Terence Moore has railed against instant replay quite a few times and now in the wake off more missed calls Doug Glanville is joining the chorus telling us all that missed calls are JUST A PART OF THE GAME. Sure, some missed calls could be prevented, but some deaths could be prevented by wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle and no one would suggest wearing a helmet while riding a motorcycle is a good idea. Potential horrific death is just a part of owning a motorcycle. Doug also wants us to know that baseball has always merited out penalties punishments and revenge privately, so he doesn't get why we have to publicly criticize an umpire for making a mistake during a nationally televised game. This is all social media's fault by the way. Let's keep umpiring justice underground. MLB has a way of punishing these umpires and these punishments shouldn't be made public. Instant replay would only serve to highlight the mistakes the umpires make and mistakes are a fun part of the game. It's the human element!
Even as I know that it's cliché to say that umpires are only human, it
is also cliché to complain about the caliber of umpires when we know
they are the best in the world at what they do.
No Doug, it is not a cliche to complain about the caliber of umpires. Calling this a cliche would indicate complaining about the umpires has lost its original meaning, when it very clearly has not lost its original meaning since the complaints are still valid. Few people are complaining about the caliber of the umpires, but the complaints are mostly about the umpires missing easy calls. It seems to be recognized the MLB umpires are possibly the best in the world, but it's not a cliche to point out the list of easy calls getting missed by them.
And our criticism of the judges of the game is easy to dismiss as
background noise when we seem to comment only when they make mistakes.
It's easy to dismiss the criticism as background noise if you insisting on ignoring the criticism as having merit and push it to the background.
Umpires are the cafeteria food, the taxes, the new boyfriend of our ex. We complain about them as a default, as a reflex.
Hmmm...this is kind of an interesting comparison. Umpires are the cafeteria food, but if you get a hair in your food at the cafeteria would you not notify the establishment? If you were levied an certain amount of taxes incorrectly wouldn't you appeal to the IRS to reduce the amount of taxes you have to pay? If the new boyfriend of your ex kept calling you or harassing you then wouldn't you have a reason to complain about him/her? It's not a default reflex to complain about the umpires when the umpires are clearly making mistakes. No one would see a hair in their food at a cafeteria, shrug their shoulders and then continue eating because "it's so cliche to complain about hair in your food." When a wrong is committed, it's a legitimate gripe, not a reflexive action that is illegitimate.
It doesn't really matter if the food tastes good, the taxes go to good use, or the boyfriend is actually a nice guy.
That's not a good comparison in this situation. In this situation the food tastes bad, the taxes are not put to good use, and the boyfriend is a dick.
They are always in the wrong place at the wrong time, even when they make the right call.
Good umpiring is appreciated. When a game is well-umpired I remark to myself these umpires really are doing well. Like any other job, mistakes are going to be amplified though.
Every year we exclaim that umpires are "getting more confrontational."
When umpires toss a player like David Price out of the game for seemingly doing very little and the umpire seemed to antagonize Price...it's hard to not call them more confrontational.
Every year they need to be replaced by robots or armed with a deck of instant replay choices.
That's not at all what is being suggested. If you want to have a serious discussion then don't exaggerate for effect or to cover up for the fact you aren't able to make valid points.
I haven't heard much about rewarding umpires for doing a good job. All we know is good umpires get to work the playoffs,
Umpires do get a reward for doing a good job. It's called a "salary" and they get to work the playoffs as a reward as well.
but public opinion has little to say about their work unless they cost our favorite team a run.
So coddling the umpires more than they are already coddled will make them do a better job? They just want to be loved, that's all.
There are already super-secret punishments and reprimands for umpires, so I find it hard to feel bad for them when they mess up and take some criticism. They know they put themselves in that spot to be criticized and their punishments stay out of the public spotlight generally. It's more than can be said for the MLB players, who are punished publicly for their public screwups.
We have to remember that for its long history, baseball has lived off of
self-regulation. It was handled in the locker room, or on the field, or
between the sparring teammates in private.
While understandable, I do believe the umpires have to be accountable for the mistakes that are made. I am not in favor of public flogging of umpires, but criticizing them for doing a poor job hardly seems close to being out of line, especially when true. The baseball-loving public deserves some sense that MLB understands and takes actions to ensure clearly bad calls don't further determine the result of a baseball game.
The umpires were just part of an environment that was self-evaluating
and self-policing. They were following the underground order of the
game.
There are issues with self-evaluating and self-policing. Part of the issues with these concepts is that the order of the game is underground. A lack of transparency isn't always a good thing and self-policing can lead to groupthink which may not be good for the game of baseball. It's hard for baseball fans to throw up their hands and say, "Well, my team just lost a game on a blown call, but I'm sure his supervisor is going to write him a very stern email tomorrow."
Like it or not, umpires are accountable to the fans who pay money watching games. Doug Glanville is essentially arguing against the public criticizing of umpires and that is quite simply not a reasonable request. Players can police themselves for internal violations of the player's code, but if a player charges the mound and is suspended 6 games then this is a publicly announced suspension. So in terms of suspensions, players are publicly chastised for mistakes, while umpires often have their mistakes punished privately. I'm not arguing against this private punishment, but baseball teams don't necessarily self-police privately when it comes to their players.
If you thought someone hit you intentionally, you could charge the mound and accidentally break a collar bone.
And MLB will suspend you for a few games. This is a public suspension. It used to be that suspensions weren't handed out for charging the mound, but things have changed.
You could knock a catcher who was blocking the plate into next week because it was part of the game.
Now if a player knocks over the catcher it is treated like a major violation of the baseball code. Things have changed and Doug Glanville is simply yearning for the days of yore, rather than acknowledging how baseball has changed and adapted.
This is all very confusing and poorly written. Doug Glanville is supposed to be talking about umpiring and need for perfection, but he is slipping in a conversation about private codes of conduct in baseball that have become public. If anything, you could use these examples of private codes of conduct that have become public as an example of why umpires should be publicly reprimanded for their mistakes. Plus, the pursuit of umpiring perfection is a different conversation from the conversation Doug Glanville seems to be leading us towards.
The rules were as ingrained as Newton's Laws to those on the field. So
much so that in many cases, no one on the outside knew how retaliation
would be dished out.
Glanville is very much off-topic right now. This isn't supposed to be an article about retaliation, but is supposed to be an article about the search of perfection in umpiring.
Umpires have always mirrored baseball's loosey-goosey police work. The
game took care of it, it evened out, and mostly it was "go get 'em
tomorrow."
I'm not even entirely sure what this means. Does it mean umpires used to give teams a makeup call on a later date for a missed call during a previous game? Calls probably do tend to even out over time, but if an umpire misses a call that costs a team the game then it's hard to say "go get 'em tomorrow" when there is technology that can overturn this call at the time the call was made.
So umpires were presiding over a society that was held together by
history, by unwritten rules, by trust or perhaps blindness, or by faith.
And umpires just employed similar self-regulation as the game did in
general.
I don't understand what the hell this means. Umpires still do police themselves. Fans aren't voting on the appropriate punishment for an umpire who misses a call. MLB and the Director of Umpires are the ones who hand down a punishment or suspension to umpires for misconduct. There is still self-regulation and much of this self-regulation is private. It's not like an umpire's season-long record is revealed to the public. Umpires are still for the most part punished or graded quietly and privately.
But like any other monumental change in communication, a generation of
fans and players came along that was fine with the blurring of the
public and private domain. It was a time to protect, and security was
chosen over privacy.
What does this have to do with privacy? So an umpire blows a call in view of everyone and there should be no criticism or call for expanded replay because the umpire deserves some sense of privacy? If Doug Glanville thinks umpires don't have a sense of privacy in how they are graded then I would like for him to do a search for the grades that a certain umpire received last year. You can't find it.
But the major difference is social media makes everyone a testifying
witness. There is nowhere to hide from its stream, and now the vigilante
justice that was meted out in baseball's past has a jury.
I get the feeling Doug Glanville didn't really know what he was talking about with this column. If social media is now the jury then how do they have an effect on the vigilante justice? Does Doug think the pressure from social media is causing MLB to punish umpires more harshly? Social media isn't the jury, they are simply commenting and giving an opinion on what they see happening. Why is that umpires are being held even the least bit accountable in a public fashion seen as a bad trend?
So when the Astros and Angels brought to light the rule book on pitching
changes and pinch hitters, the world tweeted. The rules were posted and
we watched. In an unprecedented moment, an umpire's fate was tied to an
audience.
The umpire made a very public mess-up. The umpire's fate wasn't tied to the audience, but MLB understood the mistake got a lot of attention and they wanted to react to the mistake.
And so an umpire was suspended for not upholding a rule he should have known.
He should have known the rule. That's his job, to know the rules of baseball. Would it have been better to have private justice? What would that justice have even entailed? It's not like the public wouldn't have known if the umpire got suspended for a few games. Someone surely would have noticed the umpire that just screwed up hasn't umpired a game in a few days.
Fair enough, but we need to recognize that we have a new sheriff in town
and the sheriff may not even be at the game or even watching it live.
You don't need to be watching the game live to watch the replay of the mistake and understand it should not have occurred. Is this some bizarre version of the whole "You can't evaluate this player accurately because you didn't watch him play" argument?
In my playing days, I heard a lot of complaints about the lack of accountability for umpires,
But what about the vigilante justice? It works! Don't players understand complaining about the umpiring is so cliche? It's like complaining about cafeteria food.
but this new way of communicating has been too much because the
assessment of umpires is now tapping the reflexive bias the public has
against umpires.
There is no reflexive bias against umpires, there is a reflexive bias against umpires making really bad calls during a game.
A public that is considering ways to put machinery in their place or
have so many versions of instant replays that umpires become street
signs that post the results, not engaged the actors.
Again, this isn't what is attempting to be accomplished with expanding instant replay. Expanding replay is an attempt to ensure umpires get the call correct. The NFL has fairly expansive replay and it doesn't take away from the job that the NFL officials do. NFL officials aren't becoming street signs and MLB umpires would not become street signs either.
But I can't help but think about the issue with the judgment of judges
being swayed by public opinion. Don't we have to be careful with that
equation?
Does Doug Glanville have any proof that the judgment of the umpires was swayed by public opinion? I don't think he does, so he is just making an assumption that ever-so-conveniently matches up with the point he is trying to prove.
Imagine presiding over a court case and listening to everyone's interpretation of the law.
You mean presiding over a court case and there being a group of people responsible for final judgment on the case? A group of people who are unfamiliar with the law and base their opinion of guilt or innocence on what information others give them? I think it's called a jury and a judge presides over court cases all the time where a jury makes the final determination.
Part of the reason for umpire secrecy in their evaluation process is so
that it doesn't get tainted by too many chefs in the kitchen or run the
risk of other agendas entering into play.
Did the evaluation of umpires all of a sudden become made public and I haven't heard about it? MLB and the Director of Umpires can ignore social media and make their own determination when evaluating an umpire. This hasn't changed. It's just social media has a voice. The best part is there is no agenda with social media. As a Braves fan, I don't have an agenda when it comes to an umpire messing up an Oakland A's home run. I just don't like to see bad umpiring. If wanting to see good umpiring that doesn't have an effect on the result of a game is an agenda, then count me as a guilty of having an agenda.
We want to know how the test is given. We want to know the secret sauce.
No, we want to make sure the test isn't rigged or if a person takes a piss in the secret sauce then the sauce doesn't get distributed to customers. No one wants a say in the policing of umpires, we just want to make sure there is policing of umpires.
We have fancy technology that we see as a clean way to discern the truth.
But...but...that's not a bad thing.
Even so, we should ask if we want the umpires to be in that position,
out of caution of having a game of people solely judged by computers.
Who the hell is suggesting baseball be a game solely judged by computers? I feel like I am taking crazy pills. No one has suggested the game of baseball be judged solely by computers. Again, Doug Glanville is exaggerating in order to make his point of view seem more reasonable.
Seems like a slippery slope.
Seems like you are making this up.
But like no other time, the fans are getting on the field, in the locker room, in the dugout, without actually being there.
Fans really aren't in the locker room or in the dugout any more than they used to be before the increased use of social media. It's not like my Tweets can get an umpire suspended and I certainly don't have access to the locker room without a press pass or video/audio from a sportswriter who is also in the locker room or dugout.
Even I can press the NFL to ban former New Orleans Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams from the league forever.
It doesn't matter what you think about Gregg Williams. The NFL still makes their decision based on their own set of criteria and for their own reasons. It's not like I can write into Roger Goodell and he makes a decision based entirely on my recommendation.
We can make Tiger Woods take a penalty shot.
No, the PGA made Tiger Woods take a penalty shot. Some pathetic person called in and reported a violation by Tiger.
We can call a home run better than anyone on the field can do it and we
can do that with none of the responsibility for making the call.
That's because we have replay that shows us whether it was a home run or not. Perhaps those who have responsibility for making the call should have access to the same technology I have sitting at home, as opposed to criticizing those at home for voicing their displeasure about a missed call they have the technology to see as really being a missed call.
We can be there, when we are not.
And it is a good thing. There is more accountability.
We can overrule, overturn, overthink, and even overreact and delete that
last post. But let's be careful because we may not want to know how
deep the rabbit hole goes when we try to make perfection.
Why don't you tell us, Doug, how deep the rabbit hole goes when we try to make perfection? That's right, Doug prefers to speak in generalities railing against the increased use of technology and the increased voice of social media. He tells us the rabbit hole can go deeper than we think, warns us against making private decisions more public, and says wanting perfection is a peril. Yet, he doesn't tell us WHY perfection is a peril, WHY private decisions being made public is bad (other than using "it's not how it used to be" as a reason), and WHY the rabbit hole can go too deep or where this deeper rabbit hole takes us. Without that, this is just an empty group of words that are unpersuasive.
Maybe a missed call will be a thing of the past. Maybe that is a good thing.
It may not be a good thing, but it certainly isn't a bad thing.
But I get the feeling we may actually miss a missed call, no matter what we say in 140 characters or less.
Why the hell would we miss a missed call? Baseball isn't trending towards computers becoming the new umpires, so the human element will still be there. Using Doug's "cafeteria" comparison, this is like saying we may miss finding a hair in our food. The human element is great until the human element screws something up.
Showing posts with label food jokes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label food jokes. Show all posts
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Saturday, May 18, 2013
6 comments Marcus Hayes Goes the Passive-Aggressive Route to Criticize the Use of Analytics in Sports
The Philadelphia 76ers have hired Sam Hinkie as their new president of basketball operations and general manager. They fired (wait, I'm sorry he resigned and is now an advisor to the team...so he completely wasn't fired nor was he going to be fired) Doug Collins, which really shouldn't come as a shock to anyone who has paid attention to Collins' coaching history. Take a look at Collins' coaching record and you will notice two things. He's pretty good at turning teams around, but he doesn't stay long. The 76ers have hired a Stanford MBA graduate (that's Hinkie) as their new GM and Marcus Hayes is feeling very passive-aggressive about it. It's not that he doesn't like the hire, because he doesn't have quite the balls necessary to come out and say this, but he seems quite suspicious of whether this more analytical approach is going to work or not. It seems a Stanford MBA is very impressive unless you plan on getting a job in sports. Actually, it's fine to get a job playing sports and have a degree from Stanford (see: Andrew Luck, various other athletes who graduated from Stanford), the media loves that, but don't ever think of graduating from Stanford with an advanced degree and believe you can work in the front office of a professional team. Stanford degrees are only good for playing sports, not running a sports team.
Josh Harris acquired Twinkies and Hinkie in the same calendar year.
Either move could make the billionaire investor look like a Ding Dong.
What a gripping first sentence. I'm enraptured with this column already. Analytics are stupid. Long live measuring a player's ability through intangibles like how much heart the player has and clutchiness.
Harris' group of investment sharks, Apollo Global Management, in March bought a piece of Hostess out of bankruptcy.
Harris' group of hoops hobbyists, the Philadelphia 76ers, last week hired 35-year-old Stanford MBA graduate Sam Hinkie to be the team's president of basketball operations and general manager.
Making an attempt to purchase a company out of bankruptcy is being an "investment shark," while buying the 76ers is being a "hobbyist." I like how Hayes shades his comments. Basketball is just a hobby because Josh Harris clearly knows nothing about sports since he received an MBA from Stanford. Anyone who goes to Stanford for business can't know anything about sports. These types of people only understand numbers and how to run a business, and we all know running or managing a professional sports team doesn't require any knowledge on how to understand numbers nor is a sports team a business.
Twinkies have a timeless allure.
Hinkie is more the flavor of the month.
I see Hayes is going for the Bill Plaschke method of journalism in writing one sentence per paragraph. It's always fun to read an article written by a grown man that reads like a four year old's book about a boy and his lost dog.
"Billy woke up very sad."
"He couldn't find his dog, Sam. Where is Sam?"
"Billy went outside to look for Sam."
Considering the evolving nature of sports, Hinkie's profile and his background might endear him to half of the Sixers' fan base and doom him in the eyes of the rest.
Since sports are evolving towards more stats-oriented performance measurements and we all know any type of evolution is only a fad, clearly this is a good reason for Hinkie to be the flavor of the month. Who cares if the definition of "evolution" would indicate that something that is evolving isn't only doing so for a short period of time? Marcus likes that word and doesn't care if the use of the word in this sentence above contradicts his contention Hinkie is a flavor of the month.
Half a decade will pass before Hinkie's analytics-based approach can be fairly judged.
And outside of the 76ers winning a few NBA titles I don't think it will be fairly judged even at that point by Hayes.
Harris, whose investments also have included cruise lines, knows a bad boat when he sees it. This 34-win ship is listing severely.
Oh, so Harris knows a bad boat simply because he owns a cruise line? What does Harris and his investment group know about a cruise line? He isn't a travel agent and he has never been the captain of a ship. You can't just plug numbers into a computer and this means guests on a cruise ship will have a great time. Harris probably hasn't ever been out of his mom's basement, much less been in the sun long enough to know how to run a cruise line. Yet he thinks he knows how to run a cruise line? There are real people who work on the ship, not just numbers that can be put in a calculation. You can't calculate fun!
(See how silly this type of criticism sounds when not applied to sports and applied to other types of businesses?)
Hinkie was part of the Rockets' retooling this past offseason that landed James Harden, Jeremy Lin and Omer Asik. He worked under Houston GM Daryl Morey, a new-age, big-picture man who runs his operation without fear of ridicule.
He runs his operation without fear of ridicule mainly because there isn't a reason to ridicule him. Also, I can't believe Marcus Hayes just described an NBA GM as a "big-picture man." This just seems like a description that goes without saying. There are probably GM's who don't seemingly look at the big-picture, but it is a GM's job to look at the big-picture. It's incredibly necessary. This description should go without mention because it seems so obvious from the job description to be an NBA GM. It's sad he has to include this description because it means there are not big-picture GM's running NBA teams.
Hinkie will be given a sledgehammer and a smartphone by Harris, a fellow geek.
And there is nothing wrong with being given a sledgehammer to change a team Marcus Hayes describes as:
This 34-win ship is listing severely.
Also, a lot of people have a smartphone. It's not just for geeks. Putting a smartphone together with calling someone a geek simply displays your own ignorance and fear of technology. It's not a good look. Of course Marcus Hayes was responsible for this classic chat, so I guess all bets are off when he writes a column. I guess we are just lucky he isn't calling Josh Harris a racist.
Fortysomethings and their elders likely will roll their eyes and regard Hinkie as part of an overvalued wave of fantasy nerds
Of course Marcus would never think these same things about Hinkie. This last sentence is what everyone else thinks about the Hinkie hire and not Marcus Hayes' opinion. Not at all. He is just very good at describing how these fortysomethings and their elders feel.
who use probabilities as sacred texts and who forsake what their eyes and their hearts (and their scouts) tell them.
Very impressive. This is one of the least intelligent descriptions of those who use analytics to evaluate basketball players. It's hard to see how Marcus Hayes has a clue about what he is discussing or trying to prove when he writes shit like this. I'm betting Marcus really thinks the Houston Rockets don't even have scouts. They just have a huge computer and Daryl Morey sitting in a room making decisions on which players to sign or draft without ever watching these players play. Even if the Rockets had scouts they would simply ignore them and do what their spreadsheets and "sacred texts" tell them to do. I'm not even sure what the fuck a "sacred text" is, but it's clear Marcus Hayes is very afraid of statistics, but not afraid at all of sounding like an ignorant dumbass when discussing said statistics.
It never fails to amuse me how these sportswriters frame those who use analytics to evaluate players. These sportswriters frame these descriptions in a way that is chock-full of ignorance and an outright fear of any alternative method of evaluating a player.
The thirtysomethings and their Freakonomics legions likely will rejoice that the Sixers have moved past sexagenarian Doug Collins, the crusty coach who just quit.
I love the assumption the "Freakonomics legions" are as closed-minded as those who criticize the "Freakonomics legions" seem to be. It's not entirely true in my opinion. Marcus Hayes did refer to Collins' exit as like a Shakespeare tragedy of sorts, so I'm not even sure what to take from that.
Replacing Collins, of course, will be Hinkie's most urgent task.
Most NBA teams do need a head coach. It's always an important position to fill.
Pacers GM Kevin Pritchard was a panelist at the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference in March, where the ComicCon alumni
This is just weak. I think bashing nerds has become the new puff piece. If a columnist is looking for an easy writing assignment that won't require much thought and one in which he can basically just re-word previously written works, just write about nerds and use a few generic references to what nerds like (basements, computers, comic books, ComicCon, statistics). It's like Mad-Libs for sportswriters.
who now work in sports administration meet to plot their revenge against the jocks they employ.
Why would they want revenge? Because they got wedgies in the locker room after P.E.in middle school, that's why! This shitty article almost writes itself.
Hinkie was a candidate for the same job last year, but Collins' distaste for applied analytics and his assumption of complete control of the franchise would have clashed with Hinkie's religion.
Oh, so the coach who just resigned and helped built a 34 win team didn't like Hinkie and this is a strike against Hinkie? Of course no analytics-bashing column would be complete without a reference to analytics as a "religion," as if Collins' own distaste for applied analytics and wanting complete control of the franchise can't be perceived as a religion in its own right.
The Sixers opted instead to promote Tony DiLeo, a loyal soldier for more than 2 decades – who, it should be noted, appreciates analytics in NBA strategies. DiLeo is expected to be let go.
Just another strike against analytics, the religion of dorks. Applied analytics didn't work for one season so they clearly will never work.
And, lest anyone throw aside conventional wisdoms, consider this: The Oakland A's, sport's pioneer into calculus-dependent franchise-building, have made the playoffs just six times in Billy Beane's 15 seasons as GM, and have won one playoff series.
Morons like Marcus Hayes don't even understand what they are criticizing. The A's don't claim to know everything. They play in a small market and don't feel they have a chance at making the playoffs at all if they don't look for overlooked players and inefficiencies in the market. That's what they are about, looking for inefficiencies in the market, not worshiping statistics.
How much credit should Hinkie get for Houston's qualified success? Who are his guys?
Fashionable, serviceable point guard Lin? Prized shooting guard Harden?
You can't really argue against the acquisition of James Harden. That was a great move.
Did Hinkie slam his red stapler on Morey's desk and threaten to burn down the building if Asik stayed in Chicago?
And we have a random "Office Space" reference. Let's brainstorm how this one came about. A character in "Office Space" loved his stapler, he was moved around the office a lot, had his office moved to the basement, and eventually burnt down the building. Nerds live in the basement. Hinkie is a nerd who lives in the basement so he obviously has a red stapler and is prone to burning buildings down. Brainstorm done. That's how we got to the random "Office Space" reference.
Of course, there are facets to running a team that cannot be graphed.
There are also facets of running a team that can't be seen through the eyes of a grizzled old scout.
How do you quantify chemistry?
That's easy. Bill Simmons says chemistry can be quantified by counting the number of high fives a team gives to each other.
What metric gauges the likelihood of, say, players eating chicken and drinking beer in the clubhouse during games?
What's the likelihood eating chicken and beer in the clubhouse during a game will cause a team to lose quite a few games in a row?
Even if Hinkie is an eyes-on GM, an eager, tireless scout, does that mean he knows what he's seeing?
One would hope Hinkie understands and knows what he is seeing, though contrary to Marcus Hayes' opinion, the 76ers will still employ scouts that will give reports on what they see to Hinkie.
Harris has hired what he knows; what has worked for him in the past. Dispassionate acquisition and manipulation of resources, inevitable "reorganization" of "assets," resulted in a lack of humanism that helped lead to the disastrous moves the Sixers made last year.
But you just said that Doug Collins wouldn't relinquish complete control of the 76ers team and that is why Hinkie wasn't considered for GM last year. You can't have it both ways. The 76ers can't have rejected Hinkie's methods while also adopting them and failing in the process. Don't blame Hinkie for another GM's failings simply because you are not informed enough to understand how applied analytics works in the NBA.
The questions about Bynum's toughness, professionalism and commitment all turned out to be warranted. Any questions about Andre Iguodala's value were not.
Marcus Hayes has a huge hard-on for Andre Iguodala. I would imagine he has spent quite a few nights outside of Iguodala's residence reciting poetry that extols Iguodala's virtues to all within ear shot. Iguodala is to Marcus Hayes as Brett Favre is to Peter King.
Still, teams implement everything they can to produce wins. Consider some of the better teams over the past few seasons.
After passive-aggressively bashing applied analytics, this is the part where Marcus Hayes desperately plays both sides and starts to acknowledge some of these methods could work. See, he is against and for the use of applied analytics. However it works out for the 76ers in the future, he will be right, and can write a column saying how he KNEW this is the outcome that would occur if the 76ers used/didn't use applied analytics to evaluate basketball players.
The Celtics, operating in the shadow of the sabergeeks at Fenway, hired Harvard law grad Mike Zarren almost a decade ago, and he advanced to assistant GM as the team acquired stars like Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen – but also was bolstered by less-heralded veterans Jeff Green and Brandon Bass.
I wouldn't say the acquisition of Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen was an analytics decision any more than it was a decision to trade for two Hall of Fame players who wanted a championship ring.
Mavericks owner Mark Cuban is rabid about analytics. The Spurs, perhaps the benchmark for professionalism, have used an analytics arm for years. Heat coach Erik Spoelstra created the team's stats system when he was Pat Riley's gofer, and Spoelstra uses the software to run simulations.
It's almost like when analytics are applied with the use of old-fashioned scouting, along with good coaching, they can help a team win playoff games be successful. Choosing to use analytics isn't necessarily an "either/or" situation when compared to the decision to use grizzled, old scouts. Marcus Hayes is very desperate to paint it as an "either/or" situation though.
15 NBA teams that have installed SportVU, the Stats, Inc. camera system that tracks players and the ball and how they relate and interact. SportVU is not, of course, the only such tool, nor is it universally loved by analytic nuts. The Heat, for instance, does not have one.
Again, it is almost like all stats geeks aren't exactly alike. What a shock that is for Marcus since he much prefers placing any ideas or theories he doesn't like or understand into a little box and make generalized, universal assumptions about the people who believe or follow those ideas or theories.
The Sixers also hired Aaron Barzilai in November, long after he might have analyzed a trade for a player such as, say, Andrew Bynum . . . an unfortunate timing development, perhaps.
Barzilai's basketballvalue.com website computed players' values for the two seasons that preceded the end of the 2012 playoffs.
The website showed that, remarkably, Andre Iguodala was slightly more valuable than Kevin Durant . . . and was worth considerably more than Andrew Bynum.
Any measure that says Andre Iguodala is very, very valuable is a measure that Marcus Hayes can get behind. Maybe that's what this column was all about really, making sure the reader knew that trading Hayes' idol and BFF Andre Iguodala was a bad idea.
This column had zero "likes" on Facebook at the time I wrote this column. This shouldn't be a shock after all, only nerds use computers for such things like Facebook.
Josh Harris acquired Twinkies and Hinkie in the same calendar year.
Either move could make the billionaire investor look like a Ding Dong.
What a gripping first sentence. I'm enraptured with this column already. Analytics are stupid. Long live measuring a player's ability through intangibles like how much heart the player has and clutchiness.
Harris' group of investment sharks, Apollo Global Management, in March bought a piece of Hostess out of bankruptcy.
Harris' group of hoops hobbyists, the Philadelphia 76ers, last week hired 35-year-old Stanford MBA graduate Sam Hinkie to be the team's president of basketball operations and general manager.
Making an attempt to purchase a company out of bankruptcy is being an "investment shark," while buying the 76ers is being a "hobbyist." I like how Hayes shades his comments. Basketball is just a hobby because Josh Harris clearly knows nothing about sports since he received an MBA from Stanford. Anyone who goes to Stanford for business can't know anything about sports. These types of people only understand numbers and how to run a business, and we all know running or managing a professional sports team doesn't require any knowledge on how to understand numbers nor is a sports team a business.
Twinkies have a timeless allure.
Hinkie is more the flavor of the month.
I see Hayes is going for the Bill Plaschke method of journalism in writing one sentence per paragraph. It's always fun to read an article written by a grown man that reads like a four year old's book about a boy and his lost dog.
"Billy woke up very sad."
"He couldn't find his dog, Sam. Where is Sam?"
"Billy went outside to look for Sam."
Considering the evolving nature of sports, Hinkie's profile and his background might endear him to half of the Sixers' fan base and doom him in the eyes of the rest.
Since sports are evolving towards more stats-oriented performance measurements and we all know any type of evolution is only a fad, clearly this is a good reason for Hinkie to be the flavor of the month. Who cares if the definition of "evolution" would indicate that something that is evolving isn't only doing so for a short period of time? Marcus likes that word and doesn't care if the use of the word in this sentence above contradicts his contention Hinkie is a flavor of the month.
Half a decade will pass before Hinkie's analytics-based approach can be fairly judged.
And outside of the 76ers winning a few NBA titles I don't think it will be fairly judged even at that point by Hayes.
Harris, whose investments also have included cruise lines, knows a bad boat when he sees it. This 34-win ship is listing severely.
Oh, so Harris knows a bad boat simply because he owns a cruise line? What does Harris and his investment group know about a cruise line? He isn't a travel agent and he has never been the captain of a ship. You can't just plug numbers into a computer and this means guests on a cruise ship will have a great time. Harris probably hasn't ever been out of his mom's basement, much less been in the sun long enough to know how to run a cruise line. Yet he thinks he knows how to run a cruise line? There are real people who work on the ship, not just numbers that can be put in a calculation. You can't calculate fun!
(See how silly this type of criticism sounds when not applied to sports and applied to other types of businesses?)
Hinkie was part of the Rockets' retooling this past offseason that landed James Harden, Jeremy Lin and Omer Asik. He worked under Houston GM Daryl Morey, a new-age, big-picture man who runs his operation without fear of ridicule.
He runs his operation without fear of ridicule mainly because there isn't a reason to ridicule him. Also, I can't believe Marcus Hayes just described an NBA GM as a "big-picture man." This just seems like a description that goes without saying. There are probably GM's who don't seemingly look at the big-picture, but it is a GM's job to look at the big-picture. It's incredibly necessary. This description should go without mention because it seems so obvious from the job description to be an NBA GM. It's sad he has to include this description because it means there are not big-picture GM's running NBA teams.
Hinkie will be given a sledgehammer and a smartphone by Harris, a fellow geek.
And there is nothing wrong with being given a sledgehammer to change a team Marcus Hayes describes as:
This 34-win ship is listing severely.
Also, a lot of people have a smartphone. It's not just for geeks. Putting a smartphone together with calling someone a geek simply displays your own ignorance and fear of technology. It's not a good look. Of course Marcus Hayes was responsible for this classic chat, so I guess all bets are off when he writes a column. I guess we are just lucky he isn't calling Josh Harris a racist.
Fortysomethings and their elders likely will roll their eyes and regard Hinkie as part of an overvalued wave of fantasy nerds
Of course Marcus would never think these same things about Hinkie. This last sentence is what everyone else thinks about the Hinkie hire and not Marcus Hayes' opinion. Not at all. He is just very good at describing how these fortysomethings and their elders feel.
who use probabilities as sacred texts and who forsake what their eyes and their hearts (and their scouts) tell them.
Very impressive. This is one of the least intelligent descriptions of those who use analytics to evaluate basketball players. It's hard to see how Marcus Hayes has a clue about what he is discussing or trying to prove when he writes shit like this. I'm betting Marcus really thinks the Houston Rockets don't even have scouts. They just have a huge computer and Daryl Morey sitting in a room making decisions on which players to sign or draft without ever watching these players play. Even if the Rockets had scouts they would simply ignore them and do what their spreadsheets and "sacred texts" tell them to do. I'm not even sure what the fuck a "sacred text" is, but it's clear Marcus Hayes is very afraid of statistics, but not afraid at all of sounding like an ignorant dumbass when discussing said statistics.
It never fails to amuse me how these sportswriters frame those who use analytics to evaluate players. These sportswriters frame these descriptions in a way that is chock-full of ignorance and an outright fear of any alternative method of evaluating a player.
The thirtysomethings and their Freakonomics legions likely will rejoice that the Sixers have moved past sexagenarian Doug Collins, the crusty coach who just quit.
I love the assumption the "Freakonomics legions" are as closed-minded as those who criticize the "Freakonomics legions" seem to be. It's not entirely true in my opinion. Marcus Hayes did refer to Collins' exit as like a Shakespeare tragedy of sorts, so I'm not even sure what to take from that.
Replacing Collins, of course, will be Hinkie's most urgent task.
Most NBA teams do need a head coach. It's always an important position to fill.
Pacers GM Kevin Pritchard was a panelist at the MIT Sloan Sports Analytics Conference in March, where the ComicCon alumni
This is just weak. I think bashing nerds has become the new puff piece. If a columnist is looking for an easy writing assignment that won't require much thought and one in which he can basically just re-word previously written works, just write about nerds and use a few generic references to what nerds like (basements, computers, comic books, ComicCon, statistics). It's like Mad-Libs for sportswriters.
who now work in sports administration meet to plot their revenge against the jocks they employ.
Why would they want revenge? Because they got wedgies in the locker room after P.E.in middle school, that's why! This shitty article almost writes itself.
Hinkie was a candidate for the same job last year, but Collins' distaste for applied analytics and his assumption of complete control of the franchise would have clashed with Hinkie's religion.
Oh, so the coach who just resigned and helped built a 34 win team didn't like Hinkie and this is a strike against Hinkie? Of course no analytics-bashing column would be complete without a reference to analytics as a "religion," as if Collins' own distaste for applied analytics and wanting complete control of the franchise can't be perceived as a religion in its own right.
The Sixers opted instead to promote Tony DiLeo, a loyal soldier for more than 2 decades – who, it should be noted, appreciates analytics in NBA strategies. DiLeo is expected to be let go.
Just another strike against analytics, the religion of dorks. Applied analytics didn't work for one season so they clearly will never work.
And, lest anyone throw aside conventional wisdoms, consider this: The Oakland A's, sport's pioneer into calculus-dependent franchise-building, have made the playoffs just six times in Billy Beane's 15 seasons as GM, and have won one playoff series.
Morons like Marcus Hayes don't even understand what they are criticizing. The A's don't claim to know everything. They play in a small market and don't feel they have a chance at making the playoffs at all if they don't look for overlooked players and inefficiencies in the market. That's what they are about, looking for inefficiencies in the market, not worshiping statistics.
How much credit should Hinkie get for Houston's qualified success? Who are his guys?
Fashionable, serviceable point guard Lin? Prized shooting guard Harden?
You can't really argue against the acquisition of James Harden. That was a great move.
Did Hinkie slam his red stapler on Morey's desk and threaten to burn down the building if Asik stayed in Chicago?
And we have a random "Office Space" reference. Let's brainstorm how this one came about. A character in "Office Space" loved his stapler, he was moved around the office a lot, had his office moved to the basement, and eventually burnt down the building. Nerds live in the basement. Hinkie is a nerd who lives in the basement so he obviously has a red stapler and is prone to burning buildings down. Brainstorm done. That's how we got to the random "Office Space" reference.
Of course, there are facets to running a team that cannot be graphed.
There are also facets of running a team that can't be seen through the eyes of a grizzled old scout.
How do you quantify chemistry?
That's easy. Bill Simmons says chemistry can be quantified by counting the number of high fives a team gives to each other.
What metric gauges the likelihood of, say, players eating chicken and drinking beer in the clubhouse during games?
What's the likelihood eating chicken and beer in the clubhouse during a game will cause a team to lose quite a few games in a row?
Even if Hinkie is an eyes-on GM, an eager, tireless scout, does that mean he knows what he's seeing?
One would hope Hinkie understands and knows what he is seeing, though contrary to Marcus Hayes' opinion, the 76ers will still employ scouts that will give reports on what they see to Hinkie.
Harris has hired what he knows; what has worked for him in the past. Dispassionate acquisition and manipulation of resources, inevitable "reorganization" of "assets," resulted in a lack of humanism that helped lead to the disastrous moves the Sixers made last year.
But you just said that Doug Collins wouldn't relinquish complete control of the 76ers team and that is why Hinkie wasn't considered for GM last year. You can't have it both ways. The 76ers can't have rejected Hinkie's methods while also adopting them and failing in the process. Don't blame Hinkie for another GM's failings simply because you are not informed enough to understand how applied analytics works in the NBA.
The questions about Bynum's toughness, professionalism and commitment all turned out to be warranted. Any questions about Andre Iguodala's value were not.
Marcus Hayes has a huge hard-on for Andre Iguodala. I would imagine he has spent quite a few nights outside of Iguodala's residence reciting poetry that extols Iguodala's virtues to all within ear shot. Iguodala is to Marcus Hayes as Brett Favre is to Peter King.
Still, teams implement everything they can to produce wins. Consider some of the better teams over the past few seasons.
After passive-aggressively bashing applied analytics, this is the part where Marcus Hayes desperately plays both sides and starts to acknowledge some of these methods could work. See, he is against and for the use of applied analytics. However it works out for the 76ers in the future, he will be right, and can write a column saying how he KNEW this is the outcome that would occur if the 76ers used/didn't use applied analytics to evaluate basketball players.
The Celtics, operating in the shadow of the sabergeeks at Fenway, hired Harvard law grad Mike Zarren almost a decade ago, and he advanced to assistant GM as the team acquired stars like Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen – but also was bolstered by less-heralded veterans Jeff Green and Brandon Bass.
I wouldn't say the acquisition of Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen was an analytics decision any more than it was a decision to trade for two Hall of Fame players who wanted a championship ring.
Mavericks owner Mark Cuban is rabid about analytics. The Spurs, perhaps the benchmark for professionalism, have used an analytics arm for years. Heat coach Erik Spoelstra created the team's stats system when he was Pat Riley's gofer, and Spoelstra uses the software to run simulations.
It's almost like when analytics are applied with the use of old-fashioned scouting, along with good coaching, they can help a team win playoff games be successful. Choosing to use analytics isn't necessarily an "either/or" situation when compared to the decision to use grizzled, old scouts. Marcus Hayes is very desperate to paint it as an "either/or" situation though.
15 NBA teams that have installed SportVU, the Stats, Inc. camera system that tracks players and the ball and how they relate and interact. SportVU is not, of course, the only such tool, nor is it universally loved by analytic nuts. The Heat, for instance, does not have one.
Again, it is almost like all stats geeks aren't exactly alike. What a shock that is for Marcus since he much prefers placing any ideas or theories he doesn't like or understand into a little box and make generalized, universal assumptions about the people who believe or follow those ideas or theories.
The Sixers also hired Aaron Barzilai in November, long after he might have analyzed a trade for a player such as, say, Andrew Bynum . . . an unfortunate timing development, perhaps.
Barzilai's basketballvalue.com website computed players' values for the two seasons that preceded the end of the 2012 playoffs.
The website showed that, remarkably, Andre Iguodala was slightly more valuable than Kevin Durant . . . and was worth considerably more than Andrew Bynum.
Any measure that says Andre Iguodala is very, very valuable is a measure that Marcus Hayes can get behind. Maybe that's what this column was all about really, making sure the reader knew that trading Hayes' idol and BFF Andre Iguodala was a bad idea.
This column had zero "likes" on Facebook at the time I wrote this column. This shouldn't be a shock after all, only nerds use computers for such things like Facebook.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
4 comments Murray Chass Has Thoughts About Hall of Fame Voting, as Long as it Doesn't Interrupt Dinner
We all know how much I love Murray Chass. I use the word "love" sarcastically, of course. He's close-minded and set in his ways. There's nothing I love less from a sportswriter than that. He also has a bizarre bro-mance with Fay Vincent, to the point he quotes Vincent religiously in his non-blog posts. Anyway, because the world hates me, Murray Chass has a vote for the Hall of Fame and he talks a little bit on his non-blog about Bud Selig (who he hates), Jack Morris (who he loves) and Hall of Fame voting (which he loves doing, as long as it leaves time for dinner).
This column wasn’t going to be about Bud Selig so that’s all I will say about him. Well, one more thing.
Bud Selig took over as acting commissioner once Fay Vincent was forced out. Murray Chass considers the forcing out of Vincent as one of the great tragedies of modern life, up there with the assassination of JFK, World War II, famine in Africa, war in the Middle East, the advent of the Internet age which led to the people who read newspaper columns to actually be able to give feedback and the cancellation of "Party Down" and "Arrested Development" while Ashton Kutcher and Rob Schneider are still free to smirk their way into viewer's hearts.
(Maybe that last one is just me)
After the owners forced Fay Vincent to resign in 1992, Selig became acting or interim commissioner because he was chairman of the executive council. Selig, however, denied that he was acting or interim. He also denied repeatedly that he was interested in being the commissioner.
It's a good thing this happened twenty years ago and Murray has let this drop.
He accepted the job in 1998, and now he will accept a new term instead of retiring. He is nothing if not consistent.
Yeah, Selig lied by saying he was retiring and now he isn't retiring. He lied, everyone knew he wasn't retiring, but the owners wanted him back so that has to mean something in the long run.
I want to write about the terrific, unexpected increase in Jack Morris’ vote total, but there’s another aspect of the writers’ vote that cries out for attention.
I would take out the word "terrific" because I don't know if I consider this terrific. Morris is still a borderline Hall of Fame candidate to me and any player that we aren't sure is one of the greatest players in MLB history shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame in my opinion. Morris was really good, but not dominant during his career.
Six players received no votes at all: Jeromy Burnitz, Brian Jordan, Terry Mulholland, Phil Nevin, Ruben Sierra and Tony Womack.
Did the writers honestly believe Lopez and Young belong in the Hall of Fame? If so, how did those writers last long enough covering baseball – 10 years – to qualify as voters?
Murray Chass is really going to question the validity of a Hall of Fame voter's ballot? As you will see later, Murray doesn't seem to take his Hall of Fame voting too seriously.
The writers get enough criticism for voting for legitimate candidates or not voting for players fans think belong in the Hall of Fame without incurring criticism for voting for players with career records like Lopez and Young.
Here is the major issue I see...which player is a legitimate candidate for the Hall of Fame and who is not? Is Tim Salmon (he received 5 votes) more of a legitimate candidate than Lopez or Young? I am sure some people don't think Mark McGwire is a legitimate candidate for the Hall of Fame because he used PEDs. Maybe I'm picking nits, but I don't think Larry Walker is a legitimate Hall of Fame candidate and yet he appears on the ballot with 131 votes.
This is the way the system works. A screening committee of six members of the Baseball Writers Association receives a list of players eligible for the first time and nominates those they think should be placed on the ballot. Any player who is named by two or more of the six writers goes on the ballot, joining players who had been on the ballot in previous years.
Obviously, the screening committee would rather a player go on the ballot and then get zero votes then have "screen-out" a player who may end up getting a significant amount of votes during the actual Hall of Fame voting.
Considering that players need 75 percent of the votes to be elected to the Hall, I would think that newly eligible players should need at least 50 percent of the screening committee votes to get on the ballot.
My response is, what does it matter? Why does it matter that six players got zero votes? Who has it hurt to have these players on the ballot and then they ended up getting no votes? Six writers is a pretty small sample size and I could see a candidate not getting three votes to appear on the Hall of Fame ballot when that candidate could be a "legitimate" Hall of Fame candidate. I don't see as how it matters really. Better safe than sorry. Murray's beloved Jack Morris had a small vote total 13 years ago when he was originally on the ballot. I'm not saying Morris could have gotten left off the ballot by the nominating committee, but the committee would rather be safe than sorry. So I see why only two votes by the nominating committee are required.
I asked O’Connell if players might be embarrassed by being on the ballot but getting only one vote or no votes.
Say what you want about Murray Chass, but he does not have his pulse on what makes athletes tick. Why would a player be embarrassed by having his name on the Hall of Fame ballot, but not get any votes?
On the contrary, he said, players are flattered simply by having their names on the ballot.
Exactly. Sportswriters aren't the only ones who get off on seeing their name in print.
At this stage of his ballot history, Morris wants more than a piece of memorabilia. The pitcher has gone through 13 elections, and this year came closer than ever, falling 48 votes short with 66.7 percent of the vote.
I can only assume Morris' dramatic increase in vote total this year was the result of the Hall of Fame voters' drug use. If PED users aren't eligible to be voted into the Hall of Fame, then the BBWA voters shouldn't be allowed to use drugs and vote for Hall of Fame players.
Such a high percentage has always meant subsequent election, but Morris has only two years left on the writers’ ballot, and each year could present built-in problems for the pitcher.
Oh no! What if more qualified candidates come along and cause Morris not to receive an honor he may not deserve to receive anyway? The horror!
So basically, players who are actually qualified to be in the Hall of Fame may come along and cause Morris' vote total to reduce? Isn't that how it is supposed to be? Those who actually deserve to be in the Hall of Fame earn induction, while those who don't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame don't receive induction? Or did I miss something and borderline players are supposed to be receive election because they have been on the ballot longer?
In two years, two certain first-timers will be on the ballot, Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine. It’s unlikely that writers would vote for those two pitchers and Morris, though they could consider that it would be Morris’ last year on the ballot.
Why wouldn't the writers vote for Morris if he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame? Is there a "no more than 2 pitchers on one ballot" rule I'm not aware of?
The past several years the voters have overwhelmingly rejected Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro for their use of performance-enhancing substances. Some voters, however, might have rejected them without the steroids link, believing their careers did not merit Hall of Fame election.
This is very doubtful. I think McGwire gets in without the steroids link. I find it hard to believe only 19.5% of voters think McGwire deserves induction in the Hall of Fame without the steroids link. Clearly, McGwire was rejected because of the steroids link.
Sosa and Piazza have never been convicted by testing or their own admission, but they may find it impossible to overcome the circumstantial evidence that has grown around them.
Just like with Jeff Bagwell, suspicion and circumstantial evidence shouldn't prevent a player from receiving votes for the Hall of Fame. Also, Sammy Sosa has tested positive for steroid use and he was caught using a corked bat. Sosa isn't in the same class as Piazza or Bagwell because he was caught.
I also want to add much of the "suspicion" around Mike Piazza comes from Murray Chass and his suspicion of Piazza's bacne.
If, on the other hand, writers vote for some or any of them, they may not want to add Morris to their ballot.
Honestly, I think Morris' numbers are going to be put in a negative light compared to Glavine and Maddux next year. Just compare their numbers side-by-side one day. You will see what a Hall of Fame pitcher looks like compared to a Hall of Very Good pitcher looks like.
When I voted for the first time, I submitted a full ballot, all 10 lines filled with names. By the time I voted a year later, I had reconsidered what I had done.
It does cause for a moment of reflection when you vote for 10 (what you perceive as) qualified candidates into the Hall of Fame. It's good of Murray to repent for this crime. You may ask yourself why Murray reconsidered filling in all 10 lines. Fortunately, Murray tells us. It's a doozy.
In voting for 10 players, I was saying in essence I wanted to see 10 players inducted into the Hall at the same time.
Very few things can get past Murray Chass. Brilliant deduction.
How foolish, I realized. Having 10 players enter the Hall at the same time would detract from the honor for each player.
Maybe it would and maybe it wouldn't. 10 players being elected into the Hall of Fame at one time could potentially dilute the honor of what being in the Hall of Fame represents. I'm not sure if 10 players were elected at one time these players would think it was less of an honor because the class was large. Unless these players didn't want to sit through an induction ceremony involving so many speeches and players...but of course who on Earth would complain about a long induction ceremony for such an important honor being bestowed on these players. Well, about that...
In addition, the induction ceremony would take forever and require a break for dinner.
It's good to see Murray takes his Hall of Fame voting seriously. A break for dinner? What is this the People's Choice Awards? (Hi-fives Fay Vincent)
"Sorry Jack Morris, I think you deserve to be in the Hall of Fame because I couldn't vote for you this year because if more than 6 players were elected to the Hall of Fame in one year it would require a break for dinner. I neither have the time or the stomach to handle eating dinner during the Hall of Fame inductions. Not when my Crockpot makes such a delicious BBQ chicken meal and there is an 'NCIS' marathon on USA. Sorry about that and I hope you understand."
It appears Murray Chass' considerations when voting for Hall of Fame candidates go this way in order of importance:
1. What would Fay Vincent do?
2. Would voting for this player require a break for dinner at the induction ceremony?
3. What would Bud Selig do?
4. Does this player have any ties to PEDs, steroids, etc?
5. Have I heard this player's name used in the same sentence as "PED" or "steroid?"
6. How would this affect Jack Morris' induction?
7. If it does affect Jack Morris' induction, would voting for Morris cause there to be a break for dinner at the induction ceremony?
8. Would voting for this player piss off the "new-age statistics" crowd?
9. How many wins did this pitcher have in his career?
10. What was this player's batting average?
...
104. Based on this player's career statistics, does this player measure up as one of the greatest baseball players of all-time, thereby deserving induction into the Hall of Fame?
On subsequent ballots I placed an X next to three or four names at the most, sometimes only one or two.
Depending on how hungry Murray predicted he would be at the ceremony. One year Murray Chass actually didn't vote for anyone. It was during his famous "Starving January" during the winter of 1992 when he just couldn't seem to get full after eating his breakfast and lunch. Even snacking didn't help!
I have not voted for McGwire or Palmeiro and don’t expect to vote for Bonds, Clemens, Sosa or Piazza next December.
At least Murray is open-minded and hasn't already made his decision without seriously considering these player's candidacy for the Hall of Fame. Plus, if Murray voted for six people (seven, including Morris) it would require a break for dinner during the induction ceremony.
It really does stink to hear Murray not only has made up his mind about next year's Hall of Fame class, but would limit his ballot to a certain number of players to avoid having to sit through a long induction ceremony. It's sad to hear how non-seriously many of these Hall of Fame voters take the process. They want the honor of voting, but none of the responsibility of being open-minded and attending the actual ceremony that goes along with it.
I will vote for Morris.
Unless the ballot gets too big of course. That Crockpot at home will be calling.
This column wasn’t going to be about Bud Selig so that’s all I will say about him. Well, one more thing.
Bud Selig took over as acting commissioner once Fay Vincent was forced out. Murray Chass considers the forcing out of Vincent as one of the great tragedies of modern life, up there with the assassination of JFK, World War II, famine in Africa, war in the Middle East, the advent of the Internet age which led to the people who read newspaper columns to actually be able to give feedback and the cancellation of "Party Down" and "Arrested Development" while Ashton Kutcher and Rob Schneider are still free to smirk their way into viewer's hearts.
(Maybe that last one is just me)
After the owners forced Fay Vincent to resign in 1992, Selig became acting or interim commissioner because he was chairman of the executive council. Selig, however, denied that he was acting or interim. He also denied repeatedly that he was interested in being the commissioner.
It's a good thing this happened twenty years ago and Murray has let this drop.
He accepted the job in 1998, and now he will accept a new term instead of retiring. He is nothing if not consistent.
Yeah, Selig lied by saying he was retiring and now he isn't retiring. He lied, everyone knew he wasn't retiring, but the owners wanted him back so that has to mean something in the long run.
I want to write about the terrific, unexpected increase in Jack Morris’ vote total, but there’s another aspect of the writers’ vote that cries out for attention.
I would take out the word "terrific" because I don't know if I consider this terrific. Morris is still a borderline Hall of Fame candidate to me and any player that we aren't sure is one of the greatest players in MLB history shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame in my opinion. Morris was really good, but not dominant during his career.
Six players received no votes at all: Jeromy Burnitz, Brian Jordan, Terry Mulholland, Phil Nevin, Ruben Sierra and Tony Womack.
Why were they on the ballot?
Because they met the criteria to be eligible for the Hall of Fame. I don't think he deserves to get in the Hall of Fame, but I can't believe Ruben Sierra didn't get one Hall of Fame vote. I'm not saying Sierra deserved a Hall of Fame vote, and it probably is a good sign the voters are actually thinking about their votes, but I am surprised Sierra's early career statistics didn't sway a voter into giving him one vote.Did the writers honestly believe Lopez and Young belong in the Hall of Fame? If so, how did those writers last long enough covering baseball – 10 years – to qualify as voters?
Murray Chass is really going to question the validity of a Hall of Fame voter's ballot? As you will see later, Murray doesn't seem to take his Hall of Fame voting too seriously.
The writers get enough criticism for voting for legitimate candidates or not voting for players fans think belong in the Hall of Fame without incurring criticism for voting for players with career records like Lopez and Young.
Here is the major issue I see...which player is a legitimate candidate for the Hall of Fame and who is not? Is Tim Salmon (he received 5 votes) more of a legitimate candidate than Lopez or Young? I am sure some people don't think Mark McGwire is a legitimate candidate for the Hall of Fame because he used PEDs. Maybe I'm picking nits, but I don't think Larry Walker is a legitimate Hall of Fame candidate and yet he appears on the ballot with 131 votes.
This is the way the system works. A screening committee of six members of the Baseball Writers Association receives a list of players eligible for the first time and nominates those they think should be placed on the ballot. Any player who is named by two or more of the six writers goes on the ballot, joining players who had been on the ballot in previous years.
Obviously, the screening committee would rather a player go on the ballot and then get zero votes then have "screen-out" a player who may end up getting a significant amount of votes during the actual Hall of Fame voting.
Considering that players need 75 percent of the votes to be elected to the Hall, I would think that newly eligible players should need at least 50 percent of the screening committee votes to get on the ballot.
My response is, what does it matter? Why does it matter that six players got zero votes? Who has it hurt to have these players on the ballot and then they ended up getting no votes? Six writers is a pretty small sample size and I could see a candidate not getting three votes to appear on the Hall of Fame ballot when that candidate could be a "legitimate" Hall of Fame candidate. I don't see as how it matters really. Better safe than sorry. Murray's beloved Jack Morris had a small vote total 13 years ago when he was originally on the ballot. I'm not saying Morris could have gotten left off the ballot by the nominating committee, but the committee would rather be safe than sorry. So I see why only two votes by the nominating committee are required.
I asked O’Connell if players might be embarrassed by being on the ballot but getting only one vote or no votes.
Say what you want about Murray Chass, but he does not have his pulse on what makes athletes tick. Why would a player be embarrassed by having his name on the Hall of Fame ballot, but not get any votes?
On the contrary, he said, players are flattered simply by having their names on the ballot.
Exactly. Sportswriters aren't the only ones who get off on seeing their name in print.
At this stage of his ballot history, Morris wants more than a piece of memorabilia. The pitcher has gone through 13 elections, and this year came closer than ever, falling 48 votes short with 66.7 percent of the vote.
I can only assume Morris' dramatic increase in vote total this year was the result of the Hall of Fame voters' drug use. If PED users aren't eligible to be voted into the Hall of Fame, then the BBWA voters shouldn't be allowed to use drugs and vote for Hall of Fame players.
Such a high percentage has always meant subsequent election, but Morris has only two years left on the writers’ ballot, and each year could present built-in problems for the pitcher.
Oh no! What if more qualified candidates come along and cause Morris not to receive an honor he may not deserve to receive anyway? The horror!
So basically, players who are actually qualified to be in the Hall of Fame may come along and cause Morris' vote total to reduce? Isn't that how it is supposed to be? Those who actually deserve to be in the Hall of Fame earn induction, while those who don't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame don't receive induction? Or did I miss something and borderline players are supposed to be receive election because they have been on the ballot longer?
In two years, two certain first-timers will be on the ballot, Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine. It’s unlikely that writers would vote for those two pitchers and Morris, though they could consider that it would be Morris’ last year on the ballot.
Why wouldn't the writers vote for Morris if he deserves to be in the Hall of Fame? Is there a "no more than 2 pitchers on one ballot" rule I'm not aware of?
The past several years the voters have overwhelmingly rejected Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro for their use of performance-enhancing substances. Some voters, however, might have rejected them without the steroids link, believing their careers did not merit Hall of Fame election.
This is very doubtful. I think McGwire gets in without the steroids link. I find it hard to believe only 19.5% of voters think McGwire deserves induction in the Hall of Fame without the steroids link. Clearly, McGwire was rejected because of the steroids link.
Sosa and Piazza have never been convicted by testing or their own admission, but they may find it impossible to overcome the circumstantial evidence that has grown around them.
Just like with Jeff Bagwell, suspicion and circumstantial evidence shouldn't prevent a player from receiving votes for the Hall of Fame. Also, Sammy Sosa has tested positive for steroid use and he was caught using a corked bat. Sosa isn't in the same class as Piazza or Bagwell because he was caught.
I also want to add much of the "suspicion" around Mike Piazza comes from Murray Chass and his suspicion of Piazza's bacne.
If, on the other hand, writers vote for some or any of them, they may not want to add Morris to their ballot.
Honestly, I think Morris' numbers are going to be put in a negative light compared to Glavine and Maddux next year. Just compare their numbers side-by-side one day. You will see what a Hall of Fame pitcher looks like compared to a Hall of Very Good pitcher looks like.
When I voted for the first time, I submitted a full ballot, all 10 lines filled with names. By the time I voted a year later, I had reconsidered what I had done.
It does cause for a moment of reflection when you vote for 10 (what you perceive as) qualified candidates into the Hall of Fame. It's good of Murray to repent for this crime. You may ask yourself why Murray reconsidered filling in all 10 lines. Fortunately, Murray tells us. It's a doozy.
In voting for 10 players, I was saying in essence I wanted to see 10 players inducted into the Hall at the same time.
Very few things can get past Murray Chass. Brilliant deduction.
How foolish, I realized. Having 10 players enter the Hall at the same time would detract from the honor for each player.
Maybe it would and maybe it wouldn't. 10 players being elected into the Hall of Fame at one time could potentially dilute the honor of what being in the Hall of Fame represents. I'm not sure if 10 players were elected at one time these players would think it was less of an honor because the class was large. Unless these players didn't want to sit through an induction ceremony involving so many speeches and players...but of course who on Earth would complain about a long induction ceremony for such an important honor being bestowed on these players. Well, about that...
In addition, the induction ceremony would take forever and require a break for dinner.
It's good to see Murray takes his Hall of Fame voting seriously. A break for dinner? What is this the People's Choice Awards? (Hi-fives Fay Vincent)
"Sorry Jack Morris, I think you deserve to be in the Hall of Fame because I couldn't vote for you this year because if more than 6 players were elected to the Hall of Fame in one year it would require a break for dinner. I neither have the time or the stomach to handle eating dinner during the Hall of Fame inductions. Not when my Crockpot makes such a delicious BBQ chicken meal and there is an 'NCIS' marathon on USA. Sorry about that and I hope you understand."
It appears Murray Chass' considerations when voting for Hall of Fame candidates go this way in order of importance:
1. What would Fay Vincent do?
2. Would voting for this player require a break for dinner at the induction ceremony?
3. What would Bud Selig do?
4. Does this player have any ties to PEDs, steroids, etc?
5. Have I heard this player's name used in the same sentence as "PED" or "steroid?"
6. How would this affect Jack Morris' induction?
7. If it does affect Jack Morris' induction, would voting for Morris cause there to be a break for dinner at the induction ceremony?
8. Would voting for this player piss off the "new-age statistics" crowd?
9. How many wins did this pitcher have in his career?
10. What was this player's batting average?
...
104. Based on this player's career statistics, does this player measure up as one of the greatest baseball players of all-time, thereby deserving induction into the Hall of Fame?
On subsequent ballots I placed an X next to three or four names at the most, sometimes only one or two.
Depending on how hungry Murray predicted he would be at the ceremony. One year Murray Chass actually didn't vote for anyone. It was during his famous "Starving January" during the winter of 1992 when he just couldn't seem to get full after eating his breakfast and lunch. Even snacking didn't help!
I have not voted for McGwire or Palmeiro and don’t expect to vote for Bonds, Clemens, Sosa or Piazza next December.
At least Murray is open-minded and hasn't already made his decision without seriously considering these player's candidacy for the Hall of Fame. Plus, if Murray voted for six people (seven, including Morris) it would require a break for dinner during the induction ceremony.
It really does stink to hear Murray not only has made up his mind about next year's Hall of Fame class, but would limit his ballot to a certain number of players to avoid having to sit through a long induction ceremony. It's sad to hear how non-seriously many of these Hall of Fame voters take the process. They want the honor of voting, but none of the responsibility of being open-minded and attending the actual ceremony that goes along with it.
I will vote for Morris.
Unless the ballot gets too big of course. That Crockpot at home will be calling.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
3 comments MMQB Review: Peter King Is a D-List Celebrity Edition
I completely forgot to give MMQB Review a title last week. We'll just let it stand as the unnamed version of MMQB which years later will be given a name, sort of like Led Zeppelin's Zoso...except last week's MMQB without the good music, interesting back story to the eventual album title, slightly bizarre cover art, and it being really not like it at all. This week it is all about being thankful for what you have. I personally have a shitty defense, rookie quarterback, rookie coaches who can't seem to understand running the ball is the key to keeping the shitty defense off the field and an overall sense of sadness about my team. So I'm thankful the season is almost over and I can move on to being bitter about one of my other favorite sports teams. Not Peter though! He's thankful for food and football. Food and Aaron Rodgers. Food and quality games on Thanksgiving. Food and random shout outs to people he knows but is too lazy to email a congratulations or other comment to. Have I mentioned Peter is a celebrity now? I didn't? Well, I just did.
I love Thanksgiving. Always have. It's the food mostly, and seeing family I haven't seen in a while.
Which, depending on exactly how hungry Peter King gets and how much alcohol he drinks, the family could end up being food as well. A few beers into the day and Cousin Carl suddenly looks like a turkey leg.
Football's always been a part of it, but never the central part. This year might be different. This week, I'm going to politely have to say, "Uh, I need to watch 10 hours of football on Thanksgiving.''
It's good to know a guy who gets paid to cover pro football doesn't watch pro football one of the few days he has a chance to see all of the available games. In Peter's defense, it is hard to spend time with your family and pay attention (traditionally) to the Lions game. Usually the Lions game is pretty boring.
The TV's going off at some point, and it'll be off for a couple of hours at least, as it should be. But the one thing that's happened in the last month is that every game Thursday is now incredibly relevant.
I would argue every NFL game is relevant to fans of each team playing those games, but that's just me.
By my imprecise calculations, the last time the Lions played a game with a better combined record on Thanksgiving was 1962, when the 10-0 Packers came to Tiger Stadium on a windy and chilly day to play the 8-2 Lions.
Back to the future: Detroit scored 49 and won for the second time in six weeks Sunday, and with the Bears on their heels, the Lions will be playing this one like a playoff game.
The Lions are treating this game like a playoff game...so the Lions are going to pretend their season is over and be at home watching the game?
8:20 p.m.: San Francisco (9-1) at Baltimore (7-3). "Forget the brother thing -- this is going to be a really good game,'' said Ravens coach John Harbaugh after Baltimore survived the Bengals Sunday.
I can't wait to watch this game. Oh yeah, I can't watch it because Time Warner Cable doesn't have NFL Network. Fuck you again, Time Warner Cable.
The NFL never thought last spring when making this schedule that the league would be leaving only the leftovers for the 12 Sunday games. That's what's happened. Only one of next Sunday's games (Chicago at Oakland) pairs two teams with winning records.
What's the point of even having Sunday games this year? If there aren't winning teams playing does anyone even care to watch the games? It's not like NFL fans like watching their favorite team play or anything.
(Note to fantasy owners...pick up any available Colts running back and Dallas Clark this week. You will thank me later)
Eleven stories for Week 11
Get it? Symmetry!
1. Jay Cutler. Now this is weird. Really weird.
I know. I can't decide if he is back with Kristen Calivarrriririri either. I would learn to spell her name correctly, but my lack of interest in spelling her name correctly is intended to reflect my lack of interest in anything involving her.
Early in the fourth quarter of Chicago's 31-20 win over the Chargers, Cutler threw an interception to Antoine Cason. Trying to tackle Cason near the sideline, Cutler flailed at him while being blocked, and his right hand slammed on the ground. When Cutler got up, he looked at his hand and flexed it a couple of times.
Dear Gregg Easterbrook,
You complain quarterbacks don't go running after a player who has intercepted a pass with incredible amounts of vigor. This is part of the reason why they don't. Injuries happen and quarterbacks are traditionally shitty tacklers.
Sincerely,
Bengoodfella
Cutler greeted some Chargers on the field as he normally does with foes after game. Nothing said about a sore thumb. A Bears' PR man escorted Cutler to talk with NBC Sports' Alex Flanagan. Nothing said about a sore thumb. Cutler showered and did his local press conference. Nothing said about a sore thumb. Coach Lovie Smith did his press conference. Nothing said about a sore thumb for Cutler.
The Bears didn't know anything about the injury at that point and Cutler finished the game. Once the Bears knew for sure Cutler had a thumb injury and knew more about how severe it may be, they announced the injury. How is this more weird than the Patriots (or another team, it's just the Pats are more well-known for this) not even acknowledging a player is injured until/unless they are required to?
I asked two reporters who saw Cutler after the game, and neither said he was flexing or holding his hand in any way that would make you think he was hurt.
Cutler probably wasn't even hurt! He's a pussy!
If this were Brett Favre, Peter would laud Favre for playing through pain, and later in the week Favre would send out x-rays of his injury to every possible available media outlet. Then we would get to hear what a warrior Favre is. This doesn't happen for Cutler.
Luckily for the Dolphins, there's going to be a very deep pool of quarterbacks in the April draft. If Saturday night showed us anything -- with USC's Matt Barkley shredding Oregon in Eugene, and Robert Griffin III and Landry Jones playing lights out on downfield throws in Baylor's win over Oklahoma, it's that quarterback life doesn't begin and end with Luck in college football this year.
I'm not sure this one week of college football can teach us this lesson. Those who watch college football on a weekly basis have probably known this for a few weeks. I personally really like Matt Barkley, but that probably means he will suck in the NFL.
9. The toll of the lockout. As one club executive said to me this week: "The lockout has certainly had an impact on this season, but no one can describe what it is. It's just added more confusion than ever. Why is San Francisco good, with a new coaching staff? Why is Cincinnati good, with a new offense and a rookie quarterback playing? Why is there no consistency? The lockout's just made the league more confusing than ever.''
What madness! It's almost like there isn't one narrative that can be used to explain how each NFL season progresses and to explain which teams are good or aren't good on a yearly basis. The media thinks this is impossible though, so they will continue to search for a narrative or a reason to explain why the season progresses like it does, rather than accept that the NFL season is essentially random and trying to explain why and what will happen is futile.
The cogent points you need to know about Peyton Manning's contract, and how it impacts the 2012 draft plans of the Indianapolis Colts:
Remember how last week I said I wanted to see the Colts draft Luck, but then also acknowledged I will quickly tire of the discussions of Luck v. Manning? Careful what you wish for because Peter starts some of this discussion right now.
1. Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck, together, would count $21.2 million against the 2012 salary cap, which is not prohibitive. The 2012 cap number for each team will be approximately $121 million.
This means the Colts, who have to make hard decisions on veteran producers who will be unrestricted free agents next March -- like Reggie Wayne, Robert Mathis and Jeff Saturday (combined 2011 cap number: $17.94 million) -- will certainly be able to clear the money to keep Manning and draft his heir. In case you doubt the Colts' willingness to clear the decks, keep this in mind: In 2006, then-GM Bill Polian ignored the fan howlings and let Edgerrin James walk in free agency;
And we all know the Colts running game has just flourished (much like James did in Arizona) since James left. I love it when Bill Polian gets credit for moves that weren't necessarily good moves, but Manning's skill level covers up for this. The media can't get enough of Polian's "genius" despite the fact this 0-10 Colts team has his fingerprints all over it. He set up the expansion 1995 Panthers to win for 2-3 seasons and then collapse into mediocrity by signing aging veterans and not drafting well. Then while knowing he wasn't long for the city, he skipped town for the Colts job, where he attached himself to the Peyton Manning bus. I don't think Polian stinks as a GM, but he gets a lot of credit where I'm not sure he deserves it. I can see he did a pretty good job in Buffalo, but he built the early Panthers the wrong way, and it has become quite clear the Colts have major personnel deficiencies. Peter won't attribute those deficiencies to Bill Polian though.
he drafted Joseph Addai in the first round the next year, and the Colts won their only Super Bowl of the Manning Era that season.
Then Polian drafted Donald Brown, who hasn't worked out, but let's not mention that. A franchise quarterback makes everyone look better. Peter attributes the drafting of Addai to the Colts winning a Super Bowl, yet Dominic Rhodes had the better Super Bowl performance.
2. The Colts can't trade Manning before his huge $28 million option bonus is due. The bonus is payable several days before the start of the 2012 league year, traditionally around March 1. Trades can't be made until the league year begins. So if Manning and his agent, Tom Condon, don't agree to extend the deadline for payment of the option, the Colts will have to let him go for nothing or exercise the option and pay him huge money ... and perhaps not know for sure if he's going to be whole with his neck injury for 2012.
I don't see why Condon would extend the deadline. At this point, the Colts will essentially be dropping Manning to draft a rookie, which can't sit well with Manning. Why do the Colts a favor and make this decision easier on them? Also, why would Condon get a late start on the free agent market for his client if he can prevent doing this? It doesn't make sense to extend the deadline to April 1 and then if Manning gets cut Condon then has a shorter amount of time to get Manning good money on the free agent market. The deadline was set at March 1 for a reason and I don't see why Condon would back off it so the Colts have more time to make a decision.
5. Luck's a ridiculous bargain, whoever gets him. Just think: Manning will make $28 million in late February if the Colts exercise his option, with no guarantee that he'll play one play for them. Luck will make $23 million for the next four years, max. And Manning, if kept and active in 2012, will make $12 million more in 2012 than Luck makes in four years.
$23 million over four years? What a great deal for a Hall of Fame quarterback.
Bottom line: The cap hit for keeping Manning and drafting Luck would be quite tolerable, but there's significant motivation for the Colts to have hard proof that Manning can play by February. It's almost inconceivable to think if he were still struggling physically come early February that the Colts would shell out $35 million to keep a 36-year-old player whose health they aren't sure about.
Plus, why keep Manning on the roster when the Colts can draft another quarterback which will cover up for Bill Polian's personnel deficiencies for another decade?
6. New England (6-3). Had a good conversation with Andre Carter the other day, in the wake of his 4.5-sack game against the Jets. If he's not careful, he's going to make me look stupid for bashing Bill Belichick for not drafting pass-rush help last April. Look out tonight, Tyler Palko.
Carter has 8.5 sacks this year. 4.5 sacks are in one game. I think reading too much into one performance and no longer believing the Patriots need pass-rush help because Carter's performance last week is a bit hasty.
Offensive Players of the Week
Philadelphia QB Vince Young. First start since a year ago today, and didn't you miss that little Flipper-style delivery? He didn't win this august award because of his numbers for 60 minutes -- 23 of 36, 258 yards, two touchdowns, three interceptions, a 69.0 passer rating -- but rather for his numbers on one drive in the fourth quarter.
So Peter is giving Vince Young the "Offensive Player of the Week" award due to one drive, despite Young's other mediocre numbers. What great plays did Young make to deserve this award?
Young, with the game tied at 10, took the ball at his 20 and kept it for 18 plays and 80 yards, finishing it with an eight-yard touchdown pass to an all-alone Riley Cooper.
He threw to a wide open receiver for a touchdown. Okay, Young had a pretty good drive, but to win a weekly award based on one drive and ignoring the rest of Young's play? Not very good. I guess Young just wins games and that's why he deserves the award.
Tennessee RB Chris Johnson. The scene: 5-4 Titans at 5-4 Falcons. Playoff fate on the line. Titans fight through the second half to get to within six, 23-17. This is what Tennessee's jillion-dollar back, Johnson, contributed in the second half while the Titans played for their playoff lives: three carries, one yard ... one reception, five yards.
I know Johnson was bad, but to fair to him, he only got three carries in the second half as the Titans tried to catch up to the Falcons. I'm not sure what is expected of him in the 2nd half with only three carries.
MVP Watch
1. Aaron Rodgers, QB, Green Bay. Best quarterback in the league. Undefeated team. This one's not hard, folks.
It's not hard to put Rodgers as the MVP assuming the MVP is supposed to go to the best quarterback in the NFL on the best team in the NFL. I'm not saying Peter is wrong, but the MVP is supposed to go to the most valuable player, not just a quarterback on a really good team. So while I feel Peter is correct, his criteria to win the award feels wrong to me.
New York: the town where D-list celebrities feel so special.
Here's the part of the column where Peter tells us what people who recognize him on the streets say to him. I guess Peter King considers himself a celebrity on the D-list. I think what is interesting is Peter considers himself a celebrity, instead of a sports celebrity. No, he's not full of himself. He's just more important than you will ever know.
I always love it when a person tells us how many people recognize him/her. We know. You are on television and get recognized. I'm not sure what importance to a football column this has.
a. Now this is good reporting: Mike Klis of the Denver Post, midway through Oklahoma-Baylor Saturday night, had Broncos president John Elway and GM Brian Xanders in the house scouting. Interesting that both teams have first-round-caliber passers, Landry Jones and Robert Griffin III.
Interesting that if Tebow continues to win games the Broncos will be destroyed by the fans and Broncos media for drafting a quarterback in the 1st round with Tebow as the successful starter for 2011.
a. I'm a fan of Jon Gruden's analysis most of the time, but he loses me when he says that Greg Jennings "is the most feared deep-ball receiver in the NFL.'' Most complete receiver, he's in the argument. Most feared going deep? Stop.
Jon Gruden thinks whatever player/team he is talking about at that very point in time is the very best at something. Whatever running back he is currently talking about is the absolute best at something. Gruden's analysis can be very good, but I cringe a lot when he is talking a player up.
d. Buyer's remorse. Ryan Fitzpatrick.
You mean the rest of Fitzpatrick's career prior to this year is his actual worth and not the short sample size at the beginning of this season? I'm shocked. Gregg Easterbrook wondered a few weeks ago why the Bills don't take care of Fred Jackson. I'm guessing part of the reason is they want to see how Jackson performs the entire year, which is probably what they should have done with Ryan Fitzpatrick in retrospect.
3. I think I'd disagree with you who ripped the Jets for sending eight rushers in a heavy blitz on the 20-yard touchdown run by Tim Tebow that won the game the other night. It wasn't a dumb call.
As you can probably tell from reading my TMQ de-construction on a weekly basis, I'm not a huge fan of criticizing play calls, but I don't know if I blitz Tebow in this situation with eight guys. I feel like blitzing six guys and keeping a spy on Tebow when he starts running would have been sufficient. I just think you put some pressure on Tebow, try not to let him run and then force him to make a quick throw. Of course, I am not a defensive coordinator so what do I know?
5. I think now I know why so many coaches are so angry over the miking of a center or guard to get more of an on-field feel to the games we watch. On the decisive Denver drive in the fourth quarter Thursday night, Tebow threw a quick nine-yard out pattern to Demaryius Thomas on the left sideline, giving the Broncos second-and-one at the Denver 37.
You can hear Tebow, barely, saying, "Same play. Same play on one.'' At least that's what it sounds like. And Tebow goes to the line in the same shotgun formation, takes the snap, and throws way short on exactly the same route to Thomas on the left sideline.
Ladies and gentleman, a John Fox offense! This isn't a running play the Broncos are running again, but the exact same passing play.
I was stunned. I mean, what's to stop coaches upstairs from plugging into the game telecasts, straining to listen to the play call in the huddle, and then relaying information down to the sidelines? If a quarterback, 12 to 15 seconds before he snaps the ball, says, "Same play'' in the huddle, isn't that information a defense could use, assuming the info could be transmitted to at least someone on that defense before the snap of the ball?
To be fair, the Broncos offense probably isn't that difficult to decipher anyway. A defense, even knowing what play is coming up, has to be able to stop that play. Still, I do see what Peter is saying.
c. Toledo's averaging 54.5 points per game in its last four.
The basketball tea---
The football team, I'm talking about.
What? That's so crazy and unexpected! Peter, you really tricked me into believing you were talking about the basketball team.
e. Boston Globe maestro Dan Shaughnessy
This is how you lose credibility quickly...calling Dan Shaughnessy a maestro.
Shaughnessy's right. The Sox should have insisted on Matt Garza or forced Epstein to sit for the season.
Matt Garza? Is Peter that delusional to believe the Cubs would give the Red Sox Matt Garza in return for Theo Epstein? His delusions aside, I love how Peter is saying the Red Sox should have held out for more compensation now. You didn't hear him saying this nearly a month ago, did you? It's so much easier to criticize in retrospect isn't it?
I still like the idea the Cubs would have been willing to send Garza to Boston even if the Red Sox held out for my compensation before allowing him to work for the Cubs. I'm not sure this was happening regardless.
Maybe the Red Sox should have requested compensation before allowing Epstein to go to the Cubs, but I didn't hear Peter saying that at the time. The idea the Red Sox could actually get Garza for Epstein seems crazy to me. Who am I to disagree with a D-list celebrity though?
Friday, December 17, 2010
5 comments MMQB Review: Peter Turns Into Gregg Easterbrook Edition
I haven't done MMQB in a few weeks so I thought I would see what Peter King had to say about this past week's NFL games, and lo and behold, he is still the exact same guy. I was hoping laying off him for a few weeks would cause a disruption in the universe that would make him less elitist and frustrating to me. I was wrong. This week Peter gives us some NFL nuggets to chew on and spit out. It's like going home again.
I thought this would be a big week for coaching news and Brett Favre will-he-or-won't-he, and maybe the Favre/Sterger story. On Sunday afternoon, it was all weather and dome collapse, all the time. By this morning, I'm marveling over Michael Vick and DeSean Jackson. Those are two guys I'd pay to see.
Or you could watch them for free on television since they are on a nationally televised game what seems like every single week. It's your choice. I know it's just a saying but I haven't picked on Peter in a while, so lay off me.
My 10 nuggets, some big and some small, for Week 14:
Are these processed nuggets? Can I Supersize my order?
The Eagle-loving masses think Vick's not only the team MVP but also the NFL's. Cases can be made for both, I suppose. But then what is DeSean Jackson, other than the most exciting player right now in the NFL?
Take DeSean Jackson off the Eagles' team and then take Mike Vick off the Eagles' team. How good would they be without each player? There's your answer to which one is team MVP.
This is a topic for another day, but it's incumbent on the Eagles to do two things -- keep Vick from getting hit too much (I still am concerned about that; he takes too many shots, and not just the borderline ones that tick off Vick and Andy Reid)
I couldn't tell Peter is concerned about this since he only mentions it every single week. Look, if an NFL quarterback can't get hit too much or his body will fall apart, is he worth spending millions of dollars upon when he becomes a free agent? I don't know, I'm asking. Vick has to be able to get hit, it is a part of running with the football, which makes him so dangerous. So taking away the part of the offense that makes him dangerous, which is Vick running with the football, is also taking away part of what makes him so special.
and sign him to a contract that will keep him an Eagle for his prime.
His prime may very well be the year 2010. Vick is a great player but I think it is interesting that Peter refuses to acknowledge the massive amount of motivation Vick has financially to have a great contract year. I'm not saying Vick won't be a good quarterback in the future, but it is a contract year and Vick's financial problems related to having declare bankruptcy make him really motivated to play well. Vick also has a past (in Atlanta) of not working that hard once he got paid. I'm just throwing it out there. Vick could play at this level for the rest of his career, but Peter has already stated Vick is taking a bunch of hits and when he got paid in Atlanta, his work ethic started to get questioned.
I talked to Vikings coach Leslie Frazier just before the team left for Detroit late Sunday afternoon, and he called Favre "questionable'' -- the NFL's 50-50 version of injury-reporting. Frazier said he'd talk to Favre at breakfast today at their Detroit hotel and see whether Favre thought he might be able to get enough movement in the shoulder to play tonight at Ford Field. So the story America hates lives for another day.
And yet for some reason Peter keeps talking about it. If you know your readers hate hearing about a story, why keep writing about it? Why keep going out of your way to report NOTHING and write about the story? Why bother your readers with a topic they clearly don't enjoy? I understand few people like to hear about college basketball, so I don't write about it as much as I do other sports. It's an easy concept that Peter can't seem to grasp.
How about our weekly chart featuring the Patriots from Peter? Sounds good. It wouldn't be MMQB without at least one chart about the Patriots.
But check out the pre- and post-Spygate numbers, including playoff games, for the Patriots under Belichick, and you'll see why the video practices seem so wasteful:
It all just proves to me that Belichick used to be and still is the smartest guy in the room ... and how unimportant to everything on the field the videotaping seems to have been.
We could argue that the post-sanction Patriots teams have a great record because they are a great team, while the pre-sanction Patriots had a great record because of the video taping. I'm not saying it is true, but merely acknowledging it is possible the Patriots have a good team now, but wouldn't have won as many games pre-sanctions without the video taping.
6. Matt Cassel for MVP.
In the strict sense of "value,'' it's arguable.
"If you pay attention what the award is supposed to intend and what the award actually means, then Cassel shouldn't win it. But if you ignore the intent of the award this is a controversial thing I just said!"
"Mike Williams of the Seahawks should win Offensive Rookie of the Year. Sure, he may not be a rookie, but if you ignore the strict sense of 'rookie' we could have a debate on this issue."
In the eight games before Week 14, Cassel had thrown 19 touchdowns and one interception. He sat Sunday after having his appendix removed Wednesday, and the Chiefs were absolutely dreadful, losing to San Diego 31-0 and generating 69 yards of offense. Nineteen net passing yards by Brodie Croyle and Tyler Palko. The Chiefs did not have a 30-yard drive.
So the Chiefs struggled in one game and that makes Matt Cassel MVP? I just hate to think the crappiness of a team's backup means the starter is the MVP. If that were the case, as long as Curtis Painter is backing up Peyton Manning, then Manning is the MVP.
With a bully, and I don't mean Rex Ryan. Their head strength and conditioning coach, Sal Alosi, tripped Miami special-teamer Nolan Carroll while he was running down the sideline covering a punt, causing Carroll to limp off the field. I've seen some bush-league things in 26 years covering the NFL, but that's got to be in the top 10. Though Alosi apologized, I think a one-game suspension for affecting the competitive balance of a game is in order.
Personally, I don't like to overreact to situations, but I think Alosi should be suspended for the rest of the year. That was a bullshit move. It appears he will be suspended indefinitely, but I would go ahead and make it the rest of the year...what little is left of the year at least.
Knighton, a nose type with rush ability that a pure space-eater doesn't have, and Alualu are already one of the three or four best defensive-tackle combinations in football, and neither has turned 25. Smith had the courage to take the slings and arrows and make sure he got Alualu without getting cute by trying to pick him lower, and the kid is panning out.
I thought the Jaguars picked Tyson Alualu too early and they could have traded back to get him. I still feel that way, but I do have to give the Jaguars credit for choosing him when they did. Sure, they could have moved back and gotten him later, but they wanted him, so they took him. I was wrong about that and in this year's NFL Draft grades if this type situation happens again I will go easier on a team that does this...depending on the situation of course.
2. New Orleans (10-3).
3. Atlanta (11-2).
I think it is pretty clear Peter King isn't going to give the Falcons any respect. They are the best team in the NFC in my mind. Of course when they make the Super Bowl this year, Peter will pretend he didn't know they were capable of this.
If Favre doesn't play tonight, his streak of 297 straight starts (321 including postseason games) will end at Ford Field, 1.3 miles from where Gehrig sat in the dugout at Briggs (later Tiger) Stadium.
The only difference in these two players is that Lou Gehrig has a terrible, slow progressing disease named after him, while Brett Favre should have a form of cancer named after him that goes in remission during the months from January to early July, shows some signs of coming back during the month of July and is fully back invading the person's body again from August to late December.
Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week
One of the strangest men I've seen sat across the aisle from me on the Boston-to-New York train Saturday. The guy, about 30, took out his Blackberry power cord when we got on, plugged the phone in, had nothing else out on his little table, and when to work texting and looking at email (I suppose) and Tweets or whatever. He did not get up to use the rest room. He did not get up to get anything to eat, not to ask for anything. He sat for 3 hours and 47 minutes. When the announcement came on that we were pulling into Manhattan, he unplugged the phone, put the power cord back in his bag, and, walking off the train, kept his eyes glued to the device.
d. Santana Moss, who runs like a jackrabbit.
I bet he can't run a marathon like Peter can though. Athlete.
h. The Jets' offense. A disgrace. No offensive touchdowns for nine quarters now. In the span of one week, the New York playoff path has gotten impossible. To reach the Super Bowl -- even if the Jets make the playoffs -- they'd now almost certainly have to win three road games. This team winning at Jacksonville, Pittsburgh and New England? I don't think so.
Was there any doubt once the Jets started running their mouths and were featured on "Hard Knocks" that the Patriots were going to win the AFC East this year? It was pretty much set in stone the Patriots would want to lay the Jets to waste. Also, for those like me who want to prove LaDainian Tomlinson isn't ever going to be the running back he once was, here are his statistics for this year.
Notice he has had double digit carries in every game this year and hasn't posted a 60+ yard game since Week 4. In fact, he hasn't had 4.0 yards per carry average since Week 5. He's still useful as a receiving threat but all his talk this offseason about the Chargers not building the gameplan around him (he thought they should have) seems to make more sense to me. He just can't run the ball very effectively anymore.
5. I think I don't know how you could have an ounce of faith in Carson Palmer this morning, not after handing the Steelers two touchdowns on interception returns, and not after continually misfiring again. It might be time to deal him to San Francisco for a second-round pick in April, Mike Brown. Or a third-.
Right, because the 49ers will just blindly accept this offer. It's not like they have any say in this decision at all.
6. I think it looks so depressing to be a Panthers fan. The empty seats. The hopelessness. That's about as down as a franchise can be.
I'm going to throw a little homer-ism at you. Feel free to skip it if you would like. This year has been depressing, but there isn't a lot of hopelessness for the future...just hopelessness for this year.
I understand Jerry Richardson wanting to pay a new head coach a reasonable salary ($2.5-million, for example, per year), but that franchise might be so far under water that he may have to rethink that future plan and pay Bill Cowher what he's worth.
So hiring big name coaches like Mike Shanahan really pays off doesn't it? Look how good the Redskins are! Who would want a no-name like Mike Smith or John Harbaugh, right? Peter is an absolute moron if he believes paying for a big name coach ensures future success. Even insinuating this is true is very misleading. Teams should find the best coach available, not try to impress everyone with the "name recognition" of the coach.
The Panthers need a facelift.
Carolina needs adjustments, no doubt about that, but there is a lot of talent on the roster. Insinuating otherwise is incorrect. They currently have 2/5 of the offensive line on IR, their starting quarterback and four linebackers on IR. There are a total of 14 players on IR. Even if DeAngelo Williams isn't re-signed, they have Mike Goodson and Jonathan Stewart at running back, a talented offensive line that is young and has shown they can run block, and a great group of young linebackers. They need a quarterback and a head coach who gives a shit and some other adjustments. Really, what is frustrating is there is young talent on the team and the team still stinks.
Carolina needs a headliner more than Atlanta or Baltimore or Pittsburgh did when they made those hires.
This is bullshit. Peter doesn't pay enough attention to Carolina and just assumes they need to get a headliner to be "relevant" since that is all he seems to care about is relevance to the national media. Having Peter King pay attention to the "headliner" coach they bring in should not be the focus of a team. Carolina is like all other NFL teams and they need a competent head coach.
a. RIP, Elizabeth Edwards, noble and smart and betrayed.
Athlete.
d. I see Taylor Swift turns 21 today.
I see Peter King counts down when young female stars become legal or come of drinking age. Really, combined with his staring at people on trains, this isn't creepy. Middle aged men doing this isn't creepy, not at all.
I bet she won't remember me leaving my size-14 hoofprint on her red dress at Saturday Night Live last year.
She won't remember this unless you stared at her for a few hours after that while on a train.
f. Albert Breer of NFL Network tweeted yesterday about the noted Chicago meteorologist Amy Freeze (yes, her real name). I bet he didn't know Amy was a cheerleader at BYU and married the Brigham Young mascot, Cosmo the Cougar. What a Cougar.
Thank you Gregg Easterbrook.
Creepy infatuation with cheerleaders? Check.
Creepy infatuation with young girls? Check.
Infatuation with the Patriots? Check.
Long list of things in his weekly column I don't care about? Check.
i. Beernerdness: What do you think? I'm on the verge of making this a semi-regular category. Give me your input.
Don't.
That's all the input I have.
I thought this would be a big week for coaching news and Brett Favre will-he-or-won't-he, and maybe the Favre/Sterger story. On Sunday afternoon, it was all weather and dome collapse, all the time. By this morning, I'm marveling over Michael Vick and DeSean Jackson. Those are two guys I'd pay to see.
Or you could watch them for free on television since they are on a nationally televised game what seems like every single week. It's your choice. I know it's just a saying but I haven't picked on Peter in a while, so lay off me.
My 10 nuggets, some big and some small, for Week 14:
Are these processed nuggets? Can I Supersize my order?
The Eagle-loving masses think Vick's not only the team MVP but also the NFL's. Cases can be made for both, I suppose. But then what is DeSean Jackson, other than the most exciting player right now in the NFL?
Take DeSean Jackson off the Eagles' team and then take Mike Vick off the Eagles' team. How good would they be without each player? There's your answer to which one is team MVP.
This is a topic for another day, but it's incumbent on the Eagles to do two things -- keep Vick from getting hit too much (I still am concerned about that; he takes too many shots, and not just the borderline ones that tick off Vick and Andy Reid)
I couldn't tell Peter is concerned about this since he only mentions it every single week. Look, if an NFL quarterback can't get hit too much or his body will fall apart, is he worth spending millions of dollars upon when he becomes a free agent? I don't know, I'm asking. Vick has to be able to get hit, it is a part of running with the football, which makes him so dangerous. So taking away the part of the offense that makes him dangerous, which is Vick running with the football, is also taking away part of what makes him so special.
and sign him to a contract that will keep him an Eagle for his prime.
His prime may very well be the year 2010. Vick is a great player but I think it is interesting that Peter refuses to acknowledge the massive amount of motivation Vick has financially to have a great contract year. I'm not saying Vick won't be a good quarterback in the future, but it is a contract year and Vick's financial problems related to having declare bankruptcy make him really motivated to play well. Vick also has a past (in Atlanta) of not working that hard once he got paid. I'm just throwing it out there. Vick could play at this level for the rest of his career, but Peter has already stated Vick is taking a bunch of hits and when he got paid in Atlanta, his work ethic started to get questioned.
I talked to Vikings coach Leslie Frazier just before the team left for Detroit late Sunday afternoon, and he called Favre "questionable'' -- the NFL's 50-50 version of injury-reporting. Frazier said he'd talk to Favre at breakfast today at their Detroit hotel and see whether Favre thought he might be able to get enough movement in the shoulder to play tonight at Ford Field. So the story America hates lives for another day.
And yet for some reason Peter keeps talking about it. If you know your readers hate hearing about a story, why keep writing about it? Why keep going out of your way to report NOTHING and write about the story? Why bother your readers with a topic they clearly don't enjoy? I understand few people like to hear about college basketball, so I don't write about it as much as I do other sports. It's an easy concept that Peter can't seem to grasp.
How about our weekly chart featuring the Patriots from Peter? Sounds good. It wouldn't be MMQB without at least one chart about the Patriots.
But check out the pre- and post-Spygate numbers, including playoff games, for the Patriots under Belichick, and you'll see why the video practices seem so wasteful:
|
Pretty interesting. New England's gone from winning two-thirds of its games with the benefit of taping illegally, to winning three-quarters of its games and scoring six points more per game without taping -- and with so many new pieces on offense.
I'm over Spygate and I don't really care about it anymore, but Peter takes this data and then tries to show us that in his words video taping the practices was potentially "wasteful." There's several variables that I don't think Peter accounted for, and I am not even sure he could have accounted for them. One of those being, and again this is tough to account for, the talent level of the team out on the field. Offensively, it seems like the post-sanction Patriots are much stronger offensively. It's just a much stronger offensive team the Patriots are fielding now. Another factor that Peter doesn't measure here is how many points the opposing team is scoring now, as opposed to how many points teams scored against the Patriots pre-sanctions. it's possible the Patriots benefited from the taping in regard to the other team's defensive gameplan. This is a non-story to me, but I really wouldn't call taping other teams "wasteful." It just doesn't feel right to me...but the story is over so it doesn't even matter. Well, the story is over to me...sports journalists insist on bringing the topic up.It all just proves to me that Belichick used to be and still is the smartest guy in the room ... and how unimportant to everything on the field the videotaping seems to have been.
We could argue that the post-sanction Patriots teams have a great record because they are a great team, while the pre-sanction Patriots had a great record because of the video taping. I'm not saying it is true, but merely acknowledging it is possible the Patriots have a good team now, but wouldn't have won as many games pre-sanctions without the video taping.
6. Matt Cassel for MVP.
In the strict sense of "value,'' it's arguable.
"If you pay attention what the award is supposed to intend and what the award actually means, then Cassel shouldn't win it. But if you ignore the intent of the award this is a controversial thing I just said!"
"Mike Williams of the Seahawks should win Offensive Rookie of the Year. Sure, he may not be a rookie, but if you ignore the strict sense of 'rookie' we could have a debate on this issue."
In the eight games before Week 14, Cassel had thrown 19 touchdowns and one interception. He sat Sunday after having his appendix removed Wednesday, and the Chiefs were absolutely dreadful, losing to San Diego 31-0 and generating 69 yards of offense. Nineteen net passing yards by Brodie Croyle and Tyler Palko. The Chiefs did not have a 30-yard drive.
So the Chiefs struggled in one game and that makes Matt Cassel MVP? I just hate to think the crappiness of a team's backup means the starter is the MVP. If that were the case, as long as Curtis Painter is backing up Peyton Manning, then Manning is the MVP.
With a bully, and I don't mean Rex Ryan. Their head strength and conditioning coach, Sal Alosi, tripped Miami special-teamer Nolan Carroll while he was running down the sideline covering a punt, causing Carroll to limp off the field. I've seen some bush-league things in 26 years covering the NFL, but that's got to be in the top 10. Though Alosi apologized, I think a one-game suspension for affecting the competitive balance of a game is in order.
Personally, I don't like to overreact to situations, but I think Alosi should be suspended for the rest of the year. That was a bullshit move. It appears he will be suspended indefinitely, but I would go ahead and make it the rest of the year...what little is left of the year at least.
Knighton, a nose type with rush ability that a pure space-eater doesn't have, and Alualu are already one of the three or four best defensive-tackle combinations in football, and neither has turned 25. Smith had the courage to take the slings and arrows and make sure he got Alualu without getting cute by trying to pick him lower, and the kid is panning out.
I thought the Jaguars picked Tyson Alualu too early and they could have traded back to get him. I still feel that way, but I do have to give the Jaguars credit for choosing him when they did. Sure, they could have moved back and gotten him later, but they wanted him, so they took him. I was wrong about that and in this year's NFL Draft grades if this type situation happens again I will go easier on a team that does this...depending on the situation of course.
2. New Orleans (10-3).
3. Atlanta (11-2).
I think it is pretty clear Peter King isn't going to give the Falcons any respect. They are the best team in the NFC in my mind. Of course when they make the Super Bowl this year, Peter will pretend he didn't know they were capable of this.
If Favre doesn't play tonight, his streak of 297 straight starts (321 including postseason games) will end at Ford Field, 1.3 miles from where Gehrig sat in the dugout at Briggs (later Tiger) Stadium.
The only difference in these two players is that Lou Gehrig has a terrible, slow progressing disease named after him, while Brett Favre should have a form of cancer named after him that goes in remission during the months from January to early July, shows some signs of coming back during the month of July and is fully back invading the person's body again from August to late December.
Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Note of the Week
One of the strangest men I've seen sat across the aisle from me on the Boston-to-New York train Saturday. The guy, about 30, took out his Blackberry power cord when we got on, plugged the phone in, had nothing else out on his little table, and when to work texting and looking at email (I suppose) and Tweets or whatever. He did not get up to use the rest room. He did not get up to get anything to eat, not to ask for anything. He sat for 3 hours and 47 minutes. When the announcement came on that we were pulling into Manhattan, he unplugged the phone, put the power cord back in his bag, and, walking off the train, kept his eyes glued to the device.
Blackberry rehab, dude.
There's something creepy and annoying about Peter King constantly watching people he sees in public and noting every single little thing they do. There is a difference in people-watching and keeping tabs on a person so well over a period of time even someone who is a stalker would take a step back and say, "you may want to be a little more discreet and not focus so much on that one person. You're probably creeping them out."d. Santana Moss, who runs like a jackrabbit.
I bet he can't run a marathon like Peter can though. Athlete.
h. The Jets' offense. A disgrace. No offensive touchdowns for nine quarters now. In the span of one week, the New York playoff path has gotten impossible. To reach the Super Bowl -- even if the Jets make the playoffs -- they'd now almost certainly have to win three road games. This team winning at Jacksonville, Pittsburgh and New England? I don't think so.
Was there any doubt once the Jets started running their mouths and were featured on "Hard Knocks" that the Patriots were going to win the AFC East this year? It was pretty much set in stone the Patriots would want to lay the Jets to waste. Also, for those like me who want to prove LaDainian Tomlinson isn't ever going to be the running back he once was, here are his statistics for this year.
Notice he has had double digit carries in every game this year and hasn't posted a 60+ yard game since Week 4. In fact, he hasn't had 4.0 yards per carry average since Week 5. He's still useful as a receiving threat but all his talk this offseason about the Chargers not building the gameplan around him (he thought they should have) seems to make more sense to me. He just can't run the ball very effectively anymore.
5. I think I don't know how you could have an ounce of faith in Carson Palmer this morning, not after handing the Steelers two touchdowns on interception returns, and not after continually misfiring again. It might be time to deal him to San Francisco for a second-round pick in April, Mike Brown. Or a third-.
Right, because the 49ers will just blindly accept this offer. It's not like they have any say in this decision at all.
6. I think it looks so depressing to be a Panthers fan. The empty seats. The hopelessness. That's about as down as a franchise can be.
I'm going to throw a little homer-ism at you. Feel free to skip it if you would like. This year has been depressing, but there isn't a lot of hopelessness for the future...just hopelessness for this year.
I understand Jerry Richardson wanting to pay a new head coach a reasonable salary ($2.5-million, for example, per year), but that franchise might be so far under water that he may have to rethink that future plan and pay Bill Cowher what he's worth.
So hiring big name coaches like Mike Shanahan really pays off doesn't it? Look how good the Redskins are! Who would want a no-name like Mike Smith or John Harbaugh, right? Peter is an absolute moron if he believes paying for a big name coach ensures future success. Even insinuating this is true is very misleading. Teams should find the best coach available, not try to impress everyone with the "name recognition" of the coach.
The Panthers need a facelift.
Carolina needs adjustments, no doubt about that, but there is a lot of talent on the roster. Insinuating otherwise is incorrect. They currently have 2/5 of the offensive line on IR, their starting quarterback and four linebackers on IR. There are a total of 14 players on IR. Even if DeAngelo Williams isn't re-signed, they have Mike Goodson and Jonathan Stewart at running back, a talented offensive line that is young and has shown they can run block, and a great group of young linebackers. They need a quarterback and a head coach who gives a shit and some other adjustments. Really, what is frustrating is there is young talent on the team and the team still stinks.
Carolina needs a headliner more than Atlanta or Baltimore or Pittsburgh did when they made those hires.
This is bullshit. Peter doesn't pay enough attention to Carolina and just assumes they need to get a headliner to be "relevant" since that is all he seems to care about is relevance to the national media. Having Peter King pay attention to the "headliner" coach they bring in should not be the focus of a team. Carolina is like all other NFL teams and they need a competent head coach.
a. RIP, Elizabeth Edwards, noble and smart and betrayed.
Athlete.
d. I see Taylor Swift turns 21 today.
I see Peter King counts down when young female stars become legal or come of drinking age. Really, combined with his staring at people on trains, this isn't creepy. Middle aged men doing this isn't creepy, not at all.
I bet she won't remember me leaving my size-14 hoofprint on her red dress at Saturday Night Live last year.
She won't remember this unless you stared at her for a few hours after that while on a train.
f. Albert Breer of NFL Network tweeted yesterday about the noted Chicago meteorologist Amy Freeze (yes, her real name). I bet he didn't know Amy was a cheerleader at BYU and married the Brigham Young mascot, Cosmo the Cougar. What a Cougar.
Thank you Gregg Easterbrook.
Creepy infatuation with cheerleaders? Check.
Creepy infatuation with young girls? Check.
Infatuation with the Patriots? Check.
Long list of things in his weekly column I don't care about? Check.
i. Beernerdness: What do you think? I'm on the verge of making this a semi-regular category. Give me your input.
Don't.
That's all the input I have.
Monday, February 1, 2010
10 comments MMQB Review: The Dead Week Edition
This is the first Monday in a few months there wasn't football the weekend before of some kind. Yes, I don't include the Pro Bowl as "football" because of all the all-star games in all of the major sports, and I am including hockey in there, it's the most pointless. Basketball is at least a little fun to watch when the players don't give a shit. So what does Peter talk about today? Is he going to have an entire column with his aggravating travel notes, will he recommend some different coffees to his readers, or will he finally acknowledge there was an AFC Championship Game last week? Did I think there would come a day when Peter would ignore the Jets and the Colts playing in a big game? No, I didn't...but he did. (Interesting thought: Why doesn't the NFL just play the AFC and NFC Championship Games on different days? Like Saturday or Sunday? I feel rushed on AFC/NFC Championship Sunday having two important games just minutes apart.)
Let's just say we know it was a slower NFL news week when an unconfirmed injury leads of MMQB.
We've got ourselves a story. When the Indianapolis Colts take the practice field Wednesday, everyone who follows the NFL will be interested in learning if Dwight Freeney will be in any kind of shape to play in Super Bowl 44 Sunday against New Orleans.
(cue dramatic music: Dum-dum-dum-dum)
This is a classic staredown between two camps that have a history of lying. Do we believe ESPN and Adam Schefter, who works for ESPN and part of the job responsibility when working for them is to get stories incorrect from time-to-time? Or do we believe the Colts, who have every reason in the world to lie about Freeney's health in order to keep the competitive advantage of making the Saints think he will be out there?
The Colts Sunday night described Freeney's right-ankle injury as a low-ankle sprain. ESPN described it as a serious injury that could keep the standout defensive end out of the Super Bowl, an injury that includes torn ankle ligaments.
As important as this injury is to the Colts, it really doesn't matter to non-Colts fans. All Freeney's injury does to the rest of the world is make it harder to predict who is going to win this game. Also, the Colts described it as a third-degree ankle sprain, which is apparently torn ligaments, or so says ESPN.
If the injury is a Grade 3 ligament injury, sports-injury expert Will Carroll says it means there are ligaments in Freeney's ankle that are more than 50 percent torn. How quickly they can heal after being hurt near the end of the AFC Championship Game ... well, the answer is, not quickly enough, most likely. This is all conjecture now, but I'd expect Freeney will do everything he can to play, and will try to play.
I don't know Peter, are you sure Dwight Freeney is going to do everything he can to play in the Super Bowl? I thought he may take this week off and see if he could make it back for the 5th annual Freeney Family Barbeque in a couple of weeks to play in the flag football game with his relatives. As much as bragging rights are won in these hard fought contests.
I surveyed the AFC locker room last night after the Pro Bowl to see how much of a factor the loss of Freeney would be. The answers were predictable. "This is huge for the Saints if he can't play,'' Ray Lewis said. "Freeney's one of the biggest difference-makers in the league.''
Thanks Ray. I am glad Peter King went to the most analytical and intuitive minds around NFL football, the players themselves, to find out how important the loss of Dwight Freeney would be. Anytime I need to hear a cliche or hyperbole, I know I can count on an NFL player to do that for me. Peter also notes that the answers were "predictable." So the point of this exercise was...?
Here is a little note to Peter King: If you can't figure out how important Dwight Freeney is to the Colts or how big of a loss to the Colts Freeney's injury is, perhaps you are in the wrong profession or need to pay more attention. Really, Peter has to ASK someone how much of a factor not having Freeney on the field would be for the Colts? He can't figure this out for himself? If it was so obvious, why did he ask?
I guess I'm the lucky one; I'm the Pro Football Writers Association's AFC pool reporter, assigned to watch Colts practices and write a daily report for the assembled media on their activities.
I like how Peter slipped that little honor he received in there on us.
"Oh by the way, I am not sure if you heard or not, or have any information about this...but I am pretty fucking important and people know me in the world of the NFL. You are lucky I am even writing this column write now. I should be fondling strippers and doing cocaine off the ass of a hooker because that's what people of my stature do. Care for some cotton candy?"
To those who say defense is an equal part of the game, I say, Why have only seven of the 460-some overtime coin-flip winners in NFL history chosen to play defense first if it's such an equal part of the game?
Because the point of overtime is to score points and most teams find it easier to score points when they are on offense. No one is really saying in overtime defense is an equal part of the game, though that could be argued, it has just been said that playing defense is part of an NFL game as well. So theoretically, the defense of a team should be able to stop the other team's offense in overtime.
This morning I've enlisted former Naval pilot Brian Burke, founder of the site Advance NFL Stats, to make a case about why he thinks the overtime rule should be changed.
Over the past decade, there were 158 overtime games, including the playoffs. There were two ties, and there was one game in which the coin flip winner chose to defend a side of the field rather than choosing to receive. (The Lions in 2002. They lost.) In 96 of the 158 overtimes, or 61 percent, the coin flip winner won the game. And in 58 of the 158 OTs, or 37 percent, the coin flip winner won on their first possession while the loser never touched the ball.
First, a quick and easy improvement would be to restore the kickoff line to the 35 for the overtime kickoff. This would essentially cause lots of touchbacks, forcing the offense of the coin-flip winner to start on the 20, instead of the 30 or so. It sounds like a small difference, but teams with first downs at their own 20 are no more likely to score next than the team currently on defense.
What? That's no fun. A quick and easy improvement? What will all the football sportswriters do when it comes time to write about the NFL overtime? Where are all the convoluted and overly difficult overtime suggestions going to go?
How about there are no kickoffs in overtime and the offense starts at the 20 yard line? I bet we won't hear bitching about the absence of special teams from people who last week who complained about the Vikings full team not deciding the overtime. Those people probably don't count special teams as part of an actual football team.
How about the coin flip is decided at the beginning of the game and the ball starts at the 20 yard line? Is this too easy?
By just getting past a team's own 30-yard line, the team on offense now has a 60 percent chance of scoring next -- exactly the odds we see in the current OT format. Moving the kickoff spot back to the 35 would give both the coin flip winner and loser about an equal chance of winning.
The NFL would never adopt this. It's too easy. Assuming these numbers are accurate, making this adjustment makes sense. I don't even care if there is a kickoff at all, I just want everyone to quit whining about the overtime system.
My feeling is it'll take a one-possession game in the Super Bowl to get any real sentiment to change.
Fortunately, Peter is wrong about things, so maybe he is wrong about this.
One more thing: I knew the winner of the coin clip in New Orleans in the NFC Championship Game would win the game on the first possession. In the stadium, you could just feel it. It was a rock-'em, sock-'em-robot kind of game, and the two teams were absolutely spent by the end of regulation.
Of course Peter knew this. He probably also "knew" this during the Arizona-Green Bay game in the playoffs a few weeks ago and it didn't exactly happen the way everyone thought it would. The Cardinals defense actually made a stop and won the game WITHOUT THE CARDINALS OFFENSE EVERY TOUCHING THE BALL! Amazing! Defense CAN win games in overtime.
You know with all my bitching about overtime, at some point my favorite team is going to lose an important game in overtime and I am going to have to quietly steam. It's going to suck and I am going to blame it on missed calls instead of the actual overtime. Actually, this what I don't get...everyone is so focused on how the NFL overtime was unfair to the Vikings. I think everyone should be focused on the bad pass interference call and questionable catch that was ruled as a catch in overtime. If I were a sportswriter, I would see those two calls had a lot to do with the Saints loss as well.
"I think both Brett [Favre] and Percy [Harvin] were finished by halftime,'' one Viking told me. And the defenses were dragging to the finish line.
Brett Favre. Peter King has mentioned Brett Favre in every MMQB dating back to at least December 2008. Every. Single. Week...he has mentioned something about Brett Favre. I wonder what Deanna and Breleigh thought about their dad getting tired during the game? Isn't there someone who can find this out and quote them? What does little Breleigh think about her daddy being tired? I need to know this!!!
Brett Favre is 40 years old. Him getting tired at the end of a season is a risk you take by having him on the team. Percy Harvin is a rookie who isn't used to playing this long of a season. A rookie hitting a wall at the end of a year is a risk you take by having him on the team. Sympathy denied.
The five things I consider particularly amazing about the Kurt Warner Story:
1. It's the most amazing story in football in a half-century. I don't say that lightly.
Yes you do Peter. You do say this lightly.
Warner, an undrafted free-agent in Packers camp in 1994, was cut by Green Bay and went to work for $5.50 an hour stocking shelves in a Cedar Falls, Iowa, grocery store.
I like Kurt Warner and I thought he did a great job of retiring (it's sad I have to say that these days), but what I find amazing is that Kurt Warner had no fallback job other than stocking shelves in a grocery store. I don't really find this amazing, but more depressing. Did he not care to use his college degree or did he not acquire a skill set to do something else to support his family? This has bothered me for over a decade now.
3. As quickly as he came, he just as quickly vanished. From 2002 to 2006, a five-year window, he was brittle and seemed to fall to earth. With the Giants and Cards, he seemed to settle into a nice little backup role. But inside he seethed and wouldn't accept being relegated to second-string. I call it the five-year Donut Hole in the middle of his career.
Obviously Peter would have a food-related description for this part of Warner's career. Really, why wouldn't he?
Warning. I am going to be an asshole now: Isn't it weird how these older quarterbacks are doing so well later in their career now? We have Favre and Warner playing well into their 40's and upper 30's. If they were baseball players, what would we all think the reasoning for this could be? (Steroids) Why don't we think that about these players? (We are still naive) Think about it. Warner had a ton of injuries, disappeared and then as he was getting older, his numbers actually seemed to trend back towards how good they were when he was younger. If this were a baseball player, we would all believe this guy was on PEDs.
Brett Favre is the same way. He is 40 years and old just went 18 games with little dropoff in production. We attribute it to their "toughness" just like we attributed McGwire and Sosa's home run hitting to their "weight room work ethic." I am not accusing Favre or Warner of not being clean, I just find it interesting we don't really suspect them of anything. It could be due to the drug policy the NFL has for the reason no one suspects them, but for baseball players we are so vigilant, yet in football where are the players are huge, we don't suspect a thing. If anything football players have shown themselves to be more willing to sacrifice their bodies to play their sport than any other athlete in any sport (except hockey). Is it impossible to think a player may take something to prolong his career and get another guaranteed contract?
"What was perfect for me was that Mike [Martz] drew the game up exactly the way I always wanted to play football -- with a lot of quick decisions to be made. He wanted to play decisively, not be afraid to make decisions and live with them. And I had the great toys at my disposal in that offense. I played exactly the way the offense was drawn up by Mike. It was a perfect marriage.''
I don't want to demean Warner's Hall of Fame chances but he only played quarterback really well when he had Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce, Marshall Faulk, Anquan Boldin and Larry Fitzgerald on his team. Basically, if you surrounded Warner with Hall of Fame talent he could elevate his game another level. I don't know if this makes him a Hall of Fame quarterback or not in my mind.
"No question I was skeptical I'd get the job,'' Warner said. "I'd heard it before -- the best man will win -- but sometime it hadn't happened. Here, I knew without a doubt I was the best man for the job. That's not a cut on Matt [Leinart]. And it wasn't a cut on Eli [Manning] when I was with the Giants. But I felt like there were times in my career where it didn't matter what I did, I wasn't going to get the job.
(playing violins for Warner in a sorrowful manner)
Yeah Kurt, at the time and even in retrospect, the Giants were right to start the #1 pick of the NFL Draft over you in New York with the Giants. Playing Manning as much as possible was the right thing to do for the Giants.
He was a meteor across the NFL sky. Twice.
"A meteor across the NFL sky?" I don't even know what to say to this analogy Peter just submitted. Ok I do. It's sort of stupid.
Ten years and one week ago, Warner made the throw he'll always remember. Taking you inside the three plays that will never leave him:
2. Jan. 30, 2000, Super Bowl. Rams 23, Titans 16. Rams up 16-0. Titans score 16 unanswered points. Two minutes left. Warner rears back and fires a bomb, perfectly placed into Isaac Bruce's hands, up the right sideline, for a 73-yard touchdown.
Hmmm. This may be some revisionist history a little bit. It sounds like Warner threw a great pass and Bruce didn't do much. Here is how I remember it.
Kurt Warner rears back and underthrows Isaac Bruce who adjusts well to the pass, catches it, and then makes a move left to get past the Titans defender and outruns the defenders to the end zone. I think that play was more Bruce making a great play than Warner doing anything too special. There wasn't really a "bomb" and it wasn't exactly "perfectly placed" without Bruce's adjustment to the ball.
5. San Diego (13-4). Philip Rivers missed this game because of the birth of his fifth child. Makes population explosion seem worthwhile.
Congratulations Philip Rivers, you have received approval from Peter King to have another child with your wife! I do fail to see why this makes population explosion worthwhile. It's not like we need more Philip Rivers' in the world or anything, nor does it make sense why he is so important as to make population explosion seem worthwhile. I can't figure out Peter King, so I better not try.
7. Arizona (11-7). Good piece Friday by Don Banks on SI.com about Matt Leinart, making the point that Leinart isn't a lost cause. I'd forgotten he was competent as a rookie, completing 60 percent of his throws in five of his last six games.
He's got weapons all around him. I think Matt Leinart is going to be fine in Arizona. It doesn't mean they may not draft a quarterback or sign a free agent quarterback, but I think Leinart will do a good job. He's been there for 4 years, he better know what he is doing by now.
8. Green Bay (11-6). I'll tell you the player the guys in the NFC practice sessions were most impressed with last week -- Aaron Rodgers.
Get the hell off my bandwagon Peter! You don't get near my Aaron Rodgers bandwagon with your coffee stained teeth and undying love for white quarterbacks with facial hair.
10. Philadelphia (11-6). Donovan McNabb, throwing into three of the wrong-colored jerseys on his first Pro Bowl series, looking very much like he looked in the last eight quarters of the year against Dallas.
I think McNabb should start for the Eagles next year, but I can't help but think about a quarterback for my favorite team who just started throwing to the wrong team and his team still hung with him causing the collapse of an entire half season. Possibly I am scarred and McNabb won't have this happen to him and I don't think it will, but I can't help but think this.
13. Carolina (8-8). I see where Julius Peppers' agent says he hasn't heard from the Panthers about a long-term deal. Where would talks for such a deal start -- $20-million a year? His contract is so stratospheric it's going to be impossible for anyone to pay him what he thinks he's worth after Peppers earned more than $18 million this year.
Three fun facts about Julius Peppers:
1. He played well this year but he was the reason the Panthers had special teams and defensive line problems early in the year. Because of his franchise tag, they couldn't sign their experienced special teams guys or a veteran defensive tackle.
2. He turned down a contract making him the highest paid defensive player in the NFL two years ago. What else does he want? I don't think neither he nor his agent knows.
3. He doesn't try hard every game. I have been killed by Panthers fans for suggesting this, but if you watch him, it's true. Some games he shows up, other games he doesn't, and he has been doing this for over 10 years now. He's from North Carolina, he went to UNC-CH, and he plays for the Panthers, which is the only reason he hasn't gotten more heat for this.
Kurt Warner, Colin Powell, Steve Forbes, Rudy Giuliani and Laura Bush will be featured at an all-day motivational speaking event, "GET MOTIVATED'', at the U.S Airways Center Thursday in Phoenix. "Send your entire office for only $159!'' the ad blares.
What if you are too lazy to sign up? Is there someone that can do that for potential attendees?
3. I think this is the luck of the Raiders: one injury Sunday night, and it was an undisclosed knee injury to Nnamdi Asomugha.
The Raiders don't have bad luck at all. They make bad personnel decisions so they create their own bad luck. If anything, it's karma or some other force of nature that has caused the one guy they got right coming out of the draft to get injured...they are being punished for not trading him to a better team and salvaging his career. If the Raiders stink this upcoming year, it won't be because of injuries.
4. I think this is the best unkept secret in the NFL: Roger Goodell told Rich Eisen of NFL Network last night that the uncapped year in 2010 is "virtually certain.'' With the deadline for a new agreement being March 5 (and I can tell you a new deal will be signed closer to March 5, 2012 than March 5, 2010),
I love the NFL and I will always watch the NFL. I think the NFL is also the most popular sport in the United States. But...if there is a lockout or any type of strike between the players and the owners, I don't think this will be good for the NFL. The last thing many people in the United States care about is two groups of millionaires squabbling over money, especially in a time when unemployment is in double digits. Even when unemployment has gone down and the United States is in better financial shape, I still think there won't be much of a stomach from fans for millionaires arguing with each other. People will think they and the rest of the country had to sacrifice for a period of time, so the problems of millionaires doesn't bother them. It's just a perception problem. The NFL may immediately regain it's popularity, but I still don't think a lockout is a good thing long-term for the sport.
5. I think I understand, and appreciate, the strident feelings on each side of the Tim Tebow argument. And I saw a good chunk of the Senior Bowl Saturday, and saw the same things you did. Tebow is noticeably slow in his mechanics and footwork. In his plodding performance, Tebow showed he'll need a redshirt year in the NFL to get his game up to speed with the rest of the league. "I think he needs to be stripped down completely, like a 12-year-old kid in Pop Warner, and rebuilt as a quarterback,'' said ESPN's Todd McShay, probably the harshest critic of Tebow.
Ladies and gentlemen, he may be a 1st round pick, yet he has all these questions about him. I may have more about this tomorrow, but I am firmly in Todd McShay's camp.
I was reading a good profile of Floyd Little by Mark Kiszla in the Denver Post last night and it hit home again how important it is to the men involved.
8. I think these are a few thoughts about the Pro Bowl, which I will heap disdain on from now 'til the end of time:
The all-star games in major sports aren't generally that interesting. I know most people hate how the MLB All-Star game is tied to who gets homefield advantage in the World Series. I am not a huge fan, but I don't know of another way, outside of team record to decide this. Even though most people hate how baseball ties the World Series homefield advantage to the winner of the All-Star Game, it at least makes the game interesting to watch. Many other all-star games are boring to watch because the players either aren't trying or it is obvious no one really wants to be there. There is no defense in either the Pro Bowl or NBA All-Star Game. At least the MLB All-Star gives the viewer something that is still viewable as baseball to watch.
World Series homefield advantage aside, the MLB All-Star Game is still competitive and at least the players look like they are trying. That's why the MLB All-Star Game is the only all-star game I would consider watching for an extended period of time on television. I know I may be in the minority on that.
d. I am honored, touched, pleased and humbled by those of you who came up to me at the stadium last night and chatted with me about Monday Morning Quarterback and SI stories you recall fondly. Thanks. It means a lot to me.
Peter certainly sounds nice, but next time we see Peter King in public he will have a group of armed guards around him to prevent his fans from talking to him. This is a man who didn't have time to talk about the AFC Championship Game in his MMQB, so he doesn't have time to talk to everyone who reads his MMQB. That's like a thousand people or something.
Memo to Dolphins PR-meister Harvey Greene: That press box runs like clockwork, and you and the NFL had it all together Sunday night as you always do. But that coffee needs to be shot at sunrise. It tastes like three-year-old coffee thrice-Microwaved, the kind of coffee prisoners at Leavenworth would spit out, then follow with a complaint to their lawyer about cruel and unusual punishment.
Is there anything less endearing than someone who complains about free coffee? If you don't like the coffee, go buy a beer or go find better coffee. It's not like it is incredibly expensive. The coffee at my work tastes like ass but every morning I have a steaming mug of it, because it's free and fairly rude to bitch and moan about free coffee. Most individuals just accept free coffee, unless you have an overly healthy dose of self-importance about you and think the world is here to please you, so the free coffee must be top of the line free coffee...you know, like Peter seems to think.
One more week until the Super Bowl and then that will be all the live football-related observations we can get from Peter for this year. Let's not act too sad about this, he will still have his off-season observations that are equally as worthy of being written about.
Let's just say we know it was a slower NFL news week when an unconfirmed injury leads of MMQB.
We've got ourselves a story. When the Indianapolis Colts take the practice field Wednesday, everyone who follows the NFL will be interested in learning if Dwight Freeney will be in any kind of shape to play in Super Bowl 44 Sunday against New Orleans.
(cue dramatic music: Dum-dum-dum-dum)
This is a classic staredown between two camps that have a history of lying. Do we believe ESPN and Adam Schefter, who works for ESPN and part of the job responsibility when working for them is to get stories incorrect from time-to-time? Or do we believe the Colts, who have every reason in the world to lie about Freeney's health in order to keep the competitive advantage of making the Saints think he will be out there?
The Colts Sunday night described Freeney's right-ankle injury as a low-ankle sprain. ESPN described it as a serious injury that could keep the standout defensive end out of the Super Bowl, an injury that includes torn ankle ligaments.
As important as this injury is to the Colts, it really doesn't matter to non-Colts fans. All Freeney's injury does to the rest of the world is make it harder to predict who is going to win this game. Also, the Colts described it as a third-degree ankle sprain, which is apparently torn ligaments, or so says ESPN.
If the injury is a Grade 3 ligament injury, sports-injury expert Will Carroll says it means there are ligaments in Freeney's ankle that are more than 50 percent torn. How quickly they can heal after being hurt near the end of the AFC Championship Game ... well, the answer is, not quickly enough, most likely. This is all conjecture now, but I'd expect Freeney will do everything he can to play, and will try to play.
I don't know Peter, are you sure Dwight Freeney is going to do everything he can to play in the Super Bowl? I thought he may take this week off and see if he could make it back for the 5th annual Freeney Family Barbeque in a couple of weeks to play in the flag football game with his relatives. As much as bragging rights are won in these hard fought contests.
I surveyed the AFC locker room last night after the Pro Bowl to see how much of a factor the loss of Freeney would be. The answers were predictable. "This is huge for the Saints if he can't play,'' Ray Lewis said. "Freeney's one of the biggest difference-makers in the league.''
Thanks Ray. I am glad Peter King went to the most analytical and intuitive minds around NFL football, the players themselves, to find out how important the loss of Dwight Freeney would be. Anytime I need to hear a cliche or hyperbole, I know I can count on an NFL player to do that for me. Peter also notes that the answers were "predictable." So the point of this exercise was...?
Here is a little note to Peter King: If you can't figure out how important Dwight Freeney is to the Colts or how big of a loss to the Colts Freeney's injury is, perhaps you are in the wrong profession or need to pay more attention. Really, Peter has to ASK someone how much of a factor not having Freeney on the field would be for the Colts? He can't figure this out for himself? If it was so obvious, why did he ask?
I guess I'm the lucky one; I'm the Pro Football Writers Association's AFC pool reporter, assigned to watch Colts practices and write a daily report for the assembled media on their activities.
I like how Peter slipped that little honor he received in there on us.
"Oh by the way, I am not sure if you heard or not, or have any information about this...but I am pretty fucking important and people know me in the world of the NFL. You are lucky I am even writing this column write now. I should be fondling strippers and doing cocaine off the ass of a hooker because that's what people of my stature do. Care for some cotton candy?"
To those who say defense is an equal part of the game, I say, Why have only seven of the 460-some overtime coin-flip winners in NFL history chosen to play defense first if it's such an equal part of the game?
Because the point of overtime is to score points and most teams find it easier to score points when they are on offense. No one is really saying in overtime defense is an equal part of the game, though that could be argued, it has just been said that playing defense is part of an NFL game as well. So theoretically, the defense of a team should be able to stop the other team's offense in overtime.
This morning I've enlisted former Naval pilot Brian Burke, founder of the site Advance NFL Stats, to make a case about why he thinks the overtime rule should be changed.
Over the past decade, there were 158 overtime games, including the playoffs. There were two ties, and there was one game in which the coin flip winner chose to defend a side of the field rather than choosing to receive. (The Lions in 2002. They lost.) In 96 of the 158 overtimes, or 61 percent, the coin flip winner won the game. And in 58 of the 158 OTs, or 37 percent, the coin flip winner won on their first possession while the loser never touched the ball.
First, a quick and easy improvement would be to restore the kickoff line to the 35 for the overtime kickoff. This would essentially cause lots of touchbacks, forcing the offense of the coin-flip winner to start on the 20, instead of the 30 or so. It sounds like a small difference, but teams with first downs at their own 20 are no more likely to score next than the team currently on defense.
What? That's no fun. A quick and easy improvement? What will all the football sportswriters do when it comes time to write about the NFL overtime? Where are all the convoluted and overly difficult overtime suggestions going to go?
How about there are no kickoffs in overtime and the offense starts at the 20 yard line? I bet we won't hear bitching about the absence of special teams from people who last week who complained about the Vikings full team not deciding the overtime. Those people probably don't count special teams as part of an actual football team.
How about the coin flip is decided at the beginning of the game and the ball starts at the 20 yard line? Is this too easy?
By just getting past a team's own 30-yard line, the team on offense now has a 60 percent chance of scoring next -- exactly the odds we see in the current OT format. Moving the kickoff spot back to the 35 would give both the coin flip winner and loser about an equal chance of winning.
The NFL would never adopt this. It's too easy. Assuming these numbers are accurate, making this adjustment makes sense. I don't even care if there is a kickoff at all, I just want everyone to quit whining about the overtime system.
My feeling is it'll take a one-possession game in the Super Bowl to get any real sentiment to change.
Fortunately, Peter is wrong about things, so maybe he is wrong about this.
One more thing: I knew the winner of the coin clip in New Orleans in the NFC Championship Game would win the game on the first possession. In the stadium, you could just feel it. It was a rock-'em, sock-'em-robot kind of game, and the two teams were absolutely spent by the end of regulation.
Of course Peter knew this. He probably also "knew" this during the Arizona-Green Bay game in the playoffs a few weeks ago and it didn't exactly happen the way everyone thought it would. The Cardinals defense actually made a stop and won the game WITHOUT THE CARDINALS OFFENSE EVERY TOUCHING THE BALL! Amazing! Defense CAN win games in overtime.
You know with all my bitching about overtime, at some point my favorite team is going to lose an important game in overtime and I am going to have to quietly steam. It's going to suck and I am going to blame it on missed calls instead of the actual overtime. Actually, this what I don't get...everyone is so focused on how the NFL overtime was unfair to the Vikings. I think everyone should be focused on the bad pass interference call and questionable catch that was ruled as a catch in overtime. If I were a sportswriter, I would see those two calls had a lot to do with the Saints loss as well.
"I think both Brett [Favre] and Percy [Harvin] were finished by halftime,'' one Viking told me. And the defenses were dragging to the finish line.
Brett Favre. Peter King has mentioned Brett Favre in every MMQB dating back to at least December 2008. Every. Single. Week...he has mentioned something about Brett Favre. I wonder what Deanna and Breleigh thought about their dad getting tired during the game? Isn't there someone who can find this out and quote them? What does little Breleigh think about her daddy being tired? I need to know this!!!
Brett Favre is 40 years old. Him getting tired at the end of a season is a risk you take by having him on the team. Percy Harvin is a rookie who isn't used to playing this long of a season. A rookie hitting a wall at the end of a year is a risk you take by having him on the team. Sympathy denied.
The five things I consider particularly amazing about the Kurt Warner Story:
1. It's the most amazing story in football in a half-century. I don't say that lightly.
Yes you do Peter. You do say this lightly.
Warner, an undrafted free-agent in Packers camp in 1994, was cut by Green Bay and went to work for $5.50 an hour stocking shelves in a Cedar Falls, Iowa, grocery store.
I like Kurt Warner and I thought he did a great job of retiring (it's sad I have to say that these days), but what I find amazing is that Kurt Warner had no fallback job other than stocking shelves in a grocery store. I don't really find this amazing, but more depressing. Did he not care to use his college degree or did he not acquire a skill set to do something else to support his family? This has bothered me for over a decade now.
3. As quickly as he came, he just as quickly vanished. From 2002 to 2006, a five-year window, he was brittle and seemed to fall to earth. With the Giants and Cards, he seemed to settle into a nice little backup role. But inside he seethed and wouldn't accept being relegated to second-string. I call it the five-year Donut Hole in the middle of his career.
Obviously Peter would have a food-related description for this part of Warner's career. Really, why wouldn't he?
Warning. I am going to be an asshole now: Isn't it weird how these older quarterbacks are doing so well later in their career now? We have Favre and Warner playing well into their 40's and upper 30's. If they were baseball players, what would we all think the reasoning for this could be? (Steroids) Why don't we think that about these players? (We are still naive) Think about it. Warner had a ton of injuries, disappeared and then as he was getting older, his numbers actually seemed to trend back towards how good they were when he was younger. If this were a baseball player, we would all believe this guy was on PEDs.
Brett Favre is the same way. He is 40 years and old just went 18 games with little dropoff in production. We attribute it to their "toughness" just like we attributed McGwire and Sosa's home run hitting to their "weight room work ethic." I am not accusing Favre or Warner of not being clean, I just find it interesting we don't really suspect them of anything. It could be due to the drug policy the NFL has for the reason no one suspects them, but for baseball players we are so vigilant, yet in football where are the players are huge, we don't suspect a thing. If anything football players have shown themselves to be more willing to sacrifice their bodies to play their sport than any other athlete in any sport (except hockey). Is it impossible to think a player may take something to prolong his career and get another guaranteed contract?
"What was perfect for me was that Mike [Martz] drew the game up exactly the way I always wanted to play football -- with a lot of quick decisions to be made. He wanted to play decisively, not be afraid to make decisions and live with them. And I had the great toys at my disposal in that offense. I played exactly the way the offense was drawn up by Mike. It was a perfect marriage.''
I don't want to demean Warner's Hall of Fame chances but he only played quarterback really well when he had Torry Holt, Isaac Bruce, Marshall Faulk, Anquan Boldin and Larry Fitzgerald on his team. Basically, if you surrounded Warner with Hall of Fame talent he could elevate his game another level. I don't know if this makes him a Hall of Fame quarterback or not in my mind.
"No question I was skeptical I'd get the job,'' Warner said. "I'd heard it before -- the best man will win -- but sometime it hadn't happened. Here, I knew without a doubt I was the best man for the job. That's not a cut on Matt [Leinart]. And it wasn't a cut on Eli [Manning] when I was with the Giants. But I felt like there were times in my career where it didn't matter what I did, I wasn't going to get the job.
(playing violins for Warner in a sorrowful manner)
Yeah Kurt, at the time and even in retrospect, the Giants were right to start the #1 pick of the NFL Draft over you in New York with the Giants. Playing Manning as much as possible was the right thing to do for the Giants.
He was a meteor across the NFL sky. Twice.
"A meteor across the NFL sky?" I don't even know what to say to this analogy Peter just submitted. Ok I do. It's sort of stupid.
Ten years and one week ago, Warner made the throw he'll always remember. Taking you inside the three plays that will never leave him:
2. Jan. 30, 2000, Super Bowl. Rams 23, Titans 16. Rams up 16-0. Titans score 16 unanswered points. Two minutes left. Warner rears back and fires a bomb, perfectly placed into Isaac Bruce's hands, up the right sideline, for a 73-yard touchdown.
Hmmm. This may be some revisionist history a little bit. It sounds like Warner threw a great pass and Bruce didn't do much. Here is how I remember it.
Kurt Warner rears back and underthrows Isaac Bruce who adjusts well to the pass, catches it, and then makes a move left to get past the Titans defender and outruns the defenders to the end zone. I think that play was more Bruce making a great play than Warner doing anything too special. There wasn't really a "bomb" and it wasn't exactly "perfectly placed" without Bruce's adjustment to the ball.
5. San Diego (13-4). Philip Rivers missed this game because of the birth of his fifth child. Makes population explosion seem worthwhile.
Congratulations Philip Rivers, you have received approval from Peter King to have another child with your wife! I do fail to see why this makes population explosion worthwhile. It's not like we need more Philip Rivers' in the world or anything, nor does it make sense why he is so important as to make population explosion seem worthwhile. I can't figure out Peter King, so I better not try.
7. Arizona (11-7). Good piece Friday by Don Banks on SI.com about Matt Leinart, making the point that Leinart isn't a lost cause. I'd forgotten he was competent as a rookie, completing 60 percent of his throws in five of his last six games.
He's got weapons all around him. I think Matt Leinart is going to be fine in Arizona. It doesn't mean they may not draft a quarterback or sign a free agent quarterback, but I think Leinart will do a good job. He's been there for 4 years, he better know what he is doing by now.
8. Green Bay (11-6). I'll tell you the player the guys in the NFC practice sessions were most impressed with last week -- Aaron Rodgers.
Get the hell off my bandwagon Peter! You don't get near my Aaron Rodgers bandwagon with your coffee stained teeth and undying love for white quarterbacks with facial hair.
10. Philadelphia (11-6). Donovan McNabb, throwing into three of the wrong-colored jerseys on his first Pro Bowl series, looking very much like he looked in the last eight quarters of the year against Dallas.
I think McNabb should start for the Eagles next year, but I can't help but think about a quarterback for my favorite team who just started throwing to the wrong team and his team still hung with him causing the collapse of an entire half season. Possibly I am scarred and McNabb won't have this happen to him and I don't think it will, but I can't help but think this.
13. Carolina (8-8). I see where Julius Peppers' agent says he hasn't heard from the Panthers about a long-term deal. Where would talks for such a deal start -- $20-million a year? His contract is so stratospheric it's going to be impossible for anyone to pay him what he thinks he's worth after Peppers earned more than $18 million this year.
Three fun facts about Julius Peppers:
1. He played well this year but he was the reason the Panthers had special teams and defensive line problems early in the year. Because of his franchise tag, they couldn't sign their experienced special teams guys or a veteran defensive tackle.
2. He turned down a contract making him the highest paid defensive player in the NFL two years ago. What else does he want? I don't think neither he nor his agent knows.
3. He doesn't try hard every game. I have been killed by Panthers fans for suggesting this, but if you watch him, it's true. Some games he shows up, other games he doesn't, and he has been doing this for over 10 years now. He's from North Carolina, he went to UNC-CH, and he plays for the Panthers, which is the only reason he hasn't gotten more heat for this.
Kurt Warner, Colin Powell, Steve Forbes, Rudy Giuliani and Laura Bush will be featured at an all-day motivational speaking event, "GET MOTIVATED'', at the U.S Airways Center Thursday in Phoenix. "Send your entire office for only $159!'' the ad blares.
What if you are too lazy to sign up? Is there someone that can do that for potential attendees?
3. I think this is the luck of the Raiders: one injury Sunday night, and it was an undisclosed knee injury to Nnamdi Asomugha.
The Raiders don't have bad luck at all. They make bad personnel decisions so they create their own bad luck. If anything, it's karma or some other force of nature that has caused the one guy they got right coming out of the draft to get injured...they are being punished for not trading him to a better team and salvaging his career. If the Raiders stink this upcoming year, it won't be because of injuries.
4. I think this is the best unkept secret in the NFL: Roger Goodell told Rich Eisen of NFL Network last night that the uncapped year in 2010 is "virtually certain.'' With the deadline for a new agreement being March 5 (and I can tell you a new deal will be signed closer to March 5, 2012 than March 5, 2010),
I love the NFL and I will always watch the NFL. I think the NFL is also the most popular sport in the United States. But...if there is a lockout or any type of strike between the players and the owners, I don't think this will be good for the NFL. The last thing many people in the United States care about is two groups of millionaires squabbling over money, especially in a time when unemployment is in double digits. Even when unemployment has gone down and the United States is in better financial shape, I still think there won't be much of a stomach from fans for millionaires arguing with each other. People will think they and the rest of the country had to sacrifice for a period of time, so the problems of millionaires doesn't bother them. It's just a perception problem. The NFL may immediately regain it's popularity, but I still don't think a lockout is a good thing long-term for the sport.
5. I think I understand, and appreciate, the strident feelings on each side of the Tim Tebow argument. And I saw a good chunk of the Senior Bowl Saturday, and saw the same things you did. Tebow is noticeably slow in his mechanics and footwork. In his plodding performance, Tebow showed he'll need a redshirt year in the NFL to get his game up to speed with the rest of the league. "I think he needs to be stripped down completely, like a 12-year-old kid in Pop Warner, and rebuilt as a quarterback,'' said ESPN's Todd McShay, probably the harshest critic of Tebow.
Ladies and gentlemen, he may be a 1st round pick, yet he has all these questions about him. I may have more about this tomorrow, but I am firmly in Todd McShay's camp.
I was reading a good profile of Floyd Little by Mark Kiszla in the Denver Post last night and it hit home again how important it is to the men involved.
Little told Kiszla: "Do you know the average life expectancy of an NFL player? It's 58. And you're talking to a 67-year-old man. So I'm already on borrowed time. I don't have that many years left on this earth. I don't want to go in the Hall posthumously. No sir. That's not for me. I need to be alive to enjoy the celebration with family and friends. Forget posthumously. If I'm not here to enjoy it, give the honor to somebody who's still breathing."
Ah yes. Floyd Little is using the old, "I am going to die soon, so give a dying old man a thrill and vote him in the Hall of Fame while he is still alive" guilt trip. Usually this type guilt trip is followed by a minor coughing fit into a tissue if the guilt-er is doing it correctly.8. I think these are a few thoughts about the Pro Bowl, which I will heap disdain on from now 'til the end of time:
The all-star games in major sports aren't generally that interesting. I know most people hate how the MLB All-Star game is tied to who gets homefield advantage in the World Series. I am not a huge fan, but I don't know of another way, outside of team record to decide this. Even though most people hate how baseball ties the World Series homefield advantage to the winner of the All-Star Game, it at least makes the game interesting to watch. Many other all-star games are boring to watch because the players either aren't trying or it is obvious no one really wants to be there. There is no defense in either the Pro Bowl or NBA All-Star Game. At least the MLB All-Star gives the viewer something that is still viewable as baseball to watch.
World Series homefield advantage aside, the MLB All-Star Game is still competitive and at least the players look like they are trying. That's why the MLB All-Star Game is the only all-star game I would consider watching for an extended period of time on television. I know I may be in the minority on that.
d. I am honored, touched, pleased and humbled by those of you who came up to me at the stadium last night and chatted with me about Monday Morning Quarterback and SI stories you recall fondly. Thanks. It means a lot to me.
Peter certainly sounds nice, but next time we see Peter King in public he will have a group of armed guards around him to prevent his fans from talking to him. This is a man who didn't have time to talk about the AFC Championship Game in his MMQB, so he doesn't have time to talk to everyone who reads his MMQB. That's like a thousand people or something.
Memo to Dolphins PR-meister Harvey Greene: That press box runs like clockwork, and you and the NFL had it all together Sunday night as you always do. But that coffee needs to be shot at sunrise. It tastes like three-year-old coffee thrice-Microwaved, the kind of coffee prisoners at Leavenworth would spit out, then follow with a complaint to their lawyer about cruel and unusual punishment.
Is there anything less endearing than someone who complains about free coffee? If you don't like the coffee, go buy a beer or go find better coffee. It's not like it is incredibly expensive. The coffee at my work tastes like ass but every morning I have a steaming mug of it, because it's free and fairly rude to bitch and moan about free coffee. Most individuals just accept free coffee, unless you have an overly healthy dose of self-importance about you and think the world is here to please you, so the free coffee must be top of the line free coffee...you know, like Peter seems to think.
One more week until the Super Bowl and then that will be all the live football-related observations we can get from Peter for this year. Let's not act too sad about this, he will still have his off-season observations that are equally as worthy of being written about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)