150 yards receiving this year. I'm not an Arkansas football expert, but this doesn't seem to be a great job immediately.

Coupled with the lack of talent (which was hurt by the defection of Mitch Mustain) is the fact that Arkansas is in the SEC, in the same division (SEC West) as Alabama, LSU, Auburn, Ole Miss and Mississippi State. While the two Mississippi schools aren't exactly juggernauts, MSU seems to be getting things straightened out. Even if Arkansas can beat out the Mississippi schools, it's hard to imagine the Razorbacks consistently beating LSU, Alabama and Auburn as long as Miles, Saban and Tuberville are at those institutions. Now, when you throw in Florida (Meyer), Georgia (Richt), South Carolina (Spurrier) and Tennessee (Fulmer), Arkansas will have trouble making it in the top half of the SEC year in and year out. While they might still be competitive nationally, they won't be in the national title picture because the conference is too tough. Thus, the record won't be as gaudy as the 41-9 mark he accumulated in four years at Louisville.

It seems like Petrino would have to turn Arkansas into a consistent SEC and national power to be attractive to schools that would be attractive to Petrino. But, at that point, Arkansas would be a top job ... so why would Petrino leave? If he builds a perennial power in the best conference in college football, where would you want to go from there? While Petrino's track record points to him not staying at Arkansas for the long haul, I'm wondering if he isn't stuck there.

Al Horford: Dirty Player?

2007-12-12T01:02:00.000-05:00

In a game against the Toronto Raptors, Atlanta Hawks rookie PF Al Horford fouled Raptors PG TJ Ford as Ford went up for a reverse lay-up. By going for the reverse lay-up, Ford took the blocked shot by the taller Horford out of the equation, putting himself between the ball and the defender. For whatever reason, Horford didn't accept defeat. Instead, he brought his arm down right on Ford's head, knocking him to the ground in an awkward fashion. The result was that Ford ended up in the hospital.

After the game, Horford and Atlanta Coach Mike Woodson were defending Horford, saying that he isn't a "dirty player". Hmmm ... it sure looked like a dirty play to me. The league tends to frown on hitting other players in the head, which is probably why Horford was called for a flagrant foul (I'll admit some of the fouls they call fragrant aren't that bad, but this wasn't one of those).

I find it hard to believe that Horford didn't realize that he wasn't going to be able to make a play on the ball. If so, maybe he needs his eyes checked. Or, maybe he's not professional athlete material. But, I think it is more likely that he wanted Ford to earn his points at the FT line, even if he couldn't make a play on the ball ... which is the wrong thing to do and one of the things that plagues basketball. Not only do fouls like Horford's stop play and break up the flow of games, they also give the other team 2 FT's and the ball. Don't commit unnecessary, flagrant fouls! Personally, I think more fouls need to be called intentional. Fouls are supposed to be a punishment to the team committing them. I doubt the original intent was for fouls to be a tool to "make them earn" points. It's time for the enforcement of the rules to match the rules.

Now, moving on the the question of whether or not Horford is a dirty player. Al Horford might not admit it, but his foul on TJ Ford was a dirty play. Does that make him a dirty player? If someone steals something, are they a thief? If someone commits a murder, are they a murderer? I'm not saying Horford's play was criminal (like the Todd Bertuzzi v. Steve Moore play in hockey), but it was dirty ... and, thus, at least for tonight, Al Horford was a dirty player. Not living in the SE, I'm not privy to many Hawks games (I don't think I've seen them yet this year), so I don't know if this is an isolated incident or not. But, I'd have more respect for Horford if he owned up to his actions, rather than trying to dance around them and hide behind his pronouncement that he's not a dirty player. Just say you took a cheap shot on the guy because you didn't want to give him a lay-up and leave it at that ... I'm pretty sure people don't think Horford was trying to send Ford to the hospital.

Tim Tebow for Heisman

2007-12-08T00:46:00.000-05:00

At this point, it seems like a forgone conclusion that Florida QB Tim Tebow will win the Heisman tomorrow night. I'm glad, for a couple reasons. First, he should win it. Tebow's Gators lost three games. But, what would the Gators have done without Tebow? He played QB and put up good passing numbers. Plus, he was the most consistent running threat for Florida. And, despite taking a beating in the best conference in college football, he stayed in the games.

Tebow's backup threw a total of 10 passes all year. That's 5 less than the 3rd string QB for Hawaii! Colt Brennan's backup tossed 118 passes because Brennan missed considerable time (including a victory at Nevada - a decent WAC team) because of injuries. Tebow had more than 200 yards more than the Gators' 2nd leading rusher, WR Percy Harvin. And, Tebow's 194 carries were almost twice as many as Kestahn Moore got. I don't care about Tebow running and passing for more than 20 TD's. Just because something has never been done does not make it Heisman worthy. But, Tebow should win the award because he was the best player in college football this season. With Tebow, it really wasn't about numbers, it was about impact on the game ... it just so happened that his numbers were pretty spectacular as well.

The other reason I'd like to see Tebow win the award is because it is time for a sophomore to win the award. I thought Adrian Peterson could have won it as a freshman at Oklahoma. With Peterson, people expected him to put up staggering numbers his sophomore and junior years as well. Unfortunately, a high ankle sprain limited his carries his second year and a freak collarbone break stole time his junior season. I also thought Marshall Faulk should have won the award as a sophomore at San Diego State, although I was pretty young at the time (and only had access to ESPN at my g'parents house) and might be off base. Tebow winning as a sophomore would set a precedent for an underclassman winning the award. You shouldn't be elevated because you are a great freshman or sophomore. But, you shouldn't discriminate against them either. As far as I know, the Heisman is not a lifetime achievement award.

Comeback Tom

2007-12-04T14:40:00.001-05:00

According to ESPN, Tom Brady has the most game-winning drives in the 4th quarter and OT since 2001, when he took over the helm from Drew Bledsoe. With 21 such drives (including 3 this season), he's 3 ahead of his nearest competitors, Peyton Manning, Brett Favre and Jake Plummer.

What jumps out at me first is that Jake Plummer is just 3 back and he hasn't played all year and didn't play late last year as the Broncos were transitioning to rookie Jay Cutler. Eighteen games over 6 years is an average of 3 per year. So, if Jake Plummer hadn't been benched, it's fair to assume he'd be neck and neck with the Golden Boy. That wouldn't be good for ESPN ... then Brady wouldn't be the single most clutch QB in the game.

Brady seems to be pretty good in late-game situations. Heck, Brady plays pretty well a lot of the time. But, that "stat" is misleading. What if a QB puts his team ahead late with a great drive, only to see the kickoff returned for a TD? It's no longer a game-winning drive. What if a team is never trailing late in games? That decreases the number of opportunities for "game-winning" drives late.

This isn't worth more of my time, or yours, so that's all I've got.

Shift the Focus

2007-12-03T21:18:00.000-05:00

In my opinion, people around college football are too negative ... they dwell too much on losses and almost totally neglect wins. Let's run down the nominees, going from 1-10 in the BCS rankings (Sagarin rankings):

Ohio State:
at Michigan (27), Wisconsin (30), at Penn State (31), Michigan State (40)

LSU:
Florida (4), Virginia Tech (5), neutral Tennessee (17), Auburn (18), South Carolina (36), at Alabama (41)

Virginia Tech:
at Clemson (14), neutral BC (19), at Virginia (32), Florida State (34), at Georgia Tech (47)

Oklahoma:
neutral Missouri (9), Missouri (9), neutral Texas (25), Texas A&M (38), Oklahoma State (43)

Georgia:
neutral Florida (4), Auburn (18), Kentucky (23), at Alabama (41), Oklahoma State (43), at Georgia Tech (47)

Missouri:
neutral Kansas (3), neutral Illinois (21), Texas Tech (29), Texas A&M (38), at Colorado (50)

USC:
at Arizona State (11), Oregon State (20), at Cal (37), UCLA (39), Arizona (48)

Kansas:
at Texas A&M (38), at Oklahoma State (43), at Colorado (50)

West Virginia:
at Cincinnati (15), Connecticut (26), at Rutgers (42), Louisville (44), at Maryland (49)

Hawaii:
Boise State (28)

Despite an undefeated season, Hawaii is out because they didn't do enough out of conference. I don't need to see wins over Michigan and USC, but wins over some good C-USA and Mountain West teams like UCF, Utah, BYU, TCU, Air Force, Tulsa, etc. would bolster the resume. They didn't do enough in their game against #53 Washington (who beat Boise State) to get them in my title game.

Kansas didn't win their half of the Big 12 and didn't have a really good win on their schedule, although they did play the toughest part of their schedule on the road. Similarly, Ohio State needed to run the table because not beating Illinois (21) makes Michigan (27) their best win. Note to Tressel and Mangino, if you schedule a weak non-conference slate and the teams on your conference schedule aren't as good as you expect, you might run into some trouble. That's the case this year ... OSU and KU are out.

We're left with LSU, Virginia Tech, Oklahoma, Georgia, Missouri, USC and WVU. Oklahoma's two head-to-head wins over Missouri do the trick in that match-up, eliminating the Tigers from national title contention. A win by Mizzou in the Big 12 Championship would have vaulted the Tigers into the final two, with a tough loss at Norman and wins over OU, KU and Illinois. But, they fell short in San Antonio and they are falling short here.

Comparing WVU to OU, we have to eliminate the Mountaineers. The numbers don't lie: 9-9-25-38-43 beat 15-26-42-44-49. The losses and injuries to Pat White and Sam Bradford in those games detract equally from the resumes, so the Sooners are still in it. For similar reasons, the USC Trojans are eliminated: 11-20-37-39-48 isn't quite enough ... and the loss to the lowest rated team in the Pac-10 doesn't do anything to help.

So, we're down to the final 4, Va Tech, OU, LSU and Georgia. LSU's wins are tough to beat, and it's hard to find too much fault in OT losses to Kentucky (23) and Arkansas (24). But, Georgia has some good wins and decent losses to South Carolina (36) and Tennessee (17). Oklahoma's wins are similar but the losses are a bit worse. But, if you give a little leeway for Bradford's concussion against Texas Tech, things are pretty dang close. Va Tech's wins don't quite match OU's, and the 48-7 loss to LSU is a major detractor.

I'd love to see the system tweaked so that we have more good wins (and losses) to look at to evaluate the teams. But, going off what we have, I'll have to lean toward a Georgia or Oklahoma v. LSU match-up. If you're fine with not even winning your half of your conference and still playing for the national title, then go with Georgia v. LSU. Personally, I think you should have to win your half and at least play in your conference title game (if your conference has one, which all the conferences that are divided in half do), so I'm going to go with LSU and Oklahoma in my national title match-up.

And, while we're on the subject of national championship games, any chance we can get the game moved if it is going to be a home game for one of the teams. LSU shouldn't play for the national title in the Sugar Bowl. USC and UCLA shouldn't host the national title game at the Rose Bowl. Miami shouldn't participate in a national championship Orange Bowl game. And, ASU shouldn't play for all the marbles in the Fiesta Bowl ... not that I see ASU playing for all the marbles any time soon.

Joe Gibbs

2007-12-03T17:08:00.001-05:00

Gibbs didn't lose the game for Washington, at least not for the reason people are pointing to. On the first kick, Ryan Lindell hit the 51-yard FG that was nullified by the first timeout Gibbs called. The 15-yard penalty decreased the difficulty of the subsequent FG attempt and never should have happened, but it was probably meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

BCS Mess

2007-12-03T15:12:00.000-05:00

Can someone please explain to me how you can go through an entire season without any real good wins (yes, I'm talking about Ohio State) and still make it to the national title game? Anyone?

Don't give me the standard "they beat the teams on their schedule" junk, Hawaii beat EVERYONE on their schedule and they aren't in the national title game. No, I'm not advocating for the Warriors, I'm merely using them to combat the silly argument Buckeye supporters make. And, I don't want to hear about the Big 10 being a top conference. It's the 6th best conference according to the Sagarin ratings, one ahead of the Mountain West and two spots in front of the WAC (which Hawaii won).

You don't have to win your conference to play in the national title game (OU lost to K-State in the Big 12 Championship Game in 2003 and played LSU for the national title). Kansas, like Ohio State, has just one loss. KU lost at a neutral site to Missouri. Ohio State lost at home to Illinois. Last time I checked, didn't Missouri beat Illinois on a neutral site earlier this season? Yep, that still happened. Now, do I think Kansas should play for the national title, not really ... but they have a resume quite similar to the one posted by Ohio State. KU won at Texas A&M, at K-State, at Colorado and at Oklahoma State. The Big 12 teams they got at home were the worst ones they played: Baylor, Nebraska and Iowa State. Ohio State won at Michigan and at Penn State, but they got the overrated Wisconsin Badgers at home.

I could go on all day ... but I'd like someone to come up with a bulletproof pro-Ohio State argument that I won't be able to undermine.

Cut the Fat

2007-11-20T01:31:00.000-05:00

The Titans used a 1st round pick on LenDale White and he responded by ballooning up like a puffer fish. Obviously, he isn't keeping himself in peak shape, which is shameful for a professional athlete. He's averaging a meager 3.5 ypc AND is fumbling too much. I don't know what I'd do if I was in the Titans' position. But, I would definitely think about cutting White because his weight shows that he isn't committed to being his best to help out the team.

Speaking of cutting things, can we stop calling TO right before the kicker is attempting a FG? The Broncos called one to screw with Rod Bironas just before halftime. Bironas missed the one that didn't count, then nailed the one that did count. Mike Shanahan cost his team 3 points (assuming Bironas wasn't affected by the calling of the timeout, which I can't be sure of). Maybe he'll think twice before he wastes more of everyone's time the next time there's a FG attempt against his team late in a half.

A Compromise to Fix College Football

2007-11-19T01:26:00.000-05:00

If you were giving a college calculus exam, would it make sense for the first question to be 1 + 1 = ______ ? Obviously not, students shouldn't need a warm-up ... or at least shouldn't get credit for a warm-up. Then, why did WVU feel like scheduling Western Michigan for the first game of the year? I'm not picking on the Mountaineers, the Kansas Jayhawks took it to an extreme by racking up 1/3 of the total points by feasting on Central Michigan, SE LA, Toledo and FIU!

So, the first item on my agenda is to rid college football of crappy non-conference games between David and Goliath. While App. State beating Michigan happens, so does OU throttling Utah State and North Texas. There aren't enough slots on the schedule to waste dates on meaningless contests. I would like to implement some sort of revenue sharing plan to adjust for teams not being able to offer themselves up as sacrificial lambs in order to get a big (relatively) pay day. I think the big schools will still be ok.

The 2nd order of business is to move conference games up in the schedule. The season should open with conference games. Those are the games that are set in stone ... you always have OU v. Texas, Michigan v. Ohio State, Florida v. Georgia, etc. The first 7 games for teams in the Big East will be against the other 7. The ACC, SEC, and Big 12 will spend 8 weeks playing their division and half of the other. The Pac-10 can take 9 weeks so everyone can play everyone else. And, the Big 10 can do whatever the heck they want to do. The ACC, SEC, and Big 12 can keep their championship games, the difference is that they will come before the end of the season, so the teams that aren't playing in those games can start their non-conference schedule during the championship weekend.

Why play conference games first? Putting them first serves to weed out contenders from pretenders. Nebraska was expected to contend for the Big 12 North lead ... how'd that work out? Florida wasn't quite as good as was expected and Miami, ND, Wisconsin and Michigan were all overrated, to varying degrees. At the end of conference play, you can create preliminary ranking for all the teams based on prior performance of conferences and the play of teams during conference play.

What happens in non-conference play? The remaining part of the regular season consists of match-ups arranged by some sort of selection committee. Based on the rankings at the end of conference play, the first round of games will be assigned. Scores will be processed and a second round will be spit out. So, essentially, it's a playoff during the regular season. The thing is, we're replacing crappy games with potential classics and one loss doesn't destroy you. After a total of 13 games (they currently play 12 and have a potential for 13 if you qualify for a conference title game), the regular season will end and rankings will determine the teams that will play in the national title game.

This system preserves the bowl games. We aren't adding a bunch of games. What we are doing is improving the ability of comparing across conferences and determining who actually is the best team in college football. No system is perfect, but this is WAY better than the current system, where it is actually bad to play in a good conference, as long as the conference is good enough.

Oklahoma vs. Oregon

2007-11-19T01:11:00.000-05:00

The AP voters should be ashamed of themselves. While both OU and UO lost conference road games in the last few days (Oregon played at Arizona on Thursday and Oklahoma lost at Texas Tech on Saturday), the prognosis for the rest of the season is quite different.

Oregon has been robbed of a potentially great season by injuries, to WR's, their back-up RB, and, now, QB Dennis Dixon. Oregon isn't the same team that rolled Michigan in the Big House. The Ducks aren't even the same team that beat a reeling USC team at home. With Brady Leaf at QB, the Oregon Ducks aren't a top 10 team and they shouldn't be rated as such. Dixon is gone for the year, so the Ducks need to be re-evaluated based on the current reality, not solely on past performance.

Oklahoma's loss at Tech was aided by an early-game injury to QB Sam Bradford. Unlike Dixon, Bradford will be back controlling the reins of the OU offense in the near future. It's not unreasonable to speculate that if Bradford hadn't suffered a concussion, the OU offense would have been able to put up enough points to eek one out in Lubbock. Bradford should be back for the game against Oklahoma State and would be available, presumably, for the Big 12 title game (if OU beats OSU) and a bowl game. Thus, it goes without saying (although I will say it) that Oklahoma is the better team going forward (better than UO without Dixon, Johnson, Colvin, and Paysinger).

Why did AP voters put Oregon ahead of Oklahoma? I have no idea. It doesn't make sense. But, really, it doesn't matter because neither team is likely to figure into the national title picture at this point ... but it does draw attention to obvious flaws in the current system ... which is just another reason we need to change the current system.

Why Lowell?

2007-11-15T17:11:00.000-05:00

The Yankees like to steal players from the Red Sox, for obvious reasons, but I don't think pursuing Lowell is a smart move for the Yanks. While the Red Sox want to bring Lowell back as a 3rd baseman, where his defense is usually a plus, the Yankees are looking at Lowell as a first baseman. Can't the Yankees find a better hitter to man 1B?

Mike Lowell is a decent player who got hot at the right time. But, you always have to be a little bit wary of guys who exceed expectations in a walk year. I have a friend who kept Lowell in a keeper fantasy league before he went in the tank as a Florida Marlin. So ... buyer beware if the Yankees are going to pony up for a big-money deal over four years (it will probably take more years to get Lowell to relocate from Boston to NY ... how'd that work out when pursuing Johnny Damon?).

Mike Lowell posted career highs in batting average and on-base percentage this season. Prior to this year, he'd never hit .300 and his high for OBP was 0.365 and his 2nd highest OBP was just .350. Lowell is good for 20-25 HR's, but he's already 33 years old. It's hard to see him building on this year and becoming a .330, 35, 140 guy consistently, which is what the Yankees should be looking for if they are going to spend a lot of money on someone to play 1B.

But, having said all that, I guess I'm not against the Yankees overpaying for Mike Lowell. It's always fun to see the Yankees spend tons of money and come up short at crunch time.

Apology?

2007-11-15T11:08:00.000-05:00

Phil Jackson's "apology" was even more distasteful than his original remarks. The league's lack of reaction is an absolute joke ... although so was the league not reprimanding the officials who violated rules related to gambling. If my cushy job prevented me from gambling ... I'm pretty sure I'd go out of my way to avoid gambling. But, I wouldn't go on TV and apologize to Texans and horses after the Brokeback quote, either. What do Texans have to do with it?

All Day

2007-11-15T00:22:00.000-05:00

I'm not going to bash Al Harris for diving at Adrian Peterson's knee on Sunday. I don't think too many people are going to vociferously bash Al Harris for making a legal hit. But, it is an unfortunate play and it would be nice if the league discouraged dangerous hits on its star running backs and wide receivers a little more, and shifted some of the emphasis away from the overly coddled QB's.

In the game between the Steelers and Browns, Troy Polamolu dove in and upended Jamal Lewis. While Harris is a CB, Polamolu is a safety. Polamolu is supposed to be able to come up in run support and bring the lumber. Hit Jamal Lewis in the chest and knock him backwards ... don't give for his ankles and knees.

Al Harris made a legal hit. But, if the league wants to protect its stars, it should look further than just the QB's. There's a reason why you can't cut a guy that's engaged. There's a reason for not allowing crack backs below the waste. There's a reason clipping is a 15-yard penalty. Any love out there for ball carriers, or should we continue to rely on unwritten rules of conduct?

And, while I'm on the subject of illegal hits, why doesn't the NFL up the ante a little bit? Maybe, if $100K was the fine for hitting flagrantly drilling a defenseless WR in the head, the safeties would adjust their actions a little more quickly than when they only have to pony up $10-15K per offense. Perhaps, if a DE knew he'd have to give up the equivalent of a new Ferrari, he'd think twice before laying out Peyton Manning. If we can prevent the flagrant offenses, maybe we could loosen up the rules so that an errant hand nicking a QB's helmet wouldn't need to be a personal foul as a "blow to the head."

Brokeback Quote

2007-11-15T00:06:00.000-05:00

Was Phil Jackson looking to be suspended when he offered up "We call this a 'Brokeback Mountain' game, because there's so much penetration and kickouts." as his analysis of his Lakers' loss to the Spurs? I hope so, because that's the only logical explanation I can offer up for him uttering such absurd remarks.

But, all the league is offering up is that the remarks were in poor taste. No, the remarks were disgusting, vulgar and (I don't know what the PC term is) anti-gay. Anyone who knows me knows I'm all for a good play on words, but there are certain things you shouldn't say, especially when there is a large media contingent listening. And, while I didn't see Brokeback Mountain, and it had yet to be filmed and distributed during my playing days, I really don't see the direct connection to that particular movie.

Phil Jackson should be fined and suspended. I'm sure the NBA has homosexual fans and Jackson's comments were a direct slap in the face. His comments probably adversely affected more people than the "Malace at the Palace" of the Denver v. New York brawl at the Garden. David Stern needs to step up and say that this type of behavior will not be tolerated.

Hooray Boston

2007-11-09T23:29:00.000-05:00

The Boston Red Sox just won the World Series. The New England Patriots are undefeated. Boston College climbed to #2 in the BCS. The New England Revolution is in the MLS Cup final. And, the Boston Celtics are 4-0 and off to their best start in years.

But, let's curb the enthusiasm. The Red Sox won the World Series. And, while the Pats are regarded as the best team in the NFL, they aren't the defending Super Bowl Champions. The Colts won the Super Bowl last year and might have defeated the Pats last Sunday if they had a healthy WR corps (it's also possible that Marvin Harrison wouldn't have made a difference).

Boston College is one of the best teams in the worst of the big six college football conferences (the ACC) and just lost to Florida State after eeking one out against Virginia Tech. And, Matt Ryan's Heisman chances went in the toilet the same time the Eagles' national title hopes did ... on the interception return for a TD by FSU.

The Revolution may very well win the MLS Cup. Or, maybe they won't. But, the only reason I know they are playing for the cup is because of the Boston connection. An MLS Cup win is a minor victory at best.

Now, we're down to basketball and hockey. While the Celtics are 4-0, the Boston Bruins are pretty mediocre.

When baseball season comes around next year, it's possible that the Red Sox and Pats will be champs, with the Celts in control of the East. But, for the mean time, let's relax a bit and quit toasting Boston as the championship hog it really isn't ... yet.

Minne Mistake?

2007-11-09T23:17:00.000-05:00

Talking heads are in an uproar over Troy Williamson being docked financially for missing a game to be with his family and attend his grandmother's funeral. While the Vikings could have handled it differently, I don't think they should be blasted for the action. Troy Williamson wasn't cut. He knew the consequences of his actions and he's going to be ok. He took unpaid leave. That's what happens to people when they want to take off time from work and don't have leave (Sundays are pretty much mandatory during the regular season for football players). Williamson could have scheduled family matters around his job commitment. It's just one of those things. Perhaps, it could have been handled in a different fashion, but I don't think it's that big a deal ... and Minnesota shouldn't be getting hammered for it.

A thought on A-Rod

2007-10-30T23:32:00.000-05:00

Alex Rodriguez and Scott Boras are receiving a lot of criticism for the timing of the notification that A-Rod would be opting out of the final years of his contract, making him a free agent. On the surface, it seems like having the info get out during the 4th game of the World Series isn't the best way to do things.

But, Rodriguez and Boras didn't know the Red Sox were going to end the series on Sunday. And, the Yankees were set to make an announcement on their new manager on Monday (they chose Joe Girardi for the post). So, an announcement on Monday might seem like an attempt to upstage the New York Yankees. Or, if you wait until after the introduction of the new manager, you give the impression that the manager choice (Mattingly and Pena were also interviewed) might have been a deciding factor in whether or not you remain with the team. That's not really fair to Girardi.

I don't know exactly what the intentions of Boras and A-Rod were. I don't really care, but I didn't think the announcement was that big of a deal. It seemed like a forgone conclusion that A-Rod would opt out, was it really a big enough story that it would upstage the World Series? Should the Braves and Tigers have waited a couple weeks to announce the Edgar Renteria trade? I knew Escobar played well for the Braves and Guillen's health made the SS spot in Detroit available, but that trade was more of a surprise to me than A-Rod opting out.

But, I guess if you're looking for one more reason to pile on A-Rod ... you got it.

Kornheiser: Just look at points

2007-10-29T20:39:00.000-05:00

I'm an avid fan of PTI, but Tony Kornheiser was way off the mark when he said that the only offensive stat that matters is point per game. The subject came up because, despite being 6th in yards per game, the Denver Broncos are 26th in the NFL in scoring. One problem for the Broncos is that they are dead last in starting field position.

Kornheiser is on the right track. For a team, the only stat that really matters is your record. Wins and losses are determined by points scored compared to points allowed (on a game by game basis). It's pretty simple. But, it is not right to say that the Broncos have the 26th best offense based on the Broncos being 26th in scoring. It's not that simple.

Yesterday, Vinny Testaverde and the Carolina Panthers chewed through 11 minutes on their first drive against the Colts. If the Panthers had been able to replicate that drive on each of their drives in the game, the Colts offense wouldn't have had enough opportunities to rack up their usual points and yards. So, obviously, offense and defense are related.

Additionally, defense and special teams can create easy opportunities for the offense to score (or take the load off the offense by scoring themselves). The longer you have to drive to score, the more likely you are to make a drive killing mistake.

This doesn't apply to the Patriots, but some teams take their foot off the gas when they are way up. Thus, it is possible that a lights out defense actually works against an offense at times. Not that being way up in games and cruising to victory is a bad thing.

I agree with Tony that looking at yards per game is a bad way to quantify offensive effectiveness. But, points per game alone isn't much better.

How does eliminating the DH eliminate Big Papi?

2007-10-27T00:33:00.000-05:00

I don't understand the argument that, as Tim Wakefield put it, "You're taking away possibly 15 jobs from guys in the American League" if you eliminate the DH. I'm pretty sure David Ortiz could play 1B for someone ... maybe even the Red Sox - they are trusting him to handle 1st base in the World Series! Jim Thome would be playing 1B for someone if he couldn't DH. Same goes for Travis Hafner. And, I think the Mariners would have put up with limited D at 3rd from Edgar Martinez to keep his bat in the line-up.

Even if it did put Big Papi and a few others out of business, would that be all bad? Teams would still carry 25 guys on their major league roster. It might not benefit big boppers who can't play in the field, but it might benefit utility guys who can play multiple positions and give managers versatility. Are we really worried about Mike Piazza having to hang 'em up because his offense is no longer good enough to warrant overlooking his defensive inadequacies? I'm not ... and the union shouldn't be either. By keeping the DH, they are protecting a few of their current members, but they are also hindering the advancement of future members. Where is the foresight, guys?

I don't think it's fair to overlook the other side, either. D-backs SP Micah Owings hit .333 this year (20-60). Braves SP Tim Hudson went 20-76, which gives him a .263 average and a definite advantage over teammate Chuck James, who hit .113. Chuck, don't worry, you hit better than a lot of pitchers (including teammate John Smoltz). So, if you add the DH to the NL, you are robbing a subset of the pitchers of an advantage they currently possess ... they can hit and most of their counterparts cannot.

I think MLB should consider phasing out the DH. I think axing it out of the blue in an off-season is a bad way to go. After the World Series, Bud could announce that the 2010 season will be DH-free. That will give Travis Hafner, Big Papi, Jim Thome and others two years to work on becoming competent at a position. Just as important, it will give teams two years to prepare for not being able to stick a big bat in the DH spot. So, the Red Sox would have two years to figure out how to figure out the logjam with Ortiz, Youkillis and Lowell. It gives the White Sox time to sort out the situation with Thome and Konerko. It also gives DH's at the end of their careers two more years to just hit. If they want to play longer then they need to get used to the idea of wearing a glove again. And, it gives AL pitchers two years to work on their batting skills.

I really don't think eliminating the DH would create that much of an impact. It does make a pitchers job easier, but is that a bad thing? The shrinking parks and shrinking strike zone are bad enough for pitchers ... they should have an easy out every once in a while. Teams would be less likely to sacrifice offense for defense on the corners, but is there really going to be an uproar if Doug Mientkiewicz doesn't have steady work? Come on. There is plenty of offense in the NL. And, maybe it would help redistribute the wealth a little bit ... one less elite player for the Red Sox and Yankees to hoard from the rest of the league.

Bud ... eliminate the DH.

Not Buyin' Ryan

2007-10-26T15:00:00.000-05:00

I'm shocked by the idea that Matt Ryan helped himself in the Heisman race last night. Did Ryan really jump Tim Tebow by pissing away 54 minutes (he threw an awful INT with just over 6 minutes left) and then leading a couple TD drives? Seriously? At best, Ryan was decent. The only reason he needed to throw two TD's at the end was because BC couldn't do anything for the first 3 2/3 quarters.

Ryan threw 2 TD's and 2 INT's. He was lucky to only have 2 INT's ... the Hokies dropped a number of balls. And, Ryan was lucky that one of his lineman hopped on a fumble he lost. He finished 25-52 for 285 yards. Under the circumstances (not great weather against a good team), Ryan performed decent. But, this was one of his worst games ... his numbers (per attempt) were quite similar to the ones he posted against NC State:

15-34, 142 yds, 1 TD, 1 INT (BC won handily, so he didn't have to throw as much)

Matt Ryan doesn't run the ball. He has 3 or more TD's in just 3 games and he already has eight interceptions. He has 8 INT's! Tim Tebow has 3 games with 3 or more TD's and has 17 TD passes compared to just 3 INT's. Tebow also gets you 75 yds and 1-2 TD's per game rushing as well!

Or, take a look at Oregon QB Dennis Dixon. He torched Michigan. He didn't play great against Cal, but if he keeps Oregon in the Pac-10 race after their personnel loses, he's a worthy candidate - as much as I hate to admit it.

Ryan recovered so that he didn't lose the Heisman against Va Tech. That's fine. Maybe he'll light it up the rest of the year. But, to suggest that the game last night moved him up is absolutely absurd.

No More Vacations

2007-10-24T11:25:00.001-05:00

Bud Selig (or someone with access to Bud Selig) decided it would be a good idea to make the MLB All-Star game count by giving home field advantage in the World Series to the team from the league that wins the All-Star game. I have a different solution to a couple of baseball's problems.

Last year, the Detroit Tigers had a long lay-off between the end of the ALCS and the start of the World Series. They were crushed by the Cardinals in the World Series ... although it had a lot to do with the defensive deficiencies of their pitching staff. I'm not going to make excuses for the Tigers and say they were hurt by their vacation time because I don't know. But, I think it's in the best interests of baseball and most fair to expedite the playoffs a bit.

This year, the Rockies had more than a week off between polishing off the D-backs and duking it out with the Red Sox in Boston. The NLCS ended on Monday, October 15, the same day Jake Westbrook outdueled Daisuke to give the Indians a 2-1 lead in the ALCS. At that point, the Indians and Red Sox should have played daily to finish up the ALCS. They played the next day, with Cleveland winning at home to go up 3-1. Then, there was an inexplicable non-travel off-day to enjoy the lovely fall weather in Cleveland. After game 5, there was a travel day for the teams to make the 600 mile trek back to Boston. Games 6 and 7 were played on Saturday and Sunday, with the Red Sox finally pulling it out.

Then, for whatever reason, MLB decided that two off-days were necessary between the end of the ALCS and the beginning of the World Series. Was one of those a built-in weather day? Or, was that what the Cleveland off-day was? So, we're left starting the World Series on October 24th, and I'm not sure why.

The Indians and Red Sox should have played consecutive days to finish up the ALCS. Additionally, the Rockies should have been rewarded with home-field advantage for winning their LCS in the fewest games. If both LCS's take the same number of games, then use the All-Star game result, if you want to. This new format rewards teams that mow their way through the LCS and have to wait for the team from the other league. You could apply the same format to the LCS based on the # of games needed to win the LDS. With these new rules in place, the Rockies would have known they'd be playing games 1 and 2 at home. Tickets could go on sale for the first two games. I think you can sell playoff tickets without announcing a date, as long as you set the start time ... you might not even need to do that, but it would be a nice gesture. The Red Sox could have one travel day to get from Boston to Denver.

Under this new format (and assuming the games went the same way in the ALCS), Byrd beats Wakefield to give the Indians a 3-1 lead on Tuesday. Beckett counters on Wednesday, sending the series back to Boston. Schilling and Daisuke throw Thursday and Friday to send the Red Sox to the World Series. They travel Saturday and the World Series gets underway on Sunday.

Why do this? First, you minimize the number of days without baseball. Personally, I like to watch games ... and it's annoying to not have games when there should be games! Second, you throw teams that have to sit and wait a bone. It's not their fault they swept their series. Third, it gets the playoffs done sooner; even with global warming, there is still the possibility of bitter cold and nasty weather in many baseball venues when you go late into October.

Nearing the top 25: Boise State

2007-10-21T14:06:00.000-05:00

Boise State is #27 in the lastest AP polls, 2nd place in the others receiving votes category. They are #26 in the USA Today poll. They're 6-1 overall and undefeated in the WAC (along with Hawaii and Fresno State). Sure, they've been good in recent years, but they have done nothing this year to garner such recognition.

Boise State lost at Washington 24-10. While the Huskies are a Pac-10 team, they aren't sniffing the top 25 after losing to Ohio State and four Pac-10 games. Along with their conference wins, which included squeaking one out at home on the smurf turf against Nevada, the Boise State Broncos also beat Weber State, Wyoming and Southern Miss in their non-conference play.

Weber State resides near the bottom of the Big Sky Conference, with their only two wins coming against Big Sky bottom feeders Sacremento State and Northern Colorado. Wyoming and Southern Miss are run of the mill Mountain West and Conference USA teams. There is nothing on the Boise State resume that says they could compete consistently with top 25 caliber competition.

And, the problem for Boise State is that the other teams in the WAC do nothing to refute that line of thinking. Hawaii beat Charleston Southern, Northern Colorado and UNLV in their non-conference games thus far. They still have a late-season date with Washington. Fresno State made a late run at Texas A&M after being man-handled for most of the game before losing in OT, got run out of Eugene by the Oregon Ducks and posted a win against Sacremento State. So, while the top of the WAC can take apart the bottom of the Big Sky, I don't find that all that exciting.

San Jose State (4th in the WAC) lost badly at Arizona State, at Kansas State and at Stanford. They did beat Great West juggernaut UC-Davis ... did you catch the sarcasm. New Mexico State got crushed by Auburn. And, while Nevada beat UNLV, they got blasted by Nebraska 52-10 and lost to Northwestern.

There is no justification for ranking Boise State in the top 30. There isn't really any justification for having Hawaii ranked as high as they are, even if they are undefeated. If a conference doesn't have a single win against a team in the top 30, how do you justify having a team in the top 20 and two more knocking on the door of the top 25? It's ridiculous.