8 comments Jerry Green Says Mike Trout is the 2014 AL MVP, Still Uses Faulty Reasoning

Well, Jerry Green got the AL MVP seemingly correct, but like last time when he got (potentially) the right answer, he used the wrong reasoning again to get there. This is not a shock since Green tends to look at the MVP as the MVP on a winning team, because after all, how valuable can a player be if the players around him aren't very good? Jerry Green thinks that Mike Trout should be the 2014 AL MVP, which is interesting to me considering Trout has put up similar traditional statistics as he did the prior two seasons. Jerry thinks Trout is the AL MVP because the Angels are winning games. That's all that matters to Jerry Green. He just wants his AL MVP to play for a winning team. Because after all, MVP isn't the best player, but is the most "valuable" player and a player's individual value should be determined by the team around him.

The words are most valuable player. Simple words.

And yet, you insist on making it solely a team award. I could not agree more. You are wrong to incorporate so much of a team's success in with an individual player's performance.

MVP — the annual vote fest that so frequently provides contentiousness, contrariness and controversy on the previously noted media outlets. Some years the speculation approaches bloodshed.

Strong disagreement = bloodshed

I have to remember that Jerry Green comes from the time when he could spout whatever opinion he wanted to and there was no public disagreement of that opinion as there is in the Internet age. Jerry is used to feeling his opinion is the right opinion, so when someone feels as strongly about a topic as to disagree with him, then that's bloodshed. Jerry can feel strongly about the AL MVP, but as soon as someone disagrees with his position strongly then there's bloodshed occurring. It's fine for Jerry to push his point strongly, but others can't do the same. 

The standings must be factored into the MVP contests because they indicate the worth of ballplayers.

Exactly. The standings should be factored in, but not factored in more than other factors, because it measures the worth of ballplayers (plural), while the MVP is an individual award. Glad Jerry Green can argue my point without actually knowing he is doing so. 

Plain math. Nothing to do with metrics.

Exactly. If you want to find out which team may have the best group of individual players then look at the standings. If you want to find out which team has the best individual player, look at individual statistics. It's pretty fucking simple. 

Once first place was all that mattered in the baseball summers.

Once black baseball players had their own league where they could play baseball separately from white baseball players. Once sportswriters were friends with players and turned a blind eye to the use of amphetamines. Times have changed. Change with the times, accept it. 

That was before Bud Selig, the lame-duck baseball commissioner, came along with his cockamamie wild-card schemes. Now it’s the playoffs and a variety of standings, every day.

The Wild Card has nothing to do with the MVP race in either league. 

The daily grind happens to be the most alluring part of baseball. To me, anyway.

Two years ago was one of those near-bloodshed seasons in the American League’s MVP electioneering. It was Miguel Cabrera vs. Mike Trout. The Tigers’ Triple Crown champion vs. the Angels’ multi-talented rookie outfielder.

"Someone disagreed strongly with my strong point of view. I'm going to be a drama queen about it now. Poor me for being disagreed with so strongly."

Cabrera’s team finished first in a hectic division race. They won the playoffs for the pennant and advanced to the World Series, which turned into a Detroit flop. Trout’s team finished third in its division race and failed to reach the pennant playoffs.

But, and here is the important point that Jerry Green can't get through his head, the Angels actually won one more game than the Tigers did in 2012. So if Jerry Green likes the daily grind so much then maybe he can realize the Angels won the daily grind by just a hair, it just so happens they play in the wrong division. 

Additional points for Cabrera — above the three hitting titles — for contributing to a first-place finish.

But if the Angels and the Tigers played in the same division then Cabrera would have contributed to a second place finish in 2012. This isn't a matter of who came in first in the AL Central, it's a matter of geography. Geography means the Angels play in the AL West, which means they don't play in the AL Central, which means Miguel Cabrera won the AL MVP (based on Jerry's reasoning) because Anaheim is in California and is not a city in the Midwest. If Anaheim were located in Minnesota, then Mike Trout would be the AL MVP using Jerry's reasoning. See how silly this all sounds? 

The award, I repeat, goes to the most valuable player. It is not the best-player award. It is not the most-talented award.

It goes to the player who was most valuable to his team. A player can still be very valuable even if he doesn't play for a team that has won their division. Being the best player on a team of other really good players (you know, like on a team that has a Cy Young Award winner or three), doesn't mean that player is the most valuable player. Jerry Green does a great job of making my argument for me and I do appreciate it. 

Cabrera’s value to the Tigers, simply, was that they finished first in 2012 and again in 2013 because he was the top force on the roster.

I don't have an issue with Cabrera being the AL MVP in 2013, but the idea the Tigers finished first in the AL Central and that's why Cabrera should be the AL MVP in 2012 is silly. The fact Jerry Green says the MVP is not measured by who is the best player, then gives the award to the best player on the Tigers is hilarious to me. Jerry says the MVP is for the most valuable player, then says it shouldn't go to the best player. Then he says Cabrera was the AL MVP in 2012 because he was the best player on his team.

That being explained, Trout, in less-than-vintage form this season, should nonetheless be a shoo-in for the American League’s MVP award. By acclimation. And for the first time Mike Trout is bound for the postseason.

The Angels are headed toward the playoffs, likely as first-place winner of the AL West or the most proficient wildcard choice.

Trout's team is going to the postseason, that must mean he is more valuable this season and not that the team around him is better than it has been in the past. After all, even though Jerry Green admits Trout has had better seasons when he wasn't the AL MVP, obviously Trout has become more valuable while being not as good of a baseball player because his team is performing better. That makes sense, right? Trout is more valuable this year, despite Jerry believing Trout hasn't performed up to his highest standard. It must be those great clubhouse motivational speeches that Trout is giving and has nothing to do with Jerry judging an individual player on his team's achievements. 

If there is any athlete who might deserve any sort of MVP recognition after Trout, it should be Victor Martinez.

OK, I am a self-admitted purist — I maintain a love of baseball played the old-fashioned way. And Victor is in the Detroit lineup as designated hitter, the scoffed-at DH, with rare games at a field position. And there is the notion that a DH does not deserve any recognition as an MVP.

But wait, Jerry Green is open-minded about a DH being recognized as the MVP because this one time Victor Martinez came through in the clutch. Martinez may be a DH, but his clutchiness is off the charts. Now that's a valuable player!

On the other hand, I was affixed to the MLB Network the other afternoon when the Tigers were playing in desperation against the Yankees. This was the game that was tied 2-2 in the ninth. Viewing from afar, it could be deemed the most important game the Tigers had played all season.

Sure, Jerry Green thinks it's a season-long grind and that's why he hates the Wild Card the lame-duck commissioner installed two decades ago, but this was THE MOST IMPORTANT GAME OF THE SEASON...in August. It's a season-long grind, but the season-long grind apparently ends in late August in the opinion of Jerry Green. So there's that. 

Anyway, this is the perfect time for some clutchiness. Who can be clutchy?

Then, Victor Martinez cracked a double to lead off the bottom of the ninth. His hit, in the body of pinch-runner Bryan Holaday, developed into the winning run in the Tigers’ 3-2 victory.

Again, I stress the notion of value.

Value being that Mike Trout wouldn't need a pinch-runner in this situation because he is a better all-around player than Victor Martinez and has the speed to score from second base that Martinez doesn't have? Or value in that Jerry Green chose this one specific at-bat to stand as representative of Victor Martinez's other 500+ at-bats being on-par with Mike Trout's 500+ at-bats?

Trout is the most talent-laden young ballplayer to reach the Major Leagues in some 60 years. My unshakable opinion. The most talented since the 1950s young years of Willie Mays and the great Roberto Clemente. The only young player with similar multiple talents since was Ken Griffey Jr.

But not the MVP unless he wins his division. Sort of like how Roberto Clemente was the 1966 NL MVP and his team came in 3rd in their division? 

But in this strange season, Victor is out-hitting Trout by some 35 percentage points. For some odd reason, Trout is batting below .300, sub-standard for him.

Trout wins the production war — home runs and runs batted in.

RBI's are a product of players being on-base for Trout to drive in, which means RBI's are a product of Trout having a good team around him. Also, it's not odd that Martinez is out-hitting Trout. Victor Martinez is having a really good year. 

And Trout plays glorious defense. He competes with the speed of a sprinter — and seems to get his uniform dirty every game.

Even if Mike Trout has to shit his pants, they will be dirty by the end of the game. Because a dirty uniform means a player has hustled and is more valuable than a player with a clean uniform.

He packs the ingredients to be MVP — with the added points of driving a club to first place, or at worst a wild-card playoff place.

It's funny how Mike Trout isn't having his usual great year, according to Jerry Green, yet he suddenly has become more valuable to a team that is playing better than they were when Mike Trout was having his usual great year. It's almost like other players on the Angels team have something to do with the team's success.

The MVP contentiousness this year is confined to the National League.

A pitcher is required to be exceptional to be considered in the voting for MVP against quality every-day athletes. This was the debate three seasons ago when Justin Verlander was in consideration.

The Cy Young is the trophy that goes to the best — not always the most valuable — pitcher.

Trying to decide which pitcher is the best pitcher in the AL/NL and how that pitcher who is the best pitcher in the AL/NL is not the most valuable pitcher gives me a little bit of a headache. 

We go back — it is the most valuable player award — and Verlander was the most dominant player in the American League. Pitchers do happen to be ballplayers. Again my perhaps singular opinion.

But what if a pitcher is the most dominant player in the American League, but he plays for a team that isn't very good? The pitcher was dominant in all of his starts, but his team wasn't very good. Does this make him not a valuable pitcher, but the best pitcher in the American League? How could this pitcher have improved his value? By having the players around him hit the baseball better than they did or have the other pitchers in the starting rotation be better at pitching? That sounds a lot like judging an individual player for an individual award based on his team's performance.

And for that reason, this year’s MVP in the National League is Clayton Kershaw. The Dodgers are running away in the NL’s West Division.

And of course Kershaw becomes more valuable because his team has better hitters and other starting pitchers in the rotation. Kershaw's individual value is increased because the value of the players around him is increased. In a race for an individual award, it doesn't make sense to base a player's individual value on the players around him, but fuck it, that's how it's always been done. 

Kershaw is dominant in his league — more dominant than the only other possible National League candidate, Giancarlo Stanton. Stanton is an awesome basher. He leads his league in home runs and runs batted in.

Stanton’s value to the Miami Marlins is that he has carried a rinky-dinky team to .500 respectability.

But if Mike Stanton were really valuable he would carry his team to a first place division title. Because obviously, if Clayton Kershaw pitched for the Miami Marlins then he would carry the team to first place with his awesome pitching abilities. Obviously this would happen. 

But first place is worth points. Kershaw’s Dodgers are destined to finish in first place. They are the best team in baseball, because of Kershaw.

(Punches a wall until his hand is bloody)

Or...the Dodgers are destined to finish in first place because they have a huge payroll and can afford to employ good baseball players like Yasiel Puig, Adrian Gonzalez, Matt Kemp Zack Greinke, Hanley Ramirez, Hyun-jin Ryu, and Josh Beckett (who hasn't pitched poorly this year) that make up a good baseball team. But yes, the difference in the Miami Marlins and the Los Angeles Dodgers is the presence of Clayton Kershaw on the Dodgers team and how he brings more value to the team compared to the value Giancarlo Stanton brings to the Marlins. That's it. That's the difference in those two players. 

Gosh, here out on America’s Pacific rim, the homers are yelling about a Los Angeles-only World Series, pitting the Dodgers and Angels. Hollywood vs. Disneyland.

And the two obvious MVPs. Kershaw vs. Trout.

A natural matchup!

I like Jerry Green's conclusion, but I hate how he gets there. I just want baseball writers to stop using team metrics to determine the individual value of a player for the MVP award. Apparently this is too much to ask.

8 comments Bob McGinn Makes a List of the Top 25 Quarterbacks Ever, Seemingly Fails at Doing So

The last time we left Bob McGinn he was telling us that IF Aaron Rodgers got injured then the Packers would be totally fine because SENECA WALLACE HAS TOTALLY GOT THIS. Hmm...well it turns out the night after McGinn wrote this column Aaron Rodgers got hurt in a game against the Bears and the Packers were not fine at all. In fact, Wallace was benched for Scott Tolzien and then the Packers signed Matt Flynn because for God's sake there has to be someone who knows how to play quarterback on the roster. So McGinn swung and missed on Seneca Wallace being a quality backup, but not one to hide after making such a bold prediction, Bob decides that he is going to rank the top 25 quarterbacks he has seen play. 

Thanks to Eric for sending me the link to this article. As Eric mentioned in his email to me (spoiler alert!) Drew Brees is too low, Brett Favre is too high, Bart Starr is too absent, and Donovan McNabb is not absent. And yes, I realize it is a subjective ranking of these quarterbacks, but there are some mysterious reasons given for the inclusion/ranking of some quarterbacks.

Longtime readers of the Journal Sentinel probably realize many of the columns that I've written over the years were developed through my legion of contacts from the ranks of personnel men, coaches and players.

He's sort of a big deal. People know him.

Some have maintained that if Peyton Manning plays well and leads the Denver Broncos to victory over the defensive-minded Seattle Seahawks, he should be acclaimed the greatest quarterback of all time.

That got me started.

Probably the easiest column in the world to write is a list column.

"I'm started AND lists are easy. I'm doing a list for my next column. It's better than writing this 'Seneca Wallace would be the best receiver on the Packers roster if given a chance' column I was thinking of writing." 

But with the debate about the best quarterback ever undoubtedly going on for two weeks, the decision was made to come up with a list, in order, of my top 25 quarterbacks of all time.

The list sort of reads as being out of order.

These are my personal choices. I didn't consult a soul.

Bob didn't even consult his soul. Why? BECAUSE BOB MCGINN HAS NO SOUL, JUST AN OVERWHELMINGLY EMPTY AREA WHERE SENECA WALLACE RUINED HIM!

In fact, I've never really given it much thought until last week.

But no worries, this is a super-well thought out list that is the result of minutes and minutes of Bob's concentration and focus, as well as the results of what quarterback names were drawn out of a hat. 

In preparing the list, it was decided that only quarterbacks with 10 years of playing experience would be considered. I also included only players that I can remember watching. Because I never saw the great Otto Graham (1946-'55), he couldn't be on the list.

This is the only criteria required to make the list. Well, it also turns out being really tough is a criteria, but seemingly an unofficial criteria. 

Criteria? There really weren't any other than years of service. I did consider the physical attributes of older players and how they would project to the NFL of today.

Projecting quarterbacks who played 40 years ago as to what type of statistics they would put up in today's game...what could go wrong in doing this?

Passer rating didn't play much of a role.

For one thing, it doesn't factor in winning, rushing and clutch play.

Well, part of the reason it doesn't factor in winning and clutch play is because winning is a team statistic and clutch play isn't definable. It's intangible, which is part of what makes it so fun to use when making shit up.

More than anything, this list was based mostly on unscientific, gut feel.

No soul, just gut.

1. Joe Montana (1979-'94)

2. Johnny Unitas (1956-'73)

The ultimate leader of men.

Sorry famous generals and any other world leader, but Johnny Unitas is THE ultimate leader of men. 

3. Tom Brady (2000-'13, active)

4. Dan Marino (1983-'99)

I'm not trying to be a dick, but if Bob McGinn is all about winning then I'm not sure how Dan Marino made his way up to #4 on this list. I'm not sure if anyone has heard, but he had zero Super Bowl wins in his NFL career. 

5. Peyton Manning (1998-'13, active): Near the top of most-prepared passers ever. Used his domineering personality to make football a legitimate sport in basketball-mad Indiana.

Apparently football was an illegitimate sport in Indiana prior to Peyton Manning playing quarterback for the Colts. 

6. Brett Favre (1991-2010): Nobody had more fun playing the game.

Apparently one major criteria for inclusion on this list is, "Did he have fun playing the game?" If it's a "yes" then welcome to the Top 25 QB's of all-time list. The whole "He had fun playing the game like a child" always sounds like bullshit concocted in order to differentiate Favre from other quarterbacks. I respect Brett Favre, but he isn't the sixth-best quarterback in NFL history nor do I think he should be the sixth-best quarterback Bob McGinn has ever seen. This sounds like bias caused by McGinn covering Favre for most of Favre's career. 

Teammates loved playing with him. Defined the gunslinger quarterback.

He was like a child out there, but he isn't like a better quarterback than John Elway in my opinion. I didn't know Favre's teammates liked playing with him. I'm surprised this didn't vault him all the way up to the #1 spot, especially since he was a gunslinger, which is a description I've never heard used in reference to Favre. Very original.

7. John Elway (1983-'98): Probably the best pure athlete on this or any list. Arm strength ranked right alongside Favre's. Rare running ability.

I probably would put Elway above Favre. Of course Elway didn't have fun playing the game, so he clearly should be moved down this list because of that.

13. Terry Bradshaw (1970-'83): Big arm and an even bigger personality. Overcame sluggish start to his career and became the all-time Super Bowl winner. Outstanding athlete.

I'm sorry. I just can't accept Terry Bradshaw as a Top 15 all-time quarterback. I know he played in an era where he didn't pass the football as much as quarterbacks do today, but he has a career completion percentage of 51.5% and threw two more touchdowns than interceptions for his career. He played on great teams and won multiple Super Bowls, so he gets bumped up this list more than he should.

15. Ken Stabler (1970-'84): Fearless competitor with a whip for an arm. Big, left-handed pocket passer. Really good in the clutch.

What was Stabler's clutchiness rating? Probably a 85 out of 100. Because clutchiness can be measured so it's known for sure that Stabler was really good in the clutch. 

16. Sonny Jurgensen (1957-'74): Played his final season at age 40. Deadly deep-ball thrower but, really, could throw any pass. Never took himself too seriously.

HE HAD FUN PLAYING THE GAME, SO BUMP HIM UP 20 SPOTS!

17. Kurt Warner (1998-2009)

18. Ben Roethlisberger (2004-'13, active)

Has anyone ever been more difficult to sack in the pocket?

Probably not, but he isn't clutch enough nor does he have enough fun to be moved up this list. Sorry Ben, put a smile on your face and Bob McGinn will love you more.

19. Troy Aikman (1989-2000)

I feel like Troy Aikman should be higher on this list than Kurt Warner. I guess Warner's statistics are just much more impressive to McGinn. 

20. Steve McNair (1995-2007): Benefited by sitting early in his career. Developed into a consistent thrower, but his career was defined by toughness and running.

I think I misread this one initially. It said that Steve McNair was a Top 20 quarterback of all-time and I know that isn't true. So obviously I misread this or it is a misprint. Especially considering Drew Brees and Bart Starr haven't made the list yet.

21. Donovan McNabb (1999-2011)

(Bengoodfella dies) 

I mean, Donovan McNabb did win games as a quarterback. So he has that going for him. Let's see what Bob McGinn thinks about McNabb and why he put McNabb on this list, just below Steve McNair nonetheless. I bet if he played in the NFL long enough then Vince Young would have made this list. 

Always seemed to run through the middle for first downs when Eagles needed them most.

Gee, this doesn't seem anecdotal at all. So Donovan McNabb is the 21st best quarterback in NFL history because he ran up the middle for a first down when the Eagles needed it the most, not just when they needed it the least. But oh, it gets better. 

Developed into capable passer from mid-career on.

Yes, the 21st best quarterback in NFL history was a capable passer for the latter part of his career on. That's good to know. Unfortunately, Bob McGinn puts McNabb behind one specific player who was an historically great passer from mid-career on. His name is Drew Brees. But Brees hasn't won anything like McNabb did, right? 

23. Randall Cunningham (1985-2001)

24. Bert Jones (1973-'82): Career ruined early by shoulder injuries. Unreal competitor and passer. Bill Belichick has called him the best "pure passer" he ever saw.

I haven't ever really heard of Bert Jones. But if Bill Belichick liked him then he couldn't be bad, could he? 

25. Drew Brees (2001-'13, active)

Regardless of what era Drew Brees has played in, this is too low for him. I'm not a big fan of Brees, but he has to be above Donovan McNabb at the very least. Also, I would probably place him above Bert Jones, even with Bill Belichick's ringing endorsement of Jones. 

My biggest problem with this list is that Drew Brees should be higher, Bart Starr only gets an honorable mention, and Donovan McNabb shouldn't be on the list unless he only gets an honorable mention as well. Also, if McGinn is going to rate quarterbacks while projecting how they would do in today's game then I don't know how Y.A. Tittle didn't make the list. 

That's my take. Since McGinn used his gut and didn't use any statistics I'm sure there are other parts of the ranking that you as readers take issue with. I would probably move Troy Aikman up the list and move Drew Brees up the list even when the era these guys played in is taken into account.

9 comments MMQB Review: The Bengals Should Just Start Over Completely Edition

Last week in MMQB Peter King called for the public shaming of the NFL officials who didn't call a penalty on the Chargers which would have given the Chiefs another chance at a game-winning field goal. This missed field goal allowed the Chargers to make the playoffs over the Steelers, which resulted in Peter King acting as if this one missed call is the only reason the Steelers didn't make the playoffs. Peter also was annoyed by people who took pictures at the Apple store in New York. Of course, nearly everything people do in public annoys Peter, so that's nothing new. This week Peter talks about the scintillating weekend of playoff football (except for the Bengals), talks about the great playoff performances by the quarterbacks (except Andy Dalton), and Peter name-drops to a passenger that he was talking to Dan Fouts (and not an ex-member of the Bengals).

Oh, and by the way, this week's overreaction to what happened during the previous weekend of NFL action is all related to the Bengals if you couldn't tell already. Andy Dalton is a bum and the Bengals aren't sure he's the guy to lead the franchise into the future. It's like what we've seen all year from Peter. A player is great until the team starts losing and vice versa. As I wrote in my preview of the Chargers-Bengals game, it's not like Andy Dalton just started throwing interceptions. He's been pretty inconsistent for a good portion of this season and even his career.

Seven teams playing scintillating playoff football (some even dabbled with defense), and then Cincinnati. You know, the same old Bengals. Isn’t that what the weekend felt like?

Not really. Unless Peter has trouble remembering the same old Bengals. The same old Bengals would have given up 40 points and not scored at all. The "same old Bengals" means the game would not have even been competitive. Cincinnati was leading at halftime.

But what an Akili Smith-sized egg the Bengals laid, and the resurgent Chargers were only too happy to take the win they overwhelmingly deserved.

If there is one takeaway from this past weekend, Peter wants it to be the Bengals played terribly and Andy Dalton is a bum. It's like Peter hasn't seen Dalton in the playoffs before and hasn't watched any of the regular season games where Dalton hasn't been very good. I count five regular season games this season. Dalton threw four interceptions just a week ago. Him having a bad game isn't completely unforeseen, but as always, Peter doesn't seem to notice until the Bengals get a negative result. Dalton was 14-23 for 190 yards with a touchdown and interception in the first game against the Chargers.

Which of these things doesn’t belong:
 
a. 45-44, with a team winning after trailing 38-10.
 
b. 26-24, on a field goal at the gun by a kicker who was unemployed three weeks ago.
 
c. 27-10. Drama-free.
 
d. 23-20, in minus-14 wind chill, on a field goal at the gun by a 15-year NFL kicker who’d never won a playoff game.

Man, Peter is going all-in on the Bengals today. Here's more salt on the wound.

Not to break any hearts in the Queen City, and not to set an NFL record for overreaction, but a snapshot of the 2011 and 2012 drafts show how sick Bengaldom must be today.

Overall Pick	Player, Pos., School	Status
2011
35. Cincinnati	Andy Dalton, QB, TCU	0-3 in the playoffs. Not exactly a fan favorite today.
36. San Francisco	Colin Kaepernick, QB, Nevada	3-1 in the playoffs. Pretty darn good.
2012
53. Cincinnati	Devon Still, DL, Penn State	289 mostly futile snaps in two years.
75. Seattle	Russell Wilson, QB, Wisconsin	The second coming of Drew Brees, perhaps.

I think we should hold off on the "Russell Wilson is the second coming of Drew Brees" talk. Let's let the guy beat Drew Brees next week, play at a high level for another decade, win a Super Bowl and then maybe this conversation can be had.

The Bengals have to be despondent this morning. They should be. They’re not sure if their 4,000-yard quarterback is the future of the franchise.

I've always thought Dalton got a little too much credit, but I think it's a bit of an overreaction to wonder if he is the future of the franchise. The Bengals have made the playoffs three years in a row with Dalton as the quarterback. He's been bad in the playoffs, but he's not exactly a bum.

So much to talk about after one of the great playoff weekends in memory, and let’s not be all Debbie Downer about it.

"Let's" is a contraction for "Let us" and "us" aren't being a Debbie Downer, Peter. You are the one writing the column, not us.

The divisional round schedule:

Saturday, 4:35 p.m. ET: New Orleans (No. 6, 12-5) at Seattle (No. 1, 13-3). They met five weeks ago tonight, at CenturyLink Field, and the Seahawks embarrassed the Saints 34-7. Seattle’s shown signs of mortality since.

Seattle lost at home once to the Cardinals and lost on the road to the 49ers over the past five weeks. They were mortal before that time, regardless of what Peter wants his readers to believe.

First thoughts after a thrilling weekend of football (and don’t take my word for it; 30.8 million people watched Saturday’s twinbill, up 15 percent over last year):

Every game’s a revenge game now for the Niners. They’ve played four of the seven other teams in the playoffs and lost to all four—Seattle, Indy, Carolina and New Orleans. But they’re playing better now, winners of seven straight, and Colin Kaepernick has two trustworthy things he didn’t have in midseason: his own legs (he’s running with more confidence now) 

Thanks for clearing that up Peter, because I really thought Kaepernick was using someone else's legs to run earlier in the year because I'm just one of your stupid readers who doesn't have the IQ to match wits with you.

and Michael Crabtree.

Of course the 49ers are favored on the road against a team that beat them earlier in the year, but if revenge is what gets them motivated then more power to them. Seems Vegas thinks the 49ers are the better team.

Cam Jordan’s quick pressure could be the key for New Orleans in Seattle. Russell Wilson had tons of time the last time they played, and the emotion of the night will be hard to duplicate, even in a playoff game. Jordan was in Nick Foles’ grill consistently Saturday night.

Jordan was all up in Foles' grill. For real no doubt, yo. (Peter turns on some LL Cool J because he thinks that is relevant hip-hop music)

Andrew Luck is so rare, so precocious and so able to put the past behind.

He's so precocious. So precocious. Andrew Luck is like a two year old child who needs a good smack on the ass when he's bad and a good tickle around his belly he's good. So precocious. Like a child. It's so precocious to play shitty in the first half and then play well in the second half. What a great way to display characteristics of someone who is older than Luck truly is. No 24 year old man should even be starting a playoff game in the NFL (has it ever been done before?), much less winning a home playoff game. So precocious. Peter's got a playground he has to go hang out at for a few hours now so he can stare at the children to determine which one reminds him the most of Andrew Luck.

It’s highly doubtful next weekend can match the one we just had, even with the stinker in Cincinnati. But for different reasons, I love every one of these games.

And they love you Peter! They love you because you are so fucking precocious in your love for the NFL. Comparing adult men to children is in no way creepy at all, so don't worry about that.

We’ve learned one thing about the future of the Colts while the 35-year-old Wayne recuperates from midseason ACL surgery: When the day comes that Wayne can’t play anymore—at least at a high level—Hilton could morph into Andrew Luck’s No. 1 receiver long-term.

Yeah, it certainly sounds like Hilton is already there or will be there next year. But sure, maybe one day in the future this will happen.

Hilton, at 5-9 and 183, doesn’t have the size NFL teams today want in a franchise receiver, and he’ll have to prove that a smaller guy can take the beating over time that top guys do.

And since no other wide receivers that are Hilton's size have played in the NFL and been a franchise receiver then Hilton will be the first 5'9" (or close to that height) wide receiver to prove he can be a franchise receiver. Just as long as Peter doesn't include Steve Smith, Randall Cobb, Wes Welker or DeSean Jackson in this discussion. They don't count right now.

Just before the Colts took over at their 20 to try to complete the comeback from 28 points down, coach Chuck Pagano had seen enough of the battered Chiefs’ secondary to say to Hilton: “T.Y., go win the game.” He’d not said that to Hilton before, and Hilton loved what he heard.

This is some third-grade sounding writing.

"The coach told the Bobby to catch the ball to win the game. Bobby liked that his coach liked him and had never heard his coach say this. Bobby won the game for his team. Bobby wants to know why that scary man named Peter shows up to every game to stare at him."

Luck sent three receivers—Rogers, Hilton and tight end Coby Fleener—in a close bunch to the left, with Hilton in the middle, and before he got too far out of earshot, Hilton heard this from Luck: “Run. Just run.”

Apparently Andrew Luck thinks Hilton is Forrest Gump. "Run T.Y. Run!"

“I got to the line and saw 39 [safety Husain Abdullah] across from me, and I thought, ‘We’ve got to take advantage of this,’ ” said Hilton. The speed matchup, he meant. “[Brandon] Flowers was out for them and so was [Dunta] Robinson, so I knew they were running out of corners.”

Justin Houston was also out of the game, as was Jamaal Charles. Not that the players the Chiefs were missing should ever be mentioned at any point when drooling over the Colts comeback. It's irrelevant obviously.

T.Y. became a dad in high school and had several schools competing for him to come play wide receiver. The night before he decided where to go, he put two caps—West Virginia’s and the hometown Florida International’s—in front of his infant son. He said he son put his hand on the FIU cap six straight times.

Even an infant knows he doesn't want to live in West Virginia for any long period of time.

The Pats had better find someone to cover Hilton (Aqib Talib, physically, perhaps) because Luck’s going to him a lot.

It might be better to cover Hilton physically rather than just trying to cover him mentally.

“What Peyton did for my career—and what everyone in Denver did, John Fox and John Elway and Pat Bowlen and the players, I owe them everything. I’m here today because of those people,” McCoy said.

“Here” is the NFL’s Final Eight, hugging just-had-to-be-there Chargers fan Phil Mickelson and his family

Because no mention of Phil Mickelson would be complete without a mention of Mickelson's family. Phil Mickelson is the only active PGA Tour golfer who has a family and doesn't hate his family. All other golfers must hate their family or not have a family since so much is always made of Mickelson even missing a school play to participate in a golf tournament.

So McCoy clearly know the routes Manning likes and the plays he wants to run. But this will be a classic spy versus spy scenario. Manning knows McCoy knows, and so Manning’s going to take McCoy’s knowledge and try to counter how he thinks McCoy will play him. And so forth.

But does Mike McCoy do Papa John's commercials? Advantage Peyton Manning.

I know exactly why Jim Harbaugh set a personal record for post-game giddiness Sunday in Green Bay. When he finished his post-game press conference, he hugged one veteran beat man, Matt Maiocco of CSN Bay Area and said, “I love you, Matt!” And he kissed another one, Matt Barrows of the Sacramento Bee, on the top of the head and said, “I love you too, Matt!”

Then Harbaugh stands outside the building of other newspapers to search for another beat writer to cover the 49ers in place of these two beat writers and then later claims he didn't have an interest in finding other beat writers to cover the 49ers and is very comfortable with the beat writers the 49ers have. Later in the season Harbaugh will replace these beat writers with a younger, more exciting beat writer and no one points out Harbaugh lied.

This is the offense San Francisco will need if it’s to win at Carolina, with Kaepernick posing a dual threat and Gore pushing the pile. Funny thing: Carolina’s convinced it has the same thing, a quarterback who can beat you running or passing, and a couple of physical backs.

Oh my God, both teams have a quarterback who can run with the football! They are pretty much the same team. Peter King thinks this is the game where Cam Newton has to justify his selection as the #1 overall pick in 2011. If he fails, he may as well just kill himself.

Then Peter kills space by allowing a Packers fan to relate what it was like to attend the game on Sunday. It's interesting and all, but one of the many parts of MMQB that I find would be better served to have it's own column away from MMQB. MMQB is supposed to be a recap and inside dish on what happened during the past week's NFL games, but it has slowly become bloated to where Peter King doesn't even write portions of the column.
 
Fine Fifteen

It's fairly pointless to do a power ranking once the playoffs have started, but considering the Tweet of the Week, Quote of the Week, Travel Note of the Week and what Peter thinks he thinks also seem pointless on a weekly basis, I'm not surprised Peter doesn't stop doing the power rankings. Have to make MMQB seem longer.

3. Denver (13-3). The NFL didn’t have enough drama this year. To reach the Super Bowl, Peyton Manning will have to beat his old offensive coordinator (Mike McCoy) and either Tom Brady or his successor in Indy, Andrew Luck.

Peter is all about the drama and making the NFL seem like it has Hollywood endings. It's very precocious of him to be such a drama queen about these things.

6. New Orleans (12-5). Tremendous second half by Drew Brees. Now I’m thinking the long shot in Seattle isn’t such a long shot after all, especially with the Seahawks looking pretty mortal on offense since wiping out the Saints in December.

The reason the Seahawks look so mortal to Peter now is because he had them as being immortal for the majority of the season. The Seahawks only seem mortal because Peter seemed to have higher expectations for the Seahawks than he probably should have had.

7. Indianapolis (12-5). Andrew Luck laughs at big deficits.

Peter King wrote this earlier in the year about the Colts getting behind in games. It contained quotes like these relating to the Colts getting behind early and having to come back to win games. The Colts had just gotten beaten 40-11 by the Cardinals.

Indianapolis is a shell of the team it was in September.

He’s doing so with so many of his important players gone for the season—guard Donald Thomas (the best offensive lineman on the team), wideout Reggie Wayne, tight end Dwayne Allen—that you wonder if Indianapolis will be able to hold off the flawed Titans and rebound for the playoffs.

Sunday was the seventh straight game the Colts have trailed in the first half. Two of the last three have been downright embarrassing.

Andrew Luck laughs at big deficits, but Peter King doesn't worry about the Colts getting behind early as long as they eventually win the game. If the Colts can't come back and win the game, then they are a shell of what the team used to be.

9. Kansas City (11-6). I realize a pair of key members of the secondary were gone down the stretch, but the lack of a rush on Andrew Luck and any defensive cohesion in the second half was galling.

It doesn't help when one of the Chiefs best pass rushers goes down in the fourth quarter and the "key members" of the Chiefs secondary is their two starting cornerbacks.

10. Green Bay (8-8-1). The Packers need reinforcements; Bryan Bulaga, Casey Hayward and Clay Matthews to get healthy; to figure out who kidnapped B.J. Raji … and basically Ted Thompson to have his best offseason.

This is what I mean when I say Peter is a drama queen. The Packers simply need to do some work on the offensive line and on defense. Find better players. All is not lost and Ted Thompson doesn't need to have his best offseason. Simmer down.

13. Cincinnati (11-6). It’s one thing for fans to not trust Andy Dalton, and those from Lima to Lexington surely won’t in 2014. But Dalton’s biggest problem going forward is that his own locker room isn’t going to trust him, regardless of what the players and coaches say publicly.

And Peter King already has Andy Dalton losing the Bengals locker room. That's nice.

14. Pittsburgh (8-8). The Steelers would have given the Chargers a much better game than Cincinnati did.

We get it Peter! You wanted to see the Steelers in the playoffs. The Steelers didn't win the AFC North and the Bengals did, so don't act like the Bengals got in the playoffs on a fluke. They earned the chance to play at home against the Chargers over the course of the season. Wasn't it just last week Peter was railing against the Chargers being in the playoffs because he thought the Steelers should have made it? Now that the Chargers have won a road playoff game, Peter has taken his Northeast-biased ass anger and misdirects it towards the Bengals. It wasn't a "Bengals or Steelers?" situation during Week 17, so Peter shouldn't act like the missed call in the Chiefs-Chargers game let the Bengals into the playoffs where they choked. The missed call let the Chargers in the playoffs over the Steelers and Peter is trying to deflect his anger towards the Bengals, as if the Bengals didn't deserve their playoff spot over the Steelers. That's probably what all this anger directed towards Andy Dalton is all about. Peter is mad the Bengals "took" the Steelers playoff spot, even though they didn't.

Offensive Players of the Week

Andrew Luck, quarterback, Indianapolis.

Very rarely does a quarterback who committed three turnovers in a playoff game receive one of Peter's thirteen Offensive Player of the Week awards.

But somehow, Luck had enough presence to throw three second-half touchdowns, and even more presence to pick up a bouncing fumble near the goal line and stretch it over for a bizarre but vital score in the 45-44 Indy win. Let the unauthorized Luck biographies (plural) be contracted out.

At least Peter no one is comparing Luck to a US Senator (yet) like was done earlier this year in regard to Robert Griffin.

 “They had their hearts ripped out. They should hurt. That’ll make us better.”

—Kansas City coach Andy Reid, a day after after he and his players blew a 38-10 third-quarter lead and lost to Indianapolis 45-44 in one of the strangest games in NFL history Saturday.

And yet, no matter how many games Andy Reid loses for his team with his weird play-calling and poor clock management, he doesn't seem to learn. His players probably learned that lesson best on Saturday.

Then Peter harps again on how bad Andy Dalton was against the Chargers.

I don’t want to be too knee-jerk, but the Bengals are going to have to consider bringing competition to training camp for Andy Dalton. I don’t mean he should be benched, and I don’t mean Cincinnati should necessarily draft a quarterback in the first round, but the Bengals have too much defensive talent to watch the quarterback put up 33 points in 34 playoff drives.

It doesn't sound knee-jerk at all. I wonder at what point Dalton will have to justify his selection as the quarterback-of-the-future for the Bengals? I'm sure Peter will alert us on Twitter as to when this time might be.

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week

Forward, friendly, 40ish guy next to me on the train from Grand Central Terminal to Stamford Friday: “Who was that on the phone?”

Oh goodie! Peter has a chance to name-drop who he was talking with on the phone. Think of all the times Peter has bitched about someone talking on the phone while on the train or complained a person's conversation is too boring. Now know for sure that he has conversations in public on the train himself. Think any of those conversations are loud or boring? Probably.

Me: “Dan Fouts.”

Forward guy: “THE Dan Fouts?”

No, the real estate guy in Washington.

Me: “I think so—the former football player.”

Also notice how Peter has called this guy "Forward guy" because he had the audacity to listen to Peter's conversation and then ask Peter about it. Listening to conversations and then reporting to others what the conversation is about seems to be something Peter loves to do routinely, yet when someone does it to him then he thinks that person is being "forward." I guess writing down a transcript of a perfect stranger's conversation in MMQB isn't being "forward" to Peter.

Forward guy: “I bet that’s cool, talking to Dan Fouts.”

Me: “Yeah, it’s good.”

Silence for the next 35 minutes. He texted, I wrote, I got off in Stamford, he got off, and that was it.

This was such an interesting story, I'm glad Peter relayed it to us. It's obvious that Peter didn't tell this story just to name-drop that he talked to Dan Fouts and relay a story about how people find his job to be so awesome.

1. I think this is what I liked about wild-card weekend:

d. T.Y. Hilton. Everything about him.

So precocious.

k. Chris Mortensen’s information that Mike Munchak turned down an extension with Tennessee that would have paid him “almost double” his current $3 milion annual salary. Good information. And absolutely mind-boggling. Munchak  was head coach for three playoff-less seasons, was 7-9 in a mediocre (at best) division, and spent massively to build a running game this year that was just average. Wow. That was a stunner to me. And to pay him that money while insisting he change half the coaches on his staff? Hey, right hand: Have any idea what the left hand is doing?

Probably calling Dan Fouts and then telling everyone about it, while describing a grown man as precocious.

p. Kudos, GM Tom Telesco of the Chargers … for many things. The biggest I can think of this morning is signing Danny Woodhead for two years and $3.5 million. Woodhead is worth three times that.

I like Danny Woodhead and all, but two years at $10.5 million? I'm not sure Woodhead is worth that anywhere but in Peter King's world. 

r. Just give me Jordy Nelson, Anquan Boldin and a competent quarterback, and I’ll give you any two receivers in football, and I’ll take my chances against you.

Okay. A.J. Green and Calvin Johnson quarterbacked by Aaron Rodgers are probably going to beat your team of Nelson, Boldin and a competent quarterback. But I do LOVE the hyperbole behind this statement.

2. I think this is what I didn’t like about wild-card weekend

The Bengals preventing the Steelers from making the playoffs. Because that's exactly what happened.

a. Jamaal Charles going down in the first five minutes of the game. Love watching him play. Amazing this game produced 89 points without him.

It's amazing the Colts were able to score points without Jamaal Charles playing running back for the Chiefs. How did they manage to do that?

d. Colts: 14 turnovers in the regular season; four Saturday.

Including three by future Hall of Famer and 8-time Super Bowl champion Andrew Luck. Hey, he made a great comeback, but he also helped to dig the hole by throwing three interceptions. Of course the lemming media doesn't care if a quarterback starts off playing shitty, as long as he ends the game playing well. The narrative doesn't go backwards though. If a quarterback starts off playing well, then throws three interceptions in the second half then he is a choker, even if the number of turnovers would be the same at three.

l. If Micah Hyde makes that pick with four minutes to go, there’s a very good chance the course of 2013 NFC playoff history would be a lot different.

Just like if Andrew Luck had thrown his three interceptions in the second half then he would be considered a choker or if Donald Brown's fumble had bounced a different direction then Peter would have pointed out the Colts have been playing from behind all year and it finally came back to bite them.

3. I think I don’t care one bit who Aaron Rodgers—or any player, coach, fan or writer—has sex with. Nor should anyone. If a player chooses to discuss, it’s his business. If not, leave it alone, world.

But if Aaron Rodgers chooses to talk on the phone in public then Peter will feel free to transcribe the entire conversation.

8. I think I’ll have a mini-MMQB on Tuesday this week, because of the voluminous news week. Coming: a Saints item, interviews with Bill O’Brien and Lovie Smith, and your email.

As I have said before, rather than have a MMQB on Tuesday why not cut the fat from this MMQB or put certain parts (like the diary of the Packers fan) into it's own column to be posted on THE MMQB? Peter could cut the Fine Fifteen or Tweets of the Week and just make his Tuesday column a mailbag.

10. I think these are my non-NFL thoughts of the week:

d. My sincere thanks to Dave Goren of the National Sportscasters and Sportswriters Association, and all the NSSA voters, who voted me sportswriter of the year for 2013. I’m humbled and so appreciative. Thank you.

But not too humbled to fail to mention he received this award in MMQB. In sportswriting sometimes it seems the best way to win an award is to keep writing and don't die. The NSSA has elected Mitch Albom into their Hall of Fame if that gives you any insight into their thought process and what they consider to be great sportswriting. Mitch Albom has lied and made up stories for a column and he is still in the NSSA Hall of Fame. I guess there is no morality clause when it comes to NSSA Hall of Fame voting.

e. Baseball writers have a tough job with this Hall of Fame voting, tougher than we have it in football. Do not envy them one bit, trying to decide if Bonds and Clemens belong.

It's really not hard or worth the teeth gnashing required. If a voter believes players who have used PED's or are linked to PED's should be in the Hall of Fame, vote them in. If the voter doesn't believe these guys should make it, then don't vote for them. For a group of people who take such a hard stance on PED's these Hall of Fame voters certainly seem to make it seem like they are deciding the fate of the free world and not simply voting based on their beliefs.

f. Coffeenerdness: No Tom Curran/coconut coffee tales for you this week, unfortunately, but I am looking for help in this regard for coffeephiles: I need a recommendation on how to clean a veteran Krups coffeemaker that hasn’t been cleaned in over a year. Baking powder and hot water, run through a normal cycle?

Hey buddy, how about you Google/Bing the answer to that question? You tell your readers to Google information they don't know, so take your own advice.

The Adieu Haiku
Harbaugh kissed writers.
Gadzooks. I doubt Tom Coughlin
ever kissed Vito.

I wish we could kiss the Adieu Haiku goodbye. 

4 comments Murray Chass Still Hates Statheads and Still Hates WAR; Probably is Just Being Intentionally Stupid at This Point

Murray Chass is not happy about the response he got from the stats community after writing his latest column about Jack Morris and how he is going to vote one final time for Morris to enter the Hall of Fame this year. Murray received responses on why he was wrong to vote for Morris, wrong about how wins are an important statistic, and overwhelmingly just wrong. This makes Murray a sad little man, so he writes about how he would rather play the game War than hear about WAR. I'm not sure Murray understands that this is sort of the point many of his critics have, that he isn't open to new ideas simply because he doesn't want to learn anything new. It's all about Murray's ego. He has to feel like he is a baseball expert and new baseball concepts makes him feel like he isn't an expert and so he naturally has to dismiss these new concepts in order to feel like the game isn't passing him by. So Murray writes about how WAR sucks and how stats-fiends are evil on his non-blog. It's like a blog, except Murray hates blogs so he doesn't call it a blog. Much like his distaste for advanced statistics, Murray thinks reality can be blunted by simply denying the existence of his site as looking like a blog.

If I am guilty, as charged, with demonstrating disdain for the stats patrol (notice I didn’t say geeks or nerds),

Congratulations, now that you are a senior citizen you have successfully managed to stop verbally bullying those who disagree with your opinion. Who says nothing was learned from Jonathan Martin and Richie Incognito?

I blame their arrogance for prompting such feeling.

Of course it is their fault. Anyone who disagrees with Murray or challenges his worldview is prone to pissing Murray off and making him start calling this person or people names. Because this is how a debate regarding sports should be handled. A person has his opinion challenged and immediately starts calling the other party names as a way to demean their opinion. I can't wait for sportswriters who can't even handle a simple disagreement without attempting to demean the other party through the use of name-calling to go away. Murray Chass is probably the worst among these name-callers. He absolutely can not accept that a person would disagree with him.

My dictionary defines arrogance as “disposed to making claims to unwarranted importance,” and that describes the vast majority of statistic zealots who inundate me with critical e-mail.

Then Murray Chass is also arrogant because he displays the same characteristics that the stats zealots he dislikes so much display.

There are no two ways with the stats patrol. It’s either their way or no way.

This is incorrect. The "stats patrol" simply wants Murray Chass to acknowledge that advanced statistics can be used to measure a player's performance as opposed to Murray simply dismissing advanced statistics because he doesn't understand them.

No method other than theirs can be right. Those who don’t accept their numbers can’t possibly know what they’re talking about.

The irony of Murray Chass complaining the "stats patrol" is incapable of seeing any numbers other than their own as being correct is fantastic. He is missing the point completely. I'm pretty sure the point that is trying to be proven is that Murray is completely dismissing the use of advanced statistics and the "stats patrol" is simply trying to ensure that Murray understands there is a place for advanced statistics in baseball analysis as well. Murray refuses too understand this because he hates change. He's old and set in his ways.

Mention intangibles, and those who aren’t dictionary challenged might know that an integer is a number but an intangible?

Only numbers count with the stats patrol.

The reason "intangibles" don't count is because intangibles are...wait for it...intangible. You can't measure them. It's impossible to quantify something that isn't quantifiable.

If it’s not a number, it doesn’t fit into the formulas that determine WAR and other such rankings. 

This isn't true. It's just you can't use intangibles to determine WAR because intangibles aren't quantifiable. Any moron knows you can't include an intangible into the formula for WAR. It's a formula, it requires hard data, not an arbitrary ranking of how "clutch" a player is. I really believe the school system that Murray grew up attending has let him down in terms of his math-based knowledge. These are very basic math principles he fails to comprehend.

Baseball-reference.com, an in-depth baseball research site, has the results of each year’s Hall of Fame voting, including columns of statistics for each player on the ballot. 

The column headings include WAR, WAR7, JAWS and Jpos. Nowhere is there a column headed I for Intangibles, but they exist and often in a meaningful way: 

Intangibles may exist, but they don't exist in a quantifiable manner. If you don't know this, then you are stupid and should immediately stop writing, have another glass of V-8 juice and get back to wondering when Larry King will come out of retirement.

The very definition of intangible shows why there can't be a column for "Intangibles."

how a player performs in critical circumstances, for example.

Great point, Murray. Baseball Reference should include how a player performs in critical circumstances (of course this could be displayed in terms of "late-inning hitting" or some other variation of this, but let's not confuse Murray further). I don't know why they don't include this. How about this? You email Baseball Reference how Jack Morris performs in critical circumstances and they can include what calculation you have come up with into their Hall of Fame voting statistics. Go ahead and do it now. Or you can just tell us the "Intangible" number for any MLB player. Just pick one and tell us how this number exists in a meaningful way for this player. I would love to know, because obviously you know something I don't know, and I'm sure Baseball Reference would love to see you give them a numerical amount for intangibles. After all, they exist and often in a meaningful way, so let's see if Baseball Reference will add this column on their statistics for each player who received a Hall of Fame vote. Since you know these intangibles exist, go ahead and email Baseball Reference with your Intangible calculation for Morris so they can add it for this year.

Aside from their lack of recognition of intangibles,

(Bangs head against the desk)

the stats patrol, in my view, has undertaken a mission to undermine one of baseball’s most significant statistics. Wins for pitchers, the heretics claims, is a vastly overrated and misguided statistic.

Wins is one of the most meaningless statistics that tells us how an individual pitcher has performed in a game. If you can't see this, well, frankly you are either intentionally not understanding this to be difficult or you are stupid. I really can't explain it better. A pitcher gets a win partially based on how many runs his team scores. Wins is a great statistic for a team, but a terrible statistic for an individual player since it takes the performance of that player's team into account.

Writing in response to a recent column about Jack Morris and the Hall of Fame. the writer described himself as a passionate 19-year-old fan.

19-year old? This guy never even saw Jack Morris pitch, so how could he comment on whether Morris deserves to be in the Hall of Fame? Wouldn't it be funny if this type of comment transferred to other events that a person couldn't comment on because they weren't around to see it?

(Person #1) "The Holocaust was such a great tragedy. So many lives lost needlessly."

(Murray Chass) "How do you know it was a tragedy? You didn't get to see the Holocaust occur, so you can't judge whether it was a tragedy or not."

(Person #2) "Dinosaurs look like they were pretty scary."

(Murray Chass) "How do you know they were scary? You didn't experience dinosaurs because they haven't been around in your lifetime, so you can't judge whether they were scary or not."

(Person #3) "It's raining outside pretty hard."

(Murray Chass) "You are inside. How can you comment on how hard it is raining when you aren't outside to see for yourself? I'm standing in the rain, so I know it is raining hard and you don't."

The whole "you had to be there to give an opinion" comment sounds stupid when taken out of the context of sports.

One of the main things you bring up is pitcher wins, and how the sabermetric community does not value them much,” he writes. “This is true, but there is a reason for this. A win is awarded when a pitcher goes at least five innings and the game ends without his lead being destroyed. The issue with this is that the pitcher cannot control how his offense plays. In theory, a pitcher can allow one run through nine innings and still lose the game, and a pitcher can allow 7 runs in 5 innings and get the win! 

This is absolutely true. It's the main reason I'm not a huge fan of using the win as a measurement of a pitcher's individual performance. Just like an MVP shouldn't have to come from a team that made the playoffs, a pitcher shouldn't be judged on a metric that factors in team performance as much as the "win" statistic does. Individual performance should be measured by individual measurements of that performance, not a metric that factors in team performance.

“This means that part of a pitcher getting a win is team dependent! How can you measure the value of a pitcher based simply on whether or not his team hits for him or not?

By the way, Murray has no logical response to this point. He doesn't take the time nor does he have the ability to point out where the reader's fallacy is, but instead stomps his feet and starts acting like a child while asking questions like "well, should we just take away Cy Young's 511 wins then?," much in the way a teenager stomps off and says he/she may as well be dead if he/she doesn't have permission from their parent to do something.

Another stats patroller writes,

The term "stats patroller" could not be more silly and dumb sounding. It sounds like there is a group of people dressed up like the police.

“Wins are the combination of pitching, defense, hitting, and baserunning, so giving Morris full credit for 254 wins is not correct. Don’t give Morris full credit for having Whitaker, Trammell, Parrish, Gibson, Chet Lemon, along with Aurelio Lopez and Willie Hernandez at the end.”

So what should we do about, say, Cy Young’s 511 wins? Do we wipe them out of the record book, the history book? Do we change the name of the Cy Young award maybe to Cy Young and teammates award?

Don't throw a hissy fit like a five-year old. No one is suggesting that Cy Young didn't have 511 wins. He earned those wins. It's just that it needs to be recognized that a "win" is a team statistic because it relies on a team's batters to score runs for a pitcher to pick up a win. Don't be a baby.

Do we eliminate the term 20-game winner from the baseball lexicon?

Murray is just being ridiculous. It's hard for me to believe that it is the "stat patrollers" who are being arrogant because Murray immediately dismisses the use of advanced statistics, but he has presented zero fallacies in the line of thought both of these readers are using to show how the "win" statistic is more of a team-based award.

Does the standard become the 13 wins with which Felix Hernandez won the Cy Young award a few years ago? How do we treat Warren Spahn’s 13 20-win seasons and his 363 career victories?

We treat it like Warren Spahn won 20 games 13 times. Noting that the "win" statistic is a team-based award doesn't take away from Warren Spahn, it simply notes that Spahn won 363 games in his career and the Braves team had to score enough runs for him to win 363 games.

Why when Max Scherzer wins the Cy Young award does everyone write and talk about him, in the first sentence, as a 21-game winner? Where is the stats patrol when we need them to make sure we get it right?

Max Scherzer was impressive outside of his win total. So it's not a case of simply dismissing a pitcher who has won a lot of games because he won a lot of games. Wins should just be one statistic that is used to measure how well a pitcher performed and not the sum total of how we determine how well a pitcher performed. It's actually a very simple concept that Murray clearly isn't smart enough to understand.

On an MLB.com program this week, Mitch Williams, the former reliever and now television analyst, disputed the idea that wins don’t mean anything. “Wins mean something” he said. “I’m pretty sure the World Series was won with 4 wins.”

NO FUCKING BODY HAS SAID WINS DON'T MEAN ANYTHING! STOP MISREPRESENTING THE OTHER SIDE'S POSITION!

Mitch, the Brain, Williams is right. A TEAM wins the World Series with four wins. That's how many wins a TEAM needs to win the World Series. Wins are a team statistic and this is further proof of this.

Then there is the revisionist criteria aspect of the stats world. The stats guys use the fancy statistics they created to judge players who played before the statistics were created.

But...but...you can still judge these players because the statistics are based on real data that the player accumulated over his career. The statistics are based on the player's real performance in the past, not on having seen the player play the game of baseball and then trying to quantify some intangible aspect of the player's game like clutchiness. That's one of the advantages of advanced statistics over the "eyeball test." You don't have to watch a player play baseball to quantify his performance using advanced statistics.

I really should give up, because it's quite clear Murray isn't ever going to want to get it. It doesn't matter when the player played, because WAR and other statistics are based on quantifiable aspects of what the player did during his career.

How can you judge players on WAR when their careers preceded WAR and they didn’t know from WAR? 

Because WAR is based on data that the player accumulated when he did play baseball. This is a very, very, very, very easy concept to understand. It doesn't matter if the players are aware of the statistic WAR or not. The very existence of a statistic should not affect how a player plays the game of baseball. Barry Bonds didn't play better because OPS+ existed during his playing career.

They knew their batting averages and their earned run averages, but they didn’t know their number of wins above replacement.

This song title is how I feel right now. 

Context, a reader explained, “is taken into consideration. Morris is being judged in comparison to his peers, not arbitrarily.”

Another reader explained, “Stats are historical, so going back and using them to compare players with new formulas, is used to dig deeper into players from past era’s.”

The idea of digging deeper into players is aimed at comparing players from different eras. Lots of fans are obsessed with engaging in such pursuits. I do not share their curiosity. I wouldn’t waste a minute on that effort.

Well, simply because you don't engage in the effort doesn't mean those who engage in the effort are stat heads or the effort is stupid and worthy of derision.

And yet again notice that Murray has no retort to how players from different eras can be judged using WAR. All he says is, "well that's stupid." That's not a retort or any type of intelligent remark in response to the explanation on how Jack Morris can be compared to other Hall of Fame pitchers using WAR and other advanced statistics. Murray is asking these questions, getting a concise answer that explains his answer and then ignores the fact this answer makes sense because he doesn't like the answer. How frustrating.

I know a lawyer who is compiling a list of the 1,000 best players in history, ranked from 1 to 1,000 no less. If his book is published, I will be happy to look at it and see if it is worth writing about. I have never asked him if he has used sabermetrics in ranking the players.

I would think more of his work if he has used his judgment rather than metrics.

Well unless this lawyer is 150 years old he hasn't seen every player in the history of baseball play the game, so he has to be using some sort of statistics and his judgment together. Why not use the best statistic that compares players from different eras? I know Murray would think more of this lawyer if he just used his judgment, but under Murray's very strict "you didn't see this pitcher pitch so you don't know how good he is" metric it is impossible for this lawyer to put together a comprehensive list of these 1,000 players without using some sort of statistics to compare these players.

In the collection of Morris e-mail I received, one began this way:

“I’m not sure how familiar you are with Win Probability Added, but it shows how much each plate appearance affected the chances of winning the game.

“If Morris gave up a run when up 4 runs, he would lose very little value. If he gave up the run with only a one-run lead, it would be a big drop in value.”

This makes sense because it shows how well a pitcher pitches when his team is winning big versus winning by a small margin.

That did it for me. I decided I would be better off playing a game of War with one of my grandchildren than reading about WAR.

Win Probability Added is not WAR, so don't blame WAR for not liking the Win Probability Added value. I would imagine Murray's grandchildren will surpass Murray's grasp on math and mathematical formulas sometime around junior high.