Murray Chass and the writing he posts on his non-blog hasn't really been covered by me of late. He's usually at his best (worst) when it comes time for awards season, because that's when he takes his boring and repetitious stabs at criticizing Sabermetrics. He specifically doesn't like WAR, not because he understands WAR, but because it is the easiest metric to spell. Simplicity in all things. WAR is the most popular advanced statistic for the anti-stats crowd to criticize, just because it's easy to spell and sticks in one's mind. Murray writes on his non-blog about how Bryce Harper and Mike Trout are not MVP candidates as much anymore because their team may not make the playoffs. Murray wants to be clear that he understands a team's record and whether that team makes the playoffs isn't what determines which player(s) should win the MVP. That's not what Murray is saying. What he is saying is that he won't vote for a player as MVP if his team doesn't make the playoffs, because he can't be individually valuable if the players around him aren't good enough to make the playoffs. So the MVP can go to a player whose team doesn't make the playoffs, except not really. As always, Murray explains his idiotic point of view in the most aggravating way possible.
At some relatively early point in the season some people were already
proclaiming Bryce Harper and Mike Trout this year’s most valuable
players.
Yes, "people" were doing this. "People" always do this, especially when referenced in such a vague manner.
Send the plaques to the engraver, etch their names on them and just wait for an appropriate moment to put them in their hands.
That appropriate moment being when that appropriate moment always happens, which is after the season is over.
One minor problem. Four weeks remain in the season, and no votes have been cast. The voters haven’t even received their ballots.
What? So "people" are going to have stop handing the MVP awards to Harper and Trout. Stop that, "people" who are doing this! Stop right now. Murray will further explain why you must immediately stop or face the wrath of bacne accusations from Murray on this here non-blog.
Both Trout and Harper have encountered potholes en route to their anticipated awards.
Both have been only slightly worse at hitting the baseball in the second half of the season (or were when Murray wrote this), and therefore even though they are still hitting the hell out of the ball Murray is going to use this as an excuse to say neither player should be MVP? Is that the pothole?
Their teams, contenders earlier in the season, have fallen by the wayside.
Individual awards presented to a player based on his team's achievement. It's a shining day for those who seem to think individual athletes should be rewarded based on the team around him. I am not one of those people.
The Angels were in first place in the A.L. West at the All-Star
break, but they lost 27 of 41 games before Sunday and fell 5 ½ games
from the division lead and 3 ½ games off the second wild-card spot.
The Nationals were also in first place at the All-Star break in the
N.L. East, but a subsequent 20-26 stretch left them in second place
fighting for their post-season lives as the Mets barreled past them with
a rejuvenated offensive onslaught.
And obviously, because the Mets are a better overall team than the Nationals then this means Bryce Harper is less valuable. The Nationals team moves down in the standings, but this is really just a reflection on one person's ability to be valuable. Harper is the constant for the Nationals, but his value is determined by the variables around him. Makes sense in Murray's head.
What does their teams’ status have to do with their candidacy for the most valuable player award?
Not as much as Murray seems to think it should. I won't completely dismiss a team's record when evaluating a player's MVP candidacy, but it's pretty far down the list of things I believe should be considered when evaluating a specific player.
Voters generally focus on the word “value,” which is what they should do
no matter what the analytics-obsessed non-voters think and say.
I don't think analytics-obsessed non-voters fail to focus on the word "value" at all. Some people simply have a different method they use to evaluate a player's value. That's all. Murray wants to frame this as a "right or wrong" argument, but it's more of an argument over the best way to evaluate a player's value to his team.
These relatively new-to-the-party noisemakers fail to understand the
award’s meaning. They cite their WAR rankings – that would be wins above
replacement for the ignorant and unwashed among you – and proclaim the
player with the highest WAR ranking most valuable.
Murray is always using WAR. It's easy to write, that's why. I don't know if anyone just looks at WAR and then ends the discussion there. Murray wants to believe this is true so he can portray those who use WAR as a way to evaluate an MVP candidate as being narrow-minded and not thoughtful. In reality, Murray is the narrow-minded and not thoughtful person when tying a team's record to a member of that team's MVP candidacy.
The player’s value to his team doesn’t seem to have a bearing on his
selection. In other words, they are choosing the player they think is
the best in the league, not the most valuable.
What is the difference in "best" and "most valuable" though? Isn't a player who contributes the most Wins Above Replacement the "most valuable" player because he contributes the most wins compared to a replacement player? I'm playing devil's advocate in part, but a player who brings the most wins compared to other players in the majors is certainly also most valuable. It's not that anyone who disagrees with Murray is wrong, as he insists they are, it's is simply that those who are new-to-the-party use a different method of determining the best in the league.
That’s what is good about the Baseball Writers Association award. They require the voters to think, perhaps to debate.
If thinking were really required then I would have to think many of these voters would understand it doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to base a significant part of a player's MVP candidacy on where that player's team is in the playoff standings. The whole "If he was so good then why didn't his team make the playoffs?" line of reasoning is such a shockingly lazy way of voting for MVP. Yet, that's the reasoning given by Murray and other voters when explaining why they didn't vote for a certain player. It's so lazy.
WAR doesn’t require thinking, as far as I know.
It doesn't require thinking? Then calculate Bryce Harper's WAR right now. Go for it.
WAR is a statistic, which after being calculated, speaks for itself. This is much like where a player's team is in the standings doesn't require thinking either. How WAR combines with other factors that determine a player's MVP worthiness is a matter of debate and thought.
If I’m wrong, I’m sure someone will tell me.
Murray says this as if it is ridiculous someone would correct him when he's wrong. Yes, God forbid someone should tell Murray when he's disseminating misleading or incorrect information. It just shows how these Stats Geeks love to be right that they won't allow Murray to unfairly criticize and mock advanced statistics without them pointing out the factual inaccuracies in his arguments. How silly of them to expect Murray to be honest and informed.
I recall the BBWAA selection of Justin Morneau as A.L. MVP in 2006. The
metrics monster attacked the choice as if it were a violation of one of
the 10 Commandments. They brought out their rankings and proudly and
boastfully showed why Morneau should not have received the award. Again,
they failed to consider Morneau’s value to the Twins, counting only his
value to their WAR rankings.
If I remember correctly, the argument was being made that Justin Morneau may not have been even the MVP of his own team. Joe Mauer hit .347/.429/.507 that season while playing the position of catcher, while Morneau hit more dingerz but hit .321/.375/.559 while playing first base. Yes, Mauer had a higher WAR then Morneau that season, but Morneau's selection as AL MVP was questioned in that he may not have even been the most valuable player on his own team, much less the most valuable American League player.
If their teams don’t make the playoffs, it could undermine their chances
for MVP. I’m not saying a player’s team has to reach the post-season,
but if, say, the Angels fall short, how valuable was Trout?
Murray isn't saying a player's team has to reach the postseason, but if a player's team doesn't reach the postseason then how could he be valuable? That's his point apparently. So it's not required for a player's team to make the playoffs, except it sort of is. And to expect a player to singlehandedly drag his team to the playoffs is unrealistic. Trout can still be the most valuable player in the American League if the team around him just isn't very good.
That would especially be the case if a playoff team had a player who was
valuable in helping his team get to the playoffs. I’ll get to those
players after looking at another element of the award that outsiders
don’t understand.
Yes, those things "outsiders" don't understand. Murray wrote about sports for a living a decade ago and those people who love baseball don't understand those things that Murray understands. It's fun how Murray brags about the BBWAA voters being open-minded and up for a debate, while using closed-minded and narrow reasoning for why he personally understands the debate better than those without a vote understand the debate.
Both Goldschmidt, Arizona’s first baseman, and Arenado, Colorado’s third baseman, are having terrific seasons, but MVP?
If they are the most valuable player in the National League, regardless of how good their teams are, then they should be considered for NL MVP.
The Diamondbacks started Sunday tied for third in the N.L. West. The
Rockies were in last place in the division, both with losing records. As
good as Goldschmidt and Arenado have been, what have they done that is
so valuable? Maybe the Rockies could have lost a few more games than the
79 they have already lost.
Probably the same thing Josh Donaldson has done to make himself so valuable. They are good players who put up great statistics, except Paul Goldschmidt doesn't have David Price, Edwin Encarnacion, Jose Bautista and and Russell Martin on his team. Here's a question for Murray. If Josh Donaldson put up the exact same numbers, but played for the Diamondbacks, does he believe the Diamondbacks would then make the playoffs while the Blue Jays with Goldschmidt would miss the playoffs? If he does, he is stupid because that's ridiculous, and if he doesn't, then how does it make sense for Donaldson to be suddenly less valuable because he plays for a Diamondbacks team that stinks?
Once more these analysts, whether or not they realized it, were mistaking “best” for “most valuable.”
Once more Murray Chass, whether he realizes it or not, doesn't understand that the argument is over how to evaluate what makes a player so valuable.
Despite the Nationals’ effort to undermine Harper’s chances, they
have been in post-season contention and continue to be even if they have
been shoved to the fringe, and Harper has been the primary reason.
He leads the league in batting average (.337), on-base (.469) and
slugging (.647) percentages and runs scored (100), is second in walks
(106) and total bases (280) and is third in home runs (33) and
extra-base hits (67).
And so, if Harper puts up those numbers with the Blue Jays then he is an MVP candidate. Same numbers, different team. All of a sudden Harper is more valuable because his teammates are more talented. My point is this doesn't make sense to judge Harper on his team's ability to win games. Sure, factor it in a small amount, but don't dismiss his candidacy because the Nationals are better at talking about how good they are at winning games than they are at actually winning games.
Some other names to consider for the N.L. award, though no likely winner in the bunch:
Anthony Rizzo and Kris Bryant of the Cubs, Matt Carpenter and Jason
Heyward of the Cardinals, Curtis Granderson of the Mets, Adrian Gonzalez
of the Dodgers and Buster Posey of the Giants.
Harper's numbers are below. Here are other candidates for MVP (and their stats around the time Murray wrote this post) who play for winning teams and therefore are more valuable than Harper:
Harper: .337/.469/.647, 100 runs, 106 walks, 280 total bases, 33 home runs, 67 extra base hits.
Rizzo: .276/.386/.516, 84 runs, 71 walks, 271 total bases, 29 home runs, 65 extra base hits.
Bryant: .270/.364/.486, 79 runs, 68 walks, 243 total bases, 24 home runs, 55 extra base hits.
Carpenter: .261/.360/.468, 85 runs, 77 walks, 242 total bases, 22 home runs, 61 extra base hits.
Heyward: .293/.355/.466, 72 runs, 47 walks, 222 total bases, 12 home runs, 48 extra base hits.
Granderson: .259/.366/.454, 88 runs, 85 walks, 240 total bases, 23 home runs, 55 extra base hits.
Gonzalez: .280/.356/.493, 73 runs, 58 walks, 259 total bases, 27 home runs, 58 extra base hits.
Posey: .328/.392/.487, 70 runs, 54 walks, 245 total bases, 18 home runs, 44 extra base hits.
Notice something? I do. Bryce Harper is better than every one of these other MVP candidates in every single category Murray listed. Not one of these other candidates beats Harper in any category, except one, and that category is "Will his team make the playoffs?" So obviously, (notice two teams have multiple players on this list as "most valuable") Bryce Harper isn't as valuable as these other players. After all, how could Anthony Rizzo benefit from having Kris Bryant in the lineup with him everyday? Inconceivable. So yeah, Harper should be the NL MVP.
And then there’s Andrew McCutchen of the Pirates, the 2013 MVP. He
started the season at a standstill, batting .194 in April with .302
on-base and .333 slugging percentages. However, he proceeded to fuel the
Pirates third consecutive wild-card bid, culminating in his N.L.
player-of-the-month August in which he batted .348 with .470 on-base and
.609 slugging percentages.
A similar September with the Pirates clinching a post-season spot
could make McCutchen a formidable challenger to Harper if Harper is
unable to spark the Nationals into the post-season.
McCutchen: .298/.397/.502, 86 runs, 80 walks, 258 total bases, 22 home runs, 58 extra base hits.
Murray can hide behind the fact these other players are just as qualified, but it simply isn't true. The only difference in the MVP candidacy of Harper and these other 8 players is Harper's team isn't going to make the playoffs, so that makes him "less valuable" despite his performance exceeding the performance of every other serious NL MVP candidate.
With Trout sinking slowly – or rapidly with the Angels in the West – the
A.L. MVP award should go to Josh Donaldson, the Toronto third baseman,
however the Blue Jays get to the playoffs.
Donaldson has had a lot of help from Edwin Encarnacion and Jose Bautista
– and I’ve always felt that the more good players a team has the less
valuable each one is – but Donaldson has been too overwhelming to
ignore. He plays a pretty good third base, too.
Murray has always felt the more good players a team has the less valuable each one is, but he's going to totally ignore his own beliefs in favor of the belief that no player whose team isn't going to make the playoffs should win the MVP. It seems Murray only has one belief, no matter how much he denies it, and that belief is a player can't win the MVP award if his team isn't going to make the playoffs.
Acquired from Oakland last November for Brett Lawrie in what has to
be one of Billy Beane’s worst trades, Donaldson leads the A.L. in runs
batted in (112), runs scored (104), total bases (304) and extra-base
hits (74), is second in slugging (.581) and third in home runs (36).
Trout, last season’s A.L. MVP, has not disappeared completely in this
season’s MVP contest. He is second in on-base percentage (.396), fourth
in slugging (.575), tied for fourth in runs (87), sixth in home runs
(33) and third in total bases (277), extra-base hits (63) and walks
(73).
I don't really care if Trout gets the MVP or not. Donaldson is pretty deserving, and believe it or not, I try not to get too worked up over stupid awards. I don't think Trout's candidacy for AL MVP should be downgraded because the team around him isn't as good as the team around Donaldson. I'm betting the Blue Jays would have as good of a record as they do now if they replaced Donaldson with Trout. It's just a guess, but just don't downgrade Trout's candidacy based on his team's performance. That's what aggravates me.
Joining teammate Alex Rodriguez in a twin comeback, Teixeira was a
primary force in the Yankees’ surprising run for the post-season, if not
the division title.
Injuries limited the first baseman to 123 games each last season and
in 2012 and to 15 games in 2013. But he came back healthy this season,
hitting 31 home runs and driving in 79 runs in 111 games. His production
and contribution both offensively and defensively warranted MVP
consideration.
Plus, the Yankees were going to make the playoffs, which automatically makes Teixeira more valuable than if he had put up similar numbers on a team that wasn't going to make the playoffs. Obviously, this makes sense. Murray is one of those BBWAA voters who is able to think, so if you think about it in non-Stat Geek terms then you see it makes sense to base an individual award on a team's performance around that individual.
Missing much of the last six weeks of the season, if not all of the
games that remained, doesn’t work well for an MVP candidate, especially
when his team is in a division race and a playoff race.
Unless his team makes the playoffs and every other MVP candidate's team didn't make the playoffs. Then the player who was injured for six weeks all of a sudden becomes more valuable because the team around him was more valuable and he will be handed the MVP. Obviously.
Worse, Teixeira has lost a chance to win an unusual double – MVP and
comeback player of the year.
Can the Comeback Player of the Year be awarded to a player who is on a team that doesn't make the playoffs? After all, how can the player comeback from anything if he doesn't make a difference for his team when he does comeback?
Posey won both in 2012 after suffering a
broken leg and torn ankle ligaments in a home plate collision the
previous season.
The same Buster Posey who was kept in the minors long enough to avoid being a Super-2 and Murray went on and on about how this wasn't fair to the Giants fans to keep Posey in the minors. Then it turns out Giants fans weren't negatively impacted at all, because the Giants won the World Series, and Giants fans knew that after Posey broke his leg and tore ligaments that the team could keep him for an extra season because he was kept in the minors for a few extra weeks.
Showing posts with label dumb arguments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dumb arguments. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Monday, October 19, 2015
1 comments Terence Moore Writes The Annual Column Where He Gleefully Lauds the One Game Wild Card Playoff Presented by Budweiser
Terence Moore hates new ideas and new things. Not shockingly, if that new idea comes from Major League Baseball, all of a sudden Terence will think it's a great idea. After all, Terence writes for MLB.com. Of course, they would never edit him or stop him writing something, even it were a column arguing against a new MLB rule. Sure, I believe that. So nearly every year Terence writes a column about how great the one game Wild Card playoff is. As everyone knows by now, I hate the one game Wild Card playoff. It's exciting, sure, but I think it should be a three game playoff and don't understand why one more game is enough after a 162 game season to decide which Wild Card team gets to appear in the NLDS/ALDS. Terence Moore disagrees because that's what he is paid to do.
If you're a baseball fan who lives for October more than any other month of the season, you're thinking like me.
I'm a baseball fan and I really doubt that I am thinking like Terence Moore. Terence is probably thinking about the Big Red Machine and how they would undoubtedly could still beat a team made up of 2015 MLB All-Stars.
There is just too much time between now and the start of the Wild Card Games presented by Budweiser next week.
Not that Terence is a shill for MLB.com or anything like that when he talks about the Wild Card Games presented by Budweiser. When discussing the Wild Card Games presented by Budweiser, Terence can write what he wants when he wants to write it. If Terence says he doesn't like the Wild Card Games presented by Budweiser, then he doesn't have to like the Wild Card Games presented by Budweiser. It's simply the opinion of Terence Moore that he writes in a column presented by MLB.com.
We should enjoy the ride this weekend through the end of the regular season. Afterward, with one more day to go, we should unleash a sigh of relief as the Yankees make their first trip to the postseason in three years as the likely hosts of the Astros, Angels or Twins on Tuesday night in the American League Wild Card Game.
And the teams will battle in a one game playoff that will negate everything that team accomplished throughout the season. It will turn a 162 game season into an ace-off where the team with the best starting pitcher gets to go into the next round of the playoffs. Baseball may be a team game, but don't tell that to MLB or the Wild Card Game presented by Budweiser.
As for the National League, the Cubs will probably play their winner-take-all game on the road against the Pirates, but that won't happen until Wednesday. What a tease, especially since you know the showdown between these two gifted teams is destined for instant-classic territory.
Was it an instant classic? I don't think it was. It was a great pitching performance by Jake Arrieta, but it wasn't an instant classic. Though I understand that Terence has to do everything in his power to make it seem like the Wild Card Games that are presented by Budweiser are nothing if not totally epic.
You also know both Wild Card Games will feature intensity. Every inning, every pitch, every millisecond will be huge. The winners advance to the Division Series, and the losers are just done.
You know, I heard this could happen in a three game Wild Card series as well. Three games would test the depth and actual starting pitching strength of each team, which I know isn't something baseball is interested in after playing a 162 game schedule where a team's record is determined by the depth and starting pitching strength of each team, but it could be a pretty interesting three game Wild Card series presented by Miller Lite.
In a three game series, the winners still advance to the Division Series and the losers are still done. It's just a series that isn't determined by which team has the better ace.
So here's my humble assessment of baseball's current Wild Card system, which is entering its fourth season: It works just fine, thank you.
What? This is a shocking conclusion. Terence has written every year around the end of the baseball season, not by directive from MLB.com of course, that the Wild Card system works great and he still believes this is true this year? What a turn of events.
There isn't a thing I would change.
And as a self-described "traditionalist" who didn't exactly love it when the first Wild Card was introduced, Terence saying there isn't a thing he would change about the one game Wild Card presented by Budweiser makes total sense.
Still, many around the game and beyond want a best-of-three series to decide which of the two Wild Card teams in each league would reach the Division Series, where they would face the team with the best record in the regular season.
It would determine which team was better after a 162 game season. After all those games, I just don't like that a playoff spot comes down to one game. I feel like baseball is a team sport where the best teams have depth on their bench and in their starting pitching staff. I don't feel a one game Wild Card presented by Budweiser does justice in reflecting this.
Cubs president of baseball operations Theo Epstein goes further than that. He told the Chicago Tribune in September that he proposed a best-of-three Wild Card series in which the opening games for each league would be part of a day-night doubleheader for the host team.
I can see that and I think it would be fun. I lean towards just having three games in three days at the home team's park, but a doubleheader would fun. The ironic part is that I bet the old-timers who bitch about there not being enough doubleheaders during the season would complain this is too far away from the traditional postseason format.
But extending the postseason would not help baseball end the World Series on a reasonable date each fall. This season, a potential Game 7 would occur on Nov. 4.
This is easily one of the worst reasons to not move the Wild Card Game presented by Budweiser to a a three game series. It's a horseshit excuse. The MLB season lasts from April to the very beginning of November over 162 games, but the potential of there being TWO MORE GAMES is just too unreasonable to be seriously considered. Here's a good idea. Move the season to 154 games. Problem solved. Again, the funny part about this is you would find traditionalists bitching about the move away from 162 games in order to fit in a new playoff format, even though the season would be moved back to 154 games. This is how many games were played back in the day when everything in baseball was perfect, the same age many traditionalist sportswriters harken back to.
I find it hilarious two more games, thereby being two more days of baseball, is just incredibly unreasonable. This from a league that has 162 games per year.
Translated: Just leave the current Wild Card setup alone. With a one-game decider in each league to start October, you have zero scheduling concerns.
Again, this is a remarkably weak excuse for keeping the one game Wild Card presented by Budweiser. After 162 games, scheduling concerns for two more games is the reason? Come on.
Mostly, single Wild Card Games create drama like crazy.
Then make the Divisional Series, the Championship Series, and the World Series one game series as well. They can even be presented by another beer company. If drama is the intent, then make every series a one game series. So is Terence arguing the World Series isn't dramatic enough with a seven game series? Is the intent of the playoffs to create drama or find out who the best MLB team is? If you want drama, every series should be one game. If you want to know who the best team is, eliminate the second Wild Card presented by Chase and use the 162 games each team plays on the season to make this determination, or make the Wild Card series a three game series.
Remember 2012 in Atlanta? The Cardinals slid past the Braves that night due to an infield fly call that the hometown fans thought resembled an "outfield fly."
Really? The first example of the drama created is an example that shows the incompetence of MLB's umpires to discern what is and is not an "infield fly"? If MLB thinks incompetent umpires are part of "the drama" then that explains why they allowed Eric Gregg to continue umping after the 1997 playoffs and why no one has done anything about Joe West's act. Drama created by incompetence doesn't seem like the best way to convince me to love the one game Wild Card presented by Budweiser.
There also was last year's AL Wild Card thriller in Kansas City. Somehow, the Royals overcame two late-game deficits, including one of 7-3 in the eighth. They shocked the A's in the bottom of the 12th, and that was four hours and 45 minutes after the first pitch.
And this game would have still have been played if the Wild Card was a three game series. It's just these same two teams would have had the chance to play AGAIN the next day to determine which team earns the right to make it to the ALDS.
Just like that, a Royals team that hadn't reached the postseason in 29 years did more than advance to the Division Series. Kansas City won the pennant and the hearts of America, starting with its survival in that wildest of Wild Card Games.
And in a three game series the Royals still would have had the chance to make it to the Division Series and continue to win the hearts of America.
"[The Wild Card setup is] fine the way it is now," Epstein also told the Chicago Tribune. "You can never come up with a scenario that's perfectly fair to everybody.
This is an absolutely true statement that is coming from a GM who has perhaps the best pitcher in the majors ready to go in the Wild Card Game presented by Budweiser with help from Chase in association with FanDuel provided by Goodyear. Epstein feels great with Arrieta starting the Wild Card game because he has been untouchable, so of course he thinks it's fine as it is now. There is no fair scenario, but I think there is a scenario that better reflects baseball is a team game.
Epstein's Cubs, by the way, are blessed with a wonderful "hand," and it is attached to the right arm of Jake Arrieta. Among other things, no pitcher in baseball history has looked more dominant than Arrieta during the second half of a season with an 11-1 record and a 0.80 ERA entering Friday. His overall numbers are also impressive (21-6, 1.82 ERA, 229 strikeouts through 223 innings).
Now consider this: In five starts this season against the Pirates, Arrieta is 3-1 with a 0.75 ERA, and he'll start next week's Wild Card Game.
And that's fantastic for the Cubs. Arrieta is awesome. It does prove my point that the Wild Card Game presented by Budweiser becomes an "ace-off" with the team that has the best pitcher having the best chance to win the game. I prefer baseball as a team game where a playoff series winner is determined by the strength of that team's starting pitching staff, not just the strength of one pitcher.
Advantage: Cubs.
Yes, it is advantage Cubs. After 162 games, whichever team has the better starting pitcher wins the game. I think a better set up is possible.
Or is it?
Yes, it was advantage to the Cubs.
The Pirates will counter with Gerrit Cole, and while he isn't Arrieta, he's fabulous enough at 19-8 with a 2.60 ERA. Not only that, Cole is a noted Cubs killer. In nine starts against the North Siders, he has lost just once with seven victories and a 2.88 ERA.
Gerrit Cole is a great pitcher. He was not as great as Jake Arrieta was. That's fine, the Cubs deserved to win that game, but I wish it were possible to make it a three game series.
We haven't even mentioned the pending battle involving Chicago sluggers Kris Bryant and Anthony Rizzo against Pirates standouts Andrew McCutchen, Starling Marte and the rest.
And these guys will still "battle" if there is a three game series. Why would fewer games of these four players "battling" be a bad thing? Terence using these four players as an example of the greatness of the Wild Card Game presented by Budweiser contradicts his point about the one game Wild Card being fine. This is because in a three game Wild Card series these four players would "battle" for possibly two more games. More fun! More drama! Why is this bad?
You also know Joe Maddon will keep things interesting on and off the field as the Cubs' manager and master psychologist.
Joe Maddon would also be present for all three games in a three game Wild Card series. Joe Maddon doesn't magically disappear into thin air if the Cubs have to play three games against the Pirates to earn the right to play in the NLDS.
See what I mean by Wild Card drama?
See what I mean by nothing changing and the drama would still be there? Saying, "These players and this manager will make for a fun time and make things interesting" isn't an argument for the current Wild Card set up. It's an argument to watch the Wild Card series, no matter how long of a series it may be. How did Terence Moore get to become a writer who gets to pen columns that are intended to be somewhat persuasive?
The same goes for the AL, where the Angels would put one of baseball's faces on national display in Mike Trout, and Trout has a noted slugging partner named Albert Pujols. If it's the Twins or the Astros instead of the Angels, we're talking about a bunch of talented youngsters to keep us entertained.
These players would all still be participating in a three game series. I don't understand what the fuck Terence is trying to prove here.
In addition, Houston has Dallas Keuchel, a wonderful starting pitcher who leads the AL in victories (19) and innings pitched (226).
Yes, he is wonderful and fans will get to see him pitching wonderfully against the Yankees. Then fans can see Scott Kazmir and/or Colin McHugh pitch wonderfully against the Yankees. Then I can rest easy knowing the Astros used more than one pitcher to prove they deserve to make the ALDS after a 3 game series and 162 game season.
The Yankees are just the Yankees, and that's enough.
And yet, over the span of one game played after 162 other games were played it wasn't enough.
So is one Wild Card Game.
Just like the one Wild Card Game presented by Budweiser is not enough. Shorten the season if needed (it's pretty freaking long anyway, even if it were 154 games) and then make the Wild Card series a three game series. I think it best represents the team game that baseball has shown itself to be.
If you're a baseball fan who lives for October more than any other month of the season, you're thinking like me.
I'm a baseball fan and I really doubt that I am thinking like Terence Moore. Terence is probably thinking about the Big Red Machine and how they would undoubtedly could still beat a team made up of 2015 MLB All-Stars.
There is just too much time between now and the start of the Wild Card Games presented by Budweiser next week.
Not that Terence is a shill for MLB.com or anything like that when he talks about the Wild Card Games presented by Budweiser. When discussing the Wild Card Games presented by Budweiser, Terence can write what he wants when he wants to write it. If Terence says he doesn't like the Wild Card Games presented by Budweiser, then he doesn't have to like the Wild Card Games presented by Budweiser. It's simply the opinion of Terence Moore that he writes in a column presented by MLB.com.
We should enjoy the ride this weekend through the end of the regular season. Afterward, with one more day to go, we should unleash a sigh of relief as the Yankees make their first trip to the postseason in three years as the likely hosts of the Astros, Angels or Twins on Tuesday night in the American League Wild Card Game.
And the teams will battle in a one game playoff that will negate everything that team accomplished throughout the season. It will turn a 162 game season into an ace-off where the team with the best starting pitcher gets to go into the next round of the playoffs. Baseball may be a team game, but don't tell that to MLB or the Wild Card Game presented by Budweiser.
As for the National League, the Cubs will probably play their winner-take-all game on the road against the Pirates, but that won't happen until Wednesday. What a tease, especially since you know the showdown between these two gifted teams is destined for instant-classic territory.
Was it an instant classic? I don't think it was. It was a great pitching performance by Jake Arrieta, but it wasn't an instant classic. Though I understand that Terence has to do everything in his power to make it seem like the Wild Card Games that are presented by Budweiser are nothing if not totally epic.
You also know both Wild Card Games will feature intensity. Every inning, every pitch, every millisecond will be huge. The winners advance to the Division Series, and the losers are just done.
You know, I heard this could happen in a three game Wild Card series as well. Three games would test the depth and actual starting pitching strength of each team, which I know isn't something baseball is interested in after playing a 162 game schedule where a team's record is determined by the depth and starting pitching strength of each team, but it could be a pretty interesting three game Wild Card series presented by Miller Lite.
In a three game series, the winners still advance to the Division Series and the losers are still done. It's just a series that isn't determined by which team has the better ace.
So here's my humble assessment of baseball's current Wild Card system, which is entering its fourth season: It works just fine, thank you.
What? This is a shocking conclusion. Terence has written every year around the end of the baseball season, not by directive from MLB.com of course, that the Wild Card system works great and he still believes this is true this year? What a turn of events.
There isn't a thing I would change.
And as a self-described "traditionalist" who didn't exactly love it when the first Wild Card was introduced, Terence saying there isn't a thing he would change about the one game Wild Card presented by Budweiser makes total sense.
Still, many around the game and beyond want a best-of-three series to decide which of the two Wild Card teams in each league would reach the Division Series, where they would face the team with the best record in the regular season.
It would determine which team was better after a 162 game season. After all those games, I just don't like that a playoff spot comes down to one game. I feel like baseball is a team sport where the best teams have depth on their bench and in their starting pitching staff. I don't feel a one game Wild Card presented by Budweiser does justice in reflecting this.
Cubs president of baseball operations Theo Epstein goes further than that. He told the Chicago Tribune in September that he proposed a best-of-three Wild Card series in which the opening games for each league would be part of a day-night doubleheader for the host team.
I can see that and I think it would be fun. I lean towards just having three games in three days at the home team's park, but a doubleheader would fun. The ironic part is that I bet the old-timers who bitch about there not being enough doubleheaders during the season would complain this is too far away from the traditional postseason format.
But extending the postseason would not help baseball end the World Series on a reasonable date each fall. This season, a potential Game 7 would occur on Nov. 4.
This is easily one of the worst reasons to not move the Wild Card Game presented by Budweiser to a a three game series. It's a horseshit excuse. The MLB season lasts from April to the very beginning of November over 162 games, but the potential of there being TWO MORE GAMES is just too unreasonable to be seriously considered. Here's a good idea. Move the season to 154 games. Problem solved. Again, the funny part about this is you would find traditionalists bitching about the move away from 162 games in order to fit in a new playoff format, even though the season would be moved back to 154 games. This is how many games were played back in the day when everything in baseball was perfect, the same age many traditionalist sportswriters harken back to.
I find it hilarious two more games, thereby being two more days of baseball, is just incredibly unreasonable. This from a league that has 162 games per year.
Translated: Just leave the current Wild Card setup alone. With a one-game decider in each league to start October, you have zero scheduling concerns.
Again, this is a remarkably weak excuse for keeping the one game Wild Card presented by Budweiser. After 162 games, scheduling concerns for two more games is the reason? Come on.
Mostly, single Wild Card Games create drama like crazy.
Then make the Divisional Series, the Championship Series, and the World Series one game series as well. They can even be presented by another beer company. If drama is the intent, then make every series a one game series. So is Terence arguing the World Series isn't dramatic enough with a seven game series? Is the intent of the playoffs to create drama or find out who the best MLB team is? If you want drama, every series should be one game. If you want to know who the best team is, eliminate the second Wild Card presented by Chase and use the 162 games each team plays on the season to make this determination, or make the Wild Card series a three game series.
Remember 2012 in Atlanta? The Cardinals slid past the Braves that night due to an infield fly call that the hometown fans thought resembled an "outfield fly."
Really? The first example of the drama created is an example that shows the incompetence of MLB's umpires to discern what is and is not an "infield fly"? If MLB thinks incompetent umpires are part of "the drama" then that explains why they allowed Eric Gregg to continue umping after the 1997 playoffs and why no one has done anything about Joe West's act. Drama created by incompetence doesn't seem like the best way to convince me to love the one game Wild Card presented by Budweiser.
There also was last year's AL Wild Card thriller in Kansas City. Somehow, the Royals overcame two late-game deficits, including one of 7-3 in the eighth. They shocked the A's in the bottom of the 12th, and that was four hours and 45 minutes after the first pitch.
And this game would have still have been played if the Wild Card was a three game series. It's just these same two teams would have had the chance to play AGAIN the next day to determine which team earns the right to make it to the ALDS.
Just like that, a Royals team that hadn't reached the postseason in 29 years did more than advance to the Division Series. Kansas City won the pennant and the hearts of America, starting with its survival in that wildest of Wild Card Games.
And in a three game series the Royals still would have had the chance to make it to the Division Series and continue to win the hearts of America.
"[The Wild Card setup is] fine the way it is now," Epstein also told the Chicago Tribune. "You can never come up with a scenario that's perfectly fair to everybody.
This is an absolutely true statement that is coming from a GM who has perhaps the best pitcher in the majors ready to go in the Wild Card Game presented by Budweiser with help from Chase in association with FanDuel provided by Goodyear. Epstein feels great with Arrieta starting the Wild Card game because he has been untouchable, so of course he thinks it's fine as it is now. There is no fair scenario, but I think there is a scenario that better reflects baseball is a team game.
Epstein's Cubs, by the way, are blessed with a wonderful "hand," and it is attached to the right arm of Jake Arrieta. Among other things, no pitcher in baseball history has looked more dominant than Arrieta during the second half of a season with an 11-1 record and a 0.80 ERA entering Friday. His overall numbers are also impressive (21-6, 1.82 ERA, 229 strikeouts through 223 innings).
Now consider this: In five starts this season against the Pirates, Arrieta is 3-1 with a 0.75 ERA, and he'll start next week's Wild Card Game.
And that's fantastic for the Cubs. Arrieta is awesome. It does prove my point that the Wild Card Game presented by Budweiser becomes an "ace-off" with the team that has the best pitcher having the best chance to win the game. I prefer baseball as a team game where a playoff series winner is determined by the strength of that team's starting pitching staff, not just the strength of one pitcher.
Advantage: Cubs.
Yes, it is advantage Cubs. After 162 games, whichever team has the better starting pitcher wins the game. I think a better set up is possible.
Or is it?
Yes, it was advantage to the Cubs.
The Pirates will counter with Gerrit Cole, and while he isn't Arrieta, he's fabulous enough at 19-8 with a 2.60 ERA. Not only that, Cole is a noted Cubs killer. In nine starts against the North Siders, he has lost just once with seven victories and a 2.88 ERA.
Gerrit Cole is a great pitcher. He was not as great as Jake Arrieta was. That's fine, the Cubs deserved to win that game, but I wish it were possible to make it a three game series.
We haven't even mentioned the pending battle involving Chicago sluggers Kris Bryant and Anthony Rizzo against Pirates standouts Andrew McCutchen, Starling Marte and the rest.
And these guys will still "battle" if there is a three game series. Why would fewer games of these four players "battling" be a bad thing? Terence using these four players as an example of the greatness of the Wild Card Game presented by Budweiser contradicts his point about the one game Wild Card being fine. This is because in a three game Wild Card series these four players would "battle" for possibly two more games. More fun! More drama! Why is this bad?
You also know Joe Maddon will keep things interesting on and off the field as the Cubs' manager and master psychologist.
Joe Maddon would also be present for all three games in a three game Wild Card series. Joe Maddon doesn't magically disappear into thin air if the Cubs have to play three games against the Pirates to earn the right to play in the NLDS.
See what I mean by Wild Card drama?
See what I mean by nothing changing and the drama would still be there? Saying, "These players and this manager will make for a fun time and make things interesting" isn't an argument for the current Wild Card set up. It's an argument to watch the Wild Card series, no matter how long of a series it may be. How did Terence Moore get to become a writer who gets to pen columns that are intended to be somewhat persuasive?
The same goes for the AL, where the Angels would put one of baseball's faces on national display in Mike Trout, and Trout has a noted slugging partner named Albert Pujols. If it's the Twins or the Astros instead of the Angels, we're talking about a bunch of talented youngsters to keep us entertained.
These players would all still be participating in a three game series. I don't understand what the fuck Terence is trying to prove here.
In addition, Houston has Dallas Keuchel, a wonderful starting pitcher who leads the AL in victories (19) and innings pitched (226).
Yes, he is wonderful and fans will get to see him pitching wonderfully against the Yankees. Then fans can see Scott Kazmir and/or Colin McHugh pitch wonderfully against the Yankees. Then I can rest easy knowing the Astros used more than one pitcher to prove they deserve to make the ALDS after a 3 game series and 162 game season.
The Yankees are just the Yankees, and that's enough.
And yet, over the span of one game played after 162 other games were played it wasn't enough.
So is one Wild Card Game.
Just like the one Wild Card Game presented by Budweiser is not enough. Shorten the season if needed (it's pretty freaking long anyway, even if it were 154 games) and then make the Wild Card series a three game series. I think it best represents the team game that baseball has shown itself to be.
Monday, October 12, 2015
0 comments Advanced Statistics Loses Again to Team Chemistry
I am always amused at articles that say, "There is no way Sabermetrics can say whether a team will have
chemistry or not," as if there is a way to measure chemistry and it's only Sabermetrics or advanced statistics that come up
short in an attempt to quantify team chemistry. Chemistry can't be measured all, so there is no telling if a team will have it or not until that team plays together. Bob Nightengale writes an article about how chemistry in baseball still matters. It's still real to him, dammit!
As always, there are the "numbers can't measure chemistry!" quotes from players, as if it's news that something which can't be measured can't actually be measured. Chemistry matters, sure, but anyone claiming they know how to create chemistry between players on a team is lying. But yeah, it's only advanced metrics that fall short in measuring how much chemistry a team has. Teams never know if they will have chemistry until practice or games actually start.
In a sport where the desire to quantify every movement only grows with each season, it is a sabermetric aficionado’s worst nightmare.
Sunlight and not being able to use a computer. The worst of all worlds.
You can’t measure it. You can’t define it. You can’t put a number on it.
So it's the worst nightmare of pretty much any coach, GM, or owner because there is no way to know what the result will be.
We’re talking about clubhouse chemistry, and the culture that can raise a major league team to extraordinary heights without having the biggest payroll or most talent.
How to get it? Nobody fucking knows. What is known is that Sabermetricians can't measure it and that means Sabermetrics are useless. Sure, traditional statistical metrics can't measure it either, but who cares and let's all move on now.
“It’s really undervalued,’’ St. Louis Cardinals veteran starter John Lackey told USA TODAY Sports, “especially in today’s world with all of the numbers guys.”
It's undervalued because there is no way to tangibly get chemistry and it can't be measured by any metric. So there is no way to value chemistry, hence it is undervalued. It's like anyone who enjoys working with the people they work with. It's not undervalued to enjoy the people you work with, but it's something that either happens or doesn't when working with a group of people. You can hire individuals who you think will fit in, but you never know for sure if a new hire will like his/her co-workers. This is as opposed to knowing when you hire someone who has a Masters Degree in Accounting, it's a safe assumption that he/she does actually know something tangible about Accounting that could help the organization.
We can put all kinds of numbers on players’ talent, from RBI to WAR, to ERA to FIP, but when it comes to the heart and soul of a clubhouse, there remains no measuring stick.
Because there can't be. Chemistry is intangible. Assigning specific importance to chemistry is fine, but emphasizing how statistics can't measure it is shockingly obvious. Hustle and grit can't be measured either, which pleases many old-school sportswriters and professional athletes when they prepare to write a column about a gritty, white player whose heart is bigger than his talent level.
“The numbers guys can’t quantify that one,’’ Lackey said, “so they don’t want to believe in it.’’
Okay Piggy, nobody said those who used advanced statistics don't want to believe in chemistry. In fact, Alex Anthopoulos is a noted user of advanced statistics and he is quoted in this article many times about the importance of chemistry. So you know, John Lackey should probably focus a little bit more on pitching and a little bit less on trying to believe he understands the position of Sabermetricians regarding team chemistry.
You want to know what chemistry and culture is about, peek inside the San Francisco Giants’ clubhouse. They’ve won three of the last five World Series. Maybe they’ve had the best manager in Bruce Bochy, and GM too in Brian Sabean, but never have they had the best talent.
The team with the most talent doesn't always win the World Series, but attributing the difference in the team with the most perceived talent and teams with lesser perceived talent simply to chemistry is probably an oversimplification.
“Come on, how to do you put a number on a guy like (Chicago Cubs backup catcher David Ross) and what he brings to the clubhouse? This guy hit (.184) last year, and he got multiple two-years deals on the table. Why is that?’’
Because he's a veteran clubhouse presence who has experience working with pitching staffs and he isn't going to be expensive.
Indeed, you step into the Cubs’ clubhouse these days, and no one is talking about Ross’ .186 batting average and seven RBI. They’re too busy raving about his powerful influence on a club featuring four rookies in the everyday lineup.
David Ross does more for team chemistry than the Cubs starting catcher, yet David Ross isn't the starting catcher. Why is that? Oh wait, that's right. This discussion of chemistry is supposed to entirely ignore talent. Ross had less than 400 at-bats over the last three years (as of the time this column was written), since he's so valuable in the clubhouse, then why do you suppose he's not in the starting lineup everyday? Probably because catchers with greater talent are getting the majority of the at-bats.
Chemistry is important. Absolutely. John Lackey should also realize that David Ross doesn't need to be on the field to help his team, while those players who do have skills that can be quantified are the ones getting the majority of the at-bats. So the whole "they can't quantify chemistry" argument has merit as long as those players whose contribution can be quantified aren't having their substantial impact on the team's success ignored.
“He means so much to every single person in here,’’ Cubs first baseman Anthony Rizzo said.
Go ahead, try to put a number on that.
$2.5 million this year. That's his salary. That's the number on how much his contribution means to the Cubs.
If you go by the numbers, the Royals were supposed to win just 72 games this year, according to Baseball Prospectus’ projection system, PECOTA.
PECOTA is wrong again this year. They had the Royals at 80-82. Though it's important to know the Royals play in the only division in the majors where only one team has a positive run differential (the Royals), so there is a case to be made that the Royals are going to beat the PECOTA projections handily, but they are also in a weak division. It doesn't take anything away from them, but these are "projections" not "certainties based on data and information that is never wrong."
The Cardinals, who have had more injuries to key players than any team, shouldn’t be leading their division, let alone be on pace to eclipse 100 victories, if you go strictly by sheer talent.
I would completely and utterly disagree. The Cardinals, even prior to the season had one of the strongest and deepest pitching staffs in the majors. It is discussed at length how the Cardinals have great minor league depth (THE CARDINALS WAY!) and when injuries occur they can survive them easier than most MLB teams. If a person is going to be so ridiculous as to look to individual talent on a baseball team rather than the depth of talent on a team's roster, then obviously a team with few players who have a high level of individual talent would be misjudged. Teams should not be judged by sheer talent on the roster though. Teams should be judged by talent at each spot on the roster and the depth of that talent on the roster. The Cardinals have talent at each spot on the roster and they have depth. Going by sheer talent is a dumb way to evaluate a team in the first place.
“People that don’t understand what team chemistry means don’t work in baseball,’’ Toronto Blue Jays ace David Price said.
Right, everyone knows a team needs good chemistry to help them be successful. A team also needs talent. Teams that win titles have both. To indicate advanced statistics are useless because it can't measure a team's chemistry is to make it an "either/or" argument and entirely miss the point. I don't expect much else from baseball players though. They are traditionally stuck in the past and not open to new ideas.
“You look at the Giants, and they’re not more talented than everyone else every year, but they’re so close, and together. The Cardinals are the same way. They definitely have talent, but they’re no more talented than a lot of the teams they’re beating every day.
I would absolutely disagree with this. How come the Giants' team chemistry doesn't allow them to win the World Series during odd-numbered years? Does the team just forget about their chemistry in those years or something?
And as I stated before, it has been discussed at-length in multiple publications how the Cardinals have great organizational depth, so I would argue they are more talented than the teams they are beating every day.
“The Cardinals are unbelievable. They lose their ace (Adam Wainwright). They lose their No. 3 and No. 4 hitters in (Matt) Adams and (Matt Holliday). And they’re still winning. They’re just unreal.
Again, the Cardinals were very deep in the starting rotation prior to the start of the season. There is a reason they could afford to trade Shelby Miller. The media always wants it both ways. They want to talk about how great the Cardinals are at producing players through their minor league system, while also claiming the team has lesser talent than other teams.
The Blue Jays placed more emphasis on a player’s character than any time in GM Alex Anthopoulos’ tenure. He shipped out the guy who didn’t fit in. He chose character over talent. There’s a reason why 42-year-old LaTroy Hawkins is now in the Blue Jays’ bullpen instead of Jonathan Papelbon.
Well yeah, nobody likes Jonathan Papelbon. I do like how Nightengale is using Anthopoulos as the example of a GM who loves chemistry, since he is a GM who has in the past emphasized Sabermetrics. It's almost like a team has to have talent AND chemistry. That couldn't be true though.
“We really, really, emphasized that,’’ Anthopoulos said, “more than we ever have.
Yes, they went against having talent for chemistry by trading for Josh Donaldson, Troy Tulowitzki and David Price. What rebels they are to favor chemistry over talent in these cases. They traded for one of the best players at shortstop, third base and pitcher for the chemistry it gave the team, while blatantly ignoring whether these guys are talented or not.
“Every team goes through ups and downs, and I think with a better clubhouse and with better character, that allows you to handle the downs a lot. That’s the separator. So rather than the floor caving in on you, you stay afloat.
“We’ll find out if it works.’’
Obviously you can't throw a team together that hates each other or won't complement each other. That much is obvious. Winning creates chemistry and so figuring out how a team can win (find some talented players is always a good start) is important too.
Certainly, adding a guy like Price at the trade deadline, and having MVP favorite Josh Donaldson the entire season, may have something to do with the Blue Jays’ success, too.
Nah, I'm sure the fact they are two of the best at their position in terms of skill level has nothing to do with the Blue Jays' success.
Yet, manager John Gibbons can’t stop raving about Donaldson’s leadership skills, and Price is revered throughout the game.
What helps Donaldson be a leader? The fact he's also a really good baseball player. Players who are good at baseball can naturally set a good example for the rest of the team to follow.
“We were looking for a special type of player, even if it meant passing on some talent,’’ Anthopoulos said, “making sure every player we acquired fit.
“I think it’s important David Price fit into in the clubhouse, but let’s don’t forget he’s got a (2.40) ERA, too.’’
Irrelevant. Don't try to measure David Price's chemistry by putting it in terms of his ERA.
Sure, you’ve got to have talent to win, but talent alone doesn’t guarantee a thing. If the standings were based strictly on talent, you think the Washington Nationals would be trailing the New York Mets by five games?
If the Nationals had the hitting that the Blue Jays have, do you think they would be trailing the Mets by five games? The Blue Jays have scored more than 150 more runs than the Nationals. But I'm sure that's all chemistry-based run scoring.
“If you have good clubhouse chemistry, you going to win,’’ New York Yankees veteran starter CC Sabathia said. “It’s not something you can fake. It’s real.
“You look at the Giants. Those guys love each other, and they win. They get a guy like Peavy. You see what (Tim) Hudson has meant for them. It’s the real thing.’’
I would have to again ask why the Giants can't seem to win the World Series during odd numbered years with a roster that doesn't change dramatically. Is their chemistry just forgotten during certain years?
Sure, numbers are fine for fantasy leagues, but if you want to truly define a player’s value, or recognize the importance significance of clubhouse culture, it’s time to wake up and embrace character, too.
I think most people recognize the value of character and embrace this value. The fact statistics are used to evaluate players doesn't mean clubhouse culture is ignored.
“I think we’re losing part of our game because so many of these people in charge don’t have the scouting background or playing background,’’ Peavy said.
One minute David Price says people who don't understand how chemistry works don't work in baseball and the next minute Jake Peavy says there are some who work in baseball who don't understand chemistry. By the way, the Giants use analytics. I wouldn't be surprised if Jake Peavy didn't know this and just thought the Giants had hired nerds so there would be someone around to give a swirlie to, because giving swirlies to nerds is a well-known way to help a team's chemistry.
“You can have all of the education you want, and break down every number you want, but unless you get to know what’s inside a player, you really don’t know the player.’’
Yes, probably. But when scouting high school or college baseball players it is nearly impossible to know how their personality will fit into that MLB team's personality and clubhouse culture 2-6 years from now. What is possible to project is that player's talent. It doesn't mean talent is the end-all, but it does explain why players aren't drafted based on chemistry instead of perceived talent.
The Royals certainly noticed the tepid external expectations. Public relations director Mike Swanson, in his recent pre-game notes, reminded everyone of Baseball Prospectus’ projected 72-90 record.
“Fortunately, games are won on a field and not on paper,’’ Swanson wrote in the Royals’ notes distributed to the media, “thus a computer ‘time out’ might be appropriate for some.”
Hilarious. Swanson may be forgetting the Royals were one failed rally away from being knocked out of the idiotic Wild Card game. Yep, talent had something to do with the Royals going to the World Series.
“We had our Moneyball movie, and they didn’t even win,’’ Peavy said of the Oakland Athletics. “How about let’s make a movie about the good ol’ fashioned baseball people, and how they judge team chemistry, and put together guys that fit in.
Great idea. I get the feeling Jake Peavy isn't a threat to appear on "Jeopardy" any time soon. Unless the topic is "Good ol' fashioned baseball people" I'm thinking he's probably better at throwing a ball than he is a-thinkin' with his head.
“How about a movie about a team that actually wins in the end?’’
I believe that movie was made 25 years ago and it is called "Major League." Or maybe it is called "The Natural," "Bad News Bears," "Angels in the Outfield," "Little Big League," "Rookie of the Year," or one of the dozens of baseball movies made about a team that actually wins in the end. Great point, Jake Peavy.
There should be a movie called "Chemistry" where a team of baseball players who don't have the talent to play in the majors are all traded to the same team, then win the World Series because they all get along so well. Jake Peavy would love this.
You can't measure team chemistry, so maybe someone should create a dating website for baseball players so GM's can know which players will have the most in common and therefore enjoy spending time with each other. It can be like Match.com for athletes. Or is that too much like trying to measure chemistry? Maybe other MLB teams should try to create the chemistry the Blue Jays have by trading for three great players and seeing if that helps them win more games. I don't know, getting really talented players could work to help a team win more games.
As always, there are the "numbers can't measure chemistry!" quotes from players, as if it's news that something which can't be measured can't actually be measured. Chemistry matters, sure, but anyone claiming they know how to create chemistry between players on a team is lying. But yeah, it's only advanced metrics that fall short in measuring how much chemistry a team has. Teams never know if they will have chemistry until practice or games actually start.
In a sport where the desire to quantify every movement only grows with each season, it is a sabermetric aficionado’s worst nightmare.
Sunlight and not being able to use a computer. The worst of all worlds.
You can’t measure it. You can’t define it. You can’t put a number on it.
So it's the worst nightmare of pretty much any coach, GM, or owner because there is no way to know what the result will be.
We’re talking about clubhouse chemistry, and the culture that can raise a major league team to extraordinary heights without having the biggest payroll or most talent.
How to get it? Nobody fucking knows. What is known is that Sabermetricians can't measure it and that means Sabermetrics are useless. Sure, traditional statistical metrics can't measure it either, but who cares and let's all move on now.
“It’s really undervalued,’’ St. Louis Cardinals veteran starter John Lackey told USA TODAY Sports, “especially in today’s world with all of the numbers guys.”
It's undervalued because there is no way to tangibly get chemistry and it can't be measured by any metric. So there is no way to value chemistry, hence it is undervalued. It's like anyone who enjoys working with the people they work with. It's not undervalued to enjoy the people you work with, but it's something that either happens or doesn't when working with a group of people. You can hire individuals who you think will fit in, but you never know for sure if a new hire will like his/her co-workers. This is as opposed to knowing when you hire someone who has a Masters Degree in Accounting, it's a safe assumption that he/she does actually know something tangible about Accounting that could help the organization.
We can put all kinds of numbers on players’ talent, from RBI to WAR, to ERA to FIP, but when it comes to the heart and soul of a clubhouse, there remains no measuring stick.
Because there can't be. Chemistry is intangible. Assigning specific importance to chemistry is fine, but emphasizing how statistics can't measure it is shockingly obvious. Hustle and grit can't be measured either, which pleases many old-school sportswriters and professional athletes when they prepare to write a column about a gritty, white player whose heart is bigger than his talent level.
“The numbers guys can’t quantify that one,’’ Lackey said, “so they don’t want to believe in it.’’
Okay Piggy, nobody said those who used advanced statistics don't want to believe in chemistry. In fact, Alex Anthopoulos is a noted user of advanced statistics and he is quoted in this article many times about the importance of chemistry. So you know, John Lackey should probably focus a little bit more on pitching and a little bit less on trying to believe he understands the position of Sabermetricians regarding team chemistry.
You want to know what chemistry and culture is about, peek inside the San Francisco Giants’ clubhouse. They’ve won three of the last five World Series. Maybe they’ve had the best manager in Bruce Bochy, and GM too in Brian Sabean, but never have they had the best talent.
The team with the most talent doesn't always win the World Series, but attributing the difference in the team with the most perceived talent and teams with lesser perceived talent simply to chemistry is probably an oversimplification.
“Come on, how to do you put a number on a guy like (Chicago Cubs backup catcher David Ross) and what he brings to the clubhouse? This guy hit (.184) last year, and he got multiple two-years deals on the table. Why is that?’’
Because he's a veteran clubhouse presence who has experience working with pitching staffs and he isn't going to be expensive.
Indeed, you step into the Cubs’ clubhouse these days, and no one is talking about Ross’ .186 batting average and seven RBI. They’re too busy raving about his powerful influence on a club featuring four rookies in the everyday lineup.
David Ross does more for team chemistry than the Cubs starting catcher, yet David Ross isn't the starting catcher. Why is that? Oh wait, that's right. This discussion of chemistry is supposed to entirely ignore talent. Ross had less than 400 at-bats over the last three years (as of the time this column was written), since he's so valuable in the clubhouse, then why do you suppose he's not in the starting lineup everyday? Probably because catchers with greater talent are getting the majority of the at-bats.
Chemistry is important. Absolutely. John Lackey should also realize that David Ross doesn't need to be on the field to help his team, while those players who do have skills that can be quantified are the ones getting the majority of the at-bats. So the whole "they can't quantify chemistry" argument has merit as long as those players whose contribution can be quantified aren't having their substantial impact on the team's success ignored.
“He means so much to every single person in here,’’ Cubs first baseman Anthony Rizzo said.
Go ahead, try to put a number on that.
$2.5 million this year. That's his salary. That's the number on how much his contribution means to the Cubs.
If you go by the numbers, the Royals were supposed to win just 72 games this year, according to Baseball Prospectus’ projection system, PECOTA.
PECOTA is wrong again this year. They had the Royals at 80-82. Though it's important to know the Royals play in the only division in the majors where only one team has a positive run differential (the Royals), so there is a case to be made that the Royals are going to beat the PECOTA projections handily, but they are also in a weak division. It doesn't take anything away from them, but these are "projections" not "certainties based on data and information that is never wrong."
The Cardinals, who have had more injuries to key players than any team, shouldn’t be leading their division, let alone be on pace to eclipse 100 victories, if you go strictly by sheer talent.
I would completely and utterly disagree. The Cardinals, even prior to the season had one of the strongest and deepest pitching staffs in the majors. It is discussed at length how the Cardinals have great minor league depth (THE CARDINALS WAY!) and when injuries occur they can survive them easier than most MLB teams. If a person is going to be so ridiculous as to look to individual talent on a baseball team rather than the depth of talent on a team's roster, then obviously a team with few players who have a high level of individual talent would be misjudged. Teams should not be judged by sheer talent on the roster though. Teams should be judged by talent at each spot on the roster and the depth of that talent on the roster. The Cardinals have talent at each spot on the roster and they have depth. Going by sheer talent is a dumb way to evaluate a team in the first place.
“People that don’t understand what team chemistry means don’t work in baseball,’’ Toronto Blue Jays ace David Price said.
Right, everyone knows a team needs good chemistry to help them be successful. A team also needs talent. Teams that win titles have both. To indicate advanced statistics are useless because it can't measure a team's chemistry is to make it an "either/or" argument and entirely miss the point. I don't expect much else from baseball players though. They are traditionally stuck in the past and not open to new ideas.
“You look at the Giants, and they’re not more talented than everyone else every year, but they’re so close, and together. The Cardinals are the same way. They definitely have talent, but they’re no more talented than a lot of the teams they’re beating every day.
I would absolutely disagree with this. How come the Giants' team chemistry doesn't allow them to win the World Series during odd-numbered years? Does the team just forget about their chemistry in those years or something?
And as I stated before, it has been discussed at-length in multiple publications how the Cardinals have great organizational depth, so I would argue they are more talented than the teams they are beating every day.
“The Cardinals are unbelievable. They lose their ace (Adam Wainwright). They lose their No. 3 and No. 4 hitters in (Matt) Adams and (Matt Holliday). And they’re still winning. They’re just unreal.
Again, the Cardinals were very deep in the starting rotation prior to the start of the season. There is a reason they could afford to trade Shelby Miller. The media always wants it both ways. They want to talk about how great the Cardinals are at producing players through their minor league system, while also claiming the team has lesser talent than other teams.
The Blue Jays placed more emphasis on a player’s character than any time in GM Alex Anthopoulos’ tenure. He shipped out the guy who didn’t fit in. He chose character over talent. There’s a reason why 42-year-old LaTroy Hawkins is now in the Blue Jays’ bullpen instead of Jonathan Papelbon.
Well yeah, nobody likes Jonathan Papelbon. I do like how Nightengale is using Anthopoulos as the example of a GM who loves chemistry, since he is a GM who has in the past emphasized Sabermetrics. It's almost like a team has to have talent AND chemistry. That couldn't be true though.
“We really, really, emphasized that,’’ Anthopoulos said, “more than we ever have.
Yes, they went against having talent for chemistry by trading for Josh Donaldson, Troy Tulowitzki and David Price. What rebels they are to favor chemistry over talent in these cases. They traded for one of the best players at shortstop, third base and pitcher for the chemistry it gave the team, while blatantly ignoring whether these guys are talented or not.
“Every team goes through ups and downs, and I think with a better clubhouse and with better character, that allows you to handle the downs a lot. That’s the separator. So rather than the floor caving in on you, you stay afloat.
“We’ll find out if it works.’’
Obviously you can't throw a team together that hates each other or won't complement each other. That much is obvious. Winning creates chemistry and so figuring out how a team can win (find some talented players is always a good start) is important too.
Certainly, adding a guy like Price at the trade deadline, and having MVP favorite Josh Donaldson the entire season, may have something to do with the Blue Jays’ success, too.
Nah, I'm sure the fact they are two of the best at their position in terms of skill level has nothing to do with the Blue Jays' success.
Yet, manager John Gibbons can’t stop raving about Donaldson’s leadership skills, and Price is revered throughout the game.
What helps Donaldson be a leader? The fact he's also a really good baseball player. Players who are good at baseball can naturally set a good example for the rest of the team to follow.
“We were looking for a special type of player, even if it meant passing on some talent,’’ Anthopoulos said, “making sure every player we acquired fit.
“I think it’s important David Price fit into in the clubhouse, but let’s don’t forget he’s got a (2.40) ERA, too.’’
Irrelevant. Don't try to measure David Price's chemistry by putting it in terms of his ERA.
Sure, you’ve got to have talent to win, but talent alone doesn’t guarantee a thing. If the standings were based strictly on talent, you think the Washington Nationals would be trailing the New York Mets by five games?
If the Nationals had the hitting that the Blue Jays have, do you think they would be trailing the Mets by five games? The Blue Jays have scored more than 150 more runs than the Nationals. But I'm sure that's all chemistry-based run scoring.
“If you have good clubhouse chemistry, you going to win,’’ New York Yankees veteran starter CC Sabathia said. “It’s not something you can fake. It’s real.
“You look at the Giants. Those guys love each other, and they win. They get a guy like Peavy. You see what (Tim) Hudson has meant for them. It’s the real thing.’’
I would have to again ask why the Giants can't seem to win the World Series during odd numbered years with a roster that doesn't change dramatically. Is their chemistry just forgotten during certain years?
Sure, numbers are fine for fantasy leagues, but if you want to truly define a player’s value, or recognize the importance significance of clubhouse culture, it’s time to wake up and embrace character, too.
I think most people recognize the value of character and embrace this value. The fact statistics are used to evaluate players doesn't mean clubhouse culture is ignored.
“I think we’re losing part of our game because so many of these people in charge don’t have the scouting background or playing background,’’ Peavy said.
One minute David Price says people who don't understand how chemistry works don't work in baseball and the next minute Jake Peavy says there are some who work in baseball who don't understand chemistry. By the way, the Giants use analytics. I wouldn't be surprised if Jake Peavy didn't know this and just thought the Giants had hired nerds so there would be someone around to give a swirlie to, because giving swirlies to nerds is a well-known way to help a team's chemistry.
“You can have all of the education you want, and break down every number you want, but unless you get to know what’s inside a player, you really don’t know the player.’’
Yes, probably. But when scouting high school or college baseball players it is nearly impossible to know how their personality will fit into that MLB team's personality and clubhouse culture 2-6 years from now. What is possible to project is that player's talent. It doesn't mean talent is the end-all, but it does explain why players aren't drafted based on chemistry instead of perceived talent.
The Royals certainly noticed the tepid external expectations. Public relations director Mike Swanson, in his recent pre-game notes, reminded everyone of Baseball Prospectus’ projected 72-90 record.
“Fortunately, games are won on a field and not on paper,’’ Swanson wrote in the Royals’ notes distributed to the media, “thus a computer ‘time out’ might be appropriate for some.”
Hilarious. Swanson may be forgetting the Royals were one failed rally away from being knocked out of the idiotic Wild Card game. Yep, talent had something to do with the Royals going to the World Series.
“We had our Moneyball movie, and they didn’t even win,’’ Peavy said of the Oakland Athletics. “How about let’s make a movie about the good ol’ fashioned baseball people, and how they judge team chemistry, and put together guys that fit in.
Great idea. I get the feeling Jake Peavy isn't a threat to appear on "Jeopardy" any time soon. Unless the topic is "Good ol' fashioned baseball people" I'm thinking he's probably better at throwing a ball than he is a-thinkin' with his head.
“How about a movie about a team that actually wins in the end?’’
I believe that movie was made 25 years ago and it is called "Major League." Or maybe it is called "The Natural," "Bad News Bears," "Angels in the Outfield," "Little Big League," "Rookie of the Year," or one of the dozens of baseball movies made about a team that actually wins in the end. Great point, Jake Peavy.
There should be a movie called "Chemistry" where a team of baseball players who don't have the talent to play in the majors are all traded to the same team, then win the World Series because they all get along so well. Jake Peavy would love this.
You can't measure team chemistry, so maybe someone should create a dating website for baseball players so GM's can know which players will have the most in common and therefore enjoy spending time with each other. It can be like Match.com for athletes. Or is that too much like trying to measure chemistry? Maybe other MLB teams should try to create the chemistry the Blue Jays have by trading for three great players and seeing if that helps them win more games. I don't know, getting really talented players could work to help a team win more games.
Monday, October 5, 2015
2 comments Phil Mushnick Is Tired of These Showboats and Knows David Cone Agrees With Him On This Even Though He Says He Doesn't
Phil Mushnick is the crankiest of cranky-pant sportswriters. He hates everything. Well, he doesn't hate how things used to be back when athletes didn't show off (you know, show off in a way like pointing to centerfield when he was predicting he would hit a home run), didn't say things for attention (you know, like predict a Super Bowl victory while lounging at the pool), and certainly weren't me-first athletes like today's athlete is. Phil Mushnick misses those days that most certainly never actually occurred. Now it's just athletes out for themselves and the media looking to pander to these athletes. This just infuriates Phil. Much like everything outside of the existence of oxygen infuriates Phil. Mushnick knows David Cone agrees about how showboating is ruining sports, despite Cone actually saying that he does not agree. It's just "The Man" forcing Cone to say these things and that's why he doesn't agree with Phil, not because he really doesn't agree the modern athlete is too much of a showboat. After all, sports ARE NOT intended to be entertainment, so Phil doesn't know where these athletes get off trying to be entertaining.
In the discourse of a week, how much of what we’re told to believe by experts is not even believed by the experts?
42.35%. That's how much we are told to believe on the air by experts is not actually believed by these experts. Well actually, these experts don't actually tell us to believe these things they don't believe, but they simply don't spend most of a game's broadcast ignoring the game in favor of railing against showboating in sports. Phil Mushnick takes this to mean these experts LOVE showboating, because they do their job, which is to call the game and not interject personal opinions on the downfall of sports civility into the broadcast at every possible chance.
John Madden, off air, claimed to dislike all the chest-pounding and trash-talking. He said he didn’t like show-offs. Who does?
It depends on your definition of a "show-off." I'd also like to add that John Madden coached the Raiders back when they were the hard-hitting and personality-driven Raiders teams, so the fact he claims to not like trash-talking and chest-pounding is kind of ironic given the teams Madden coached. Jack Tatum fucking paralyzed Darryl Stingley during a preseason game. But again, let's forget all this and paint John Madden as a guy who prefers straight-laced players. I like myths.
Yet on the air, over forced laughs, he said he loved the biggest all-about-me guys — Deion Sanders and Randy Moss, for two — as great entertainers.
Because that's what they are, entertainers. It's sports. Sports are supposed to be fun and entertaining, not boring. I realize the fact sports are supposed to be entertaining causes Phil Mushnick to stare disapprovingly over the top of his glasses and shake his head.
Of course, Madden’s big-selling video games were — still are — loaded with excessively brutal images and showboating, a primary come-on as seen in commercials and on the packaging. Madden made an added fortune encouraging the young to believe what he doesn’t believe.
I'm pretty sure John Madden never came out on telecasts and said he loved showboating and how players talk trash all the time. Also, Madden wasn't deeply involved with the "Madden" football games to where he probably has a clue what sort of in-depth imagery the game is showing. And one more thing, it's a fucking video game. Brutal images and showboating? It's a video game that is supposed to be fun. Put the pitchforks back to wherever the hell you got them from.
Friday, the Yanks were down, 5-0, in the first, when Alex Rodriguez took an inside first pitch that was called a strike. On YES, Rodriguez was seen questioning the umpire. Also on YES, Paul O’Neill said this about that:
A-Rod was questioning the umpire? What a terrible display of showboating from A-Rod to question the umpire. No old-school baseball player would EVER question an umpire's decision-making ability. These young kids (A-Rod is 40 years old) just don't know the respect that previous generations who absolutely refused to question the umpire knew.
(Phil Mushnick goes outside to get his paper and shakes his fist at the neighborhood kids who once again are playing near the curb, which is where his flowers are planted. Such a "me-first" attitude on these kids. Back in Phil's day, kids would stay as far away from flowers as possible, but these days because of video games, kids think it's perfectly fine to stand in close proximity to flowers.)
“That’s the count I don’t think umpires understand. Strike one or ball one changes the whole at bat.”
OK, but what was O’Neill suggesting? Umps should call the first pitch differently from all others?
I think it is very clear what O'Neill was suggesting. He's suggesting that the umpires pay great attention to making sure the call on the first pitch is the correct one. O'Neill isn't suggesting the umps call the first pitch differently, but wants them to pay extra special attention to making sure the call is correct on the first pitch. It would be nice if the home plate umpire would pay special attention to every pitch, but O'Neill was simply observing the first pitch sets up how the rest of the at-bat may go. There is a reason pitching coaches love their pitchers to throw first pitch strikes. I understand though. I understand Phil's job is to bitch about sports and not actually understand the sport he is bitching about.
Wouldn’t he prefer that umpires “understand” all pitches the same — as balls or strikes?
Yes, he would. He was simply observing the first pitch is very important because it decides the direction of an at-bat in some ways and an umpire needs to be sure he doesn't miss a call on the first pitch. That's all.
In the fourth, the Jays’ Edwin Encarnacion homered to make it 8-1. Instead of quickly circling the bases, he took his time, extending his right arm as if a bird were perched on it. “Walk-the-parrot” is the latest in ESPN-rewarded check-me-out attention-grabs.
I remember the time (okay, I don't remember it, but I remember the story about it) Babe Ruth pointed to center field and predicted he would hit a home run in the World Series. ESPN wasn't around, so why did Ruth do this? Of course, this isn't showboating, it's just a fun story about a great baseball player.
“Does that bother you, Coney?” O’Neill asked David Cone.
And it likely bothered O’Neill, or he wouldn’t have asked.
Or it didn't bother O'Neill as an ex-hitter and he wondered if an ex-pitcher was also not bothered by Encarnacion's "parrot" walk. Phil Mushnick just makes the assumption that O'Neill was bothered because he asked the question of whether someone else was bothered. This is a potentially incorrect assumption. Perhaps O'Neill just wanted the perspective of an ex-pitcher on Encarnacion's walk.
But Phil Mushnick doesn't think like this. He assumes a conclusion and then fits his argument to fit that conclusion, even if the conclusion takes more assumptions to fit into the argument. Obviously O'Neill was bothered because he asked the question, obviously David Cone is bothered because Phil Mushnick wants him to be bothered and obviously when Cone says he isn't bothered then he is simply kowtowing to the corporate gods who he owes his broadcasting career to. So David Cone's opinion isn't his real opinion and Phil Mushnick knows this because he wants Cone's real opinion to agree with what he's writing in this column. Because any fan of the Braves knows the corporate gods who hand out broadcasting jobs would not immediately fire announcers who appear stodgy and behind the times. Joe Simpson and Chip Caray are so modern and allow their thoughts to be determined by what is currently popular. Mushnick is working under the assumption YES doesn't want their announcers sounding behind the times, while anyone who watches a baseball game on television and hears the announcers talk know this isn't true.
What we know personally and professionally about Cone is he must hate it; hate it as a former pitcher, a dad, a sportsman and a right-headed human.
The opinion Cone espouses on television to thousands watching and listening must not be his real opinion because it's not what Phil Mushnick wants David Cone to believe. Cone's own opinion isn't his real opinion. "The Man" is just keeping Cone down and Mushnick knows this is true because he wants it to be true so his opinion on showboating can be held as the correct opinion and not the opinion of an old man who needlessly complains about entertainment being too entertaining.
But he couldn’t or wouldn’t say it for fear of condemnation as out-of-touch with an anything-goes, bereft-of-sport sports world, so he took the modern media path and pandered to it, blessed wrong as right:
Because, again, baseball announcers are never saying anything that seems out-of-touch during a baseball broadcast. This never happens. I like how Phil creates his own reality where even those things that others say which may seem to disagree with a position Phil holds are not truly the opinion that person holds. It's all because "The Man" is going to keep them down and prevent any deviation from the modern media path. That's the only real explanation for why a person affiliated with sports would disagree with Phil's opinion. "The Man" is forcing them to hold an opinion they don't agree with. You know sort of the same thing, except using the opposing point of view, that Phil Mushnick does by insisting those who don't agree with him must really agree with him. He forces his opinion on others and won't allow anyone with a different opinion from him to hold that opinion.
“Nowadays, it’s a different game. Buck Showalter had an interesting comment about it: Modern ballplayers are responsible for this, about governing their play. If they’re OK with it, he’s OK with it. …
David Cone thinks baseball players should police themselves, which is definitely an old-school mentality. Perhaps "The Man" allows Cone to say some old-school things, but admitting he doesn't like showboating crosses the line. Or maybe, Phil Mushnick is wrong and David Cone's opinion really is his opinion.
“Some of it has been good for the game. The old days of keeping your head down and not showing anyone up — that’s a thing of the past. And in some ways, that’s a good thing. You still want to respect the game, but there’s a fine line there and you know when you cross it.
Oh yeah, this is a totally modern point of view. Look at David Cone sticking hard to the party line. He's talking about respecting the game and there being a line you don't cross in terms of celebrating. It sounds pretty much like Cone believes the old-school way of players policing themselves and a player not celebrating too much, except that can't be true, because "The Man" has Cone under his thumb and is forcing Cone to not agree with Phil Mushnick on whether Edwin Encarnacion's "parrot" celebration is too much showboating. It's a huge conspiracy.
“If you hit a home run into the upper deck and you want to ‘walk the parrot,’ go ahead, walk the parrot. … It’s definitely a more lenient attitude toward the display of emotions, which for, the younger generation is a good thing.”
Against every wish Phil Mushnick has, times change. Players display more emotions this day in age than they used to (or maybe they do, I'm not even sure this is true), so David Cone has come to terms with this and realizes it's not bad for the game. Of course, Phil Mushnick secretly thinks David Cone is lying. Or does he? Now, showing thorough senility, Phil manages to argue with the opinion that he doesn't truly believe David Cone holds. So Phil thinks Cone doesn't like celebrations like "walk the parrot," but then argues with Cone over an opinion he doesn't believe Cone really holds.
Really? Immodesty — often rehearsed and planned — is a good thing?
Cone didn't say anything about "immodesty" and therein lies the issue. Phil thinks it is immodest to celebrate a home run with a "walk the parrot" celebration, but Cone sees it as just a part of the game that is acceptable as long as the players find it acceptable. Phil can label this "immodesty," but that doesn't mean it's true.
The most conspicuous rewards such “natural enthusiasm” reaps are brawls, personal fouls and striking home-run poses — posing doubles and into singles.
Well, there are no personal fouls in baseball. Even in basketball, personal fouls are a part of the game and not always as a result of a player showboating. Also, baseball brawls were around well before Edwin Encarnacion started strutting around the bases like a parrot. So what was the reason for baseball brawls back in the good old days when athletes were modest and never celebrated? You know, those days that never existed which Phil clings so tightly to. Brawls happened then, but supposedly players didn't showboat. I wonder how Phil explains this.
Forgive me, but I don’t believe a word of what Cone or Showalter said; I believe that they believe that it stinks, that showboating has no tangible or next-generation upside, leaving our sports in further decay.
I don't need to forgive you for being senile and trying to force your point of view on others. I realize that you realize your argument sucks and so you need to make many assumptions in order to even churn out 250 words on a topic. Regardless of your opinion on showboating, pretending someone agrees with you because you so desperately want them to is pathetic. In fact, just assuming people agree with your opinion is immodest isn't it?
In the discourse of a week, how much of what we’re told to believe by experts is not even believed by the experts?
42.35%. That's how much we are told to believe on the air by experts is not actually believed by these experts. Well actually, these experts don't actually tell us to believe these things they don't believe, but they simply don't spend most of a game's broadcast ignoring the game in favor of railing against showboating in sports. Phil Mushnick takes this to mean these experts LOVE showboating, because they do their job, which is to call the game and not interject personal opinions on the downfall of sports civility into the broadcast at every possible chance.
John Madden, off air, claimed to dislike all the chest-pounding and trash-talking. He said he didn’t like show-offs. Who does?
It depends on your definition of a "show-off." I'd also like to add that John Madden coached the Raiders back when they were the hard-hitting and personality-driven Raiders teams, so the fact he claims to not like trash-talking and chest-pounding is kind of ironic given the teams Madden coached. Jack Tatum fucking paralyzed Darryl Stingley during a preseason game. But again, let's forget all this and paint John Madden as a guy who prefers straight-laced players. I like myths.
Yet on the air, over forced laughs, he said he loved the biggest all-about-me guys — Deion Sanders and Randy Moss, for two — as great entertainers.
Because that's what they are, entertainers. It's sports. Sports are supposed to be fun and entertaining, not boring. I realize the fact sports are supposed to be entertaining causes Phil Mushnick to stare disapprovingly over the top of his glasses and shake his head.
Of course, Madden’s big-selling video games were — still are — loaded with excessively brutal images and showboating, a primary come-on as seen in commercials and on the packaging. Madden made an added fortune encouraging the young to believe what he doesn’t believe.
I'm pretty sure John Madden never came out on telecasts and said he loved showboating and how players talk trash all the time. Also, Madden wasn't deeply involved with the "Madden" football games to where he probably has a clue what sort of in-depth imagery the game is showing. And one more thing, it's a fucking video game. Brutal images and showboating? It's a video game that is supposed to be fun. Put the pitchforks back to wherever the hell you got them from.
Friday, the Yanks were down, 5-0, in the first, when Alex Rodriguez took an inside first pitch that was called a strike. On YES, Rodriguez was seen questioning the umpire. Also on YES, Paul O’Neill said this about that:
A-Rod was questioning the umpire? What a terrible display of showboating from A-Rod to question the umpire. No old-school baseball player would EVER question an umpire's decision-making ability. These young kids (A-Rod is 40 years old) just don't know the respect that previous generations who absolutely refused to question the umpire knew.
(Phil Mushnick goes outside to get his paper and shakes his fist at the neighborhood kids who once again are playing near the curb, which is where his flowers are planted. Such a "me-first" attitude on these kids. Back in Phil's day, kids would stay as far away from flowers as possible, but these days because of video games, kids think it's perfectly fine to stand in close proximity to flowers.)
“That’s the count I don’t think umpires understand. Strike one or ball one changes the whole at bat.”
OK, but what was O’Neill suggesting? Umps should call the first pitch differently from all others?
I think it is very clear what O'Neill was suggesting. He's suggesting that the umpires pay great attention to making sure the call on the first pitch is the correct one. O'Neill isn't suggesting the umps call the first pitch differently, but wants them to pay extra special attention to making sure the call is correct on the first pitch. It would be nice if the home plate umpire would pay special attention to every pitch, but O'Neill was simply observing the first pitch sets up how the rest of the at-bat may go. There is a reason pitching coaches love their pitchers to throw first pitch strikes. I understand though. I understand Phil's job is to bitch about sports and not actually understand the sport he is bitching about.
Wouldn’t he prefer that umpires “understand” all pitches the same — as balls or strikes?
Yes, he would. He was simply observing the first pitch is very important because it decides the direction of an at-bat in some ways and an umpire needs to be sure he doesn't miss a call on the first pitch. That's all.
In the fourth, the Jays’ Edwin Encarnacion homered to make it 8-1. Instead of quickly circling the bases, he took his time, extending his right arm as if a bird were perched on it. “Walk-the-parrot” is the latest in ESPN-rewarded check-me-out attention-grabs.
I remember the time (okay, I don't remember it, but I remember the story about it) Babe Ruth pointed to center field and predicted he would hit a home run in the World Series. ESPN wasn't around, so why did Ruth do this? Of course, this isn't showboating, it's just a fun story about a great baseball player.
“Does that bother you, Coney?” O’Neill asked David Cone.
And it likely bothered O’Neill, or he wouldn’t have asked.
Or it didn't bother O'Neill as an ex-hitter and he wondered if an ex-pitcher was also not bothered by Encarnacion's "parrot" walk. Phil Mushnick just makes the assumption that O'Neill was bothered because he asked the question of whether someone else was bothered. This is a potentially incorrect assumption. Perhaps O'Neill just wanted the perspective of an ex-pitcher on Encarnacion's walk.
But Phil Mushnick doesn't think like this. He assumes a conclusion and then fits his argument to fit that conclusion, even if the conclusion takes more assumptions to fit into the argument. Obviously O'Neill was bothered because he asked the question, obviously David Cone is bothered because Phil Mushnick wants him to be bothered and obviously when Cone says he isn't bothered then he is simply kowtowing to the corporate gods who he owes his broadcasting career to. So David Cone's opinion isn't his real opinion and Phil Mushnick knows this because he wants Cone's real opinion to agree with what he's writing in this column. Because any fan of the Braves knows the corporate gods who hand out broadcasting jobs would not immediately fire announcers who appear stodgy and behind the times. Joe Simpson and Chip Caray are so modern and allow their thoughts to be determined by what is currently popular. Mushnick is working under the assumption YES doesn't want their announcers sounding behind the times, while anyone who watches a baseball game on television and hears the announcers talk know this isn't true.
What we know personally and professionally about Cone is he must hate it; hate it as a former pitcher, a dad, a sportsman and a right-headed human.
The opinion Cone espouses on television to thousands watching and listening must not be his real opinion because it's not what Phil Mushnick wants David Cone to believe. Cone's own opinion isn't his real opinion. "The Man" is just keeping Cone down and Mushnick knows this is true because he wants it to be true so his opinion on showboating can be held as the correct opinion and not the opinion of an old man who needlessly complains about entertainment being too entertaining.
But he couldn’t or wouldn’t say it for fear of condemnation as out-of-touch with an anything-goes, bereft-of-sport sports world, so he took the modern media path and pandered to it, blessed wrong as right:
Because, again, baseball announcers are never saying anything that seems out-of-touch during a baseball broadcast. This never happens. I like how Phil creates his own reality where even those things that others say which may seem to disagree with a position Phil holds are not truly the opinion that person holds. It's all because "The Man" is going to keep them down and prevent any deviation from the modern media path. That's the only real explanation for why a person affiliated with sports would disagree with Phil's opinion. "The Man" is forcing them to hold an opinion they don't agree with. You know sort of the same thing, except using the opposing point of view, that Phil Mushnick does by insisting those who don't agree with him must really agree with him. He forces his opinion on others and won't allow anyone with a different opinion from him to hold that opinion.
“Nowadays, it’s a different game. Buck Showalter had an interesting comment about it: Modern ballplayers are responsible for this, about governing their play. If they’re OK with it, he’s OK with it. …
David Cone thinks baseball players should police themselves, which is definitely an old-school mentality. Perhaps "The Man" allows Cone to say some old-school things, but admitting he doesn't like showboating crosses the line. Or maybe, Phil Mushnick is wrong and David Cone's opinion really is his opinion.
“Some of it has been good for the game. The old days of keeping your head down and not showing anyone up — that’s a thing of the past. And in some ways, that’s a good thing. You still want to respect the game, but there’s a fine line there and you know when you cross it.
Oh yeah, this is a totally modern point of view. Look at David Cone sticking hard to the party line. He's talking about respecting the game and there being a line you don't cross in terms of celebrating. It sounds pretty much like Cone believes the old-school way of players policing themselves and a player not celebrating too much, except that can't be true, because "The Man" has Cone under his thumb and is forcing Cone to not agree with Phil Mushnick on whether Edwin Encarnacion's "parrot" celebration is too much showboating. It's a huge conspiracy.
“If you hit a home run into the upper deck and you want to ‘walk the parrot,’ go ahead, walk the parrot. … It’s definitely a more lenient attitude toward the display of emotions, which for, the younger generation is a good thing.”
Against every wish Phil Mushnick has, times change. Players display more emotions this day in age than they used to (or maybe they do, I'm not even sure this is true), so David Cone has come to terms with this and realizes it's not bad for the game. Of course, Phil Mushnick secretly thinks David Cone is lying. Or does he? Now, showing thorough senility, Phil manages to argue with the opinion that he doesn't truly believe David Cone holds. So Phil thinks Cone doesn't like celebrations like "walk the parrot," but then argues with Cone over an opinion he doesn't believe Cone really holds.
Really? Immodesty — often rehearsed and planned — is a good thing?
Cone didn't say anything about "immodesty" and therein lies the issue. Phil thinks it is immodest to celebrate a home run with a "walk the parrot" celebration, but Cone sees it as just a part of the game that is acceptable as long as the players find it acceptable. Phil can label this "immodesty," but that doesn't mean it's true.
The most conspicuous rewards such “natural enthusiasm” reaps are brawls, personal fouls and striking home-run poses — posing doubles and into singles.
Well, there are no personal fouls in baseball. Even in basketball, personal fouls are a part of the game and not always as a result of a player showboating. Also, baseball brawls were around well before Edwin Encarnacion started strutting around the bases like a parrot. So what was the reason for baseball brawls back in the good old days when athletes were modest and never celebrated? You know, those days that never existed which Phil clings so tightly to. Brawls happened then, but supposedly players didn't showboat. I wonder how Phil explains this.
Forgive me, but I don’t believe a word of what Cone or Showalter said; I believe that they believe that it stinks, that showboating has no tangible or next-generation upside, leaving our sports in further decay.
I don't need to forgive you for being senile and trying to force your point of view on others. I realize that you realize your argument sucks and so you need to make many assumptions in order to even churn out 250 words on a topic. Regardless of your opinion on showboating, pretending someone agrees with you because you so desperately want them to is pathetic. In fact, just assuming people agree with your opinion is immodest isn't it?
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
4 comments How To Fix the NBA Lottery By Making it More Non-Sensical and Absurd
Has anyone been worried about the NBA lottery and how it rewards teams for tanking? No worries from here on out! This problem has been figured out by "Slate." There is a brilliant idea posted on the site on how to fix the NBA lottery and make everything more fair. The best part is this idea takes the lottery process and turns it into a circus atmosphere, where the intention goes away from choosing lottery spots for each team and becomes more of an exercise in creating manufactured drama. Why does everything have to be dramatic and overly-difficult?
On another note, does anyone but sportswriters care that the NBA lottery is fixed to where teams have some incentive to tank? Like, is this a big deal that the normal sports fan really cares about or is the complaining about tanking simply something the media cares about more than a sports fan does? Me personally, I could care less if the 76ers tank and get a high draft pick. It doesn't bother me. The idea some teams are so terrible they get rewarded for being bad just doesn't bother me that much (as long as I'm not a fan of that team). I could be in the minority, but I feel like others in the media are more concerned about this than I am.
This is the year that NBA tanking went off the rails.
Every year over the past few years, this has been written somewhere.
The Philadelphia 76ers, for starters, exemplified a whole new level of basketball seppuku with a team so willfully awful that the New York Times Magazine felt compelled to publish a feature story about their willful awfulness.
The 76ers were so terrible that people in the media noticed how terrible they were.
By descending into “tank mode,” the Sixers hoped to lose enough games that they’d receive one of the valuable first picks in the upcoming NBA draft.
Oh, so THAT is how tanking works? Thanks for clearing that one up. By the way, this is the third straight season the 76ers have essentially done this. So if they were "off the rails" this year then it isn't "the year" tanking went "off the rails." There are a lot of quotes in that sentence. More quotes than good points made in this column in fact.
The New York Knicks, Los Angeles Lakers, and other teams were accused of plunging into the tank for large swaths of this season. Which is sad.
Let's be slightly fair, the Lakers stumbled on to tanking. They managed to lose their first round pick to injury, their best player to injury, and their old point guard tried to come back from injury and had to retire instead. The intention wasn't to tank, but at some point they have to throw up their hands and realize it ain't their year.
Tanking makes for ugly basketball and it throws off competitive balance.
(Bengoodfella shrugs his shoulders) As long as a large percentage of the NBA isn't tanking then I really don't feel too concerned about this problem.
Perhaps worst of all: Fans of tanking teams find themselves not only watching putrid hoops but also perversely rooting against their hometown squads
And again, this is very weird and not good for the fans of these teams. Would fixing the lottery so these teams don't get good players really help the situation? The assumption is management would stop tanking, but would it really stop this strategy? I'm not entirely sure. Lest it be forgotten that the current lottery system was put in place to prevent tanking. From the Bondy column:
The lottery was put into place by David Stern after the spring of 1984 turned into an uncomfortable tank-fest. The way it worked, teams with the very worst record in each conference flipped a coin for the first pick and then other selections were made in inverse order of won-loss records. Not surprisingly, the franchises that still owned their first-round picks hemorrhaged defeats. The Rockets dropped 14 of their last 17 games, nine of their last 10, and their final five. They were rewarded with Olajuwon as the No. 1 pick. The Bulls lost 14 of their last 15 to land Jordan at No. 3.
To quell this perception, Stern instituted the draft lottery, which gave teams far less reason to throw away games.
Sounds a lot like the strategy teams are using 30 years later. The draft lottery was supposed to stop teams from tanking. It didn't. So changes are being suggested again. And again, teams will tank anyway.
You know something has gone awry when Knicks coach Derek Fisher feels pressure to apologize to fans for winning.
In that article, Fisher seemed to say he doesn't feel pressure to apologize to fans for winning. He's not going to apologize for it, so therefore I would say he doesn't feel the pressure. OR it could be we are arguing over semantics in regard to a lottery change that won't ever change the fact NBA teams are going to tank.
The best tanking solution would be relegation, as happens in European soccer leagues. Each year, the bottom three teams in the continent’s top divisions are kicked out of the league and relegated to a lower one. Regrettably, with NBA teams currently selling for $2 billion apiece, it's unlikely we'll get owners to agree that a few of them should be banished to the D-League each year to compete against the Sioux Falls Skyforce.
Clearly the author is a fan of Bill Simmons since Bill has floated this idea jokingly (not jokingly?) in columns before. And yes, no NBA team will be relegated. I don't even know how that would work with the NBA Draft and I don't really care either.
A more likely solution would be for the NBA to flatten out the lottery odds. Right now the worst team has a 25 percent chance at the top pick while the 14th-worst team has a 0.5 percent chance. We could switch to a true lottery, in which all 14 non-playoff teams would get an equal 7.14 percent chance at the top pick.
So basically the same lottery system the NBA used to use, then got rid of in order to discourage teams from tanking? Get rid of the currently lottery system in order to go back to the old lottery system which was changed because it encouraged teams to tank? Gotta have a sense of history. The odds are not as great now that a team would land the #1 pick (it was around 14% thirty years ago), but the system was no longer used for a reason.
Another draft scheme that’s gotten lots of attention is “the wheel”—a system in which the draft order would be set far in advance so that a team’s draft position would have zero to do with its on-court performance.
Sounds great, but I have a feeling teams would still find a way to tank. I have no idea how, but NBA teams have tanked at times for decades and it is almost a reflex for some teams who are looking to rebuild.
This would eliminate any reason to tank, but it would also do nothing to help bad teams get better. The worst team in the league might end up picking dead last in the draft.
And therein lies the whole problem with the media's teeth-gnashing over fixing the lottery. How can a lottery be set up for the purpose to help teams that aren't very good so they do become very good, while also not giving teams incentive to tank? The NBA can't help bad teams, while also not giving teams incentive to be bad. That is, unless some convoluted lottery set up over a several year span where to occur. Something like a team can't get a Top 5 pick for a certain amount of years if they have had one in the previous year. But again, this would work at cross purposes to help a team that's trying to get better. The Thunder never would have had the chance to draft James Harden and Russell Westbrook if this rule were in effect over the last decade.
As horrible as the status quo is, some version of reverse-order drafting—and the increased parity it helps create—is still a worthy goal. So the problem seems intractable.
It is. It's very hard to help bad teams while not incentivizing these teams to be bad.
But fear not, NBA fans! A superior answer exists, and a friend of mine has invented it. It’s fair, it’s elegant, and it’s fun. My friend calls it the “You’re the Worst!” draft.
Maybe not ironically, this draft idea is the worst draft idea. It's convoluted and turns the lottery into a drama that becomes more game show than simple lottery to determine draft position.
How would it work? On the day before the regular season began, the NBA would hold a “You’re the Worst!” draft. Selection order for the YTW draft would be determined like any standard reverse-order draft—the team that had the worst win-loss record in the previous season would pick first, the team that had the best record would pick last. But the teams wouldn’t be drafting players.
(Cue overdramatic music)
They’d be choosing the rights to another team’s position in the next NBA draft.
I see that you, as a reader, maybe confused by one part of this. You may be asking, "But, would each team point at each other and say 'you're the worst' during this process?" Fear not, that is something that would happen. Just wait for the full plan to be revealed.
So, for example, the Minnesota Timberwolves, who finished this season with the worst win-loss record, would have the first YTW pick in the fall when the 2015–16 season started. One day before opening day, all of the league’s general managers would gather together in a room. The T-Wolves would look around that room and decide which team they thought would finish worst in 2015–16.
Again, this is over complicating the entire lottery process needlessly. There is no reason to do this, other than to provide needless drama and over-complicate the process. It's a fun idea, but not something that should really happen.
Minnesota general manager Milt Newton might predict that the Knicks would be the worst team next season. In which case he would shout, “You’re the worst!” while pointing at Knicks President Phil Jackson, stealing the Knicks’ position in the 2016 NBA draft.
I wonder if it doesn't count as saying a team is the worst if a team's GM chooses to point but not shout or simply decides to shout without pointing? I would say this is all a joke, but I really don't think it is based on the columnist really defending why this is a good way to determine a team's lottery position.
If the Knicks indeed finished worst next year, the T-wolves would then receive the top pick in the 2016 draft. If the Knicks finished with the third-worst record, the T-Wolves would receive the No. 3 pick.
I'll play this game. I feel like there is some issue with this method if one team owns another team's first round pick in certain situations (if it falls out of the Top 7, etc) that could affect how this idea would work. I'm trying to think of specific examples, but can't. Perhaps this isn't an issue, but it feels to me like this lottery set up could impact draft picks that are lottery protected.
In this scenario, say the Knicks plan on tanking during the 15-16 year to get a better pick and everyone knows this. The Timberwolves know they will end up getting a high pick in the draft no matter what because they have chosen the Knicks as the team with the worst record, so it won't affect whether THEY tank or not. They are free to tank (again) because they know they will get the first (or really close to first) team choice again the next year. Alternatively in this scenario, say the Timberwolves plan on trying to win as many games as possible and they are chosen to have the sixth worst record in the NBA. If the Timberwolves know the Knicks are tanking during the 15-16 season and they are guaranteed to have a high lottery pick, then what's the point in trying to win games? They have another chance to pick early during the 16-17 lottery! Why should the T-Wolves care if another team gets a higher pick through the T-Wolves deciding to tank as long as the Knicks keep losing? At that point, the T-Wolves can continue to tank, but just as long as they know the Knicks are worse than them.
(Hopefully that made sense. Basically, the T-Wolves still have no incentive to be a good team in this lottery system.)
After the Wolves picked, Jackson and the Knicks, with their second-worst record this past season, would look around the room, predict which remaining team might perform most horribly in 2015–16, and select that team’s 2016 draft pick. Preferably while pointing and shouting, “You’re the next worst!”
Yes, preferably there would be pointing and shouting.
Let’s look at how things would have panned out if we’d held a YTW draft for the 2014–15 season. Since the Bucks accumulated the worst win-loss record last year, and the 76ers appeared to be clearly the worst team entering this season, the Bucks would've selected the 76ers first in the YTW draft. It turned out that the 76ers earned the third-worst record, so the Bucks would be getting the third pick in this June’s NBA draft.
And the Bucks made the playoffs, so naturally they should be rewarded for making the playoffs by receiving a higher draft pick. Wait, that's not the purpose of the lottery is it?
It’s a pretty good result.
It is a pretty good result based upon your guess on which teams other teams would choose as being the worst. It's always fun when a writer wants to prove his point as correct and then uses his assumptions as the "factual basis" that shows the underlying points as correct.
And it's not exactly pretty good. Two of these teams made the playoffs and out of the 10 worst teams in the NBA this past year only 3 will get a Top 5 pick and of the 5 worst teams in the NBA, only 1 of those teams gets a Top 5 pick. So if the purpose was to stop tanking, it would work, but if the purpose was to help teams like the Knicks, Lakers, T-Wolves, and Magic get better (and really, I would only count one of those teams as truly tanking) then this result doesn't work well at all.
Although the Bucks, last year’s worst team, wouldn't end up with the first pick in this year’s NBA draft—something that often doesn't happen anyway, due to the lottery—the new positions still would be heavily weighted toward the bottom feeders.
As long as you ignore that of the bottom 5 teams in the NBA, only 1 of them gets a Top 5 pick. As I said, it works at cross-purposes to decrease tanking while trying not to award the worst teams with the chance to draft the best players. It's very hard to do both.
Though the Timberwolves wouldn't receive the first pick in the upcoming player draft, despite finishing with the worst record, they would own the YTW No. 1 this fall, which would very likely pay off in 2016.
I like how the author tries to sell this. He sells it as "the T-Wolves didn't get the first pick in the draft, so preventing tanking works, but next year they will get the first chance to pick which NBA team will be the worst, so tanking does pay off."
Funny how that works isn't? Tanking isn't necessarily discouraged any more than a team knows the pay off for tanking will come, but maybe not immediately. The author can't have it both ways. He can't have this system as a way to prevent tanking, then point out how a team that tanks will be set up to have an early pick two drafts from now.
The obvious benefit of this system is that no team would have an incentive to tank throughout the season (barring collusion). Just think about how this season could have been different.
But a team would still have incentive to tank, because as the author just said, the Timberwolves wouldn't receive the first pick in the draft by having the worst record but they would still have the chance to pick the worst team in the NBA the next year. In fact, the author says having the worst record during the 14-15 season would "pay off" in 15-16. So there's the incentive.
If the Knicks didn’t derive a direct benefit from being so terrible, would they have shut down Carmelo? Would the 76ers dare to build a team so nakedly atrocious?
Yes, because teams that tank aren't thinking about the short-term, but only in the long-term. In the long-term, tanking will "pay off" through having the first chance to choose the worst team in the NBA for the upcoming season. There is the incentive to tank.
Another benefit to the “You’re the Worst” system: It would be exciting!
No, this is the only benefit. Something being exciting doesn't mean that it's also a good idea. I don't think this system would prevent tanking, especially since most teams that are tanking aren't looking at the short-term view. Having to wait another year for tanking to pay off wouldn't be a big deal to an NBA team.
With YTW, we’d replace the lottery with even better drama. Wouldn’t you tune in to see Newton, or better yet Wolves president and coach Flip Saunders, walk up to the podium on national television, look Phil Jackson straight in the eye, and say, “You’re the worst!”? (OK, it would be more like, “With the first pick in the preseason selection-order draft, the Timberwolves select the Knicks.” But the implied insult would be there.)
I probably would not be more inclined to watch this than I'm inclined to watch the current lottery selection show.
Because NBA fans have long memories, animosity would instantly sprout. Consider: If the Knicks visited Philadelphia right after calling them “the worst,” the Philly crowd might get rowdy
There's nothing like trying to manufacture a rivalry AND manufacture drama.
It stinks to root against your own team, but it’s hella fun to root against other teams. Players would also be eager to prove rival teams’ projections wrong. Ultimately, YTW would enhance—wait for it—competitiveness!
It would not in the same way the current lottery system was supposed to stop tanking and it did not. But it's hella fun to pretend NBA teams aren't going to just tank anyway in an effort to stop something that will happen as long as the intent of the lottery is to get the best players to the worst teams.
To be sure, this system is not perfect.
Noooooooooooooooooo. This system seems pretty perfect to me.
It might take a casual fan a few run-throughs to understand. And it puts a heavy premium on the forecasting skills of NBA front offices. Nerdy spreadsheet jockeys would become even more valuable than they already are.
Does the author really believe the Sixers would not have tanked over the past three seasons in an effort to get a good draft pick if they knew they had to wait another year for the tanking to pay off? This is a real belief the author has? A team like the Knicks or 76ers that are trying to cut salary and gather high draft picks won't be willing to wait another year for the tanking to pay off? These teams know they would get a pretty good pick if they tank, because they would get to choose which NBA team they think will be the worst during the upcoming season, and they know a 3-5 year rebuilding plan takes 3-5 years. So what's waiting another year for tanking to pay off?
But it might be better for Sam Hinkie to put his geek skills to use in the service of predictive analysis—or maybe even figuring out how to help his team win—instead of searching for the most efficient way to lose.
Because he wouldn't use that predictive analysis to find out which teams will be the worst so that once the Sixers continue to tank they can choose another team that's just as terrible as they are, all in the name of getting a higher pick. This system won't stop tanking any more than the change to the system used prior to 1985 stopped tanking.
On another note, does anyone but sportswriters care that the NBA lottery is fixed to where teams have some incentive to tank? Like, is this a big deal that the normal sports fan really cares about or is the complaining about tanking simply something the media cares about more than a sports fan does? Me personally, I could care less if the 76ers tank and get a high draft pick. It doesn't bother me. The idea some teams are so terrible they get rewarded for being bad just doesn't bother me that much (as long as I'm not a fan of that team). I could be in the minority, but I feel like others in the media are more concerned about this than I am.
This is the year that NBA tanking went off the rails.
Every year over the past few years, this has been written somewhere.
The Philadelphia 76ers, for starters, exemplified a whole new level of basketball seppuku with a team so willfully awful that the New York Times Magazine felt compelled to publish a feature story about their willful awfulness.
The 76ers were so terrible that people in the media noticed how terrible they were.
By descending into “tank mode,” the Sixers hoped to lose enough games that they’d receive one of the valuable first picks in the upcoming NBA draft.
Oh, so THAT is how tanking works? Thanks for clearing that one up. By the way, this is the third straight season the 76ers have essentially done this. So if they were "off the rails" this year then it isn't "the year" tanking went "off the rails." There are a lot of quotes in that sentence. More quotes than good points made in this column in fact.
The New York Knicks, Los Angeles Lakers, and other teams were accused of plunging into the tank for large swaths of this season. Which is sad.
Let's be slightly fair, the Lakers stumbled on to tanking. They managed to lose their first round pick to injury, their best player to injury, and their old point guard tried to come back from injury and had to retire instead. The intention wasn't to tank, but at some point they have to throw up their hands and realize it ain't their year.
Tanking makes for ugly basketball and it throws off competitive balance.
(Bengoodfella shrugs his shoulders) As long as a large percentage of the NBA isn't tanking then I really don't feel too concerned about this problem.
Perhaps worst of all: Fans of tanking teams find themselves not only watching putrid hoops but also perversely rooting against their hometown squads
And again, this is very weird and not good for the fans of these teams. Would fixing the lottery so these teams don't get good players really help the situation? The assumption is management would stop tanking, but would it really stop this strategy? I'm not entirely sure. Lest it be forgotten that the current lottery system was put in place to prevent tanking. From the Bondy column:
The lottery was put into place by David Stern after the spring of 1984 turned into an uncomfortable tank-fest. The way it worked, teams with the very worst record in each conference flipped a coin for the first pick and then other selections were made in inverse order of won-loss records. Not surprisingly, the franchises that still owned their first-round picks hemorrhaged defeats. The Rockets dropped 14 of their last 17 games, nine of their last 10, and their final five. They were rewarded with Olajuwon as the No. 1 pick. The Bulls lost 14 of their last 15 to land Jordan at No. 3.
To quell this perception, Stern instituted the draft lottery, which gave teams far less reason to throw away games.
Sounds a lot like the strategy teams are using 30 years later. The draft lottery was supposed to stop teams from tanking. It didn't. So changes are being suggested again. And again, teams will tank anyway.
You know something has gone awry when Knicks coach Derek Fisher feels pressure to apologize to fans for winning.
In that article, Fisher seemed to say he doesn't feel pressure to apologize to fans for winning. He's not going to apologize for it, so therefore I would say he doesn't feel the pressure. OR it could be we are arguing over semantics in regard to a lottery change that won't ever change the fact NBA teams are going to tank.
The best tanking solution would be relegation, as happens in European soccer leagues. Each year, the bottom three teams in the continent’s top divisions are kicked out of the league and relegated to a lower one. Regrettably, with NBA teams currently selling for $2 billion apiece, it's unlikely we'll get owners to agree that a few of them should be banished to the D-League each year to compete against the Sioux Falls Skyforce.
Clearly the author is a fan of Bill Simmons since Bill has floated this idea jokingly (not jokingly?) in columns before. And yes, no NBA team will be relegated. I don't even know how that would work with the NBA Draft and I don't really care either.
A more likely solution would be for the NBA to flatten out the lottery odds. Right now the worst team has a 25 percent chance at the top pick while the 14th-worst team has a 0.5 percent chance. We could switch to a true lottery, in which all 14 non-playoff teams would get an equal 7.14 percent chance at the top pick.
So basically the same lottery system the NBA used to use, then got rid of in order to discourage teams from tanking? Get rid of the currently lottery system in order to go back to the old lottery system which was changed because it encouraged teams to tank? Gotta have a sense of history. The odds are not as great now that a team would land the #1 pick (it was around 14% thirty years ago), but the system was no longer used for a reason.
Another draft scheme that’s gotten lots of attention is “the wheel”—a system in which the draft order would be set far in advance so that a team’s draft position would have zero to do with its on-court performance.
Sounds great, but I have a feeling teams would still find a way to tank. I have no idea how, but NBA teams have tanked at times for decades and it is almost a reflex for some teams who are looking to rebuild.
This would eliminate any reason to tank, but it would also do nothing to help bad teams get better. The worst team in the league might end up picking dead last in the draft.
And therein lies the whole problem with the media's teeth-gnashing over fixing the lottery. How can a lottery be set up for the purpose to help teams that aren't very good so they do become very good, while also not giving teams incentive to tank? The NBA can't help bad teams, while also not giving teams incentive to be bad. That is, unless some convoluted lottery set up over a several year span where to occur. Something like a team can't get a Top 5 pick for a certain amount of years if they have had one in the previous year. But again, this would work at cross purposes to help a team that's trying to get better. The Thunder never would have had the chance to draft James Harden and Russell Westbrook if this rule were in effect over the last decade.
As horrible as the status quo is, some version of reverse-order drafting—and the increased parity it helps create—is still a worthy goal. So the problem seems intractable.
It is. It's very hard to help bad teams while not incentivizing these teams to be bad.
But fear not, NBA fans! A superior answer exists, and a friend of mine has invented it. It’s fair, it’s elegant, and it’s fun. My friend calls it the “You’re the Worst!” draft.
Maybe not ironically, this draft idea is the worst draft idea. It's convoluted and turns the lottery into a drama that becomes more game show than simple lottery to determine draft position.
How would it work? On the day before the regular season began, the NBA would hold a “You’re the Worst!” draft. Selection order for the YTW draft would be determined like any standard reverse-order draft—the team that had the worst win-loss record in the previous season would pick first, the team that had the best record would pick last. But the teams wouldn’t be drafting players.
(Cue overdramatic music)
They’d be choosing the rights to another team’s position in the next NBA draft.
I see that you, as a reader, maybe confused by one part of this. You may be asking, "But, would each team point at each other and say 'you're the worst' during this process?" Fear not, that is something that would happen. Just wait for the full plan to be revealed.
So, for example, the Minnesota Timberwolves, who finished this season with the worst win-loss record, would have the first YTW pick in the fall when the 2015–16 season started. One day before opening day, all of the league’s general managers would gather together in a room. The T-Wolves would look around that room and decide which team they thought would finish worst in 2015–16.
Again, this is over complicating the entire lottery process needlessly. There is no reason to do this, other than to provide needless drama and over-complicate the process. It's a fun idea, but not something that should really happen.
Minnesota general manager Milt Newton might predict that the Knicks would be the worst team next season. In which case he would shout, “You’re the worst!” while pointing at Knicks President Phil Jackson, stealing the Knicks’ position in the 2016 NBA draft.
I wonder if it doesn't count as saying a team is the worst if a team's GM chooses to point but not shout or simply decides to shout without pointing? I would say this is all a joke, but I really don't think it is based on the columnist really defending why this is a good way to determine a team's lottery position.
If the Knicks indeed finished worst next year, the T-wolves would then receive the top pick in the 2016 draft. If the Knicks finished with the third-worst record, the T-Wolves would receive the No. 3 pick.
I'll play this game. I feel like there is some issue with this method if one team owns another team's first round pick in certain situations (if it falls out of the Top 7, etc) that could affect how this idea would work. I'm trying to think of specific examples, but can't. Perhaps this isn't an issue, but it feels to me like this lottery set up could impact draft picks that are lottery protected.
In this scenario, say the Knicks plan on tanking during the 15-16 year to get a better pick and everyone knows this. The Timberwolves know they will end up getting a high pick in the draft no matter what because they have chosen the Knicks as the team with the worst record, so it won't affect whether THEY tank or not. They are free to tank (again) because they know they will get the first (or really close to first) team choice again the next year. Alternatively in this scenario, say the Timberwolves plan on trying to win as many games as possible and they are chosen to have the sixth worst record in the NBA. If the Timberwolves know the Knicks are tanking during the 15-16 season and they are guaranteed to have a high lottery pick, then what's the point in trying to win games? They have another chance to pick early during the 16-17 lottery! Why should the T-Wolves care if another team gets a higher pick through the T-Wolves deciding to tank as long as the Knicks keep losing? At that point, the T-Wolves can continue to tank, but just as long as they know the Knicks are worse than them.
(Hopefully that made sense. Basically, the T-Wolves still have no incentive to be a good team in this lottery system.)
After the Wolves picked, Jackson and the Knicks, with their second-worst record this past season, would look around the room, predict which remaining team might perform most horribly in 2015–16, and select that team’s 2016 draft pick. Preferably while pointing and shouting, “You’re the next worst!”
Yes, preferably there would be pointing and shouting.
Let’s look at how things would have panned out if we’d held a YTW draft for the 2014–15 season. Since the Bucks accumulated the worst win-loss record last year, and the 76ers appeared to be clearly the worst team entering this season, the Bucks would've selected the 76ers first in the YTW draft. It turned out that the 76ers earned the third-worst record, so the Bucks would be getting the third pick in this June’s NBA draft.
And the Bucks made the playoffs, so naturally they should be rewarded for making the playoffs by receiving a higher draft pick. Wait, that's not the purpose of the lottery is it?
Here’s how the 2015 NBA draft might look if there’d been a
YTW draft on Oct. 27, 2014, the day before this season started (we’ll
use SCHOENE projections from the start of the season as a proxy for how general managers might have projected other teams):
- Denver Nuggets (The Nuggets had the 11th-worst record in 2013–14, so they’d pick 11th in the YTW draft; the Timberwolves were projected to be the 11th-worst team this season, so the Nuggets would have stolen their pick. Since the T-Wolves finished with the league’s worst record, the Nuggets would get the first pick in June’s draft.)
- Sacramento Kings (seventh-worst record in 2013–14, steal New York Knicks pick)
- Milwaukee Bucks (worst record in 2013–14, steal 76ers pick)
- Boston Celtics (fifth-worst record in 2013–14, steal Lakers pick)
- Philadelphia 76ers (second-worst record in 2013–14, steal Orlando Magic pick)
It is a pretty good result based upon your guess on which teams other teams would choose as being the worst. It's always fun when a writer wants to prove his point as correct and then uses his assumptions as the "factual basis" that shows the underlying points as correct.
And it's not exactly pretty good. Two of these teams made the playoffs and out of the 10 worst teams in the NBA this past year only 3 will get a Top 5 pick and of the 5 worst teams in the NBA, only 1 of those teams gets a Top 5 pick. So if the purpose was to stop tanking, it would work, but if the purpose was to help teams like the Knicks, Lakers, T-Wolves, and Magic get better (and really, I would only count one of those teams as truly tanking) then this result doesn't work well at all.
Although the Bucks, last year’s worst team, wouldn't end up with the first pick in this year’s NBA draft—something that often doesn't happen anyway, due to the lottery—the new positions still would be heavily weighted toward the bottom feeders.
As long as you ignore that of the bottom 5 teams in the NBA, only 1 of them gets a Top 5 pick. As I said, it works at cross-purposes to decrease tanking while trying not to award the worst teams with the chance to draft the best players. It's very hard to do both.
Though the Timberwolves wouldn't receive the first pick in the upcoming player draft, despite finishing with the worst record, they would own the YTW No. 1 this fall, which would very likely pay off in 2016.
I like how the author tries to sell this. He sells it as "the T-Wolves didn't get the first pick in the draft, so preventing tanking works, but next year they will get the first chance to pick which NBA team will be the worst, so tanking does pay off."
Funny how that works isn't? Tanking isn't necessarily discouraged any more than a team knows the pay off for tanking will come, but maybe not immediately. The author can't have it both ways. He can't have this system as a way to prevent tanking, then point out how a team that tanks will be set up to have an early pick two drafts from now.
The obvious benefit of this system is that no team would have an incentive to tank throughout the season (barring collusion). Just think about how this season could have been different.
But a team would still have incentive to tank, because as the author just said, the Timberwolves wouldn't receive the first pick in the draft by having the worst record but they would still have the chance to pick the worst team in the NBA the next year. In fact, the author says having the worst record during the 14-15 season would "pay off" in 15-16. So there's the incentive.
If the Knicks didn’t derive a direct benefit from being so terrible, would they have shut down Carmelo? Would the 76ers dare to build a team so nakedly atrocious?
Yes, because teams that tank aren't thinking about the short-term, but only in the long-term. In the long-term, tanking will "pay off" through having the first chance to choose the worst team in the NBA for the upcoming season. There is the incentive to tank.
Another benefit to the “You’re the Worst” system: It would be exciting!
No, this is the only benefit. Something being exciting doesn't mean that it's also a good idea. I don't think this system would prevent tanking, especially since most teams that are tanking aren't looking at the short-term view. Having to wait another year for tanking to pay off wouldn't be a big deal to an NBA team.
With YTW, we’d replace the lottery with even better drama. Wouldn’t you tune in to see Newton, or better yet Wolves president and coach Flip Saunders, walk up to the podium on national television, look Phil Jackson straight in the eye, and say, “You’re the worst!”? (OK, it would be more like, “With the first pick in the preseason selection-order draft, the Timberwolves select the Knicks.” But the implied insult would be there.)
I probably would not be more inclined to watch this than I'm inclined to watch the current lottery selection show.
Because NBA fans have long memories, animosity would instantly sprout. Consider: If the Knicks visited Philadelphia right after calling them “the worst,” the Philly crowd might get rowdy
There's nothing like trying to manufacture a rivalry AND manufacture drama.
It stinks to root against your own team, but it’s hella fun to root against other teams. Players would also be eager to prove rival teams’ projections wrong. Ultimately, YTW would enhance—wait for it—competitiveness!
It would not in the same way the current lottery system was supposed to stop tanking and it did not. But it's hella fun to pretend NBA teams aren't going to just tank anyway in an effort to stop something that will happen as long as the intent of the lottery is to get the best players to the worst teams.
To be sure, this system is not perfect.
Noooooooooooooooooo. This system seems pretty perfect to me.
It might take a casual fan a few run-throughs to understand. And it puts a heavy premium on the forecasting skills of NBA front offices. Nerdy spreadsheet jockeys would become even more valuable than they already are.
Does the author really believe the Sixers would not have tanked over the past three seasons in an effort to get a good draft pick if they knew they had to wait another year for the tanking to pay off? This is a real belief the author has? A team like the Knicks or 76ers that are trying to cut salary and gather high draft picks won't be willing to wait another year for the tanking to pay off? These teams know they would get a pretty good pick if they tank, because they would get to choose which NBA team they think will be the worst during the upcoming season, and they know a 3-5 year rebuilding plan takes 3-5 years. So what's waiting another year for tanking to pay off?
But it might be better for Sam Hinkie to put his geek skills to use in the service of predictive analysis—or maybe even figuring out how to help his team win—instead of searching for the most efficient way to lose.
Because he wouldn't use that predictive analysis to find out which teams will be the worst so that once the Sixers continue to tank they can choose another team that's just as terrible as they are, all in the name of getting a higher pick. This system won't stop tanking any more than the change to the system used prior to 1985 stopped tanking.
Thursday, October 30, 2014
9 comments Gregg Easterbrook Outright Lies In TMQ About Something Rex Ryan Said
Gregg Easterbrook pointed out all of the teams that weren't going to make the playoffs after Week 7 in last week's TMQ. He also indicated that a team with a 7% chance of making the playoffs should be worried, while a team with a 6% chance of making the playoffs probably should be excited about their chances. This stuff never ends with Gregg. Let's see how he will ignore that the Cardinals and the Redskins won games this weekend through blitzing the opposing team. Spoiler alert: He sort of ignores it, but simply dismisses blitzing is a defensive tactic that can win football games. In the face of evidence that disproves your hypothesis, ignore such evidence. That's not Gregg's mantra, but probably should be. This week, Gregg still harps on academics being factored into the college football playoff and does all the same annoying shit with second-guessing teams and leaving out information that he does every week in TMQ. I would say there is about 35% more lying and misleading this week.
Today, the new College Football Playoff selection committee releases its first rankings, a hint at the four power schools that will square off in the inaugural football factory elimination tourney. Records, schedule strength, quality of victory and even quality of defeat will be debated.
What if graduation rates were considered, too?
Then it would be stupid because the College Football Playoff (am I supposed to capitalize it?) only deals with how teams perform on the field and not in the classroom. What if schools ranked academically by "US World Report" and other publications ranked the school based on their academic criteria, but also how good that school is at football? Would that make sense?
In August, ESPN introduced ESPN Grade, a new way to think about college football rankings.
"A new way" meaning "A stupid way" of thinking about college football rankings because it only factors in the schools in the Top 25 and weighs football results more than it weighs academic results. If ESPN Grade were a true blend of academics and football then it would have a 50-50 mix of academics and football. But of course, it doesn't. Therefore, uselessness is the result.
Here's what would happen if ESPN Grade were applied to the CFP: Right now, the top four seeds, in order, would be Notre Dame, Alabama, Georgia and Auburn.
So the SEC would have three teams along with an independent school. I can't imagine how this would be a problem. Plus, this ESPN Grade result would result in a four team playoff that has teams who are ranked 1, 4, 11, and 14 in academics among the Top 25 teams. I think that alone shows the uselessness of ESPN Grade. What about the two teams who are 11th and 14th in academics? ESPN Grade claims to reward schools with great academics, except it doesn't. Like the good ESPN boy that Gregg is, he will continue to force ESPN Grade down the throats of his readers.
The CFP's initial No. 1 seems likely to be Mississippi State, which is first in the major, victories-only polls. Factoring in the classroom causes Mississippi State to plummet, given that its football graduation rate is an unimpressive 59 percent, 21st among the Top 25 colleges. Florida State plummets, too, with an embarrassing 58 percent football graduation rate, which is 23rd of 25. Ole Miss plummets as well, with a 55 percent football graduation rate, 24th of 25.
As much as I love academics, it still makes no sense to base a football poll on a team's graduation rate. In Fairy Tale Land, where Gregg thinks college football is played, it makes sense, but not in the real world. Plus, ESPN Grade leaves out the academic standing of every team not in the Top 25. So ESPN Grade doesn't even measure the majority of Division-I football teams' success in the classroom and on the field as a comparison to Notre Dame, Alabama, Georgia and Auburn.
Suppose Mississippi State or Florida State go on to win the first big playoff title. A champion that graduates barely more than half its football players would be terrible for the sport, to say nothing of the young men not receiving degrees.
I guess if you as a sports fan are under the impression that the best college football team should also be the best college football team who is also the best at academics, it would be terrible for the sport. Otherwise, nope, Florida State won last year and college football still manages to survive. Go figure. It's almost like most sports fans realize the college football playoff (or BCS at the time) isn't intended to measure a team's ability in the classroom, as well as that team's ability on the field.
In contrast, an inaugural CFP championship by Notre Dame, Alabama, Georgia or Auburn would reflect well on collegiate athletics, as these schools combine success on game day with success on commencement day.
Because a college that is 14th among 25 teams in academics would be a great source of pride for the NCAA. This team has a graduation rate that is in the middle of a 25 team subset! What an accomplishment.
But the core purpose of college is education. Providing sports entertainment, a secondary mission, gains legitimacy only through results on commencement day. Unless you'd prefer the big conferences become semipro leagues that have nothing to do with universities -- with the lore and excitement of college traditions instantly lost -- you need to care about graduation rates.
Umm...Gregg, the big conferences ARE semipro leagues that have very little to do with the universities, while the lore and excitement of college traditions have not been lost. So, that's a pretty fucking weak argument you are furthering.
All universities say they educate their athletes. The ones that do a better job should be rewarded in the rankings.
Yes, in Fairy Tale Land they should. In the real world, where the intent is to win football games and bring in revenue to the school, the job is to win football games and make sure the students stay eligible to play sports. It's a sad world, I know.
On a related point, the University of North Carolina scandal just keeps getting worse. According to a new report, for 18 years, the Chapel Hill school offered "paper" courses that handed out an average 3.62 GPA (that means the average grade was an A) to about 3,100 students, about half of whom were NCAA athletes.
This past winter, when CNN reported a University of North Carolina instructor warned about continuing extremely poor academics in Chapel Hill sports, new chancellor Carol Folt, says they could not verify the information.
Yes, that is what she said, but Gregg is leaving out the second part of that. Carol Folt said (and you can read what she said in the link Gregg provides and didn't apparently read):
In an open letter emailed to university students, faculty and employees Thursday, chancellor Carol Folt said she takes Willingham's allegations "very seriously." But the chancellor said the school has been "unable to reconcile these claims with either our own facts or with the data currently being cited as the source for the claims."
I'm not in the business of defending UNC for a variety of reasons, but Carol Folt was simply indicating they couldn't verify the information because they questioned the source and how the information Willingham provided matched the facts she (Folt) had. It's not that she was too stupid to verify the information, it was just a matter of this information not reconciling with other information she had.
The new scandal is not about athletic eligibility -- it runs much deeper than that, going to paper courses and fake grades for a broad range of students. The University of North Carolina has in recent years attempted to portray itself as among the "public Ivies." The latest report calls into question whether the University of North Carolina should even retain its accreditation. Thousands of students in fake classes would embarrass even a sleazy online school.
I don't know, I've seen some sleazy online schools that do shady crap than this.
People at the top of institutions often justify their high pay and perks -- Folt earns a taxpayer-subsidized $520,000 a year -- by saying the buck stops with them. Then, when something goes wrong, they claim they were not responsible and should not face accountability. There will be no consequences?
To be fair, Folt was in her first academic year replacing Holden Thorp as president of UNC-CH. So it's not like there wasn't accountability, because Thorp left due to the fallout from these academic issues. Gregg tries to muddy the water a little bit in an effort to make it look like there was not accountability, when there may not be accountability throughout upper management, but UNC already had a president leave due to these academic allegations. So there was accountability and Folt's time to be accountable has started.
Looks like character education is not on the curriculum at Chapel Hill.
Zing! Good one Gregg!
In other sports news, the NBA tips off Tuesday night. Tuesday Morning Quarterback believes basketball is 1 percent as interesting as football, so I annually devote 1 percent of my column inches to the hoops sport. See some NBA comments below.
Despite the fact Gregg thinks the NBA is 1% as interesting as football, he still thinks he has 100% knowledge about the NBA and doesn't hold back criticism of the NBA as if he holds an in-depth knowledge of the sport of basketball. Fake it so others don't know you aren't that smart.
Stats Of The Week No. 3: The Detroit "at" Atlanta game in London aired live at 6:30 a.m. on the West Coast and 3:30 a.m. in Honolulu.
Time zones are fun.
Stats Of The Week No. 6: The Bengals are on an 12-0-1 regular-season home streak and an 0-3 postseason home streak.
Yes, the Bengals still haven't won a home playoff game. One would expect this to change at some point when the NFL playoffs roll around, but to quote this statistic every week prior to the next NFL playoff game taking place seems unnecessary.
Great News -- Jerry Jones Embarrassed in Prime Time: Were the Cowboys that overconfident or did Colt McCoy acquire superpowers by returning to Texas and drinking its water? Three things are certain from the "Monday Night Football" mega-upset: First, as TMQ has noted before, "Colt McCoy" is the best football name ever. Second, Robert Griffin III wore a heavy ski cap indoors.
Under Gregg's theory that the coach or cheerleader who dresses with the least amount of clothing wins the game, doesn't this mean that the Redskins should have lost to the Cowboys? This would also mean Gregg's theory is horseshit, but we all know Gregg's theories could never be horseshit. Never.
The Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons figured to face constant running plays, what with Washington having a mediocre run defense and Dallas boasting the league's first-ranked rushing offense. Running plays are especially effective at home, because they ramp up crowd energy.
This is a 100% fact and not at all an opinion. Passing plays actually bore the home crowd. That's also a fact and not an opinion. Gregg holds so much knowledge that may seem to the amateur as an opinion, but is indeed a fact.
Washington gambled by big-blitzing on third down, and the gamble paid off with two sacks of Tony Romo by safety Brandon Meriweather: one knocking Romo out of the contest for a while, the other causing a fourth-quarter fumble.
Stop me before I blitz again! Big blitzing doesn't work and a good quarterback can easily beat a big blitz. Isn't that what Gregg tells his readers? Well, apparently not. I do like how Gregg just acknowledges the Redskins blitzed a lot and managed to win the game using this tactic, yet Gregg will criticize another defensive coordinator for blitzing a lot in other instances, and claim this is what caused his team to lose the game. Then from there, Gregg will attempt to make it seem like playing a base, boring defense like the Seahawks run is the best defense to run in order to win games. Then my head will explode.
McCoy scored a touchdown on a designed quarterback draw at the goal line -- this common Texas prep school play must have made him feel right at home.
Yes, this quarterback draw at the goal line is a common Texas prep school play, but also a common play in the NFL with a quarterback who is mobile. Heck, the Panthers beat the Packers 15 years ago on a quarterback draw by Steve Beuerlein from the five yard line. So it's a common Texas prep school play, but also a common football play.
The Persons broke an 0-8 streak (and 0-9 road streak) against NFC East teams. Now, sure-to-be-former head coach Jay Gruden faces yet another dilemma -- bring back RG III, or let the third-stringer play? Don't be surprised if Gruden sides with McCoy. A Griffin comeback would be a media circus, while Gruden can take credit for having the foresight to sign the unwanted McCoy last spring.
Or Gruden could choose to start Colt McCoy because McCoy has played well as the Redskins' starter and won a road game against the Cowboys. But no, I'm sure the decision to start McCoy will be based primarily on satisfying Gruden's ego and need to feel smart. It won't have anything to do with the fact McCoy has played well for the Redskins.
Sweet Play Of The Week: With the Steelers leading Indianapolis 28-10, Pittsburgh had first-and-10 on the Colts 47. Colts defensive end Arthur Jones got free on a spin move and lunged at Ben Roethlisberger's feet. Roethlisberger stumbled, and Jones seemed likely to pull the Pittsburgh quarterback down. Then undrafted Steelers guard Ramon Foster jumped atop Jones and immobilized him.
Foster makes a great play, Gregg mentions his draft position.
Freed, Roethlisberger threw a 47-yard touchdown pass to Antonio Brown.
Ben Roethlisberger throws a 47-yard touchdown pass and his draft position isn't mentioned at all. Neither is that fact that Antonio Brown, a highly-paid glory boy, caught the touchdown pass. This is how Gregg works. He assumes his readers are stupid and lazy, so he can mislead them and leave out information that fits his agenda.
When Roethlisberger was drafted out of Miami of Ohio, the book on him was he was a terrific leader but lacked finesse as a passer. One reason for this view is Roethlisberger looks like a linebacker and plays a tough-guy style -- when he's sacked, he barely seems aware of it. Now Roethlisberger has two Super Bowl rings, and on Sunday, he became the only quarterback in NFL annals to throw for 500-plus yards on more than one occasion.
But what round was he drafted in again?
Roethlisberger will never get into Brett Favre or Peyton Manning territory for career passing yards.
I'm still thinking about undrafted Steelers guard Ramon Foster, so what rounds were Favre and Manning drafted in again?
Sour Play Of The Week: With Baltimore leading 24-20, the Nevermores had host Cincinnati facing third-and-10 on its own 20 with 3:48 remaining. All the visitors needed was an incompletion. Knowing Cincinnati needed to throw deep, surely Baltimore wouldn't safety blitz! But free safety Darian Stewart blitzed, and it was a 53-yard completion to Mohamed Sanu, who went straight to the area the free safety vacated for a key down in the Cincinnati comeback victory.
Doesn't Gregg mean undrafted free safety Darian Stewart? Oh that's right, Stewart didn't make a good play so his draft position is irrelevant in Gregg's mind.
Playing at home, the Panthers never trailed the defending champions until there were 47 seconds remaining, and they left the field losers. Sour. Down 13-9, the Cats faced fourth-and-25 on their own 8 with 26 seconds showing. Essentially, this was fourth-and-99. When Cam Newton threw short incomplete, the home crowd booed lustily.
Newton didn't really "throw short," he threw a screen pass that didn't get to the intended receiver because he was about to be trucked by a defensive lineman for the third play in a row.
It turns out Super Bowl MVP quarterback Joe Flacco faced a nearly identical fourth-and-99 situation on his final snap at Cincinnati and also threw a futile short pass. But Flacco wasn't at home, so he did not hear boos.
You can't find this type of analysis anywhere else.
Reader Joshua Thrailkill of North Carolina noted the Panthers fielded four undrafted offensive linemen. But in the NFL, every team must deal with injuries.
Nope, I think what Joshua may have been pointing out is that Gregg goes on and on and on and on about undrafted free agents and how they work so hard, only care about the team and are preferable to "me-first" glory boys, but the Panthers have a pitiful offensive line nearly made up entirely of undrafted free agents. Because Gregg lacks self-awareness, he is unable to see that Joshua very well could be pointing out the fallacy of Gregg's assertions in TMQ. In this case, the assertion is that undrafted players are often preferable to highly-drafted players. It's better to be blind to his assertions being incorrect and keep making the same assertions over and over rather than Gregg subjugate his ego to admit his theory is horseshit and based entirely on assumptions and cherry-picked information that ignores evidence contrary to his assumptions.
"The 100" is teen angst goes to outer space. The title refers to 100 teenagers who descend to Earth from an enormous space station where a remnant of humanity has spent the past century in terrible conditions while waiting for radiation to fade after a nuclear apocalypse. In the series pilot, aboard the enormous space station, we see teens, and we see their parents -- but no children. How could there be 100 teenagers if there are no babies, toddlers or tweens?
Because it is a fictional television show. That's how.
On "The 100" it's the middle of the 22nd century, yet everyone speaks southern California English using present-day slang. One hundred sixty-five years into the future, people say, "Game over, man."
This is a pretty stupid criticism for two specific reasons:
1. If a television show invented it's own language and slang then Gregg would criticize the show for not using realistic language.
2. If a television show invented it's own language and slang then the viewers would have some difficulty relating and understanding what is being said by the characters. There are television shows that create their own language, but include subtitles and the entirety of the show isn't this new language (I'm thinking "Game of Thrones"). So for "The 100" to create new slang (The Shins will change your life), would involve the viewers in 2014 understanding slang used by every character from 150 years in the future. I'm not sure that's a good way to draw viewers.
In the Will Smith interplanetary ego vehicle "After Earth," it's 1,000 years into the future, and language is exactly the same as today. Characters say "I'm good to go" and "We need this ASAP."
Because it's preferable to use language nobody watching the movie understands. Makes sense.
Contrast that with the literary science fiction novel "Riddley Walker," which is set centuries after a global nuclear war pushed humanity back into the iron age. Author Russell Hoban invented an elaborate future dialect. For instance, the ancients (us) are referred to as the "Puter Leat" -- the computer elite. Surely, if there is ever a Hollywood version of "Riddley Walker," future slang will disappear and characters will say, "Sup, dog?"
See Gregg is so stupid, he doesn't understand that if there was a Hollywood version of "Riddley Walker" then slang like "Sup, dog?" would make sense. Gregg is advocating Hollywood update slang in movies or television shows that take place in the future, but then he sarcastically states "Sup, dog?" would appear in a Hollywood version of "Riddley Walker." Well, "Riddley Walker" was written in 1980, so using future slang from 2014 in a movie about the future is EXACTLY what Gregg is encouraging Hollywood to do, yet he sarcastically states this is what Hollywood do, as if the movie version should use slang from 1980. The idea of using slang from 1980 is against what Gregg wants Hollywood to do in terms of updating language based on "future slang" that would be used in movies and television shows about the future.
Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel admitted the city deliberately shortened yellow lights. The goal was more ticket revenue -- some $8 million from 77,000 automated tickets that would not have been issued had yellow lights been set to the federally recommended, three-second minimum.
In order to fund public-sector pensions, cities and states increasingly stoop to any means to reach into citizens' pockets.
I do agree with Gregg on this issue, but that's what parking tickets, speeding tickets, and various other penalties are, an attempt to reach into citizens' pockets. I own a car. I have paid for my car entirely, yet I have to pay a tax to my local government on the value of my car. Why do I have to pay the tax? I own the car entirely and the city is supposed to receive revenue from me because I have the audacity to own a vehicle? It's an attempt to reach into my pocket and take money. I don't advocate shortened yellow lights, but this is one of the small examples of government reaching in the pockets of citizens. Every year people who have the audacity to own a car have to pay to get the car inspected. To drive a car, a person is forced to get it inspected and there is a charge for this too. It's just weird Gregg uses shortened yellow lights as an example of government overreach when there are plenty of other more egregious examples (at least in my opinion).
Automated red-light cameras are springing up in many places -- though if set to short yellow, they render the roads dangerous by causing drivers to slam on the brakes. Colorado's legalization of marijuana was inspired partly by the state's desire to tax sales. If betting on sports becomes legal -- being disputed right now in New Jersey -- the reason might be government's desire to tax this underground economy.
Yep, welcome to what some people realized a decade ago.
In effect, there were four turnovers, as Green Bay failed on a fourth-and-inches near midfield while the margin was close. Officials on the field initially signaled first down; a challenge changed the spot to fourth-and-inches.
Then the Packers, inspired by their coach's decision to go for it on fourth down and show a real need to win the game, were so motivated they rallied and beat the Saints at home, right? Wait, that didn't happen like Gregg will claim happens when a coach goes for it on fourth down? I don't understand how Gregg's "Go for it on fourth down and it will inspire your team to win the game" theory could ever be wrong.
The NFL Is More Interesting Than The NBA: Many sports enthusiasts prefer basketball to football. But even for those who do, there's a reason the NFL is more interesting: More football teams than basketball teams start the season with a chance.
There are 30 NBA teams. 53% of these teams make the playoffs.
There are 32 NFL teams. 37.5% of these teams make the playoffs.
I'm not entirely sure Gregg understands what he is writing isn't true. Either that or he just likes to outright lie. More NBA teams have a chance of making the playoffs at the beginning of the season as compared to the chance NFL teams have of making the playoffs. Therefore more NBA teams have a chance of winning the NBA title than NFL teams have a chance of winning the Super Bowl. This is true statistically at the beginning of the season at least. Carry on...
NBA teams play so many games followed by a postseason based on the "best of" series concept that by the end, the top team almost always wins the title, thereby washing out the effects of luck. By contrast, the NFL plays only 16 games followed by a postseason knockout round. There's room for variability based on luck or degree of effort.
The fact there is less room for variability in the NBA doesn't mean more NFL teams start the season with a chance to make the playoffs or win the title. Perhaps practically this is true, but statistically it is not. I'm not sure if Gregg is just dumb or trying to be willfully stupid to push his own agenda or not. Regardless of the odds an NBA team has of winning a playoff series, more NBA teams have a chance to win the title simply because a greater percentage of NBA teams qualify for the playoffs.
In turn, small NBA rosters can mean one smart trade or draft selection improves the team dramatically. Large NFL rosters take longer to build because they have more moving parts.
While true in part, there are always exceptions. It's how the Colts can go from 2-14 to making the playoffs in a calendar year.
The result of these factors is every NBA season begins with a handful of teams holding a realistic shot at the title, compared to many teams that have no chance at all. The numerous NBA teams that are goin' nowhere know who they are from the start of the season. Every NFL season begins with a larger number of teams that might win the Super Bowl and a relatively smaller number with no shot.
This argument doesn't make sense in the context of Gregg's argument above on how the smaller NBA rosters mean a team can improve dramatically in one season. If the NBA has smaller rosters and a team can be improved through one draft pick or trade, then doesn't that mean there is more variability in the NBA standings, which means there are more teams who can make one smart move and be an NBA title contender? If large NFL rosters take longer to build (and remember this is me dissecting Gregg's argument, not what I think), then doesn't that mean there are NFL teams who don't have a shot to win the Super Bowl at the beginning of the season because they have more moving parts and require more players to improve the team's chances of winning games?
So Gregg's argument about the increased variability in an NBA team's success doesn't necessarily make sense in the context of his assertion more NBA teams start the season knowing they don't have a shot at the title, because an NBA team can make fewer moves that result in that team going up or down in the standings. Gregg's conclusion seems to be correct, but I'm not sure how he reached his conclusion is accurate.
That there's more variability in the NFL than the NBA is shown by the fact that in the past 15 years, 10 NFL teams have won the Super Bowl, while six NBA clubs have monopolized that league's titles. Twelve of the past 15 NBA titles have been won by the Lakers, Spurs and Heat; the equivalent figure is seven of the past 15 NFL titles have been won by the Patriots, Giants and Steelers. Also note that 15 of the 48 Super Bowl winners failed to make the next postseason, while just two of 68 NBA champions (the 1998 Chicago Bulls and the 1969 Boston Celtics) failed to reach the next year's postseason.
This is accurate. This also goes against Gregg's assertion that one smart trade or draft selection can improve a team dramatically. If that were totally true, then wouldn't there be more volatility in which teams win the NBA title? The truth is Gregg isn't entirely wrong, but it's the fewer moving parts, along with the ability of one player to have a large impact, that allows NBA teams to stay in title contention from year-to-year. Gregg talks about how NBA teams have dramatic improvement from year-to-year, due to the addition of one player, but this doesn't happen too often. It's hard to find a Kevin Durant or LeBron James in the NBA. My basic point is Gregg isn't wrong, but he argues there is a lot of variability in the record of an NBA team based on the addition of one player to a roster, but logically this would be an argument for greater volatility in terms of which teams can win an NBA title. Yet, he is arguing the opposite.
The Charlotte Hornets -- 14 years removed from their latest playoff series victory -- have a chairman, a vice chairman, a "president, chief operating officer & alternate governor," a general manager, an assistant general manager, two executive vice presidents, three senior vice presidents and six regular vice presidents. That's 16 senior executives for 18 players.
This is a great example of Gregg Easterbrook outright lying or misleading his readers. The Charlotte Hornets haven't existed since the 2001-2002 season, when they last won a playoff series. The New Orleans Hornets did win a playoff series in 2007-2008, but the reason the Charlotte Hornets haven't won a playoff series in 14 years is because they haven't existed in 14 years. The Charlotte Hornets moved to New Orleans, then moved back to Charlotte for the 2014-2015 season. So the team actually has won a playoff series as the Charlotte Hornets three of the last five seasons they existed as the Charlotte Hornets. But to mention this would submarine Gregg's point of "Look at all these people required to manage a failing team!" Dishonesty at all costs.
No wonder the Hornets are so terrible!
Yep, they made the playoffs last year as the Charlotte Bobcats. Make up your mind. Are the Charlotte Hornets the New Orleans Hornets (now Pelicans) who have won a playoff series in the last 14 years or are the Charlotte Hornets the Charlotte Bobcats who aren't terrible and made the playoffs last year?
So what do you think? Do you think Gregg is just so uninformed about the NBA he thinks the Charlotte Hornets have been in Charlotte all of these years or do you think he is just misleading his readers as to the success of the Charlotte Hornets over the past 14 seasons? The Charlotte Bobcats are a completely different team from the Charlotte Hornets that won a playoff series 14 years ago. So comparing the Hornets last playoff victory from 14 years ago is misleading, because the Bobcats (now Hornets) haven't won a playoff series, but have only existed since the 2004-2005 season. The 2004-2005 season wasn't 14 years ago. Gregg can't seem to figure out which Charlotte Hornets team he wants to talk about, yet still manages to be wrong either way. Quite the accomplishment. It's a very clumsy and misleading point Gregg is attempting to make.
Then, with Philadelphia leading 20-17, the hosts faced third-and-5 on their 25 with 1:33 remaining. Arizona could've tried to nickel-and-dime into field goal position for overtime, but playing to win apparently made more sense. That meant big chunks of yards. Yet at the snap, the deepest Philadelphia safety, Nate Allen, was 8 yards off the line of scrimmage
Oh Gregg...NFL teams can not read minds and don't have the benefit of hindsight that you have. The Eagles didn't know the Cardinals would try to gain a big chunk of yardage. They wanted to stop the Cardinals from throwing short, but Bruce Arians called a great play that went against what the Eagles thought the Cardinals would do. That's all. It was a good play call and the Eagles' defense did the right thing to anticipate a shorter pass, rather than a 75-yard bomb.
Safeties are coached to "keep everything in front of you" in situations such as this. Brown got behind all Eagles with apparent ease.
This is true, but the Eagles also didn't want to give up an easy reception in front of them to where the Cardinals could convert a third down into a first down.
The game would conclude with Arizona calling a big blitz on six of Philadelphia's final 13 snaps, including a seven-man blitz with 1 second remaining and the Eagles on the host's 16. It worked this time. But if Arizona continues to big-blitz so much, the chickens -- or the cactus wrens, considering indigenous birds of the Grand Canyon State -- might come home to roost.
Yes, stop blitzing or one time it may not work! That one time it doesn't work, no matter how many times it has worked, Gregg will point out when blitzing doesn't work. Why? Because that's how Gregg works. He feels free to point out the one time a blitz is ineffective, while ignoring or just warning they won't be effective 100% of the time (which is incredibly obvious).
'Tis Better To Have Rushed And Lost Than Never To Have Rushed At All: Detroit played it ultra-conservative in London, where the Tories rule. Jim Caldwell kicked down 21-0 and twice kicked on fourth-and-short inside the Atlanta 5-yard line.
And because his team saw that Jim Caldwell wasn't trying to win the game, they ended up losing. Right? Wait, that didn't happen? It's like Week 8 in the NFL was just a series of Gregg's theories and assertions being totally wrong. What a wonderful world it is.
So Atlanta's penalty effectively created a timeout for Detroit. Then, on third-and-10 with 1:50 remaining, the Falcons threw incomplete, which stopped the clock. Considering the Lions would kick the winning field goal as time expired, had Atlanta simply knelt on these two downs, the Falcons likely would have prevailed.
Yes, this is "likely" based on Gregg's own assumption that not shockingly supports his contention. It's also "likely" that Gregg assumes too much.
Flaming Thumbtacks Go Down In Flames: In my preseason AFC Preview, I warned the Titans season might devolve to "Zach Mettenberger handing off to Bishop Sankey." And verily, it came to pass. Final: Houston 30, Tennessee 16.
Is relying on rookies to win games in place of ineffective veterans really "devolving"? Sankey was a 2nd round pick and if Mettenberger is ready to play then there's no harm in putting him on the field.
On Sunday, quarterbacks Geno Smith and Michael Vick combined for a 17 rating. After the game, Rex Ryan, who in the preseason implied he was "one of the best of all time" as a coach, told Ben Shpigel, "Why we're not playing better, I don't know." An all-time great should know!
I don't remember Rex Ryan implying he is "one of the best of all time" as a coach. I do remember him saying he was NOT one of the best of all time as a coach. Here are Ryan's quotes in question and you can clearly see Gregg's lies at work.
Ryan clarified that he’s not claiming he’s Vince Lombardi.
“I’m not saying that I’m the best or whatever . . . or the best of all time,” Ryan said. “I just know that I’m the best that I can be. I know that I’m willing to do the work. I may have limitations. I get that. But nobody’s going to convince me that they’re more passionate about their job than I am . . . and that they’re more passionate about their organization than me.”
Maybe Gregg Easterbrook is functionally illiterate, or Ryan was using new slang that Hollywood created, but the way that reads to me as a person who can read words in English and has an education beyond the 6th grade is that Rex Ryan was saying he is NOT the best of all time. I can see how Gregg got confused though when Rex said specifically,
"I'm not saying that I'm the best or whatever...or the best of all time."
This is a confusing sentence structure for someone who wants to lie to his readers and mislead them into believing Rex Ryan said something he in fact did not say. Notice how Gregg provides a link to Ryan's quote about how he doesn't know why the Jets aren't playing better, but he doesn't provide a link to Ryan implying he is one of the all time best coaches. That's because Gregg knows he is lying and doesn't want his readers to know that he is deceiving them.
Thus, Cleveland surrendered a first-round draft pick and three decent players for a second-round draft pick and Euro-stashed gents who are long shots to bounce a ball in the NBA. But Cleveland got rid of Jack's and Zeller's contracts, which could not have happened without Boston supplying its $10 million trade exemption. The Cavs ended up holding extra cap space, which they (and nobody else at that juncture) knew was the final piece of the puzzle to sign LeBron James.
Really Gregg? No one knew? Here is a search for "Tyler Zeller trade to Celtics LeBron James." Doing the work that Gregg refused to do in order to pretend his assertion was correct, one can see it was assumed this trade helped free cap space for LeBron James. So "nobody else at that juncture" knew the trade freed up money for LeBron to sign with Cleveland is just an outright lie.
Tactical Use Of Cheer Babes: With City of Tampa leading Minnesota 13-10, the Vikings had the ball on their 23 at the two-minute warning. The host's cheerleaders ran onto the field, lined up almost in the Vikings' huddle and began to shake their booties in hopes of distracting the visitors.
Gregg hates how the NFL exploits these people he calls "cheer babes."
This Year's Human Development Report: Football columns are not likely to be your best source of global development news.
Or in the case of TMQ, a football column is not likely to be the best source of NFL news.
Luckily, Tom Brady Has A Bye Week In Which To Do Some Modeling: When the Flying Elvii struggled at home versus Oakland then were blown out at Kansas City, sports pundits were asking if the New England golden age were over.
Ah yes, more dishonesty. Gregg refers to "sports pundits" as a group and doesn't mention his part.
Is The Sun Setting On Tom Brady? A week ago before their home crowd, the Patriots barely outlasted the woeful Raiders. Monday night they were ground up into burger meat -- "Of course we're speaking in the figurative sense," as Weird Al would say -- by the Chiefs. Is New England's Brady-Belichick Golden Age drawing to a close?
Brady was openly frustrated throughout the contest. Every star athlete must deal with nationally televised defeat -- just ask LeBron James -- but rarely has Brady lost badly. His life with the Flying Elvii has been all news conferences, endorsements, championship rings and supermodels, 'til last night, when the Patriots looked like the Raiders East.
Gregg hates it when "sports pundits" do things like this. Of course, he isn't honest enough to mention he is the one asking if the "golden age" of Brady-Belichick was over, because that would require he admit he was wrong and made a knee-jerk reaction to a Patriots' loss. It's amazing to me how much Gregg misleads his readers and how he leaves important pieces of information out in order to protect his own ego.
Since that juncture, the Patriots have won four straight.
I can't wait for January when Gregg writes "sports pundits" said the Seahawks could miss the playoffs this year, while ignoring he is that "sports pundit" and he wrote this conclusion the Seahawks won't make the playoffs just last week.
Next Week: Will AIG issue credit-default swap insurance on NBA salary-cap trades?
I wish someone at ESPN would stop allowing Gregg to write TMQ. Or just maybe stop him from misleading his readers and only including information that makes him look correct, while leaving out information that shows when he is wrong.
Today, the new College Football Playoff selection committee releases its first rankings, a hint at the four power schools that will square off in the inaugural football factory elimination tourney. Records, schedule strength, quality of victory and even quality of defeat will be debated.
What if graduation rates were considered, too?
Then it would be stupid because the College Football Playoff (am I supposed to capitalize it?) only deals with how teams perform on the field and not in the classroom. What if schools ranked academically by "US World Report" and other publications ranked the school based on their academic criteria, but also how good that school is at football? Would that make sense?
In August, ESPN introduced ESPN Grade, a new way to think about college football rankings.
"A new way" meaning "A stupid way" of thinking about college football rankings because it only factors in the schools in the Top 25 and weighs football results more than it weighs academic results. If ESPN Grade were a true blend of academics and football then it would have a 50-50 mix of academics and football. But of course, it doesn't. Therefore, uselessness is the result.
Here's what would happen if ESPN Grade were applied to the CFP: Right now, the top four seeds, in order, would be Notre Dame, Alabama, Georgia and Auburn.
So the SEC would have three teams along with an independent school. I can't imagine how this would be a problem. Plus, this ESPN Grade result would result in a four team playoff that has teams who are ranked 1, 4, 11, and 14 in academics among the Top 25 teams. I think that alone shows the uselessness of ESPN Grade. What about the two teams who are 11th and 14th in academics? ESPN Grade claims to reward schools with great academics, except it doesn't. Like the good ESPN boy that Gregg is, he will continue to force ESPN Grade down the throats of his readers.
The CFP's initial No. 1 seems likely to be Mississippi State, which is first in the major, victories-only polls. Factoring in the classroom causes Mississippi State to plummet, given that its football graduation rate is an unimpressive 59 percent, 21st among the Top 25 colleges. Florida State plummets, too, with an embarrassing 58 percent football graduation rate, which is 23rd of 25. Ole Miss plummets as well, with a 55 percent football graduation rate, 24th of 25.
As much as I love academics, it still makes no sense to base a football poll on a team's graduation rate. In Fairy Tale Land, where Gregg thinks college football is played, it makes sense, but not in the real world. Plus, ESPN Grade leaves out the academic standing of every team not in the Top 25. So ESPN Grade doesn't even measure the majority of Division-I football teams' success in the classroom and on the field as a comparison to Notre Dame, Alabama, Georgia and Auburn.
Suppose Mississippi State or Florida State go on to win the first big playoff title. A champion that graduates barely more than half its football players would be terrible for the sport, to say nothing of the young men not receiving degrees.
I guess if you as a sports fan are under the impression that the best college football team should also be the best college football team who is also the best at academics, it would be terrible for the sport. Otherwise, nope, Florida State won last year and college football still manages to survive. Go figure. It's almost like most sports fans realize the college football playoff (or BCS at the time) isn't intended to measure a team's ability in the classroom, as well as that team's ability on the field.
In contrast, an inaugural CFP championship by Notre Dame, Alabama, Georgia or Auburn would reflect well on collegiate athletics, as these schools combine success on game day with success on commencement day.
Because a college that is 14th among 25 teams in academics would be a great source of pride for the NCAA. This team has a graduation rate that is in the middle of a 25 team subset! What an accomplishment.
But the core purpose of college is education. Providing sports entertainment, a secondary mission, gains legitimacy only through results on commencement day. Unless you'd prefer the big conferences become semipro leagues that have nothing to do with universities -- with the lore and excitement of college traditions instantly lost -- you need to care about graduation rates.
Umm...Gregg, the big conferences ARE semipro leagues that have very little to do with the universities, while the lore and excitement of college traditions have not been lost. So, that's a pretty fucking weak argument you are furthering.
All universities say they educate their athletes. The ones that do a better job should be rewarded in the rankings.
Yes, in Fairy Tale Land they should. In the real world, where the intent is to win football games and bring in revenue to the school, the job is to win football games and make sure the students stay eligible to play sports. It's a sad world, I know.
On a related point, the University of North Carolina scandal just keeps getting worse. According to a new report, for 18 years, the Chapel Hill school offered "paper" courses that handed out an average 3.62 GPA (that means the average grade was an A) to about 3,100 students, about half of whom were NCAA athletes.
This past winter, when CNN reported a University of North Carolina instructor warned about continuing extremely poor academics in Chapel Hill sports, new chancellor Carol Folt, says they could not verify the information.
Yes, that is what she said, but Gregg is leaving out the second part of that. Carol Folt said (and you can read what she said in the link Gregg provides and didn't apparently read):
In an open letter emailed to university students, faculty and employees Thursday, chancellor Carol Folt said she takes Willingham's allegations "very seriously." But the chancellor said the school has been "unable to reconcile these claims with either our own facts or with the data currently being cited as the source for the claims."
I'm not in the business of defending UNC for a variety of reasons, but Carol Folt was simply indicating they couldn't verify the information because they questioned the source and how the information Willingham provided matched the facts she (Folt) had. It's not that she was too stupid to verify the information, it was just a matter of this information not reconciling with other information she had.
The new scandal is not about athletic eligibility -- it runs much deeper than that, going to paper courses and fake grades for a broad range of students. The University of North Carolina has in recent years attempted to portray itself as among the "public Ivies." The latest report calls into question whether the University of North Carolina should even retain its accreditation. Thousands of students in fake classes would embarrass even a sleazy online school.
I don't know, I've seen some sleazy online schools that do shady crap than this.
People at the top of institutions often justify their high pay and perks -- Folt earns a taxpayer-subsidized $520,000 a year -- by saying the buck stops with them. Then, when something goes wrong, they claim they were not responsible and should not face accountability. There will be no consequences?
To be fair, Folt was in her first academic year replacing Holden Thorp as president of UNC-CH. So it's not like there wasn't accountability, because Thorp left due to the fallout from these academic issues. Gregg tries to muddy the water a little bit in an effort to make it look like there was not accountability, when there may not be accountability throughout upper management, but UNC already had a president leave due to these academic allegations. So there was accountability and Folt's time to be accountable has started.
Looks like character education is not on the curriculum at Chapel Hill.
Zing! Good one Gregg!
In other sports news, the NBA tips off Tuesday night. Tuesday Morning Quarterback believes basketball is 1 percent as interesting as football, so I annually devote 1 percent of my column inches to the hoops sport. See some NBA comments below.
Despite the fact Gregg thinks the NBA is 1% as interesting as football, he still thinks he has 100% knowledge about the NBA and doesn't hold back criticism of the NBA as if he holds an in-depth knowledge of the sport of basketball. Fake it so others don't know you aren't that smart.
Stats Of The Week No. 3: The Detroit "at" Atlanta game in London aired live at 6:30 a.m. on the West Coast and 3:30 a.m. in Honolulu.
Time zones are fun.
Stats Of The Week No. 6: The Bengals are on an 12-0-1 regular-season home streak and an 0-3 postseason home streak.
Yes, the Bengals still haven't won a home playoff game. One would expect this to change at some point when the NFL playoffs roll around, but to quote this statistic every week prior to the next NFL playoff game taking place seems unnecessary.
Great News -- Jerry Jones Embarrassed in Prime Time: Were the Cowboys that overconfident or did Colt McCoy acquire superpowers by returning to Texas and drinking its water? Three things are certain from the "Monday Night Football" mega-upset: First, as TMQ has noted before, "Colt McCoy" is the best football name ever. Second, Robert Griffin III wore a heavy ski cap indoors.
Under Gregg's theory that the coach or cheerleader who dresses with the least amount of clothing wins the game, doesn't this mean that the Redskins should have lost to the Cowboys? This would also mean Gregg's theory is horseshit, but we all know Gregg's theories could never be horseshit. Never.
The Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons figured to face constant running plays, what with Washington having a mediocre run defense and Dallas boasting the league's first-ranked rushing offense. Running plays are especially effective at home, because they ramp up crowd energy.
This is a 100% fact and not at all an opinion. Passing plays actually bore the home crowd. That's also a fact and not an opinion. Gregg holds so much knowledge that may seem to the amateur as an opinion, but is indeed a fact.
Washington gambled by big-blitzing on third down, and the gamble paid off with two sacks of Tony Romo by safety Brandon Meriweather: one knocking Romo out of the contest for a while, the other causing a fourth-quarter fumble.
Stop me before I blitz again! Big blitzing doesn't work and a good quarterback can easily beat a big blitz. Isn't that what Gregg tells his readers? Well, apparently not. I do like how Gregg just acknowledges the Redskins blitzed a lot and managed to win the game using this tactic, yet Gregg will criticize another defensive coordinator for blitzing a lot in other instances, and claim this is what caused his team to lose the game. Then from there, Gregg will attempt to make it seem like playing a base, boring defense like the Seahawks run is the best defense to run in order to win games. Then my head will explode.
McCoy scored a touchdown on a designed quarterback draw at the goal line -- this common Texas prep school play must have made him feel right at home.
Yes, this quarterback draw at the goal line is a common Texas prep school play, but also a common play in the NFL with a quarterback who is mobile. Heck, the Panthers beat the Packers 15 years ago on a quarterback draw by Steve Beuerlein from the five yard line. So it's a common Texas prep school play, but also a common football play.
The Persons broke an 0-8 streak (and 0-9 road streak) against NFC East teams. Now, sure-to-be-former head coach Jay Gruden faces yet another dilemma -- bring back RG III, or let the third-stringer play? Don't be surprised if Gruden sides with McCoy. A Griffin comeback would be a media circus, while Gruden can take credit for having the foresight to sign the unwanted McCoy last spring.
Or Gruden could choose to start Colt McCoy because McCoy has played well as the Redskins' starter and won a road game against the Cowboys. But no, I'm sure the decision to start McCoy will be based primarily on satisfying Gruden's ego and need to feel smart. It won't have anything to do with the fact McCoy has played well for the Redskins.
Sweet Play Of The Week: With the Steelers leading Indianapolis 28-10, Pittsburgh had first-and-10 on the Colts 47. Colts defensive end Arthur Jones got free on a spin move and lunged at Ben Roethlisberger's feet. Roethlisberger stumbled, and Jones seemed likely to pull the Pittsburgh quarterback down. Then undrafted Steelers guard Ramon Foster jumped atop Jones and immobilized him.
Foster makes a great play, Gregg mentions his draft position.
Freed, Roethlisberger threw a 47-yard touchdown pass to Antonio Brown.
Ben Roethlisberger throws a 47-yard touchdown pass and his draft position isn't mentioned at all. Neither is that fact that Antonio Brown, a highly-paid glory boy, caught the touchdown pass. This is how Gregg works. He assumes his readers are stupid and lazy, so he can mislead them and leave out information that fits his agenda.
When Roethlisberger was drafted out of Miami of Ohio, the book on him was he was a terrific leader but lacked finesse as a passer. One reason for this view is Roethlisberger looks like a linebacker and plays a tough-guy style -- when he's sacked, he barely seems aware of it. Now Roethlisberger has two Super Bowl rings, and on Sunday, he became the only quarterback in NFL annals to throw for 500-plus yards on more than one occasion.
But what round was he drafted in again?
Roethlisberger will never get into Brett Favre or Peyton Manning territory for career passing yards.
I'm still thinking about undrafted Steelers guard Ramon Foster, so what rounds were Favre and Manning drafted in again?
Sour Play Of The Week: With Baltimore leading 24-20, the Nevermores had host Cincinnati facing third-and-10 on its own 20 with 3:48 remaining. All the visitors needed was an incompletion. Knowing Cincinnati needed to throw deep, surely Baltimore wouldn't safety blitz! But free safety Darian Stewart blitzed, and it was a 53-yard completion to Mohamed Sanu, who went straight to the area the free safety vacated for a key down in the Cincinnati comeback victory.
Doesn't Gregg mean undrafted free safety Darian Stewart? Oh that's right, Stewart didn't make a good play so his draft position is irrelevant in Gregg's mind.
Playing at home, the Panthers never trailed the defending champions until there were 47 seconds remaining, and they left the field losers. Sour. Down 13-9, the Cats faced fourth-and-25 on their own 8 with 26 seconds showing. Essentially, this was fourth-and-99. When Cam Newton threw short incomplete, the home crowd booed lustily.
Newton didn't really "throw short," he threw a screen pass that didn't get to the intended receiver because he was about to be trucked by a defensive lineman for the third play in a row.
It turns out Super Bowl MVP quarterback Joe Flacco faced a nearly identical fourth-and-99 situation on his final snap at Cincinnati and also threw a futile short pass. But Flacco wasn't at home, so he did not hear boos.
You can't find this type of analysis anywhere else.
Reader Joshua Thrailkill of North Carolina noted the Panthers fielded four undrafted offensive linemen. But in the NFL, every team must deal with injuries.
Nope, I think what Joshua may have been pointing out is that Gregg goes on and on and on and on about undrafted free agents and how they work so hard, only care about the team and are preferable to "me-first" glory boys, but the Panthers have a pitiful offensive line nearly made up entirely of undrafted free agents. Because Gregg lacks self-awareness, he is unable to see that Joshua very well could be pointing out the fallacy of Gregg's assertions in TMQ. In this case, the assertion is that undrafted players are often preferable to highly-drafted players. It's better to be blind to his assertions being incorrect and keep making the same assertions over and over rather than Gregg subjugate his ego to admit his theory is horseshit and based entirely on assumptions and cherry-picked information that ignores evidence contrary to his assumptions.
"The 100" is teen angst goes to outer space. The title refers to 100 teenagers who descend to Earth from an enormous space station where a remnant of humanity has spent the past century in terrible conditions while waiting for radiation to fade after a nuclear apocalypse. In the series pilot, aboard the enormous space station, we see teens, and we see their parents -- but no children. How could there be 100 teenagers if there are no babies, toddlers or tweens?
Because it is a fictional television show. That's how.
On "The 100" it's the middle of the 22nd century, yet everyone speaks southern California English using present-day slang. One hundred sixty-five years into the future, people say, "Game over, man."
This is a pretty stupid criticism for two specific reasons:
1. If a television show invented it's own language and slang then Gregg would criticize the show for not using realistic language.
2. If a television show invented it's own language and slang then the viewers would have some difficulty relating and understanding what is being said by the characters. There are television shows that create their own language, but include subtitles and the entirety of the show isn't this new language (I'm thinking "Game of Thrones"). So for "The 100" to create new slang (The Shins will change your life), would involve the viewers in 2014 understanding slang used by every character from 150 years in the future. I'm not sure that's a good way to draw viewers.
In the Will Smith interplanetary ego vehicle "After Earth," it's 1,000 years into the future, and language is exactly the same as today. Characters say "I'm good to go" and "We need this ASAP."
Because it's preferable to use language nobody watching the movie understands. Makes sense.
Contrast that with the literary science fiction novel "Riddley Walker," which is set centuries after a global nuclear war pushed humanity back into the iron age. Author Russell Hoban invented an elaborate future dialect. For instance, the ancients (us) are referred to as the "Puter Leat" -- the computer elite. Surely, if there is ever a Hollywood version of "Riddley Walker," future slang will disappear and characters will say, "Sup, dog?"
See Gregg is so stupid, he doesn't understand that if there was a Hollywood version of "Riddley Walker" then slang like "Sup, dog?" would make sense. Gregg is advocating Hollywood update slang in movies or television shows that take place in the future, but then he sarcastically states "Sup, dog?" would appear in a Hollywood version of "Riddley Walker." Well, "Riddley Walker" was written in 1980, so using future slang from 2014 in a movie about the future is EXACTLY what Gregg is encouraging Hollywood to do, yet he sarcastically states this is what Hollywood do, as if the movie version should use slang from 1980. The idea of using slang from 1980 is against what Gregg wants Hollywood to do in terms of updating language based on "future slang" that would be used in movies and television shows about the future.
Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel admitted the city deliberately shortened yellow lights. The goal was more ticket revenue -- some $8 million from 77,000 automated tickets that would not have been issued had yellow lights been set to the federally recommended, three-second minimum.
In order to fund public-sector pensions, cities and states increasingly stoop to any means to reach into citizens' pockets.
I do agree with Gregg on this issue, but that's what parking tickets, speeding tickets, and various other penalties are, an attempt to reach into citizens' pockets. I own a car. I have paid for my car entirely, yet I have to pay a tax to my local government on the value of my car. Why do I have to pay the tax? I own the car entirely and the city is supposed to receive revenue from me because I have the audacity to own a vehicle? It's an attempt to reach into my pocket and take money. I don't advocate shortened yellow lights, but this is one of the small examples of government reaching in the pockets of citizens. Every year people who have the audacity to own a car have to pay to get the car inspected. To drive a car, a person is forced to get it inspected and there is a charge for this too. It's just weird Gregg uses shortened yellow lights as an example of government overreach when there are plenty of other more egregious examples (at least in my opinion).
Automated red-light cameras are springing up in many places -- though if set to short yellow, they render the roads dangerous by causing drivers to slam on the brakes. Colorado's legalization of marijuana was inspired partly by the state's desire to tax sales. If betting on sports becomes legal -- being disputed right now in New Jersey -- the reason might be government's desire to tax this underground economy.
Yep, welcome to what some people realized a decade ago.
In effect, there were four turnovers, as Green Bay failed on a fourth-and-inches near midfield while the margin was close. Officials on the field initially signaled first down; a challenge changed the spot to fourth-and-inches.
Then the Packers, inspired by their coach's decision to go for it on fourth down and show a real need to win the game, were so motivated they rallied and beat the Saints at home, right? Wait, that didn't happen like Gregg will claim happens when a coach goes for it on fourth down? I don't understand how Gregg's "Go for it on fourth down and it will inspire your team to win the game" theory could ever be wrong.
The NFL Is More Interesting Than The NBA: Many sports enthusiasts prefer basketball to football. But even for those who do, there's a reason the NFL is more interesting: More football teams than basketball teams start the season with a chance.
There are 30 NBA teams. 53% of these teams make the playoffs.
There are 32 NFL teams. 37.5% of these teams make the playoffs.
I'm not entirely sure Gregg understands what he is writing isn't true. Either that or he just likes to outright lie. More NBA teams have a chance of making the playoffs at the beginning of the season as compared to the chance NFL teams have of making the playoffs. Therefore more NBA teams have a chance of winning the NBA title than NFL teams have a chance of winning the Super Bowl. This is true statistically at the beginning of the season at least. Carry on...
NBA teams play so many games followed by a postseason based on the "best of" series concept that by the end, the top team almost always wins the title, thereby washing out the effects of luck. By contrast, the NFL plays only 16 games followed by a postseason knockout round. There's room for variability based on luck or degree of effort.
The fact there is less room for variability in the NBA doesn't mean more NFL teams start the season with a chance to make the playoffs or win the title. Perhaps practically this is true, but statistically it is not. I'm not sure if Gregg is just dumb or trying to be willfully stupid to push his own agenda or not. Regardless of the odds an NBA team has of winning a playoff series, more NBA teams have a chance to win the title simply because a greater percentage of NBA teams qualify for the playoffs.
In turn, small NBA rosters can mean one smart trade or draft selection improves the team dramatically. Large NFL rosters take longer to build because they have more moving parts.
While true in part, there are always exceptions. It's how the Colts can go from 2-14 to making the playoffs in a calendar year.
The result of these factors is every NBA season begins with a handful of teams holding a realistic shot at the title, compared to many teams that have no chance at all. The numerous NBA teams that are goin' nowhere know who they are from the start of the season. Every NFL season begins with a larger number of teams that might win the Super Bowl and a relatively smaller number with no shot.
This argument doesn't make sense in the context of Gregg's argument above on how the smaller NBA rosters mean a team can improve dramatically in one season. If the NBA has smaller rosters and a team can be improved through one draft pick or trade, then doesn't that mean there is more variability in the NBA standings, which means there are more teams who can make one smart move and be an NBA title contender? If large NFL rosters take longer to build (and remember this is me dissecting Gregg's argument, not what I think), then doesn't that mean there are NFL teams who don't have a shot to win the Super Bowl at the beginning of the season because they have more moving parts and require more players to improve the team's chances of winning games?
So Gregg's argument about the increased variability in an NBA team's success doesn't necessarily make sense in the context of his assertion more NBA teams start the season knowing they don't have a shot at the title, because an NBA team can make fewer moves that result in that team going up or down in the standings. Gregg's conclusion seems to be correct, but I'm not sure how he reached his conclusion is accurate.
That there's more variability in the NFL than the NBA is shown by the fact that in the past 15 years, 10 NFL teams have won the Super Bowl, while six NBA clubs have monopolized that league's titles. Twelve of the past 15 NBA titles have been won by the Lakers, Spurs and Heat; the equivalent figure is seven of the past 15 NFL titles have been won by the Patriots, Giants and Steelers. Also note that 15 of the 48 Super Bowl winners failed to make the next postseason, while just two of 68 NBA champions (the 1998 Chicago Bulls and the 1969 Boston Celtics) failed to reach the next year's postseason.
This is accurate. This also goes against Gregg's assertion that one smart trade or draft selection can improve a team dramatically. If that were totally true, then wouldn't there be more volatility in which teams win the NBA title? The truth is Gregg isn't entirely wrong, but it's the fewer moving parts, along with the ability of one player to have a large impact, that allows NBA teams to stay in title contention from year-to-year. Gregg talks about how NBA teams have dramatic improvement from year-to-year, due to the addition of one player, but this doesn't happen too often. It's hard to find a Kevin Durant or LeBron James in the NBA. My basic point is Gregg isn't wrong, but he argues there is a lot of variability in the record of an NBA team based on the addition of one player to a roster, but logically this would be an argument for greater volatility in terms of which teams can win an NBA title. Yet, he is arguing the opposite.
The Charlotte Hornets -- 14 years removed from their latest playoff series victory -- have a chairman, a vice chairman, a "president, chief operating officer & alternate governor," a general manager, an assistant general manager, two executive vice presidents, three senior vice presidents and six regular vice presidents. That's 16 senior executives for 18 players.
This is a great example of Gregg Easterbrook outright lying or misleading his readers. The Charlotte Hornets haven't existed since the 2001-2002 season, when they last won a playoff series. The New Orleans Hornets did win a playoff series in 2007-2008, but the reason the Charlotte Hornets haven't won a playoff series in 14 years is because they haven't existed in 14 years. The Charlotte Hornets moved to New Orleans, then moved back to Charlotte for the 2014-2015 season. So the team actually has won a playoff series as the Charlotte Hornets three of the last five seasons they existed as the Charlotte Hornets. But to mention this would submarine Gregg's point of "Look at all these people required to manage a failing team!" Dishonesty at all costs.
No wonder the Hornets are so terrible!
Yep, they made the playoffs last year as the Charlotte Bobcats. Make up your mind. Are the Charlotte Hornets the New Orleans Hornets (now Pelicans) who have won a playoff series in the last 14 years or are the Charlotte Hornets the Charlotte Bobcats who aren't terrible and made the playoffs last year?
So what do you think? Do you think Gregg is just so uninformed about the NBA he thinks the Charlotte Hornets have been in Charlotte all of these years or do you think he is just misleading his readers as to the success of the Charlotte Hornets over the past 14 seasons? The Charlotte Bobcats are a completely different team from the Charlotte Hornets that won a playoff series 14 years ago. So comparing the Hornets last playoff victory from 14 years ago is misleading, because the Bobcats (now Hornets) haven't won a playoff series, but have only existed since the 2004-2005 season. The 2004-2005 season wasn't 14 years ago. Gregg can't seem to figure out which Charlotte Hornets team he wants to talk about, yet still manages to be wrong either way. Quite the accomplishment. It's a very clumsy and misleading point Gregg is attempting to make.
Then, with Philadelphia leading 20-17, the hosts faced third-and-5 on their 25 with 1:33 remaining. Arizona could've tried to nickel-and-dime into field goal position for overtime, but playing to win apparently made more sense. That meant big chunks of yards. Yet at the snap, the deepest Philadelphia safety, Nate Allen, was 8 yards off the line of scrimmage
Oh Gregg...NFL teams can not read minds and don't have the benefit of hindsight that you have. The Eagles didn't know the Cardinals would try to gain a big chunk of yardage. They wanted to stop the Cardinals from throwing short, but Bruce Arians called a great play that went against what the Eagles thought the Cardinals would do. That's all. It was a good play call and the Eagles' defense did the right thing to anticipate a shorter pass, rather than a 75-yard bomb.
Safeties are coached to "keep everything in front of you" in situations such as this. Brown got behind all Eagles with apparent ease.
This is true, but the Eagles also didn't want to give up an easy reception in front of them to where the Cardinals could convert a third down into a first down.
The game would conclude with Arizona calling a big blitz on six of Philadelphia's final 13 snaps, including a seven-man blitz with 1 second remaining and the Eagles on the host's 16. It worked this time. But if Arizona continues to big-blitz so much, the chickens -- or the cactus wrens, considering indigenous birds of the Grand Canyon State -- might come home to roost.
Yes, stop blitzing or one time it may not work! That one time it doesn't work, no matter how many times it has worked, Gregg will point out when blitzing doesn't work. Why? Because that's how Gregg works. He feels free to point out the one time a blitz is ineffective, while ignoring or just warning they won't be effective 100% of the time (which is incredibly obvious).
'Tis Better To Have Rushed And Lost Than Never To Have Rushed At All: Detroit played it ultra-conservative in London, where the Tories rule. Jim Caldwell kicked down 21-0 and twice kicked on fourth-and-short inside the Atlanta 5-yard line.
And because his team saw that Jim Caldwell wasn't trying to win the game, they ended up losing. Right? Wait, that didn't happen? It's like Week 8 in the NFL was just a series of Gregg's theories and assertions being totally wrong. What a wonderful world it is.
So Atlanta's penalty effectively created a timeout for Detroit. Then, on third-and-10 with 1:50 remaining, the Falcons threw incomplete, which stopped the clock. Considering the Lions would kick the winning field goal as time expired, had Atlanta simply knelt on these two downs, the Falcons likely would have prevailed.
Yes, this is "likely" based on Gregg's own assumption that not shockingly supports his contention. It's also "likely" that Gregg assumes too much.
Flaming Thumbtacks Go Down In Flames: In my preseason AFC Preview, I warned the Titans season might devolve to "Zach Mettenberger handing off to Bishop Sankey." And verily, it came to pass. Final: Houston 30, Tennessee 16.
Is relying on rookies to win games in place of ineffective veterans really "devolving"? Sankey was a 2nd round pick and if Mettenberger is ready to play then there's no harm in putting him on the field.
On Sunday, quarterbacks Geno Smith and Michael Vick combined for a 17 rating. After the game, Rex Ryan, who in the preseason implied he was "one of the best of all time" as a coach, told Ben Shpigel, "Why we're not playing better, I don't know." An all-time great should know!
I don't remember Rex Ryan implying he is "one of the best of all time" as a coach. I do remember him saying he was NOT one of the best of all time as a coach. Here are Ryan's quotes in question and you can clearly see Gregg's lies at work.
Ryan clarified that he’s not claiming he’s Vince Lombardi.
“I’m not saying that I’m the best or whatever . . . or the best of all time,” Ryan said. “I just know that I’m the best that I can be. I know that I’m willing to do the work. I may have limitations. I get that. But nobody’s going to convince me that they’re more passionate about their job than I am . . . and that they’re more passionate about their organization than me.”
Maybe Gregg Easterbrook is functionally illiterate, or Ryan was using new slang that Hollywood created, but the way that reads to me as a person who can read words in English and has an education beyond the 6th grade is that Rex Ryan was saying he is NOT the best of all time. I can see how Gregg got confused though when Rex said specifically,
"I'm not saying that I'm the best or whatever...or the best of all time."
This is a confusing sentence structure for someone who wants to lie to his readers and mislead them into believing Rex Ryan said something he in fact did not say. Notice how Gregg provides a link to Ryan's quote about how he doesn't know why the Jets aren't playing better, but he doesn't provide a link to Ryan implying he is one of the all time best coaches. That's because Gregg knows he is lying and doesn't want his readers to know that he is deceiving them.
Thus, Cleveland surrendered a first-round draft pick and three decent players for a second-round draft pick and Euro-stashed gents who are long shots to bounce a ball in the NBA. But Cleveland got rid of Jack's and Zeller's contracts, which could not have happened without Boston supplying its $10 million trade exemption. The Cavs ended up holding extra cap space, which they (and nobody else at that juncture) knew was the final piece of the puzzle to sign LeBron James.
Really Gregg? No one knew? Here is a search for "Tyler Zeller trade to Celtics LeBron James." Doing the work that Gregg refused to do in order to pretend his assertion was correct, one can see it was assumed this trade helped free cap space for LeBron James. So "nobody else at that juncture" knew the trade freed up money for LeBron to sign with Cleveland is just an outright lie.
Tactical Use Of Cheer Babes: With City of Tampa leading Minnesota 13-10, the Vikings had the ball on their 23 at the two-minute warning. The host's cheerleaders ran onto the field, lined up almost in the Vikings' huddle and began to shake their booties in hopes of distracting the visitors.
Gregg hates how the NFL exploits these people he calls "cheer babes."
This Year's Human Development Report: Football columns are not likely to be your best source of global development news.
Or in the case of TMQ, a football column is not likely to be the best source of NFL news.
Luckily, Tom Brady Has A Bye Week In Which To Do Some Modeling: When the Flying Elvii struggled at home versus Oakland then were blown out at Kansas City, sports pundits were asking if the New England golden age were over.
Ah yes, more dishonesty. Gregg refers to "sports pundits" as a group and doesn't mention his part.
Is The Sun Setting On Tom Brady? A week ago before their home crowd, the Patriots barely outlasted the woeful Raiders. Monday night they were ground up into burger meat -- "Of course we're speaking in the figurative sense," as Weird Al would say -- by the Chiefs. Is New England's Brady-Belichick Golden Age drawing to a close?
Brady was openly frustrated throughout the contest. Every star athlete must deal with nationally televised defeat -- just ask LeBron James -- but rarely has Brady lost badly. His life with the Flying Elvii has been all news conferences, endorsements, championship rings and supermodels, 'til last night, when the Patriots looked like the Raiders East.
Gregg hates it when "sports pundits" do things like this. Of course, he isn't honest enough to mention he is the one asking if the "golden age" of Brady-Belichick was over, because that would require he admit he was wrong and made a knee-jerk reaction to a Patriots' loss. It's amazing to me how much Gregg misleads his readers and how he leaves important pieces of information out in order to protect his own ego.
Since that juncture, the Patriots have won four straight.
I can't wait for January when Gregg writes "sports pundits" said the Seahawks could miss the playoffs this year, while ignoring he is that "sports pundit" and he wrote this conclusion the Seahawks won't make the playoffs just last week.
Next Week: Will AIG issue credit-default swap insurance on NBA salary-cap trades?
I wish someone at ESPN would stop allowing Gregg to write TMQ. Or just maybe stop him from misleading his readers and only including information that makes him look correct, while leaving out information that shows when he is wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)