Murray Chass and the writing he posts on his non-blog hasn't really been covered by me of late. He's usually at his best (worst) when it comes time for awards season, because that's when he takes his boring and repetitious stabs at criticizing Sabermetrics. He specifically doesn't like WAR, not because he understands WAR, but because it is the easiest metric to spell. Simplicity in all things. WAR is the most popular advanced statistic for the anti-stats crowd to criticize, just because it's easy to spell and sticks in one's mind. Murray writes on his non-blog about how Bryce Harper and Mike Trout are not MVP candidates as much anymore because their team may not make the playoffs. Murray wants to be clear that he understands a team's record and whether that team makes the playoffs isn't what determines which player(s) should win the MVP. That's not what Murray is saying. What he is saying is that he won't vote for a player as MVP if his team doesn't make the playoffs, because he can't be individually valuable if the players around him aren't good enough to make the playoffs. So the MVP can go to a player whose team doesn't make the playoffs, except not really. As always, Murray explains his idiotic point of view in the most aggravating way possible.
At some relatively early point in the season some people were already
proclaiming Bryce Harper and Mike Trout this year’s most valuable
players.
Yes, "people" were doing this. "People" always do this, especially when referenced in such a vague manner.
Send the plaques to the engraver, etch their names on them and just wait for an appropriate moment to put them in their hands.
That appropriate moment being when that appropriate moment always happens, which is after the season is over.
One minor problem. Four weeks remain in the season, and no votes have been cast. The voters haven’t even received their ballots.
What? So "people" are going to have stop handing the MVP awards to Harper and Trout. Stop that, "people" who are doing this! Stop right now. Murray will further explain why you must immediately stop or face the wrath of bacne accusations from Murray on this here non-blog.
Both Trout and Harper have encountered potholes en route to their anticipated awards.
Both have been only slightly worse at hitting the baseball in the second half of the season (or were when Murray wrote this), and therefore even though they are still hitting the hell out of the ball Murray is going to use this as an excuse to say neither player should be MVP? Is that the pothole?
Their teams, contenders earlier in the season, have fallen by the wayside.
Individual awards presented to a player based on his team's achievement. It's a shining day for those who seem to think individual athletes should be rewarded based on the team around him. I am not one of those people.
The Angels were in first place in the A.L. West at the All-Star
break, but they lost 27 of 41 games before Sunday and fell 5 ½ games
from the division lead and 3 ½ games off the second wild-card spot.
The Nationals were also in first place at the All-Star break in the
N.L. East, but a subsequent 20-26 stretch left them in second place
fighting for their post-season lives as the Mets barreled past them with
a rejuvenated offensive onslaught.
And obviously, because the Mets are a better overall team than the Nationals then this means Bryce Harper is less valuable. The Nationals team moves down in the standings, but this is really just a reflection on one person's ability to be valuable. Harper is the constant for the Nationals, but his value is determined by the variables around him. Makes sense in Murray's head.
What does their teams’ status have to do with their candidacy for the most valuable player award?
Not as much as Murray seems to think it should. I won't completely dismiss a team's record when evaluating a player's MVP candidacy, but it's pretty far down the list of things I believe should be considered when evaluating a specific player.
Voters generally focus on the word “value,” which is what they should do
no matter what the analytics-obsessed non-voters think and say.
I don't think analytics-obsessed non-voters fail to focus on the word "value" at all. Some people simply have a different method they use to evaluate a player's value. That's all. Murray wants to frame this as a "right or wrong" argument, but it's more of an argument over the best way to evaluate a player's value to his team.
These relatively new-to-the-party noisemakers fail to understand the
award’s meaning. They cite their WAR rankings – that would be wins above
replacement for the ignorant and unwashed among you – and proclaim the
player with the highest WAR ranking most valuable.
Murray is always using WAR. It's easy to write, that's why. I don't know if anyone just looks at WAR and then ends the discussion there. Murray wants to believe this is true so he can portray those who use WAR as a way to evaluate an MVP candidate as being narrow-minded and not thoughtful. In reality, Murray is the narrow-minded and not thoughtful person when tying a team's record to a member of that team's MVP candidacy.
The player’s value to his team doesn’t seem to have a bearing on his
selection. In other words, they are choosing the player they think is
the best in the league, not the most valuable.
What is the difference in "best" and "most valuable" though? Isn't a player who contributes the most Wins Above Replacement the "most valuable" player because he contributes the most wins compared to a replacement player? I'm playing devil's advocate in part, but a player who brings the most wins compared to other players in the majors is certainly also most valuable. It's not that anyone who disagrees with Murray is wrong, as he insists they are, it's is simply that those who are new-to-the-party use a different method of determining the best in the league.
That’s what is good about the Baseball Writers Association award. They require the voters to think, perhaps to debate.
If thinking were really required then I would have to think many of these voters would understand it doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to base a significant part of a player's MVP candidacy on where that player's team is in the playoff standings. The whole "If he was so good then why didn't his team make the playoffs?" line of reasoning is such a shockingly lazy way of voting for MVP. Yet, that's the reasoning given by Murray and other voters when explaining why they didn't vote for a certain player. It's so lazy.
WAR doesn’t require thinking, as far as I know.
It doesn't require thinking? Then calculate Bryce Harper's WAR right now. Go for it.
WAR is a statistic, which after being calculated, speaks for itself. This is much like where a player's team is in the standings doesn't require thinking either. How WAR combines with other factors that determine a player's MVP worthiness is a matter of debate and thought.
If I’m wrong, I’m sure someone will tell me.
Murray says this as if it is ridiculous someone would correct him when he's wrong. Yes, God forbid someone should tell Murray when he's disseminating misleading or incorrect information. It just shows how these Stats Geeks love to be right that they won't allow Murray to unfairly criticize and mock advanced statistics without them pointing out the factual inaccuracies in his arguments. How silly of them to expect Murray to be honest and informed.
I recall the BBWAA selection of Justin Morneau as A.L. MVP in 2006. The
metrics monster attacked the choice as if it were a violation of one of
the 10 Commandments. They brought out their rankings and proudly and
boastfully showed why Morneau should not have received the award. Again,
they failed to consider Morneau’s value to the Twins, counting only his
value to their WAR rankings.
If I remember correctly, the argument was being made that Justin Morneau may not have been even the MVP of his own team. Joe Mauer hit .347/.429/.507 that season while playing the position of catcher, while Morneau hit more dingerz but hit .321/.375/.559 while playing first base. Yes, Mauer had a higher WAR then Morneau that season, but Morneau's selection as AL MVP was questioned in that he may not have even been the most valuable player on his own team, much less the most valuable American League player.
If their teams don’t make the playoffs, it could undermine their chances
for MVP. I’m not saying a player’s team has to reach the post-season,
but if, say, the Angels fall short, how valuable was Trout?
Murray isn't saying a player's team has to reach the postseason, but if a player's team doesn't reach the postseason then how could he be valuable? That's his point apparently. So it's not required for a player's team to make the playoffs, except it sort of is. And to expect a player to singlehandedly drag his team to the playoffs is unrealistic. Trout can still be the most valuable player in the American League if the team around him just isn't very good.
That would especially be the case if a playoff team had a player who was
valuable in helping his team get to the playoffs. I’ll get to those
players after looking at another element of the award that outsiders
don’t understand.
Yes, those things "outsiders" don't understand. Murray wrote about sports for a living a decade ago and those people who love baseball don't understand those things that Murray understands. It's fun how Murray brags about the BBWAA voters being open-minded and up for a debate, while using closed-minded and narrow reasoning for why he personally understands the debate better than those without a vote understand the debate.
Both Goldschmidt, Arizona’s first baseman, and Arenado, Colorado’s third baseman, are having terrific seasons, but MVP?
If they are the most valuable player in the National League, regardless of how good their teams are, then they should be considered for NL MVP.
The Diamondbacks started Sunday tied for third in the N.L. West. The
Rockies were in last place in the division, both with losing records. As
good as Goldschmidt and Arenado have been, what have they done that is
so valuable? Maybe the Rockies could have lost a few more games than the
79 they have already lost.
Probably the same thing Josh Donaldson has done to make himself so valuable. They are good players who put up great statistics, except Paul Goldschmidt doesn't have David Price, Edwin Encarnacion, Jose Bautista and and Russell Martin on his team. Here's a question for Murray. If Josh Donaldson put up the exact same numbers, but played for the Diamondbacks, does he believe the Diamondbacks would then make the playoffs while the Blue Jays with Goldschmidt would miss the playoffs? If he does, he is stupid because that's ridiculous, and if he doesn't, then how does it make sense for Donaldson to be suddenly less valuable because he plays for a Diamondbacks team that stinks?
Once more these analysts, whether or not they realized it, were mistaking “best” for “most valuable.”
Once more Murray Chass, whether he realizes it or not, doesn't understand that the argument is over how to evaluate what makes a player so valuable.
Despite the Nationals’ effort to undermine Harper’s chances, they
have been in post-season contention and continue to be even if they have
been shoved to the fringe, and Harper has been the primary reason.
He leads the league in batting average (.337), on-base (.469) and
slugging (.647) percentages and runs scored (100), is second in walks
(106) and total bases (280) and is third in home runs (33) and
extra-base hits (67).
And so, if Harper puts up those numbers with the Blue Jays then he is an MVP candidate. Same numbers, different team. All of a sudden Harper is more valuable because his teammates are more talented. My point is this doesn't make sense to judge Harper on his team's ability to win games. Sure, factor it in a small amount, but don't dismiss his candidacy because the Nationals are better at talking about how good they are at winning games than they are at actually winning games.
Some other names to consider for the N.L. award, though no likely winner in the bunch:
Anthony Rizzo and Kris Bryant of the Cubs, Matt Carpenter and Jason
Heyward of the Cardinals, Curtis Granderson of the Mets, Adrian Gonzalez
of the Dodgers and Buster Posey of the Giants.
Harper's numbers are below. Here are other candidates for MVP (and their stats around the time Murray wrote this post) who play for winning teams and therefore are more valuable than Harper:
Harper: .337/.469/.647, 100 runs, 106 walks, 280 total bases, 33 home runs, 67 extra base hits.
Rizzo: .276/.386/.516, 84 runs, 71 walks, 271 total bases, 29 home runs, 65 extra base hits.
Bryant: .270/.364/.486, 79 runs, 68 walks, 243 total bases, 24 home runs, 55 extra base hits.
Carpenter: .261/.360/.468, 85 runs, 77 walks, 242 total bases, 22 home runs, 61 extra base hits.
Heyward: .293/.355/.466, 72 runs, 47 walks, 222 total bases, 12 home runs, 48 extra base hits.
Granderson: .259/.366/.454, 88 runs, 85 walks, 240 total bases, 23 home runs, 55 extra base hits.
Gonzalez: .280/.356/.493, 73 runs, 58 walks, 259 total bases, 27 home runs, 58 extra base hits.
Posey: .328/.392/.487, 70 runs, 54 walks, 245 total bases, 18 home runs, 44 extra base hits.
Notice something? I do. Bryce Harper is better than every one of these other MVP candidates in every single category Murray listed. Not one of these other candidates beats Harper in any category, except one, and that category is "Will his team make the playoffs?" So obviously, (notice two teams have multiple players on this list as "most valuable") Bryce Harper isn't as valuable as these other players. After all, how could Anthony Rizzo benefit from having Kris Bryant in the lineup with him everyday? Inconceivable. So yeah, Harper should be the NL MVP.
And then there’s Andrew McCutchen of the Pirates, the 2013 MVP. He
started the season at a standstill, batting .194 in April with .302
on-base and .333 slugging percentages. However, he proceeded to fuel the
Pirates third consecutive wild-card bid, culminating in his N.L.
player-of-the-month August in which he batted .348 with .470 on-base and
.609 slugging percentages.
A similar September with the Pirates clinching a post-season spot
could make McCutchen a formidable challenger to Harper if Harper is
unable to spark the Nationals into the post-season.
McCutchen: .298/.397/.502, 86 runs, 80 walks, 258 total bases, 22 home runs, 58 extra base hits.
Murray can hide behind the fact these other players are just as qualified, but it simply isn't true. The only difference in the MVP candidacy of Harper and these other 8 players is Harper's team isn't going to make the playoffs, so that makes him "less valuable" despite his performance exceeding the performance of every other serious NL MVP candidate.
With Trout sinking slowly – or rapidly with the Angels in the West – the
A.L. MVP award should go to Josh Donaldson, the Toronto third baseman,
however the Blue Jays get to the playoffs.
Donaldson has had a lot of help from Edwin Encarnacion and Jose Bautista
– and I’ve always felt that the more good players a team has the less
valuable each one is – but Donaldson has been too overwhelming to
ignore. He plays a pretty good third base, too.
Murray has always felt the more good players a team has the less valuable each one is, but he's going to totally ignore his own beliefs in favor of the belief that no player whose team isn't going to make the playoffs should win the MVP. It seems Murray only has one belief, no matter how much he denies it, and that belief is a player can't win the MVP award if his team isn't going to make the playoffs.
Acquired from Oakland last November for Brett Lawrie in what has to
be one of Billy Beane’s worst trades, Donaldson leads the A.L. in runs
batted in (112), runs scored (104), total bases (304) and extra-base
hits (74), is second in slugging (.581) and third in home runs (36).
Trout, last season’s A.L. MVP, has not disappeared completely in this
season’s MVP contest. He is second in on-base percentage (.396), fourth
in slugging (.575), tied for fourth in runs (87), sixth in home runs
(33) and third in total bases (277), extra-base hits (63) and walks
(73).
I don't really care if Trout gets the MVP or not. Donaldson is pretty deserving, and believe it or not, I try not to get too worked up over stupid awards. I don't think Trout's candidacy for AL MVP should be downgraded because the team around him isn't as good as the team around Donaldson. I'm betting the Blue Jays would have as good of a record as they do now if they replaced Donaldson with Trout. It's just a guess, but just don't downgrade Trout's candidacy based on his team's performance. That's what aggravates me.
Joining teammate Alex Rodriguez in a twin comeback, Teixeira was a
primary force in the Yankees’ surprising run for the post-season, if not
the division title.
Injuries limited the first baseman to 123 games each last season and
in 2012 and to 15 games in 2013. But he came back healthy this season,
hitting 31 home runs and driving in 79 runs in 111 games. His production
and contribution both offensively and defensively warranted MVP
consideration.
Plus, the Yankees were going to make the playoffs, which automatically makes Teixeira more valuable than if he had put up similar numbers on a team that wasn't going to make the playoffs. Obviously, this makes sense. Murray is one of those BBWAA voters who is able to think, so if you think about it in non-Stat Geek terms then you see it makes sense to base an individual award on a team's performance around that individual.
Missing much of the last six weeks of the season, if not all of the
games that remained, doesn’t work well for an MVP candidate, especially
when his team is in a division race and a playoff race.
Unless his team makes the playoffs and every other MVP candidate's team didn't make the playoffs. Then the player who was injured for six weeks all of a sudden becomes more valuable because the team around him was more valuable and he will be handed the MVP. Obviously.
Worse, Teixeira has lost a chance to win an unusual double – MVP and
comeback player of the year.
Can the Comeback Player of the Year be awarded to a player who is on a team that doesn't make the playoffs? After all, how can the player comeback from anything if he doesn't make a difference for his team when he does comeback?
Posey won both in 2012 after suffering a
broken leg and torn ankle ligaments in a home plate collision the
previous season.
The same Buster Posey who was kept in the minors long enough to avoid being a Super-2 and Murray went on and on about how this wasn't fair to the Giants fans to keep Posey in the minors. Then it turns out Giants fans weren't negatively impacted at all, because the Giants won the World Series, and Giants fans knew that after Posey broke his leg and tore ligaments that the team could keep him for an extra season because he was kept in the minors for a few extra weeks.
Showing posts with label statistics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label statistics. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Friday, August 14, 2015
2 comments Frank Deford Equates ERA to the Ten Commandments
I have covered Frank Deford's bizarre screeds on this blog before. He is one of the best sportswriters of all-time and he used to be very good at writing about sports. "Used to be" is the key phrase here, because Frank has lost his fastball. In fact, he's lost his slider, his changeup, and is basically just lofting the ball underhand to the plate at this point. Whether it's blaming statistics for the lack of character coaches, railing against Title IX, discussing steroids and the Hall of Fame, or being sad that kids don't mess around with cars anymore, Frank's writing has gone past "bitter sportswriter who doesn't like how sports have evolved" to "angry grandparent yelling at the television while everyone in the room deals with the awkwardness of the situation." Sometimes I'm not even sure Frank knows why he's mad. He just knows kids don't like tinkering around in a garage with a car anymore and that means something for NASCAR or advanced statistics are confusing and baseball isn't the national sport anymore, so these two things must be related in some way.
Now Frank has taken aim (again) at advanced statistics and again blames them for ruining baseball. In this article is some bizarre taunting of Jerry Dipoto and a mention of the Ten Commandments. Because, why not? Throw Frank Deford's name on something and his legend will bring some pageviews.
Whereas numbers have never been a significant adjunct to the other performing arts,
(Deep sigh) I don't know if I would consider baseball to be a performing art or not. I've never considered sports to be anything more than just sports.
they've been stitched into the very essence of sport. Not just the score, but how fast, how far, how good.
It's hard to keep score without numbers and it's hard to evaluate athletes without using statistics of some sort. But be sure to use the "right" statistics or otherwise baseball will be ruined forever.
And, of course, no sport is so identified with numbers as is our American baseball.
And that's great, but Frank Deford encourages the "right" numbers to be used. Numbers that he understands, aren't new and don't make him feel like he has lost touch with the sport he loves so much. If something threatens Frank Deford's understanding of a sport, then it is obviously a bad thing for that sport.
But stats — which is a fairly new shortcut word, about as old as the Mets and Astros are —
Holy fucking hell for all that is good in life. The Mets and Astros organizations are 50 and 53 years old respectively. They, and therefore the word "stats" isn't either, are not new. This is probably part of the problem with Frank Deford's perspective on sports. He considers something 50-53 years old to be "fairly new." It's not. It may feel new to Frank Deford, but the word "stats" isn't new to baseball simply because he's old enough to remember when the word began to be used as a shortcut for "statistic."
have proliferated recently, not only in other sports, notably basketball, but to deeper and deeper levels of baseball enlightenment.
Which is not a bad thing. Teams are finding new and different ways to evaluate baseball players for their performance on the field. It may be hard for Frank to understand advanced statistics, but this does not mean advanced statistics are bad or ruining the game.
Today, traditional statistics like batting or earned run averages — righteous measures that were accepted as the athletic equivalent of the Ten Commandments
Are still used? Haven't in any way stopped by used by Sabermetricians? Are being seen as interesting statistics, but statistics that only tell part of the story and MLB teams want a better and fuller picture?
And no, these traditional statistics like batting or earned run averages are not the athletic equivalent of the Ten Commandments. After all, compared to the Ten Commandments, batting or earned run averages are fairly new words that are used. They have only be used in baseball since the invention of the game in the mid-1800's. So obviously the relevance of batting average and ERA should be in question since they are fairly new.
— are made to seem quaint and primitive.
See, no. These numbers aren't made to seem quaint and primitive, but are made to be numbers that simply don't tell the whole story. There is this defensive attitude from old-school writers like Frank Deford about the use of advanced statistics. They want to make it seem like all older statistics are being wiped off the map entirely, when that isn't true. It's simply that these old statistics like batting or earned run average just don't tell the whole story. Why is more information a bad thing?
Baseball even has its own specific brand of analytics, which is known as sabermetrics.
(Bengoodfella clutches his pearls, turns off the "Diagnosis: Murder" re-run he was watching and then falls down in his sitting chair)
Baseball statistics were further glorified by Michael Lewis in his book Moneyball and then on film by the heartthrob Brad Pitt.
"Further glorified" by Michael Lewis. I can always tell when I am reading an article by an anti-advanced statistics writer, because there will be a mention of "Moneyball" and then a mention of the movie "Moneyball." Most of those who don't like advanced statistics base most of their knowledge of advanced statistics on the book and movie "Moneyball," even if they have never actually read the book or seen the movie. Sportswriters like Deford have a knowledge of advanced statistics and Sabermetrics that extend to, and not past, knowledge of the book and movie "Moneyball" existing.
The same people who have no interest in further knowledge past ERA and batting average also have no interest in further knowledge of Sabermetrics that extends past "Moneyball." So it makes sense on that level. It's like me saying I don't like organized religion because of the movie "The Exorcist."
Imagine on-base percentage being a thing of heartthrob.
Like much in the same way I can imagine batting average and viewing a player through the eyes of a scout being a thing of a tough guy like Clint Eastwood in the movie "The Trouble with the Curve"? Ah yes, a movie that also features Justin Timberlake as a baseball scout that is also fairly anti-advanced statistics. Being self-aware is not a thing of Frank Deford.
Moneyball posited the fancy that revolutionary statistical magic had sprung forth from the brain of the Oakland General Manager Billy Beane, like Athena emerging full-blown from Zeus' head.
Frank Deford allows his lack of knowledge freak flag fly. If Frank HAD read "Moneyball" then he would know Billy Beane gives Bill James credit for inspiring much of the "statistical magic" that came forth from him. I would really doubt Frank Deford has read "Moneyball" because that would require effort and he's not about to put effort into anything "fairly new" like stats.
Deford's lack of knowledge about advanced statistics is one of the many reasons I am glad modern sportswriting is the way it currently is. Writers like Murray Chass and Frank Deford could once posit an assumption on their readers in a column and not hear any negative feedback. They may get a few letters, but would shrug those off as just people who don't understand. Who needs those crazies? The fact people were reading what they wrote and they kept getting a paycheck for what they wrote obviously meant they were writing journalistic magic that sprung forth from their pen/typewriter. In the past, Deford could write something like this about "Moneyball" and not be called on it's fallacy. Now, not so much, and I think Deford (and others) resent this. They want to be able to make their point in the way they want to make their point, without being contradicted or their incorrect assumptions being pointed out.
In fact, other resourceful innovators had found original uses for stats all through diamond history.
Which "Moneyball," the book, acknowledges. Criticizing advanced statistics based on the movie "Moneyball" would be like criticizing General Eisenhower's war tactics during World War II based on what was seen in a certain movie. Hollywood makes shit up and leaves things out. It's entertainment, not fact.
But now there is an absolute sabermetric explosion.
There was a Sabermetric explosion a decade ago. Way to keep up.
Every team has employed nerds,
I still love how the term "nerds" is used in this text. It's a form of journalistic bullying that I find to be juvenile and hilarious. It's an insult straight out of high school or middle school, but apparently a perfectly acceptable form of criticism when coming from a professional writer.
"Oh, you want to learn more about statistics and try to earn a living being smart? NERD! Being stupid and ignorant is cool. Now let me give you a swirlie, loser."
who are presumably tucked away in secret offices, with computers and green eyeshades, emerging only to hand over new numerical strategies.
This presumption based entirely on having absolutely no fucking clue what these people actually do, how they come by the information they come by and certainly no urge to try and gain a wider knowledge base on this topic. Obviously these are all positive attributes any company should want in an employee.
Any assumption made about what these "nerds" are doing is an assumption based on ignorance and not based on fact. Why is Frank Deford not afraid of presuming incorrectly? Only in writing about advanced statistics in baseball is an incorrect presumption and lack of knowledge considered to be a badge of honor that someone would proudly wear.
(Frank Deford) "I know nothing about the topic I'm discussing in this column and couldn't be prouder of this fact!"
(Editor) "You are getting a raise my good man. I don't know how the employee evaluation and compensation system works at our company and I don't care. I don't know anything about budgets or whether giving you a raise will result in layoffs. Who cares? You get a raise!"
(Frank Deford) "The fact you know nothing and stick to your presumptions about how this employee evaluation and compensation system should work tells me you are a fine man and very much stick to old-school principles. This is a credit to you that you don't seek out more information prior to giving me a raise."
(Editor) "I agree. In fact, I haven't read your columns in over a year. I know nothing but that you are an older writer and that must mean you are still good at what you do and no further information should be required for me to learn. In fact, I will seek no more information for fear of learning something that contradicts what I currently know."
This has resulted not only in the outward and visible sign of infielders being shifted all around the diamond like linebackers in football, but even in covert skulduggery, industrial espionage and power politics.
It's obviously the fault of those who use advanced statistics that the Cardinals hacked into the Astros' computers. If it weren't for advanced statistics and computers then there would be no computers for the Cardinals to hack into. Sabermetricians are eventually going to lead to the downfall of society as a whole. Obviously.
What kind of hack-ass shitty writer somehow manages to talk about advanced statistics and then write, "This has resulted in...covert skulduggery, industrial espionage...," as if in some way advanced statistics and not the actions of human beings (the human factor that the anti-stats crowd loves so much!) are the reason for the Cardinals hacking into the Astros' computers?
Last week the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim general manager up and quit in midseason — something that statistically just doesn't happen —
Yes, because most of the time a General Manager is fired before resigning. I do like the "statistically happen" comment though, as if because Dipoto used advanced statistics he should be able to predict the future and prevent his own resignation.
because, it seems, his manager wouldn't apply enough of the new metrics that his computer minions were churning out.
The tension between Scioscia and Dipoto went slightly deeper than just that, but the basis of it was a different belief in how to deal with information and apply it on the field. This was an arranged marriage between Dipoto and Scioscia anyway, and statistically arranged marriages between a GM and a manager he didn't hire don't work out too well in the long-term. And simply because Scioscia won this power struggle doesn't mean his point of view about new metrics is the correct point of view. That's important to know. Scioscia won the power struggle because Arte Moreno prefers him to Dipoto.
But wait! Worse than this front-office insurrection, the federal government itself may well bring charges against one or more members of the St. Louis Cardinals staff, nabbed for hacking into the secret files of the Houston Astros. Hacking! Baseball! Like Russians and Chinese. Oh my.
And this has what to do with advanced statistics in any way? Advanced statistics or numbers had no impact on the Cardinals choosing to hack the Astros computer. The Cardinals may have been after information about trades and what the Astros thought about certain players, but if advanced statistics or WAR (the favorite advanced statistic for the anti-stats crowd to pick on because it's the easiest to spell) didn't exist then the Cardinals still would have hacked the Astros' files.
Why must Frank Deford forget about the human element in all of this? These are humans making decisions, not computers or robots who made the decision for the Cardinals. Fans of old-school statistics should never forget the human element of decision-making!
It makes deflating a few footballs look like child's play,
The Cardinals hacking the Astros also has as much to do with advanced statistics in baseball as deflating footballs does.
and it makes baseball the darkest statistical art, even more the place for sexy metrics.
Deford is working under the uninformed assumption that the use of advanced statistics is a dark art that takes place secretly in a basement or somewhere out of the view of the sun and prying eyes. Every MLB team has a person or two (perhaps even an entire department) who deal with statistics and how to use these statistics in the process of evaluating baseball players and improving a team's performance. It shows just how uninformed Deford is that he doesn't know the Sabermeteric explosion is over. Advanced stats are now a part of the game, but because he chooses to ignore those things he doesn't like and prefers to base his opinion on limited knowledge, he thinks advanced metrics are a "dark" part of baseball.
Deford was great at one time, but statistically, sportswriters tend to slow down over time. I think he's past that point now.
Now Frank has taken aim (again) at advanced statistics and again blames them for ruining baseball. In this article is some bizarre taunting of Jerry Dipoto and a mention of the Ten Commandments. Because, why not? Throw Frank Deford's name on something and his legend will bring some pageviews.
Whereas numbers have never been a significant adjunct to the other performing arts,
(Deep sigh) I don't know if I would consider baseball to be a performing art or not. I've never considered sports to be anything more than just sports.
they've been stitched into the very essence of sport. Not just the score, but how fast, how far, how good.
It's hard to keep score without numbers and it's hard to evaluate athletes without using statistics of some sort. But be sure to use the "right" statistics or otherwise baseball will be ruined forever.
And, of course, no sport is so identified with numbers as is our American baseball.
And that's great, but Frank Deford encourages the "right" numbers to be used. Numbers that he understands, aren't new and don't make him feel like he has lost touch with the sport he loves so much. If something threatens Frank Deford's understanding of a sport, then it is obviously a bad thing for that sport.
But stats — which is a fairly new shortcut word, about as old as the Mets and Astros are —
Holy fucking hell for all that is good in life. The Mets and Astros organizations are 50 and 53 years old respectively. They, and therefore the word "stats" isn't either, are not new. This is probably part of the problem with Frank Deford's perspective on sports. He considers something 50-53 years old to be "fairly new." It's not. It may feel new to Frank Deford, but the word "stats" isn't new to baseball simply because he's old enough to remember when the word began to be used as a shortcut for "statistic."
have proliferated recently, not only in other sports, notably basketball, but to deeper and deeper levels of baseball enlightenment.
Which is not a bad thing. Teams are finding new and different ways to evaluate baseball players for their performance on the field. It may be hard for Frank to understand advanced statistics, but this does not mean advanced statistics are bad or ruining the game.
Today, traditional statistics like batting or earned run averages — righteous measures that were accepted as the athletic equivalent of the Ten Commandments
Are still used? Haven't in any way stopped by used by Sabermetricians? Are being seen as interesting statistics, but statistics that only tell part of the story and MLB teams want a better and fuller picture?
And no, these traditional statistics like batting or earned run averages are not the athletic equivalent of the Ten Commandments. After all, compared to the Ten Commandments, batting or earned run averages are fairly new words that are used. They have only be used in baseball since the invention of the game in the mid-1800's. So obviously the relevance of batting average and ERA should be in question since they are fairly new.
— are made to seem quaint and primitive.
See, no. These numbers aren't made to seem quaint and primitive, but are made to be numbers that simply don't tell the whole story. There is this defensive attitude from old-school writers like Frank Deford about the use of advanced statistics. They want to make it seem like all older statistics are being wiped off the map entirely, when that isn't true. It's simply that these old statistics like batting or earned run average just don't tell the whole story. Why is more information a bad thing?
Baseball even has its own specific brand of analytics, which is known as sabermetrics.
(Bengoodfella clutches his pearls, turns off the "Diagnosis: Murder" re-run he was watching and then falls down in his sitting chair)
Baseball statistics were further glorified by Michael Lewis in his book Moneyball and then on film by the heartthrob Brad Pitt.
"Further glorified" by Michael Lewis. I can always tell when I am reading an article by an anti-advanced statistics writer, because there will be a mention of "Moneyball" and then a mention of the movie "Moneyball." Most of those who don't like advanced statistics base most of their knowledge of advanced statistics on the book and movie "Moneyball," even if they have never actually read the book or seen the movie. Sportswriters like Deford have a knowledge of advanced statistics and Sabermetrics that extend to, and not past, knowledge of the book and movie "Moneyball" existing.
The same people who have no interest in further knowledge past ERA and batting average also have no interest in further knowledge of Sabermetrics that extends past "Moneyball." So it makes sense on that level. It's like me saying I don't like organized religion because of the movie "The Exorcist."
Imagine on-base percentage being a thing of heartthrob.
Like much in the same way I can imagine batting average and viewing a player through the eyes of a scout being a thing of a tough guy like Clint Eastwood in the movie "The Trouble with the Curve"? Ah yes, a movie that also features Justin Timberlake as a baseball scout that is also fairly anti-advanced statistics. Being self-aware is not a thing of Frank Deford.
Moneyball posited the fancy that revolutionary statistical magic had sprung forth from the brain of the Oakland General Manager Billy Beane, like Athena emerging full-blown from Zeus' head.
Frank Deford allows his lack of knowledge freak flag fly. If Frank HAD read "Moneyball" then he would know Billy Beane gives Bill James credit for inspiring much of the "statistical magic" that came forth from him. I would really doubt Frank Deford has read "Moneyball" because that would require effort and he's not about to put effort into anything "fairly new" like stats.
Deford's lack of knowledge about advanced statistics is one of the many reasons I am glad modern sportswriting is the way it currently is. Writers like Murray Chass and Frank Deford could once posit an assumption on their readers in a column and not hear any negative feedback. They may get a few letters, but would shrug those off as just people who don't understand. Who needs those crazies? The fact people were reading what they wrote and they kept getting a paycheck for what they wrote obviously meant they were writing journalistic magic that sprung forth from their pen/typewriter. In the past, Deford could write something like this about "Moneyball" and not be called on it's fallacy. Now, not so much, and I think Deford (and others) resent this. They want to be able to make their point in the way they want to make their point, without being contradicted or their incorrect assumptions being pointed out.
In fact, other resourceful innovators had found original uses for stats all through diamond history.
Which "Moneyball," the book, acknowledges. Criticizing advanced statistics based on the movie "Moneyball" would be like criticizing General Eisenhower's war tactics during World War II based on what was seen in a certain movie. Hollywood makes shit up and leaves things out. It's entertainment, not fact.
But now there is an absolute sabermetric explosion.
There was a Sabermetric explosion a decade ago. Way to keep up.
Every team has employed nerds,
I still love how the term "nerds" is used in this text. It's a form of journalistic bullying that I find to be juvenile and hilarious. It's an insult straight out of high school or middle school, but apparently a perfectly acceptable form of criticism when coming from a professional writer.
"Oh, you want to learn more about statistics and try to earn a living being smart? NERD! Being stupid and ignorant is cool. Now let me give you a swirlie, loser."
who are presumably tucked away in secret offices, with computers and green eyeshades, emerging only to hand over new numerical strategies.
This presumption based entirely on having absolutely no fucking clue what these people actually do, how they come by the information they come by and certainly no urge to try and gain a wider knowledge base on this topic. Obviously these are all positive attributes any company should want in an employee.
Any assumption made about what these "nerds" are doing is an assumption based on ignorance and not based on fact. Why is Frank Deford not afraid of presuming incorrectly? Only in writing about advanced statistics in baseball is an incorrect presumption and lack of knowledge considered to be a badge of honor that someone would proudly wear.
(Frank Deford) "I know nothing about the topic I'm discussing in this column and couldn't be prouder of this fact!"
(Editor) "You are getting a raise my good man. I don't know how the employee evaluation and compensation system works at our company and I don't care. I don't know anything about budgets or whether giving you a raise will result in layoffs. Who cares? You get a raise!"
(Frank Deford) "The fact you know nothing and stick to your presumptions about how this employee evaluation and compensation system should work tells me you are a fine man and very much stick to old-school principles. This is a credit to you that you don't seek out more information prior to giving me a raise."
(Editor) "I agree. In fact, I haven't read your columns in over a year. I know nothing but that you are an older writer and that must mean you are still good at what you do and no further information should be required for me to learn. In fact, I will seek no more information for fear of learning something that contradicts what I currently know."
This has resulted not only in the outward and visible sign of infielders being shifted all around the diamond like linebackers in football, but even in covert skulduggery, industrial espionage and power politics.
It's obviously the fault of those who use advanced statistics that the Cardinals hacked into the Astros' computers. If it weren't for advanced statistics and computers then there would be no computers for the Cardinals to hack into. Sabermetricians are eventually going to lead to the downfall of society as a whole. Obviously.
What kind of hack-ass shitty writer somehow manages to talk about advanced statistics and then write, "This has resulted in...covert skulduggery, industrial espionage...," as if in some way advanced statistics and not the actions of human beings (the human factor that the anti-stats crowd loves so much!) are the reason for the Cardinals hacking into the Astros' computers?
Last week the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim general manager up and quit in midseason — something that statistically just doesn't happen —
Yes, because most of the time a General Manager is fired before resigning. I do like the "statistically happen" comment though, as if because Dipoto used advanced statistics he should be able to predict the future and prevent his own resignation.
because, it seems, his manager wouldn't apply enough of the new metrics that his computer minions were churning out.
The tension between Scioscia and Dipoto went slightly deeper than just that, but the basis of it was a different belief in how to deal with information and apply it on the field. This was an arranged marriage between Dipoto and Scioscia anyway, and statistically arranged marriages between a GM and a manager he didn't hire don't work out too well in the long-term. And simply because Scioscia won this power struggle doesn't mean his point of view about new metrics is the correct point of view. That's important to know. Scioscia won the power struggle because Arte Moreno prefers him to Dipoto.
But wait! Worse than this front-office insurrection, the federal government itself may well bring charges against one or more members of the St. Louis Cardinals staff, nabbed for hacking into the secret files of the Houston Astros. Hacking! Baseball! Like Russians and Chinese. Oh my.
And this has what to do with advanced statistics in any way? Advanced statistics or numbers had no impact on the Cardinals choosing to hack the Astros computer. The Cardinals may have been after information about trades and what the Astros thought about certain players, but if advanced statistics or WAR (the favorite advanced statistic for the anti-stats crowd to pick on because it's the easiest to spell) didn't exist then the Cardinals still would have hacked the Astros' files.
Why must Frank Deford forget about the human element in all of this? These are humans making decisions, not computers or robots who made the decision for the Cardinals. Fans of old-school statistics should never forget the human element of decision-making!
It makes deflating a few footballs look like child's play,
The Cardinals hacking the Astros also has as much to do with advanced statistics in baseball as deflating footballs does.
and it makes baseball the darkest statistical art, even more the place for sexy metrics.
Deford is working under the uninformed assumption that the use of advanced statistics is a dark art that takes place secretly in a basement or somewhere out of the view of the sun and prying eyes. Every MLB team has a person or two (perhaps even an entire department) who deal with statistics and how to use these statistics in the process of evaluating baseball players and improving a team's performance. It shows just how uninformed Deford is that he doesn't know the Sabermeteric explosion is over. Advanced stats are now a part of the game, but because he chooses to ignore those things he doesn't like and prefers to base his opinion on limited knowledge, he thinks advanced metrics are a "dark" part of baseball.
Deford was great at one time, but statistically, sportswriters tend to slow down over time. I think he's past that point now.
Monday, April 6, 2015
12 comments Brandon Phillips May Slightly Misunderstand How RBI's Work
I'm not sure if you have heard, but there is a big, massive war going on (not really, but the media gets bored and loves to write articles that paint the two sides against each other) over baseball players and media members who like advanced statistics and those baseball players and media members who hate advanced statistics. Bob Nightengale points out that two players on opposite sides of this spectrum not only play on the same team, but bat 2nd and 3rd respectively in the same batting order. How do the modern day Biggie and Tupac stand each other while in the same lineup? Will this war tear the Reds team apart? Does Brandon Phillips have a fucking clue how RBI work and that MLB Network didn't invent a statistic? Bob Nightengale has all the answers for his readers.
The debate still rages and plays out every day for the Cincinnati Reds, inviting intrigue, discussion and even divisions within their own organization.
I imagine both Phillips and Votto have their own colors they wear and have lockers on the opposite side of the clubhouse from each other. Don't show up on Votto's side of the locker room wearing blue. That's a good way to get a baseball bat upside the head. Just try to step on Phillips' side of the clubhouse showing out wearing green. The police won't know where the blood stops and starts on the red uniform Cincinnati wears. They ain't called "the Reds" for nothing.
From the corner of power and patience: First baseman Joey Votto's hitting philosophy.
From the corner of opportunity and aggression: Second baseman Brandon Phillips' hitting approach.
And remember, THERE CAN BE NO IN BETWEEN! A batter has to either be patient like Votto or aggressive like Phillips. No baseball player can change his strategy at the plate based on the count, the pitcher or any other game situation. Be aggressive or be patient. Two options. That's it.
Where else could you have a team paying $225 million to a four-time All-Star first baseman who's their greatest power hitter, but since he thrives on his on-base percentage and passes up RBI opportunities for walks, he'll bat second?
He passes up RBI opportunities, yet has been Top 10 in the NL in RBI twice over his 8 year career. Once in 2010 when he was 3rd and once in 2011 when he was 6th. Don't let this little fact ruin the narrative that Votto passes up RBI though.
And where else could you spend $72.5 million on a three-time All-Star second baseman who despises walks and loathes on-base percentage but will do everything possible to drive in runs, so he'll bat third?
Phillips does everything possible to drive in runs, yet he has been in the Top 10 in the NL in RBI once in his 13 year career. He was 4th in the NL in RBI during the 2013 season. Isn't weird how the guy who hates RBI averages more RBI during a 162 game season during his career (94) than the guy who loves RBI so much (84 RBI in a 162 game season during his career) that he would marry them if it wasn't so gross to be married to a statistic?
Votto averages an RBI every 7.3 plate appearance during his career and Phillips averages an RBI every 8.2 plate appearance during his career. So which one likes RBI so much and which one passes up RBI opportunities again?
Sorry, I'm ruining the poorly researched narrative.
Nothing against Votto, Phillips says, but he's up there swinging the bat, believing driving in runs is the best way to help your team win.
And yet, Votto has shown himself to actually be better at driving in runs. Weird how that works isn't it?
Nothing against Phillips, Votto says, but he believes the best way to score is simply getting on base, no matter the situation.
And regardless what statistics might say, they'll never change their ways, believing their method is best.
Whatever works for either player. It really doesn't matter as long as the team is happy and the player is happy. There is no wrong or right answer. There are wrong and right assumptions on which conclusions can be drawn though. Therein lies the issue with the "Votto hates RBI, while Phillips loves RBI" assumption.
"I don't do that MLB Network on-base percentage (stuff),'' Phillips told USA TODAY Sports.
Well, they did invent on-base percentage, so it's fair to blame MLB Network.
"I think that's messing up baseball. I think people now are just worried about getting paid and worrying about on-base percentage instead of just winning the game.
If it weren't for those meddling kids at MLB Network then more runs would be driven in and baseball players would perform better.
"That's the new thing now. I feel like all of these stats and all of these geeks upstairs, they're messing up baseball, they're just changing the game.
I think everyone should listen to Phillips and read what he is saying, because this sounds like some really, really informed criticism.
It's all about on-base percentage. If you don't get on base, then you suck.
This has been true for quite some time now. If a team doesn't have players who get on base then it is really hard to score runs without hitting several solo home runs every night and hoping your pitching staff keeps the other team under 2-3 runs. Getting on base is a great way to score runs and win games, so yes, if a player doesn't get on the base a lot then there is a chance he could suck.
That's basically what they're saying. People don't care about RBI or scoring runs, it's all about getting on base.
And how in the heck can a person get an RBI if there is no one on base, outside of hitting a solo home run of course? Brandon Phillips shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how RBI work. The only way to get an RBI with no runners on base is to hit a home run. Otherwise, it should be all about getting on base, because without batters getting on base then there is no way to get an RBI or score a run. It's sad that Brandon Phillips plays the game of baseball and isn't capable of understanding in his screed about why no one cares about scoring runs or RBI that someone has to be on base for the batter to get an RBI or the runner to score a run. This shouldn't be hard to understand, yet in his screed towards on-base percentage Phillips seems to miss this basic point.
"Why we changing the game after all of this time?
No one is changing the game. Why are you being so stupid?
If we all just took our walks, nobody would be scoring runs.
That's partially incorrect because if everyone took walks then at some point the pitcher would walk home a run.
Nobody would be driving anybody in or getting anybody over. How you going to play the game like that? People don't look at doing the things the right way and doing things to help your team win.
Oh, nobody is doing "things the right way." Like, drawing a walk to get on base so that you can drive them in with one of your non-patented RBI that you have fewer of than Votto despite the fact you talk like you are the RBI king?
And Joey Votto has done more to help the Reds win during his career than Brandon Phillips has done. He's a better ball player and has more RBI than Phillips despite the fact Phillips seems to think Votto doesn't care about RBI in such an extreme way that it hurts the team.
"I remember back in the day you hit .230, you suck. Nowadays, you hit .230 with a .400 on-base percentage, you're one of the best players in the game. That's amazing. I've never seen (stuff) like that. Times have changed. It's totally different now.
Not that Phillips is talking in generalities or anything like that. There aren't that many player who hit .230 with a .400 OBP other than Adam Dunn and he wasn't considered one of the best players in the game. I'm sure Phillips' generic screed against people that may or may not exist is very convincing for the anti-stats crowd though. They love fictional strawman arguments that exaggerate the position of the advanced statistics crowd.
Votto takes the other extreme and gets vilified for his approach – even by Reds Hall of Fame broadcaster Marty Brennaman – but couldn't care less what people think of him.
He's gone from a power hitter and National League MVP (37 homers with 113 RBI in 2010), to the king of on-base percentage. He is baseball's active on-base leader at .417 and has led the league in walks three consecutive years, with injuries ending his streak last year.
Right, but how does Votto expect Brandon Phillips to drive him in if he's taking walks and getting on base? If Votto would be more aggressive at the plate then he would get on base more and Phillips would have more chances to drive him in. Sure, Votto gets on base more than any other active player, getting on base leads to runs scored and runs scored lead to RBI, but shut up because Brandon Phillips doesn't want to talk about this anymore.
"I still don't understand the conversation,'' Votto says. "I'm like (fifth) in active players in slugging percentage (.533), second in batting average (.310), and the on-base percentage just happens to be the one thing everyone highlights because I've had some success with that.
Yeah Joey, but you don't drive as many people in as Brandon Phillips does, unless you want to count the RBI total you have compared to Phillips. And really, that doesn't count so let's not talk about it right now. It's not reasonable for you to get on base by drawing walks. You should be swinging the bat and trying to drive runs in rather than getting on base so that Brandon Phillips can drive you in. An RBI is only an RBI if the runner gets on base due to a base hit. Runs batted in due to the runner getting on base with a walk doesn't count in a player's RBI total.
Yet by taking all of his walks, Votto sacrifices some power. If the pitch isn't in the strike zone, he's not swinging. If a runner is on third base with less than two outs, he's just as content to take his walk rather than drive him in, taking nearly as many pitches in the zone than outside with runners in scoring position.
And yet, despite Bob Nightengale insisting this is true, Votto still has been in the Top 10 of the NL in RBI twice. Brandon Phillips bitches and moans about how RBI should be how a player is measured and yet he bats behind a guy who gets on base more than any other active player. If Phillips thinks RBI is how a player should be measured then he should be pretty fucking happy Votto walks a lot because that puts Votto on base so that Phillips can drive him in.
"No, I don't care about the people around me,'' Votto says. "It wouldn't matter to me. It just doesn't make a difference. It's never made a difference in my career. I've never been in a situation where I was getting pitched differently except when Billy (Hamilton) is on first.
"Our lineup should be perpetual. It shouldn't stop. It should just continue to roll through.''
Votto's career batting average is .310 and so he's nothing like the hypothetical, generic player that Brandon Phillips claims gets undue credit for being one of the best players in the game. So Phillips' screed against on-base percentage really has nothing to do with the results Votto shows at the plate. Phillips has created a boogeyman out of thin air.
If he had the desire, Votto believes he could lead the NL in homers. But the days of a .400 on-base percentage and .300 batting average would be gone, too. His batting average would likely plummet to .250, Votto says, if he focused on his power game.
Yeah, but then he would run the risk of being one of those players who hits .230 with a .400 on-base percentage that don't actually exist. To further hurt Phillips' point, let's check out what hitters have the highest on-base percentage throughout the history of baseball. I bet it's full of scrubs and assholes who didn't care enough to swing the bat and drive their teammates in.
Ted Williams
Babe Ruth
Lou Gehrig
Billy Hamilton
Rogers Hornsby
Ty Cobb
Who are those guys? Just scrubs who are considered the best in the game, but really aren't because they dared to get on base often. There was one player in the majors last year who had a high OBP and an average near to .230 and that was Carlos Santana. He hit .231 with a .365 OBP. Guess what else he had though? 85 RBI. In fact, players like Brandon Moss and Brian Dozier, guys who had higher OBP and a low average also had RBI totals that were in the Top 65 of the majors. It's almost like they were able to get on base and get RBI at the same time.
And that way has a tendency to drive folks batty, with Brennaman echoing the sentiments of many frustrated Reds fans, and some club officials, by saying the Reds won't be a contender if Votto is content leading the league in on-base percentage.
The Reds certainly won't be a contender if there isn't anyone hitting behind Votto that can drive him in. I'm sure the fact Phillips may not be able to drive Votto in isn't Phillips' fault, but instead is the fault of geeks who love on-base percentage. Brandon Phillips can't drive a guy in who gets on base with a walk. He needs that guy ahead of him in the lineup to get a base hit in order to be properly motivated to drive that runner in.
"I don't want people to think I'm hating on Joey, because I'm not,'' Phillips says. "There's nothing wrong with how he plays the game. He does what's best for him. He's going to do what makes him successful. So you can't get mad at somebody's approach.
You can tell by this quote and how he says "what's best for him" that Brandon Phillips thinks Votto is being selfish by drawing walks. Of course drawing those walks gets runners on base for Brandon Phillips, but he's too thick to understand this.
Phillips, 33, laughs. He never has cared about on-base percentage. He has a career .319 OBP, but with 168 homers is the greatest power-hitting second baseman in Reds history. In 1,600 more plate appearances, he has 202 more career RBI and 11 more homers than Votto.
Yes, the guy who is all about hitting home runs and driving runs in doesn't do either of things as well as Joey Votto does. If Votto were to want to be more like Phillips than maybe he should draw fewer walks and ending up regressing into no longer being one of the best players in the game.
I'm swinging the damn bat. I'm a guy that drives in runs. If you give me an RBI opportunity, a guy on third base and less than two outs, I'm getting that guy in. I'm not walking. I'm getting that guy in.
Well, sort of. Phillips does have a fair amount of RBI, but he's not exactly an RBI machine who is constantly in the Top 10 of the NL in this statistic.
"That's just how I am. I play the game to win. I don't play the game for stats.
Apparently Brandon Phillips doesn't think RBI is a stat. Because Brandon Phillips wants more people to care about RBI and runs, both of which are statistics, and he cares about his RBI statistic. So he doesn't play the game for stats, but gets mad because others don't play the game for the same stats that he plays the game for.
"I'm not talking about nobody else. I don't penalize nobody. I don't talk negative about nobody. I'm just talking about me.
Yes, Phillips doesn't talk negative about nobody, doesn't penalize nobody nor is he talking about nobody else. Quotes from this article by Phillips:
"That's the new thing now. I feel like all of these stats and all of these geeks upstairs, they're messing up baseball, they're just changing the game.
I think people now are just worried about getting paid and worrying about on-base percentage instead of just winning the game.
People don't look at doing the things the right way and doing things to help your team win.
It certainly seems like those are examples of Phillips talking negative about somebody, penalizing someone, and talking about someone else. But hey, it's clear based on Phillips not understanding that runners on base leads to RBI that he isn't dealing with a full deck of cards and critical thinking isn't his thing. It's probably best he just show up and hits the ball. I'm not sure the Reds need him thinking too much at the plate.
Maybe he's right.
You just won't get a certain teammate to agree.
YES! Create a narrative where these two teammates are against each other and will battle to the death over their different approaches to the plate. Sure, it may not be true and there is room in baseball for both approaches, but that's no fun to write about is it?
The debate still rages and plays out every day for the Cincinnati Reds, inviting intrigue, discussion and even divisions within their own organization.
I imagine both Phillips and Votto have their own colors they wear and have lockers on the opposite side of the clubhouse from each other. Don't show up on Votto's side of the locker room wearing blue. That's a good way to get a baseball bat upside the head. Just try to step on Phillips' side of the clubhouse showing out wearing green. The police won't know where the blood stops and starts on the red uniform Cincinnati wears. They ain't called "the Reds" for nothing.
From the corner of power and patience: First baseman Joey Votto's hitting philosophy.
From the corner of opportunity and aggression: Second baseman Brandon Phillips' hitting approach.
And remember, THERE CAN BE NO IN BETWEEN! A batter has to either be patient like Votto or aggressive like Phillips. No baseball player can change his strategy at the plate based on the count, the pitcher or any other game situation. Be aggressive or be patient. Two options. That's it.
Where else could you have a team paying $225 million to a four-time All-Star first baseman who's their greatest power hitter, but since he thrives on his on-base percentage and passes up RBI opportunities for walks, he'll bat second?
He passes up RBI opportunities, yet has been Top 10 in the NL in RBI twice over his 8 year career. Once in 2010 when he was 3rd and once in 2011 when he was 6th. Don't let this little fact ruin the narrative that Votto passes up RBI though.
And where else could you spend $72.5 million on a three-time All-Star second baseman who despises walks and loathes on-base percentage but will do everything possible to drive in runs, so he'll bat third?
Phillips does everything possible to drive in runs, yet he has been in the Top 10 in the NL in RBI once in his 13 year career. He was 4th in the NL in RBI during the 2013 season. Isn't weird how the guy who hates RBI averages more RBI during a 162 game season during his career (94) than the guy who loves RBI so much (84 RBI in a 162 game season during his career) that he would marry them if it wasn't so gross to be married to a statistic?
Votto averages an RBI every 7.3 plate appearance during his career and Phillips averages an RBI every 8.2 plate appearance during his career. So which one likes RBI so much and which one passes up RBI opportunities again?
Sorry, I'm ruining the poorly researched narrative.
Nothing against Votto, Phillips says, but he's up there swinging the bat, believing driving in runs is the best way to help your team win.
And yet, Votto has shown himself to actually be better at driving in runs. Weird how that works isn't it?
Nothing against Phillips, Votto says, but he believes the best way to score is simply getting on base, no matter the situation.
And regardless what statistics might say, they'll never change their ways, believing their method is best.
Whatever works for either player. It really doesn't matter as long as the team is happy and the player is happy. There is no wrong or right answer. There are wrong and right assumptions on which conclusions can be drawn though. Therein lies the issue with the "Votto hates RBI, while Phillips loves RBI" assumption.
"I don't do that MLB Network on-base percentage (stuff),'' Phillips told USA TODAY Sports.
Well, they did invent on-base percentage, so it's fair to blame MLB Network.
"I think that's messing up baseball. I think people now are just worried about getting paid and worrying about on-base percentage instead of just winning the game.
If it weren't for those meddling kids at MLB Network then more runs would be driven in and baseball players would perform better.
"That's the new thing now. I feel like all of these stats and all of these geeks upstairs, they're messing up baseball, they're just changing the game.
I think everyone should listen to Phillips and read what he is saying, because this sounds like some really, really informed criticism.
It's all about on-base percentage. If you don't get on base, then you suck.
This has been true for quite some time now. If a team doesn't have players who get on base then it is really hard to score runs without hitting several solo home runs every night and hoping your pitching staff keeps the other team under 2-3 runs. Getting on base is a great way to score runs and win games, so yes, if a player doesn't get on the base a lot then there is a chance he could suck.
That's basically what they're saying. People don't care about RBI or scoring runs, it's all about getting on base.
And how in the heck can a person get an RBI if there is no one on base, outside of hitting a solo home run of course? Brandon Phillips shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how RBI work. The only way to get an RBI with no runners on base is to hit a home run. Otherwise, it should be all about getting on base, because without batters getting on base then there is no way to get an RBI or score a run. It's sad that Brandon Phillips plays the game of baseball and isn't capable of understanding in his screed about why no one cares about scoring runs or RBI that someone has to be on base for the batter to get an RBI or the runner to score a run. This shouldn't be hard to understand, yet in his screed towards on-base percentage Phillips seems to miss this basic point.
"Why we changing the game after all of this time?
No one is changing the game. Why are you being so stupid?
If we all just took our walks, nobody would be scoring runs.
That's partially incorrect because if everyone took walks then at some point the pitcher would walk home a run.
Nobody would be driving anybody in or getting anybody over. How you going to play the game like that? People don't look at doing the things the right way and doing things to help your team win.
Oh, nobody is doing "things the right way." Like, drawing a walk to get on base so that you can drive them in with one of your non-patented RBI that you have fewer of than Votto despite the fact you talk like you are the RBI king?
And Joey Votto has done more to help the Reds win during his career than Brandon Phillips has done. He's a better ball player and has more RBI than Phillips despite the fact Phillips seems to think Votto doesn't care about RBI in such an extreme way that it hurts the team.
"I remember back in the day you hit .230, you suck. Nowadays, you hit .230 with a .400 on-base percentage, you're one of the best players in the game. That's amazing. I've never seen (stuff) like that. Times have changed. It's totally different now.
Not that Phillips is talking in generalities or anything like that. There aren't that many player who hit .230 with a .400 OBP other than Adam Dunn and he wasn't considered one of the best players in the game. I'm sure Phillips' generic screed against people that may or may not exist is very convincing for the anti-stats crowd though. They love fictional strawman arguments that exaggerate the position of the advanced statistics crowd.
Votto takes the other extreme and gets vilified for his approach – even by Reds Hall of Fame broadcaster Marty Brennaman – but couldn't care less what people think of him.
He's gone from a power hitter and National League MVP (37 homers with 113 RBI in 2010), to the king of on-base percentage. He is baseball's active on-base leader at .417 and has led the league in walks three consecutive years, with injuries ending his streak last year.
Right, but how does Votto expect Brandon Phillips to drive him in if he's taking walks and getting on base? If Votto would be more aggressive at the plate then he would get on base more and Phillips would have more chances to drive him in. Sure, Votto gets on base more than any other active player, getting on base leads to runs scored and runs scored lead to RBI, but shut up because Brandon Phillips doesn't want to talk about this anymore.
"I still don't understand the conversation,'' Votto says. "I'm like (fifth) in active players in slugging percentage (.533), second in batting average (.310), and the on-base percentage just happens to be the one thing everyone highlights because I've had some success with that.
Yeah Joey, but you don't drive as many people in as Brandon Phillips does, unless you want to count the RBI total you have compared to Phillips. And really, that doesn't count so let's not talk about it right now. It's not reasonable for you to get on base by drawing walks. You should be swinging the bat and trying to drive runs in rather than getting on base so that Brandon Phillips can drive you in. An RBI is only an RBI if the runner gets on base due to a base hit. Runs batted in due to the runner getting on base with a walk doesn't count in a player's RBI total.
Yet by taking all of his walks, Votto sacrifices some power. If the pitch isn't in the strike zone, he's not swinging. If a runner is on third base with less than two outs, he's just as content to take his walk rather than drive him in, taking nearly as many pitches in the zone than outside with runners in scoring position.
And yet, despite Bob Nightengale insisting this is true, Votto still has been in the Top 10 of the NL in RBI twice. Brandon Phillips bitches and moans about how RBI should be how a player is measured and yet he bats behind a guy who gets on base more than any other active player. If Phillips thinks RBI is how a player should be measured then he should be pretty fucking happy Votto walks a lot because that puts Votto on base so that Phillips can drive him in.
"No, I don't care about the people around me,'' Votto says. "It wouldn't matter to me. It just doesn't make a difference. It's never made a difference in my career. I've never been in a situation where I was getting pitched differently except when Billy (Hamilton) is on first.
"Our lineup should be perpetual. It shouldn't stop. It should just continue to roll through.''
Votto's career batting average is .310 and so he's nothing like the hypothetical, generic player that Brandon Phillips claims gets undue credit for being one of the best players in the game. So Phillips' screed against on-base percentage really has nothing to do with the results Votto shows at the plate. Phillips has created a boogeyman out of thin air.
If he had the desire, Votto believes he could lead the NL in homers. But the days of a .400 on-base percentage and .300 batting average would be gone, too. His batting average would likely plummet to .250, Votto says, if he focused on his power game.
Yeah, but then he would run the risk of being one of those players who hits .230 with a .400 on-base percentage that don't actually exist. To further hurt Phillips' point, let's check out what hitters have the highest on-base percentage throughout the history of baseball. I bet it's full of scrubs and assholes who didn't care enough to swing the bat and drive their teammates in.
Ted Williams
Babe Ruth
Lou Gehrig
Billy Hamilton
Rogers Hornsby
Ty Cobb
Who are those guys? Just scrubs who are considered the best in the game, but really aren't because they dared to get on base often. There was one player in the majors last year who had a high OBP and an average near to .230 and that was Carlos Santana. He hit .231 with a .365 OBP. Guess what else he had though? 85 RBI. In fact, players like Brandon Moss and Brian Dozier, guys who had higher OBP and a low average also had RBI totals that were in the Top 65 of the majors. It's almost like they were able to get on base and get RBI at the same time.
And that way has a tendency to drive folks batty, with Brennaman echoing the sentiments of many frustrated Reds fans, and some club officials, by saying the Reds won't be a contender if Votto is content leading the league in on-base percentage.
The Reds certainly won't be a contender if there isn't anyone hitting behind Votto that can drive him in. I'm sure the fact Phillips may not be able to drive Votto in isn't Phillips' fault, but instead is the fault of geeks who love on-base percentage. Brandon Phillips can't drive a guy in who gets on base with a walk. He needs that guy ahead of him in the lineup to get a base hit in order to be properly motivated to drive that runner in.
"I don't want people to think I'm hating on Joey, because I'm not,'' Phillips says. "There's nothing wrong with how he plays the game. He does what's best for him. He's going to do what makes him successful. So you can't get mad at somebody's approach.
You can tell by this quote and how he says "what's best for him" that Brandon Phillips thinks Votto is being selfish by drawing walks. Of course drawing those walks gets runners on base for Brandon Phillips, but he's too thick to understand this.
Phillips, 33, laughs. He never has cared about on-base percentage. He has a career .319 OBP, but with 168 homers is the greatest power-hitting second baseman in Reds history. In 1,600 more plate appearances, he has 202 more career RBI and 11 more homers than Votto.
Yes, the guy who is all about hitting home runs and driving runs in doesn't do either of things as well as Joey Votto does. If Votto were to want to be more like Phillips than maybe he should draw fewer walks and ending up regressing into no longer being one of the best players in the game.
I'm swinging the damn bat. I'm a guy that drives in runs. If you give me an RBI opportunity, a guy on third base and less than two outs, I'm getting that guy in. I'm not walking. I'm getting that guy in.
Well, sort of. Phillips does have a fair amount of RBI, but he's not exactly an RBI machine who is constantly in the Top 10 of the NL in this statistic.
"That's just how I am. I play the game to win. I don't play the game for stats.
Apparently Brandon Phillips doesn't think RBI is a stat. Because Brandon Phillips wants more people to care about RBI and runs, both of which are statistics, and he cares about his RBI statistic. So he doesn't play the game for stats, but gets mad because others don't play the game for the same stats that he plays the game for.
"I'm not talking about nobody else. I don't penalize nobody. I don't talk negative about nobody. I'm just talking about me.
Yes, Phillips doesn't talk negative about nobody, doesn't penalize nobody nor is he talking about nobody else. Quotes from this article by Phillips:
"That's the new thing now. I feel like all of these stats and all of these geeks upstairs, they're messing up baseball, they're just changing the game.
I think people now are just worried about getting paid and worrying about on-base percentage instead of just winning the game.
People don't look at doing the things the right way and doing things to help your team win.
It certainly seems like those are examples of Phillips talking negative about somebody, penalizing someone, and talking about someone else. But hey, it's clear based on Phillips not understanding that runners on base leads to RBI that he isn't dealing with a full deck of cards and critical thinking isn't his thing. It's probably best he just show up and hits the ball. I'm not sure the Reds need him thinking too much at the plate.
Maybe he's right.
You just won't get a certain teammate to agree.
YES! Create a narrative where these two teammates are against each other and will battle to the death over their different approaches to the plate. Sure, it may not be true and there is room in baseball for both approaches, but that's no fun to write about is it?
Thursday, March 12, 2015
2 comments Sportswriter Who Doesn't Cover Baseball Regularly, Yet Has a Hall of Fame Vote, Wants to Void PED-aided Home Run Record So PED-aided Home Run Record Isn't Surpassed
Philip Hersh covers the Olympics for the "Chicago Tribune." He covered baseball quite a few years ago, so naturally he still has a Hall of Fame vote. Because that makes sense and this is one of the 50 issues currently plaguing the baseball Hall of Fame voting system. That's beside the point. Hersh is keeping his vote for the Hall of Fame to prevent the PED-users from entering the Hall of Fame. It's not really a noble cause, but whatever gets him up in the morning, I guess. Hersh thinks that MLB should void some of the home runs that A-Rod has hit so that he doesn't pass the home run record that Barry Bonds set. First off, A-Rod isn't passing Bonds. It's not happening and I would bet money on this. Second, does he recognize the logic of voiding home runs set by a PED user so he doesn't pass a record set by another PED user is all kinds of crazy? He does, but he doesn't care. The integrity of the game is what is important, even though giving a Hall of Fame vote to a guy who regularly covers the Olympics probably isn't in the best interests of the integrity of the game either.
Here is Hersh's background:
Philip Hersh, the Olympic specialist for Tribune Co., has covered 17 Olympics and reported from some 50 countries in 30 years with the Chicago Tribune. He likes to use sport as a way to write about the culture of a country or an athlete. Hersh graduated from Yale with a Bachelor of Arts in French literature. His passions include chamber music, road cycling (takes no PEDs except Advil) and Dr. Siri mysteries.
I don't think that precludes him from having a Hall of Fame vote, but since he is a self-admitted globetrotter then I wonder how he has time to pay attention to baseball enough to continue having a Hall of Fame vote? Also, is Hersh the only baseball Hall of Fame voter with a BA in French literature?
I love Hersh's picture alongside his column. It looks like he is very displeased that his picture is being taken because these newfangled cameras are going to suck just a little bit of the soul out of him. What happened to just taking a Polaroid picture and shaking it until it developed?
Alex Rodriguez reported Monday to the Yankees’ spring training camp, two days before position players were expected.
Which of course is another example of something that shows the selfishness of A-Rod in that he didn't even warn the Yankees he would be showing up early to prepare for the season. The Yankees want A-Rod to do his own thing and handle questions from reporters in his own way without involving them, but he should at least keep them updated on his every move. They want control over how A-Rod handles and interacts with the media until they don't anymore.
The repeat doping offender must have wanted to get a head start on his recently reported vow to break Barry Bonds’ career home run record.
Oh sure, Bonds' career home run record is THE OFFICIAL home run record when it comes time for Alex Rodriguez to chase it, but when it comes time to put Bonds in the Hall of Fame based on his all-time home run record, Hersh prefers to leave Bonds out of the Hall of Fame with his tainted record. It's the official home run record until it isn't convenient for it to be the official home run record.
If baseball’s leaders were fully committed to anti-doping, there would be no way Rodriguez could get close to Bonds’ 762 (***) home runs, no matter how many more years the 39-year-old A-Rod plays.
Absolutely true. If baseball's leaders were committed to anti-doping then they would void A-Rod's home runs so that the real home run king, Barry Bonds, could have his record stand. Well, then they would have to void Bonds' home runs since he is tied to PED's as well. So that leaves Hank Aaron's home run record, though given the fact he played during a time of vast greenie use there really isn't any guarantee that Aaron didn't use something that is now illegal for MLB players to use. So baseball should probably void that record too and give it back to Babe Ruth. Though, given Ruth's proclivities off the field, there is no guarantee he didn't have an STD that helped him hit the baseball further and there was simply no testing that could prove this STD contributed to his power surge. So it's probably best if MLB voids his home run record as well, just to be safe. That leaves Roger Connor as the all-time home run king. But he retired in 1897, so he didn't even play against any quality competition during an era when baseball integrated. It's probably best to void that home run record too. In fact, let's just say there is no home run record and talk about it no more. Void every home run ever hit and every win ever won by any team that may or may not have had a PED user, greenie user, carrier of a super-powerful STD, and player who played prior to integration. Throw away the record book and start the records over beginning during the 2015 season. That should ensure there is no funny business with the MLB record book.
Because baseball should wipe at least 190 home runs from Rodriguez’ current total of 654.
Maybe just round up to 200. Fuck it, why not? If MLB is going to start eliminating records then let's just make it easier to keep count and start rounding up or down.
Sprinter Ben Johnson lost an Olympic gold medal and a world record after a positive drug test.
A gold medal is a totally different thing from an all-time home run record in baseball. One takes place over a short period of time, while the other takes place over a 20+ year baseball career. They aren't comparable to each other.
Sprinter Marion Jones lost five Olympic medals and had all results from nearly a year-long period erased after she admitted to doping.
Still not the same thing. These are individual performances and baseball is a team sport.
Little League International stripped Jackie Robinson West of a U.S. title for playing fast and loose with geographical boundaries for its team members.
This is a team sport and it's little league, not professional baseball. I don't think MLB should be in the business of just removing home runs that a player hit because he used PED's. The MLB record book is going to be a bit of a mess already and I see no reason to remove home runs used in the win total of the teams that A-Rod played for. I think it would make the MLB record books even more convoluted and confusing to understand. Worried about "the kids" and what they will think of PED users? Try to tell "the kids" that A-Rod played for the Yankees and hit home runs that count in the win total of the Yankees but don't count for the MLB record book. Sure, the wins count, but the actions taken to get the win do not count.
And baseball leaves A-Rod’s numbers as is?
Yes. You are a quick learner.
Rodriguez told ESPN he had used performance-enhancing drugs from 2001 through 2003. He hit 156 home runs in those three seasons.
This is how Hersh got to the 190 home runs total. Of course, if A-Rod says he used PED's from 2001-2003, then why wouldn't Hersh trust a guy who has lied multiple times about his PED use? Let's base A-Rod's career home run total on when A-Rod states he used PED's. What could go wrong?
The Miami Herald reported Rodriguez told federal agents he had used banned substances from late 2010 to October 2012. He hit 34 home runs in 2011 and 2012.
And again, this is a number that can be trusted because A-Rod has always spit out the truth about his PED use?
Yet the .pdf document spelling out Major League Baseball’s policy on drug prevention and treatment includes no reference to invalidating / erasing individual statistics of a player who tests positive or admits to doping, a common part of discipline for such offenses in Olympic sports.
Which is why voiding the home runs that A-Rod hit so that another PED user can be the all-time home run king is a dumb idea. It's professional baseball, not the Olympics. There is no MLB policy on changing the record book or erasing statistics of a player who tests positive or admits doping and there should not be. Simply because Philip Hersh loves the Olympics and thinks the Olympic penalty for doping is the best policy doesn't mean that MLB should agree. Altering the record book and simply pretending a record wasn't set is a bad precedent for MLB to start doing. Maybe the Olympics are fine with just erasing history, good or bad, but I don't think MLB should be in that business. If so, there would be a lot of history and records set in the 1960's that violated today's MLB policy on drug preventing and treatment. If records are set which violate MLB's policy on drug prevention and treatment, then those records need to be consistently erased from the record books. We wouldn't want a stain on the record book by having any greenie users holding important MLB records.
MLB spokesman Pat Courtney confirmed in an email that the MLB discipline for doping, proved by test or admission, does not include erasing statistics.
Did this really require an email confirmation? There is nothing in the policy that mentions erasing statistics and MLB has never erased statistics before.
It will be even more laughable if A-Rod, who is returning from a one-season doping suspension, passes Bonds’ record, even if that mark hardly is sacrosanct.
MLB wouldn't want the travesty of a PED user surpassing the home run mark set by another PED user. It seems that Hersh uses the LIFO method of statistic erasing. The last person who sets the home run record by using PED's is the person whose name gets erased from the record book first. Bonds may have used PED's, but he was before A-Rod in the record books so his tainted record stays.
It already needs asterisks (***) because of Bonds’ involvement with PEDs, his ridiculous claims of having used them unknowingly notwithstanding.
Why does Bonds get an asterisk but A-Rod's record (that he won't achieve) gets erased completely? The randomness of life? Or is this just how the Olympics would handle the situation? We all know the IOC is an incorruptible organization so it's best to base MLB policies on what the IOC would do in a given situation.
If Manfred wanted to show the sport really has cleaned itself up and that his is a new era, he should start by wiping all the demonstrably tainted statistics from the record books.
But rest assured, this wiping of tainted statistics from the record books would have to include any baseball players in the 1950's through the 1970's that used a substance which is now banned by MLB. The statistics weren't tainted at the time they were set, but those statistics were achieved using methods that violate the current MLB policy on drug prevention.
That means not only A-Rod’s but those of every other player for whom there is a known period of use.
Of course, with many of these players having lied about using PED's in the first place, it's smart to just trust them on the time period in which they used PED's. Of course.
Their best days shouldn’t be numbered.
I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE!
Philip Hersh will now retire from writing or thinking about baseball until next winter when his Hall of Fame ballot comes in the mail. These are your Hall of Fame voters.
Here is Hersh's background:
Philip Hersh, the Olympic specialist for Tribune Co., has covered 17 Olympics and reported from some 50 countries in 30 years with the Chicago Tribune. He likes to use sport as a way to write about the culture of a country or an athlete. Hersh graduated from Yale with a Bachelor of Arts in French literature. His passions include chamber music, road cycling (takes no PEDs except Advil) and Dr. Siri mysteries.
I don't think that precludes him from having a Hall of Fame vote, but since he is a self-admitted globetrotter then I wonder how he has time to pay attention to baseball enough to continue having a Hall of Fame vote? Also, is Hersh the only baseball Hall of Fame voter with a BA in French literature?
I love Hersh's picture alongside his column. It looks like he is very displeased that his picture is being taken because these newfangled cameras are going to suck just a little bit of the soul out of him. What happened to just taking a Polaroid picture and shaking it until it developed?
Alex Rodriguez reported Monday to the Yankees’ spring training camp, two days before position players were expected.
Which of course is another example of something that shows the selfishness of A-Rod in that he didn't even warn the Yankees he would be showing up early to prepare for the season. The Yankees want A-Rod to do his own thing and handle questions from reporters in his own way without involving them, but he should at least keep them updated on his every move. They want control over how A-Rod handles and interacts with the media until they don't anymore.
The repeat doping offender must have wanted to get a head start on his recently reported vow to break Barry Bonds’ career home run record.
Oh sure, Bonds' career home run record is THE OFFICIAL home run record when it comes time for Alex Rodriguez to chase it, but when it comes time to put Bonds in the Hall of Fame based on his all-time home run record, Hersh prefers to leave Bonds out of the Hall of Fame with his tainted record. It's the official home run record until it isn't convenient for it to be the official home run record.
If baseball’s leaders were fully committed to anti-doping, there would be no way Rodriguez could get close to Bonds’ 762 (***) home runs, no matter how many more years the 39-year-old A-Rod plays.
Absolutely true. If baseball's leaders were committed to anti-doping then they would void A-Rod's home runs so that the real home run king, Barry Bonds, could have his record stand. Well, then they would have to void Bonds' home runs since he is tied to PED's as well. So that leaves Hank Aaron's home run record, though given the fact he played during a time of vast greenie use there really isn't any guarantee that Aaron didn't use something that is now illegal for MLB players to use. So baseball should probably void that record too and give it back to Babe Ruth. Though, given Ruth's proclivities off the field, there is no guarantee he didn't have an STD that helped him hit the baseball further and there was simply no testing that could prove this STD contributed to his power surge. So it's probably best if MLB voids his home run record as well, just to be safe. That leaves Roger Connor as the all-time home run king. But he retired in 1897, so he didn't even play against any quality competition during an era when baseball integrated. It's probably best to void that home run record too. In fact, let's just say there is no home run record and talk about it no more. Void every home run ever hit and every win ever won by any team that may or may not have had a PED user, greenie user, carrier of a super-powerful STD, and player who played prior to integration. Throw away the record book and start the records over beginning during the 2015 season. That should ensure there is no funny business with the MLB record book.
Because baseball should wipe at least 190 home runs from Rodriguez’ current total of 654.
Maybe just round up to 200. Fuck it, why not? If MLB is going to start eliminating records then let's just make it easier to keep count and start rounding up or down.
Sprinter Ben Johnson lost an Olympic gold medal and a world record after a positive drug test.
A gold medal is a totally different thing from an all-time home run record in baseball. One takes place over a short period of time, while the other takes place over a 20+ year baseball career. They aren't comparable to each other.
Sprinter Marion Jones lost five Olympic medals and had all results from nearly a year-long period erased after she admitted to doping.
Still not the same thing. These are individual performances and baseball is a team sport.
Little League International stripped Jackie Robinson West of a U.S. title for playing fast and loose with geographical boundaries for its team members.
This is a team sport and it's little league, not professional baseball. I don't think MLB should be in the business of just removing home runs that a player hit because he used PED's. The MLB record book is going to be a bit of a mess already and I see no reason to remove home runs used in the win total of the teams that A-Rod played for. I think it would make the MLB record books even more convoluted and confusing to understand. Worried about "the kids" and what they will think of PED users? Try to tell "the kids" that A-Rod played for the Yankees and hit home runs that count in the win total of the Yankees but don't count for the MLB record book. Sure, the wins count, but the actions taken to get the win do not count.
And baseball leaves A-Rod’s numbers as is?
Yes. You are a quick learner.
Rodriguez told ESPN he had used performance-enhancing drugs from 2001 through 2003. He hit 156 home runs in those three seasons.
This is how Hersh got to the 190 home runs total. Of course, if A-Rod says he used PED's from 2001-2003, then why wouldn't Hersh trust a guy who has lied multiple times about his PED use? Let's base A-Rod's career home run total on when A-Rod states he used PED's. What could go wrong?
The Miami Herald reported Rodriguez told federal agents he had used banned substances from late 2010 to October 2012. He hit 34 home runs in 2011 and 2012.
And again, this is a number that can be trusted because A-Rod has always spit out the truth about his PED use?
Yet the .pdf document spelling out Major League Baseball’s policy on drug prevention and treatment includes no reference to invalidating / erasing individual statistics of a player who tests positive or admits to doping, a common part of discipline for such offenses in Olympic sports.
Which is why voiding the home runs that A-Rod hit so that another PED user can be the all-time home run king is a dumb idea. It's professional baseball, not the Olympics. There is no MLB policy on changing the record book or erasing statistics of a player who tests positive or admits doping and there should not be. Simply because Philip Hersh loves the Olympics and thinks the Olympic penalty for doping is the best policy doesn't mean that MLB should agree. Altering the record book and simply pretending a record wasn't set is a bad precedent for MLB to start doing. Maybe the Olympics are fine with just erasing history, good or bad, but I don't think MLB should be in that business. If so, there would be a lot of history and records set in the 1960's that violated today's MLB policy on drug preventing and treatment. If records are set which violate MLB's policy on drug prevention and treatment, then those records need to be consistently erased from the record books. We wouldn't want a stain on the record book by having any greenie users holding important MLB records.
MLB spokesman Pat Courtney confirmed in an email that the MLB discipline for doping, proved by test or admission, does not include erasing statistics.
Did this really require an email confirmation? There is nothing in the policy that mentions erasing statistics and MLB has never erased statistics before.
It will be even more laughable if A-Rod, who is returning from a one-season doping suspension, passes Bonds’ record, even if that mark hardly is sacrosanct.
MLB wouldn't want the travesty of a PED user surpassing the home run mark set by another PED user. It seems that Hersh uses the LIFO method of statistic erasing. The last person who sets the home run record by using PED's is the person whose name gets erased from the record book first. Bonds may have used PED's, but he was before A-Rod in the record books so his tainted record stays.
It already needs asterisks (***) because of Bonds’ involvement with PEDs, his ridiculous claims of having used them unknowingly notwithstanding.
Why does Bonds get an asterisk but A-Rod's record (that he won't achieve) gets erased completely? The randomness of life? Or is this just how the Olympics would handle the situation? We all know the IOC is an incorruptible organization so it's best to base MLB policies on what the IOC would do in a given situation.
If Manfred wanted to show the sport really has cleaned itself up and that his is a new era, he should start by wiping all the demonstrably tainted statistics from the record books.
But rest assured, this wiping of tainted statistics from the record books would have to include any baseball players in the 1950's through the 1970's that used a substance which is now banned by MLB. The statistics weren't tainted at the time they were set, but those statistics were achieved using methods that violate the current MLB policy on drug prevention.
That means not only A-Rod’s but those of every other player for whom there is a known period of use.
Of course, with many of these players having lied about using PED's in the first place, it's smart to just trust them on the time period in which they used PED's. Of course.
Their best days shouldn’t be numbered.
I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE!
Philip Hersh will now retire from writing or thinking about baseball until next winter when his Hall of Fame ballot comes in the mail. These are your Hall of Fame voters.
Monday, January 12, 2015
6 comments Gregg Easterbrook Picks the Broncos or the Colts To Win the Colts-Broncos Game
Gregg refused to reveal the trade secrets behind writing TMQ in last week's TMQ. Lying and misleading are two trade secrets, though they aren't really secret. He also had a reader write in with an impossibly stupid idea that fans watching a game should vote one way or another on whether a replay challenge should be upheld or overturned. This week Gregg talks about the advantage of being at home in the playoffs, continues to update his Authentic Game standings that mean nothing except when he wants them to mean something, and just cuts to the chase and asks if teams should sexualize their cheerleaders. It's like he's asking for permission to be creepy and leer at woman half or almost a third of his age. He needs his readers to confirm it's okay to feel sexually excited about seeing cheerleaders while also claiming the NFL is exploiting them.
Longtime TMQ readers know my compromise with my Baptist upbringing is to believe sex is good, gambling is bad.
I've never understood this comment Gregg continuously writes in TMQ before and still don't understand it today. For society, sex has probably caused more problems throughout record history (INCLUDED THE TRIASSIC PERIOD) than gambling has, but I've learned sometimes it's best not to argue with everything Gregg writes. He likes sex and doesn't like gambling.
But if you must wager, take the home teams in the divisional round this weekend. They are the surest sure-thing in sports.
Unless you want to count other sure things in sports like #1 seeds beating #16 seeds in the NCAA Tournament, #2 seeds beating #15 seeds in the NCAA Tournament, #1 seeds beating #8 seeds in the NHL and the NBA playoffs, or any of the other surer bets in sports than the home team winning in the divisional round.
Tuesday Morning Quarterback is predicting home teams will run the table in the upcoming round, with Denver, Green Bay, New England and Seattle advancing. This prediction pertains to victory only: I don't know the lines, and the Baptist in me won't even look.
Very holy of you.
Since the current playoff format was adopted in 1990, home teams in the divisional round are 70-26, a 73 percent winning figure. That's well north of the 57 percent rate at which NFL home teams won 2014 regular season contests.
Two things:
1. The 73% win rate for home teams in the divisional round is not the surest bet in sports. There are more sure bets in sports. I listed some above.
2. Comparing the 73% win rate during the playoffs to the 57% win rate during the regular season is a bit misleading. The team that gets the home game in the divisional round is almost always a team with a better record than the visiting team. The home teams in the divisional round got a week off because they have the two best records in their division. So the reason the 73% win rate is higher than the regular season rate of 57% is because during the regular season inferior teams are guaranteed to get eight home games and they will end up losing some of these games. In the divisional round of the playoffs, the home team is almost always a team with the better record, so that team is (theoretically) more likely to win the game due to this.
Gregg points this out, but I really wanted to point it out. Because comparing the playoffs and the regular season in terms of winning percentage for home teams isn't a great comparison.
For the divisional round, the reason the hosts are hosting in the first place is that they are the best teams.
Nope, not the best teams, just the team with the better record. There is a slight difference.
Seattle enters the divisional round on a 24-2 home stretch, while at 8-8-1, visiting Carolina is not even a winning team. If the Seahawks don't prevail, it will be the biggest upset since Appalachian State over Michigan.
If I were someone who didn't look at gambling lines then I probably wouldn't be talking about what the biggest upset may be. Stanford over USC when Jim Harbaugh was the Stanford head coach was a pretty big upset and if Carolina had beaten the Seahawks then it wouldn't have even been the biggest NFL playoff upset of the last 20 years. The Seahawks were favored by 11 points and since 1998 three teams have won the Super Bowl with higher point spreads against them. It would have been an upset, but not the biggest upset in NFL playoffs history, much less the biggest upset since Appalachian State over Michigan. That's an incredibly stupid comment to make, considering the NCAA Tournament has bigger upsets than Carolina over Seattle nearly every year. Of course, leave it to Gregg to be all, "I don't look at the point spreads" and then claim he can tell what the biggest upset since Appalachian State over Michigan may be.
New England. In the postseason at New England, Bill Belichick is 1-2 versus the Ravens, 11-1 versus all other teams -- and Baltimore heads to New England for the divisional. Nonetheless, TMQ foresees a Flying Elvii triumph.
TMQ sees a Patriots triumph because they are at home and for no other reason. It's like foreseeing a Patriots triumph because their coach doesn't dress like it's freezing outside when it is freezing outside. The result may end up being accurate, but the reasoning leaves something to be desired.
The Patriots finished fourth in points scored, eighth in points allowed, tied for second in give/take. That's strong. New England is 122-38 since the start of the 2005 season, most wins by any NFL club in that period.
Come on Gregg, start quoting how the Patriots haven't won a Super Bowl since Spygate as if they are being punished for their transgressions still. It used to be that Gregg would point out how the Patriots can't win the Super Bowl since Spygate occurred, but I guess he's backed off that once he realized how incredibly stupid he sounded. Now Gregg has started touting what a great team the Patriots are without mentioning the "curse" he used to claim was holding the team back from success.
Belichick knows it will not be long until Tom Brady's magazine modeling agent means more to him than any football coach: if there is to be another Brady-Belichick ring, now's the time. And if the Patriots win this weekend, they play the AFC title game at home.
Which was all part of Bill Belichick's plan to win as many games as possible during the regular season to ensure this would happen. He's quite the gambler in that way.
The red flag for the P-Men is a recent trend of late swoon. In the last seven seasons, New England is 84-28 in the regular season followed by 4-5 in the postseason. Perhaps when Belichick and Brady draw nigh to another Super Bowl appearance, weariness sets in.
Yeah, that's probably it. I'm sure this has nothing to do with the postseason simply being a crapshoot due to one game deciding whether a team advances to the next round or not.
The Packers finished first in give/take and first in points scored. Aaron Rodgers hasn't thrown an interception at home since 2012. Green Bay hasn't punted in the first half at home in four consecutive outings. The Packers' worry is that their super-precise passing attack tends to peter out over the course of a game, with Green Bay outscoring opponents 310-146 in the first half, then only 84-69 in the third quarter, then being outscored 92-133 in the fourth.
For a smart guy, Gregg sure can be stupid at times. So after outscoring opponents over the season by 179 points over the first three quarters, the Packers get outscored by 41 points in the fourth quarter? Could this have something to do with the Packers running the ball more in the fourth quarter and the opposing team throwing the ball in an attempt to catch up while the Packers play a softer defense? Of course not. That would be a logical conclusion. So there is a good chance the Packers super-precise passing attack doesn't peter out as the game goes on, it's just fewer aggressive passing plays are called and the Packers run the ball more.
In fact, if Gregg spent less time spouting nonsense and more time actually doing fucking research then he would see the Packers have run the football 16 more times in the second half and thrown the ball 90 fewer times in the second half as compared to the first half. THAT is the reason they get outscored in the fourth quarter, along with statistics that show the Packers' defense allows more adjusted net yards per pass attempt in the second half of games. So not only doesn't the Packers offense peter out more than it pulls back, the Packers defense is more responsible for the Packers getting outscored in the fourth quarter. The fact the Packers give up 133 points in the fourth quarter and 215 points in the other three quarters isn't the fault of the Packers' offense.
I did 5 minutes of research and found this stuff out, yet Gregg claims Green Bay's offense "peters out" in the second half. Why can't an intelligent person simply do research rather than make shit up and hope that it's true?
Denver. If there's to be a visitor victory in the divisional round, the Broncos seem most vulnerable. Denver has sputtered in the second half of the season, while falling in TMQ's Authentic Games metric -- see below.
Denver averaged 30.6 points per game during the first half of the season, while giving up 23.1 points per game.
Denver averaged 29.6 points per game during the second half of the season, while giving up 21.1 points per game.
But no Gregg, keep doing very little research and continuing to push the narrative that the Broncos were sputtering in the second half of the season. That 1 point per game less they scored while giving up 2 less points per game is a sure sign of sputtering. At what point does Gregg give enough of a shit to just do research to see if what he claims is accurate or not? There is an argument the Broncos didn't sputter in the second half of the season at all, especially since they lost two games during both the first and second halves of their season and they scored and gave up nearly the same amount of points in each half of the season.
Having won last season's AFC title contest against New England in Denver, the Broncos may be looking ahead to restaging that event in Massachusetts. They'd best keep focused on the Colts. Danger sign: Peyton Manning's 11-12 postseason record includes the most playoff losses ever by a starting quarterback.
Which also means that Manning has been good enough to make the playoffs consistently enough to lose the most playoff games ever.
Though TMQ calls the divisional round the surest sure-thing in sports, a week later in the championship round, homefield advantage dissipates. Since 1990, hosts in conference championship games are 29-19, a 60 percent winning figure, barely above the rate at which hosts win regular season games.
No. A 60% winning percentage at home isn't homefield advantage "dissipating." 6 out of 10 times the home team wins. That's a clear advantage. It's not a huge advantage, but it's an advantage. Gregg never fails to mislead his readers who want to read TMQ and not think about what they are reading.
Players leave everything on the field in championship contests, so home teams won't necessarily be the favorites.
But they do win the game 6 out of 10 times, favorites or not. Besides, how would Gregg know who the favorite is if he doesn't pay attention to the gambling lines?
Stats Of The Week No. 1: In the 2014 NFL regular season, the 1,000-yard mark was surpassed by 13 running backs -- and by 23 receivers.
Without context of a comparison to other NFL seasons this statistic means nearly nothing other than a recitation of facts. What's the takeaway supposed to be?
Stats Of The Week No. 7: New Orleans was 32nd in defense in 2012, rose to fourth in 2013, dropped back to 31st in 2014.
Rob Ryan everyone! If his name were Rob Guyton then he probably wouldn't have gotten another season with the Saints. Instead, the Saints are just going to give him more to work with. That's the issue.
Sweet Touchdowns Of The Week: Detroit leading 20-7 in the fourth quarter, the Boys faced fourth-and-goal from the Lions 1. The "safe" thing is to kick. But fortune favors the bold! Dallas went for it, touchdown.
Fortune favors the bold, unless the bold don't "do a little dance" or are bold in a way that Gregg Easterbrook doesn't like. In that case, fortune doesn't give a shit about the bold.
All that mattered was the fourth-and-1 decision. Fortune favors the bold, victories don't come in the mail, you need one yard, go win the game! Caldwell ordered a namby-pamby attempt to draw Dallas offside, then sent out the punt unit. Outraged, the football gods caused a 10-yard shank. Dallas went on to victory.
On the day, Detroit averaged 5.9 yards per offensive snap. Yet when the Lions needed one single yard to take command of a postseason game, Caldwell demurred.
I do agree with Gregg in this instance, though his reasoning that the Lions averaged 5.9 yards per offensive snap does ignore that fourth-and-1 is a different situation where this statistic isn't terribly relevant. Gregg consistently ignores situational down-and-distance when making his criticism of NFL head coaches not going for it on fourth down. Caldwell should have gone for it, but to say the Lions could have gotten one yard on fourth-and-1 because they averaged 5.9 yards per offensive snap on the day is bad reasoning.
Sweet 'N' Sour Play: Baltimore leading 23-15, the Steelers faced third-and-4 on their 26 midway through the fourth quarter. At a time when unorthodox defensive fronts have practically become common, Baltimore managed to show a wild look: one defensive lineman as a nose tackle, three overload blitzers far left of Ben Roethlisberger, three overload blitzers far right. But it wasn't a blitz, rather, a Steelers-style zone rush. At the snap, all three on the left came; only one came from the right; and the nose tackle dropped into coverage.
This wasn't a blitz, just a zone rush where the nose tackle dropped back in coverage, there was no defensive linemen rushing the passer and linebackers tried to sack the quarterback. It's totally different from a blitz and certainly couldn't be a zone blitz.
Flummoxed, Roethlisberger flipped a flare pass that bounced off Ben Tate's hands and was intercepted by Terrell Suggs. Ravens touchdown on the next play and the visitors would never look back. Sweet.
Roethlisberger was so flummoxed that he threw the ball to an open receiver who couldn't manage to catch the pass. Is it really Roethlisberger that was flummoxed on this play? It sounds like he knew where the ball needed to go.
With just one defender inside the area defined by the Steelers' offensive tackles, Roethlisberger simply could have run straight ahead, with a first down likely.
A first down was "likely"? Did Gregg even watch the game or did his "trade secret" employee who is responsible for watching each NFL game just relay this to him? How could Roethlisberger have run up the middle when there was a defender on him by the time he had dropped back? He couldn't have made the decision to run straight ahead prior to the snap because he had no idea a linebacker or two wouldn't drop back into the middle of the field and after the ball was snapped Terrell Suggs was in the middle of the field prior to intercepting the pass. Maybe Roethlisberger could have run for the first down, but a first down was not at all "likely" as Gregg inexplicably claims. Watch the game, Gregg. Just watch it and take time to know what are you writing before you actually write it.
TMQ shudders to think the 2016 election will pair Hillary Clinton versus Jeb Bush. As it is the United States presidential succession is Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama. If the 2016 race pits Hillary against Jeb, the country will be assured that four of the last five presidents came from the same two aristocratic landed families. This wouldn't be good for the republic. Pakistan will seem like an open political system by comparison.
This is an excess of hyperbole. If Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton are elected then the United States would simply have an open political system, simply an open political system dominated by two families.
Clinton did a fine job in the Senate and as secretary of state; she's highly qualified. My big worry is that she's an opportunist whose first priority is self-promotion, not the interests of the nation. One example: around the time she was leaving the White House as first lady, Clinton decried "a consumer-driven culture that promotes values that undermine both capitalism and democracy" while declaring the nation "being undermined by consumer capitalism."
Shortly thereafter, she bought a $1.7 million house and signed an $8 million book contract. In today's money, that's a $2.4 million house and an $11 million book contract. There's nothing wrong with nice houses or high income. What's disturbing is when a political leader pretends to be modest, urges other to be modest -- and then cashes in.
If being a hypocrite were to prevent a candidate from running for President then there would never be any candidates for President.
Bush did a fine job as governor of Florida and has the sort of hands-on economic experience many candidates lack; he's highly qualified. He presents himself to the electorate as someone whose ego is in check. My big worry: so did his brother.
Plus if Hillary becomes president, we'll face more years of Bill Clinton this, Bill Clinton that. If Jeb becomes president, we'll face more years of Bush family this, Bush family that. Regardless of their experience and skill, their last names should disqualify both: it would be healthy for the nation if neither were on the 2016 ballot.
While I don't know if I would vote for either candidate, if both are qualified to be President (in Gregg's opinion) then why should they be disqualified simply due to their last name? It's better for the United States to push qualified candidates out of the race rather than have a candidate with the last name "Clinton" or "Bush"? If anything, there needs to be more qualified candidates running for President, not fewer.
New Bills owners Terry and Kim Pegula can't be thrilled they must pay departing head coach Doug Marrone an extra $4 million to do nothing. Marrone's contract contained a golden-parachute clause: if ownership changed, he could blow town, while receiving a $4 million bonus on top of any salary he may draw at a new coaching post. So you'd assume Marrone waved goodbye simply for a double-dip payday. More likely he knows he mismanaged the Bills and wants somebody else to deal with the problems he created.
Or more likely than that, he knew he would get paid to leave town and there would still be interest in him as the head coach of a different NFL team. He could get paid $4 million for leaving the Bills and get paid as the head coach of a different NFL team. Gregg would do the same thing in Marrone's situation no matter what he tells his readers.
In just two years at the helm, Marrone spent three first-round draft selections -- Buffalo's 2015 first choice is promised to Cleveland -- running up a debt for someone else to cover, like a politician who borrows without any plan to repay.
Doug Marrone didn't make these decisions. In fact, he was reportedly very much against the decision to trade the 2015 first round pick for Watkins. Again, do some fucking research before spouting off bullshit in TMQ that you want your readers to believe simply because it fits some narrative that you have pre-packaged every week.
For the price of three first-round draft choices, plus a fourth-round pick, Marrone got just two players, EJ Manuel and Sammy Watkins. Manuel doesn't start. Watkins is a fine performer, but the Bills paid way too much for him. Several quality wide receivers were available in the 2014 draft: Buffalo panicked and overspent on Watkins though standing pat would have allowed Odell Beckham Jr. to drop into the Bills' laps. Most important, the NFL is a quarterback league. Marrone left the Bills with no quarterback nor any 2015 first-round choice to employ in search of one.
These weren't solely his decisions. Buffalo has a General Manager who makes decisions like this.
Marrone went along with panicky personnel decisions, failed to develop a player at the league's most important position, stripped the franchise of future draft picks then whistled a merry tune as he skedaddled with a multimillion-dollar bonus. Nice work if you can get it.
I won't defend Marrone's record in Buffalo. Still he "went along" with panicky personnel decisions? What was Marrone supposed to do when the GM wants to make this trade? Quit? That's essentially what he did when he was given the chance. So Gregg criticizes Marrone for making decisions that he alone didn't make, then claims Marrone "went along" with these decisions when his only other option was to quit, which he eventually did...which Gregg again criticizes him for.
Postscript No.2: Watkins caught 65 of the 128 passes targeted to him, or 51 percent. Jordy Nelson caught 98 of 151 (65 percent), Antonio Brown caught 129 of 182 (71 percent). Nelson and Brown were receiving pinpoint passes from franchise-caliber quarterbacks. Buffalo's two quarterbacks were so inaccurate, Watkins was chasing passes that sailed far beyond his reach or clanged into the ground.
Watkins was also a rookie wide receiver while Antonio Brown and Jordy Nelson are more veteran receivers. I don't even understand what Gregg wants to prove here. The Bills need a franchise quarterback? Yes, of course they do.
"Trailing in the fourth quarter, Marvin Lewis sent in the kicking unit. TMQ wrote the words 'game over' in his notebook. Victories don't come in the mail, play to win, don't play to avoid losing!"
Right, because the game wasn't already over at that point. The Bengals were down 16 and couldn't move the ball, but there was hope. The hope was extinguished by this choice to not going for it on fourth down.
After last year's Cincinnati postseason flameout, I noted that as Lewis sent in the kicking unit, Andy Dalton passively trudged off the field: Brett Favre would have demanded the coach go for it. "Next season, Dalton needs to become a leader," your columnist opined. Sunday, when Lewis sent in the punting unit on fourth-and-short in Indianapolis territory, Dalton passively trudged off the field.
After last year's flameout when Gregg suggested that Dalton yell at Lewis for sending in the kicking unit, I suggested that perhaps Dalton undermining his coach in front of the team isn't showing leadership. How is Gregg to know that Dalton didn't privately demand Lewis go for it next time when they were standing on the sidelines? Gregg has no idea if Dalton did this or not. Second-guessing the head coach in front of the team and the national television viewing audience isn't leadership.
Wonder why Dalton is 3-11 in playoff and primetime games? At this point Cincinnati backers must accept: Dalton is never going to become a leader.
Yelling at the head coach isn't leadership.
Oregon posted scoring drives of 0:21, 1:24, 1:32, 2:01, 2:11, 3:00 and a poky-puppy drive of 4:45. Though Florida State had significant extra time to rehearse for the Blur Offense, the Seminoles' defense seemed stunned, the front seven "sucking air" -- gasping for breath -- by midway through the second quarter.
They may have been prepared for it, but it doesn't mean they were capable of stopping it. There is a difference in preparing for the Blur Offense and actually being able to get off the field against the offense.
Oregon style muddle-huddle deuce plays should be employed in short field goal attempt situations.
Oregon has a snapper, holder and kicker at the center; three blockers and one back wide on each side. If there are less than four guys across from either outside set, the snapper hikes to the holder, who throws to the back on that side; if both sets are properly defended, Oregon kicks. That both sides often aren't properly defended -- they weren't by Florida State, two points scored -- suggests the muddle-huddle would work at least sometimes in the pros. But NFL coaches don't want to use this set, or the similar swinging-gate set, for status reasons. At press conferences they don't want to hear, "You're using college trick plays."
So this is why NFL teams don't use this formation? NFL teams are fine with hiring college coaches who bring their college offense and offensive philosophies to the NFL, but they just don't want to be seen as running college trick plays? That's what I am to believe it seems. I think if NFL teams are fine with hiring coaches who are from college and intend to bring their college philosophies with them to the NFL, then those NFL teams would be fine using college trick plays.
The Alabama-Ohio State side of the semis came down to one team being bold while the other played it "safe," and just saying those words tells you what you need to know.
No, because you didn't say which team was safe and which team was bold.
Well into the 2012 regular season, John Harbaugh fired offensive coordinator Cam Cameron. This move, viewed as shocking at the time, seemed to fire up the Ravens, and proved essential to their Super Bowl run.
It was shocking and Gregg claimed at the time that John Harbaugh was shifting blame off him on to Cam Cameron. It's interesting how Gregg leaves out any criticism he had at the time about this move. Well, it's not interesting, this is just a typical thing Gregg does in an effort to mislead his readers and remove any information from a discussion that may end up making him look bad. Ego before all else. Mislead readers and leave out information that may make Gregg look bad while linking information in TMQ that makes Gregg look good. Here's what Gregg wrote at the time:
And it wasn't just players who quit. Many coaching staffs quit on Sunday's games, too. Norv Turner, job in jeopardy, nevertheless looked bored on the sideline as his charges were embarrassed at home. Chan Gailey has acted all season as though he was fired last season. John Harbaugh was more concerned with shifting blame than fixing his team.
By firing Cameron now -- rather than this past offseason, when the offensive coordinator position could have turned over in an orderly manner -- Ravens coach John Harbaugh sent the signal that he expects yet another playoff collapse and wants an excuse lined up. At the postgame media event following the playoff collapse Harbaugh/East appears to expect, he can blame Cameron for the team's troubled offense. Firing an assistant coach just before the playoffs isn't a bold move to invigorate the team. It's a desperate move about blame shifting.
Then Gregg later wrote this:
John Harbaugh fired offensive coordinator Cam Cameron midseason, trying to make the Ravens' plodding offense his fault: though Baltimore averaged 25 points under Cameron, and has averaged 23 points since.
But now this move that was about blame shifting in 2012 was "essential" to the Ravens' Super Bowl run. Will Gregg mention that the shocking move John Harbaugh made in 2012 endured the boring "blame shifting" criticism from Gregg? Of course not, because it worked out. Gregg has no beliefs, simply criticism based on whether something works or not. Gregg didn't think this shocking move would work in 2012, but now he's touting the move as "essential" to the Ravens' Super Bowl run. Will Gregg mention his criticism of Harbaugh for blame shifting and how he accused Harbaugh of giving up on the season? Of course not! That's Gregg Easterbrook. When he's correct, it gets linked, when he's wrong it never gets mentioned again in an effort to cover up for the fact his bullshit "blame shifting" criticism isn't always accurate.
Next Monday's inaugural CFP title tilt will pit Oregon versus Ohio State -- which along the sidelines means sex-bombshell cheerleaders versus cheerleaders in traditional outfits.
Hopefully Gregg won't be too distracted by the sight of exploited women who are half or one-third his age that he doesn't pay attention to what happens on the football field. I'm kidding of course. Even if Gregg watches the whole game (or has his "trade secret"/employee watch the game for him) then he still will have inane observations that have the potential to be inaccurate.
Owing to its Nike-driven marketing focus, Oregon has led college sports both toward dazzling flashy uniforms and helmets, and toward scantily attired cheerleaders. Is the latter a good idea?
I don't know, they are cheerleaders. What they wear is irrelevant to me when I'm watching a football game.
Professional cheerleaders ought to exude sex appeal. They are after all professionals, and the dancing girl who shows lots of skin has a long history in entertainment, at least as far back as vaudeville. High school cheerleaders should not show skin.
So the same cheerleaders who Gregg believes are exploited by the NFL should be further exploited by exuding as much sex appeal as possible? After all, it IS their job and they are specifically hired/exploited (in Gregg's opinion) to do this job.
Obviously teens will have sex on the brain no matter how often adults wag their fingers, but sexualizing high school sports is a step one hopes is never taken.
But if high school cheerleaders don't show skin, then how will Gregg know if they are showing the proper amount of cheerleader professionalism required for their high school team to win the game?
That leaves college cheerleaders. They're adults legally, and sociologically more like grown-ups than kids. College women should make their own choices about everything, including whether they want to dance half-naked on national television. But considering that football factories are already exploiting players for income, should colleges also sexualize their cheerleaders in order to rev up crowds and ratings?
Do college cheerleaders who wear less clothing really rev up the ratings for a game? Are there people who watch a football game specifically to see 30 seconds of each team's cheerleaders? I can't believe Gregg believes college cheerleaders who wear less clothing will rev up ratings. I'm dubious about this claim.
Tweet your views to @EasterbrookG.
Tweet your view to Gregg so he doesn't feel bad when he's ogling a 19 year old college student who should make her own choice about anything, like for example, whether she wants to date a 61-year old man. Make Gregg feel better about himself and his urges to find these women sexy. It's not pervy, it's normal and Gregg has the Tweets to prove it!
Bart Starr Can Only Dream Of Under Armour Cold Gear: Not many teams that stage a 99-yard touchdown drive, then lead by 13 points in the second half and go on to lose: Detroit found a way.
That's a pretty specific set of criteria a team must meet, so I would say this doesn't happen often.
Falling behind 24-20, the Lions got the ball back on their 23 with two minutes remaining, holding two timeouts. Here's what happened: short pass, short pass, deep incompletion, short pass, short incompletion, short pass, short pass, fumble and Dallas sends in the victory formation. Seventy-seven yards were needed and every call save was a short pass -- that's the "safe" thing! Ye gods.
I'm sure the Lions never thought to throw the ball deep in this situation. I'm sure it never crossed their mind. If only Gregg Easterbrook were around to remind the Lions to throw the ball deep late in the game when needing to score a touchdown.
Does Gregg really believe the Lions were trying to do the safe thing by throwing short? Does it get through his thick skull that the Lions couldn't go deep because the Cowboys had taken the deep ball away? Matthew Stafford could have just thrown the ball deep, but it very well could have resulted in a turnover. I joked on Twitter the Lions should just throw it deep to Calvin Johnson, but it's not always possible to just sling a deep pass. It's not that the Cowboys expected short passes, it's just they wanted the Lions to throw it short. The Lions were not being safe, they were trying to score without committing a turnover.
Authentic Games Standings: Carolina may have reached the divisional round but still isn't included. How can an NFL team that does not have a winning record in January be considered Authentic?
Because the Authentic Games Standing are a farce?
Today's column lead notwithstanding, the Authentic Games index warns of an Indianapolis upset at Denver.
So for those of you keeping score (me), that is three Super Bowl predictions from Gregg AND he just picked the Broncos to beat the Colts, but wants to warn his readers that the Colts could beat the Broncos. What the fuck does this even mean? "Today's column lead notwithstanding," does that mean "My previous opinion not withstanding"? So ignoring Gregg's previous opinion, here is another opinion. There are two options. The Colts could beat the Broncos or the Colts could lose to the Broncos. Gregg Easterbrook has managed to now predict both outcomes could occur. Thanks for the contribution, now go away.
The funny part is I just know Gregg is going to take credit for whatever happens in the Colts-Broncos game. He'll be sure to crow about how right he was either way, notwithstanding the fact he essentially predicted that both possible outcomes could occur, so he really predicted nothing.
On third-and-1 in the fourth quarter, zebras called defensive pass interference against Dallas. They began walking off the foul to set up a Detroit first-and-10 on the Dallas 34, which would have put the Lions in command. Then referee Pete Morelli announced, without explanation, that he was picking up the flag.
Key issue: Was there pass interference? TMQ thinks no. Despite the popular misconception, NFL pass defenders do not need to turn to the ball -- face-guarding is legal in the pros. (It's not legal in NCAA or NFHS play; these kinds of confusions are one reason football rules should be simplified and standardized.) Boys linebacker Anthony Hitchens made contact with Lions receiver Brandon Pettigrew, but the contact seemed incidental.
Key fact about the play: Pettigrew was never open. Hitchens had him tightly covered all the way down the field. Defensive pass interference usually entails a desperate defender trying to prevent an open man from making the catch. Hitchens had Pettigrew so well covered that incidental contact was inevitable.
There is a very thin line between covering a receiver so well that incidental contact is inevitable and covering a receiver to where the incidental contact is part of the coverage and means this is pass interference. Hitchens had his hands on Pettigrew as the ball got closer to him. It didn't seem like incidental contact to me and Mike Pereira seemed to agree.
I can understand why Lions fans are salty and Gregg's explanation doesn't make sense to me. It wasn't incidental contact because Hitchens was extending his arms out to grab Pettigrew with his hand away from the football. He wasn't fighting for position to make the catch and this wasn't incidental contact to me. Of course, Pettigrew did have his hand on Hitchens facemask as well.
Next Week: If right about the divisional round, I will say I told you so. If wrong, I will change the subject.
Oh, don't I know it ever so well.
Longtime TMQ readers know my compromise with my Baptist upbringing is to believe sex is good, gambling is bad.
I've never understood this comment Gregg continuously writes in TMQ before and still don't understand it today. For society, sex has probably caused more problems throughout record history (INCLUDED THE TRIASSIC PERIOD) than gambling has, but I've learned sometimes it's best not to argue with everything Gregg writes. He likes sex and doesn't like gambling.
But if you must wager, take the home teams in the divisional round this weekend. They are the surest sure-thing in sports.
Unless you want to count other sure things in sports like #1 seeds beating #16 seeds in the NCAA Tournament, #2 seeds beating #15 seeds in the NCAA Tournament, #1 seeds beating #8 seeds in the NHL and the NBA playoffs, or any of the other surer bets in sports than the home team winning in the divisional round.
Tuesday Morning Quarterback is predicting home teams will run the table in the upcoming round, with Denver, Green Bay, New England and Seattle advancing. This prediction pertains to victory only: I don't know the lines, and the Baptist in me won't even look.
Very holy of you.
Since the current playoff format was adopted in 1990, home teams in the divisional round are 70-26, a 73 percent winning figure. That's well north of the 57 percent rate at which NFL home teams won 2014 regular season contests.
Two things:
1. The 73% win rate for home teams in the divisional round is not the surest bet in sports. There are more sure bets in sports. I listed some above.
2. Comparing the 73% win rate during the playoffs to the 57% win rate during the regular season is a bit misleading. The team that gets the home game in the divisional round is almost always a team with a better record than the visiting team. The home teams in the divisional round got a week off because they have the two best records in their division. So the reason the 73% win rate is higher than the regular season rate of 57% is because during the regular season inferior teams are guaranteed to get eight home games and they will end up losing some of these games. In the divisional round of the playoffs, the home team is almost always a team with the better record, so that team is (theoretically) more likely to win the game due to this.
Gregg points this out, but I really wanted to point it out. Because comparing the playoffs and the regular season in terms of winning percentage for home teams isn't a great comparison.
For the divisional round, the reason the hosts are hosting in the first place is that they are the best teams.
Nope, not the best teams, just the team with the better record. There is a slight difference.
Seattle enters the divisional round on a 24-2 home stretch, while at 8-8-1, visiting Carolina is not even a winning team. If the Seahawks don't prevail, it will be the biggest upset since Appalachian State over Michigan.
If I were someone who didn't look at gambling lines then I probably wouldn't be talking about what the biggest upset may be. Stanford over USC when Jim Harbaugh was the Stanford head coach was a pretty big upset and if Carolina had beaten the Seahawks then it wouldn't have even been the biggest NFL playoff upset of the last 20 years. The Seahawks were favored by 11 points and since 1998 three teams have won the Super Bowl with higher point spreads against them. It would have been an upset, but not the biggest upset in NFL playoffs history, much less the biggest upset since Appalachian State over Michigan. That's an incredibly stupid comment to make, considering the NCAA Tournament has bigger upsets than Carolina over Seattle nearly every year. Of course, leave it to Gregg to be all, "I don't look at the point spreads" and then claim he can tell what the biggest upset since Appalachian State over Michigan may be.
New England. In the postseason at New England, Bill Belichick is 1-2 versus the Ravens, 11-1 versus all other teams -- and Baltimore heads to New England for the divisional. Nonetheless, TMQ foresees a Flying Elvii triumph.
TMQ sees a Patriots triumph because they are at home and for no other reason. It's like foreseeing a Patriots triumph because their coach doesn't dress like it's freezing outside when it is freezing outside. The result may end up being accurate, but the reasoning leaves something to be desired.
The Patriots finished fourth in points scored, eighth in points allowed, tied for second in give/take. That's strong. New England is 122-38 since the start of the 2005 season, most wins by any NFL club in that period.
Come on Gregg, start quoting how the Patriots haven't won a Super Bowl since Spygate as if they are being punished for their transgressions still. It used to be that Gregg would point out how the Patriots can't win the Super Bowl since Spygate occurred, but I guess he's backed off that once he realized how incredibly stupid he sounded. Now Gregg has started touting what a great team the Patriots are without mentioning the "curse" he used to claim was holding the team back from success.
Belichick knows it will not be long until Tom Brady's magazine modeling agent means more to him than any football coach: if there is to be another Brady-Belichick ring, now's the time. And if the Patriots win this weekend, they play the AFC title game at home.
Which was all part of Bill Belichick's plan to win as many games as possible during the regular season to ensure this would happen. He's quite the gambler in that way.
The red flag for the P-Men is a recent trend of late swoon. In the last seven seasons, New England is 84-28 in the regular season followed by 4-5 in the postseason. Perhaps when Belichick and Brady draw nigh to another Super Bowl appearance, weariness sets in.
Yeah, that's probably it. I'm sure this has nothing to do with the postseason simply being a crapshoot due to one game deciding whether a team advances to the next round or not.
The Packers finished first in give/take and first in points scored. Aaron Rodgers hasn't thrown an interception at home since 2012. Green Bay hasn't punted in the first half at home in four consecutive outings. The Packers' worry is that their super-precise passing attack tends to peter out over the course of a game, with Green Bay outscoring opponents 310-146 in the first half, then only 84-69 in the third quarter, then being outscored 92-133 in the fourth.
For a smart guy, Gregg sure can be stupid at times. So after outscoring opponents over the season by 179 points over the first three quarters, the Packers get outscored by 41 points in the fourth quarter? Could this have something to do with the Packers running the ball more in the fourth quarter and the opposing team throwing the ball in an attempt to catch up while the Packers play a softer defense? Of course not. That would be a logical conclusion. So there is a good chance the Packers super-precise passing attack doesn't peter out as the game goes on, it's just fewer aggressive passing plays are called and the Packers run the ball more.
In fact, if Gregg spent less time spouting nonsense and more time actually doing fucking research then he would see the Packers have run the football 16 more times in the second half and thrown the ball 90 fewer times in the second half as compared to the first half. THAT is the reason they get outscored in the fourth quarter, along with statistics that show the Packers' defense allows more adjusted net yards per pass attempt in the second half of games. So not only doesn't the Packers offense peter out more than it pulls back, the Packers defense is more responsible for the Packers getting outscored in the fourth quarter. The fact the Packers give up 133 points in the fourth quarter and 215 points in the other three quarters isn't the fault of the Packers' offense.
I did 5 minutes of research and found this stuff out, yet Gregg claims Green Bay's offense "peters out" in the second half. Why can't an intelligent person simply do research rather than make shit up and hope that it's true?
Denver. If there's to be a visitor victory in the divisional round, the Broncos seem most vulnerable. Denver has sputtered in the second half of the season, while falling in TMQ's Authentic Games metric -- see below.
Denver averaged 30.6 points per game during the first half of the season, while giving up 23.1 points per game.
Denver averaged 29.6 points per game during the second half of the season, while giving up 21.1 points per game.
But no Gregg, keep doing very little research and continuing to push the narrative that the Broncos were sputtering in the second half of the season. That 1 point per game less they scored while giving up 2 less points per game is a sure sign of sputtering. At what point does Gregg give enough of a shit to just do research to see if what he claims is accurate or not? There is an argument the Broncos didn't sputter in the second half of the season at all, especially since they lost two games during both the first and second halves of their season and they scored and gave up nearly the same amount of points in each half of the season.
Having won last season's AFC title contest against New England in Denver, the Broncos may be looking ahead to restaging that event in Massachusetts. They'd best keep focused on the Colts. Danger sign: Peyton Manning's 11-12 postseason record includes the most playoff losses ever by a starting quarterback.
Which also means that Manning has been good enough to make the playoffs consistently enough to lose the most playoff games ever.
Though TMQ calls the divisional round the surest sure-thing in sports, a week later in the championship round, homefield advantage dissipates. Since 1990, hosts in conference championship games are 29-19, a 60 percent winning figure, barely above the rate at which hosts win regular season games.
No. A 60% winning percentage at home isn't homefield advantage "dissipating." 6 out of 10 times the home team wins. That's a clear advantage. It's not a huge advantage, but it's an advantage. Gregg never fails to mislead his readers who want to read TMQ and not think about what they are reading.
Players leave everything on the field in championship contests, so home teams won't necessarily be the favorites.
But they do win the game 6 out of 10 times, favorites or not. Besides, how would Gregg know who the favorite is if he doesn't pay attention to the gambling lines?
Stats Of The Week No. 1: In the 2014 NFL regular season, the 1,000-yard mark was surpassed by 13 running backs -- and by 23 receivers.
Without context of a comparison to other NFL seasons this statistic means nearly nothing other than a recitation of facts. What's the takeaway supposed to be?
Stats Of The Week No. 7: New Orleans was 32nd in defense in 2012, rose to fourth in 2013, dropped back to 31st in 2014.
Rob Ryan everyone! If his name were Rob Guyton then he probably wouldn't have gotten another season with the Saints. Instead, the Saints are just going to give him more to work with. That's the issue.
Sweet Touchdowns Of The Week: Detroit leading 20-7 in the fourth quarter, the Boys faced fourth-and-goal from the Lions 1. The "safe" thing is to kick. But fortune favors the bold! Dallas went for it, touchdown.
Fortune favors the bold, unless the bold don't "do a little dance" or are bold in a way that Gregg Easterbrook doesn't like. In that case, fortune doesn't give a shit about the bold.
All that mattered was the fourth-and-1 decision. Fortune favors the bold, victories don't come in the mail, you need one yard, go win the game! Caldwell ordered a namby-pamby attempt to draw Dallas offside, then sent out the punt unit. Outraged, the football gods caused a 10-yard shank. Dallas went on to victory.
On the day, Detroit averaged 5.9 yards per offensive snap. Yet when the Lions needed one single yard to take command of a postseason game, Caldwell demurred.
I do agree with Gregg in this instance, though his reasoning that the Lions averaged 5.9 yards per offensive snap does ignore that fourth-and-1 is a different situation where this statistic isn't terribly relevant. Gregg consistently ignores situational down-and-distance when making his criticism of NFL head coaches not going for it on fourth down. Caldwell should have gone for it, but to say the Lions could have gotten one yard on fourth-and-1 because they averaged 5.9 yards per offensive snap on the day is bad reasoning.
Sweet 'N' Sour Play: Baltimore leading 23-15, the Steelers faced third-and-4 on their 26 midway through the fourth quarter. At a time when unorthodox defensive fronts have practically become common, Baltimore managed to show a wild look: one defensive lineman as a nose tackle, three overload blitzers far left of Ben Roethlisberger, three overload blitzers far right. But it wasn't a blitz, rather, a Steelers-style zone rush. At the snap, all three on the left came; only one came from the right; and the nose tackle dropped into coverage.
This wasn't a blitz, just a zone rush where the nose tackle dropped back in coverage, there was no defensive linemen rushing the passer and linebackers tried to sack the quarterback. It's totally different from a blitz and certainly couldn't be a zone blitz.
Flummoxed, Roethlisberger flipped a flare pass that bounced off Ben Tate's hands and was intercepted by Terrell Suggs. Ravens touchdown on the next play and the visitors would never look back. Sweet.
Roethlisberger was so flummoxed that he threw the ball to an open receiver who couldn't manage to catch the pass. Is it really Roethlisberger that was flummoxed on this play? It sounds like he knew where the ball needed to go.
With just one defender inside the area defined by the Steelers' offensive tackles, Roethlisberger simply could have run straight ahead, with a first down likely.
A first down was "likely"? Did Gregg even watch the game or did his "trade secret" employee who is responsible for watching each NFL game just relay this to him? How could Roethlisberger have run up the middle when there was a defender on him by the time he had dropped back? He couldn't have made the decision to run straight ahead prior to the snap because he had no idea a linebacker or two wouldn't drop back into the middle of the field and after the ball was snapped Terrell Suggs was in the middle of the field prior to intercepting the pass. Maybe Roethlisberger could have run for the first down, but a first down was not at all "likely" as Gregg inexplicably claims. Watch the game, Gregg. Just watch it and take time to know what are you writing before you actually write it.
TMQ shudders to think the 2016 election will pair Hillary Clinton versus Jeb Bush. As it is the United States presidential succession is Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama. If the 2016 race pits Hillary against Jeb, the country will be assured that four of the last five presidents came from the same two aristocratic landed families. This wouldn't be good for the republic. Pakistan will seem like an open political system by comparison.
This is an excess of hyperbole. If Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton are elected then the United States would simply have an open political system, simply an open political system dominated by two families.
Clinton did a fine job in the Senate and as secretary of state; she's highly qualified. My big worry is that she's an opportunist whose first priority is self-promotion, not the interests of the nation. One example: around the time she was leaving the White House as first lady, Clinton decried "a consumer-driven culture that promotes values that undermine both capitalism and democracy" while declaring the nation "being undermined by consumer capitalism."
Shortly thereafter, she bought a $1.7 million house and signed an $8 million book contract. In today's money, that's a $2.4 million house and an $11 million book contract. There's nothing wrong with nice houses or high income. What's disturbing is when a political leader pretends to be modest, urges other to be modest -- and then cashes in.
If being a hypocrite were to prevent a candidate from running for President then there would never be any candidates for President.
Bush did a fine job as governor of Florida and has the sort of hands-on economic experience many candidates lack; he's highly qualified. He presents himself to the electorate as someone whose ego is in check. My big worry: so did his brother.
Plus if Hillary becomes president, we'll face more years of Bill Clinton this, Bill Clinton that. If Jeb becomes president, we'll face more years of Bush family this, Bush family that. Regardless of their experience and skill, their last names should disqualify both: it would be healthy for the nation if neither were on the 2016 ballot.
While I don't know if I would vote for either candidate, if both are qualified to be President (in Gregg's opinion) then why should they be disqualified simply due to their last name? It's better for the United States to push qualified candidates out of the race rather than have a candidate with the last name "Clinton" or "Bush"? If anything, there needs to be more qualified candidates running for President, not fewer.
New Bills owners Terry and Kim Pegula can't be thrilled they must pay departing head coach Doug Marrone an extra $4 million to do nothing. Marrone's contract contained a golden-parachute clause: if ownership changed, he could blow town, while receiving a $4 million bonus on top of any salary he may draw at a new coaching post. So you'd assume Marrone waved goodbye simply for a double-dip payday. More likely he knows he mismanaged the Bills and wants somebody else to deal with the problems he created.
Or more likely than that, he knew he would get paid to leave town and there would still be interest in him as the head coach of a different NFL team. He could get paid $4 million for leaving the Bills and get paid as the head coach of a different NFL team. Gregg would do the same thing in Marrone's situation no matter what he tells his readers.
In just two years at the helm, Marrone spent three first-round draft selections -- Buffalo's 2015 first choice is promised to Cleveland -- running up a debt for someone else to cover, like a politician who borrows without any plan to repay.
Doug Marrone didn't make these decisions. In fact, he was reportedly very much against the decision to trade the 2015 first round pick for Watkins. Again, do some fucking research before spouting off bullshit in TMQ that you want your readers to believe simply because it fits some narrative that you have pre-packaged every week.
For the price of three first-round draft choices, plus a fourth-round pick, Marrone got just two players, EJ Manuel and Sammy Watkins. Manuel doesn't start. Watkins is a fine performer, but the Bills paid way too much for him. Several quality wide receivers were available in the 2014 draft: Buffalo panicked and overspent on Watkins though standing pat would have allowed Odell Beckham Jr. to drop into the Bills' laps. Most important, the NFL is a quarterback league. Marrone left the Bills with no quarterback nor any 2015 first-round choice to employ in search of one.
These weren't solely his decisions. Buffalo has a General Manager who makes decisions like this.
Marrone went along with panicky personnel decisions, failed to develop a player at the league's most important position, stripped the franchise of future draft picks then whistled a merry tune as he skedaddled with a multimillion-dollar bonus. Nice work if you can get it.
I won't defend Marrone's record in Buffalo. Still he "went along" with panicky personnel decisions? What was Marrone supposed to do when the GM wants to make this trade? Quit? That's essentially what he did when he was given the chance. So Gregg criticizes Marrone for making decisions that he alone didn't make, then claims Marrone "went along" with these decisions when his only other option was to quit, which he eventually did...which Gregg again criticizes him for.
Postscript No.2: Watkins caught 65 of the 128 passes targeted to him, or 51 percent. Jordy Nelson caught 98 of 151 (65 percent), Antonio Brown caught 129 of 182 (71 percent). Nelson and Brown were receiving pinpoint passes from franchise-caliber quarterbacks. Buffalo's two quarterbacks were so inaccurate, Watkins was chasing passes that sailed far beyond his reach or clanged into the ground.
Watkins was also a rookie wide receiver while Antonio Brown and Jordy Nelson are more veteran receivers. I don't even understand what Gregg wants to prove here. The Bills need a franchise quarterback? Yes, of course they do.
"Trailing in the fourth quarter, Marvin Lewis sent in the kicking unit. TMQ wrote the words 'game over' in his notebook. Victories don't come in the mail, play to win, don't play to avoid losing!"
Right, because the game wasn't already over at that point. The Bengals were down 16 and couldn't move the ball, but there was hope. The hope was extinguished by this choice to not going for it on fourth down.
After last year's Cincinnati postseason flameout, I noted that as Lewis sent in the kicking unit, Andy Dalton passively trudged off the field: Brett Favre would have demanded the coach go for it. "Next season, Dalton needs to become a leader," your columnist opined. Sunday, when Lewis sent in the punting unit on fourth-and-short in Indianapolis territory, Dalton passively trudged off the field.
After last year's flameout when Gregg suggested that Dalton yell at Lewis for sending in the kicking unit, I suggested that perhaps Dalton undermining his coach in front of the team isn't showing leadership. How is Gregg to know that Dalton didn't privately demand Lewis go for it next time when they were standing on the sidelines? Gregg has no idea if Dalton did this or not. Second-guessing the head coach in front of the team and the national television viewing audience isn't leadership.
Wonder why Dalton is 3-11 in playoff and primetime games? At this point Cincinnati backers must accept: Dalton is never going to become a leader.
Yelling at the head coach isn't leadership.
Oregon posted scoring drives of 0:21, 1:24, 1:32, 2:01, 2:11, 3:00 and a poky-puppy drive of 4:45. Though Florida State had significant extra time to rehearse for the Blur Offense, the Seminoles' defense seemed stunned, the front seven "sucking air" -- gasping for breath -- by midway through the second quarter.
They may have been prepared for it, but it doesn't mean they were capable of stopping it. There is a difference in preparing for the Blur Offense and actually being able to get off the field against the offense.
Oregon style muddle-huddle deuce plays should be employed in short field goal attempt situations.
Oregon has a snapper, holder and kicker at the center; three blockers and one back wide on each side. If there are less than four guys across from either outside set, the snapper hikes to the holder, who throws to the back on that side; if both sets are properly defended, Oregon kicks. That both sides often aren't properly defended -- they weren't by Florida State, two points scored -- suggests the muddle-huddle would work at least sometimes in the pros. But NFL coaches don't want to use this set, or the similar swinging-gate set, for status reasons. At press conferences they don't want to hear, "You're using college trick plays."
So this is why NFL teams don't use this formation? NFL teams are fine with hiring college coaches who bring their college offense and offensive philosophies to the NFL, but they just don't want to be seen as running college trick plays? That's what I am to believe it seems. I think if NFL teams are fine with hiring coaches who are from college and intend to bring their college philosophies with them to the NFL, then those NFL teams would be fine using college trick plays.
The Alabama-Ohio State side of the semis came down to one team being bold while the other played it "safe," and just saying those words tells you what you need to know.
No, because you didn't say which team was safe and which team was bold.
Well into the 2012 regular season, John Harbaugh fired offensive coordinator Cam Cameron. This move, viewed as shocking at the time, seemed to fire up the Ravens, and proved essential to their Super Bowl run.
It was shocking and Gregg claimed at the time that John Harbaugh was shifting blame off him on to Cam Cameron. It's interesting how Gregg leaves out any criticism he had at the time about this move. Well, it's not interesting, this is just a typical thing Gregg does in an effort to mislead his readers and remove any information from a discussion that may end up making him look bad. Ego before all else. Mislead readers and leave out information that may make Gregg look bad while linking information in TMQ that makes Gregg look good. Here's what Gregg wrote at the time:
And it wasn't just players who quit. Many coaching staffs quit on Sunday's games, too. Norv Turner, job in jeopardy, nevertheless looked bored on the sideline as his charges were embarrassed at home. Chan Gailey has acted all season as though he was fired last season. John Harbaugh was more concerned with shifting blame than fixing his team.
By firing Cameron now -- rather than this past offseason, when the offensive coordinator position could have turned over in an orderly manner -- Ravens coach John Harbaugh sent the signal that he expects yet another playoff collapse and wants an excuse lined up. At the postgame media event following the playoff collapse Harbaugh/East appears to expect, he can blame Cameron for the team's troubled offense. Firing an assistant coach just before the playoffs isn't a bold move to invigorate the team. It's a desperate move about blame shifting.
Then Gregg later wrote this:
John Harbaugh fired offensive coordinator Cam Cameron midseason, trying to make the Ravens' plodding offense his fault: though Baltimore averaged 25 points under Cameron, and has averaged 23 points since.
But now this move that was about blame shifting in 2012 was "essential" to the Ravens' Super Bowl run. Will Gregg mention that the shocking move John Harbaugh made in 2012 endured the boring "blame shifting" criticism from Gregg? Of course not, because it worked out. Gregg has no beliefs, simply criticism based on whether something works or not. Gregg didn't think this shocking move would work in 2012, but now he's touting the move as "essential" to the Ravens' Super Bowl run. Will Gregg mention his criticism of Harbaugh for blame shifting and how he accused Harbaugh of giving up on the season? Of course not! That's Gregg Easterbrook. When he's correct, it gets linked, when he's wrong it never gets mentioned again in an effort to cover up for the fact his bullshit "blame shifting" criticism isn't always accurate.
Next Monday's inaugural CFP title tilt will pit Oregon versus Ohio State -- which along the sidelines means sex-bombshell cheerleaders versus cheerleaders in traditional outfits.
Hopefully Gregg won't be too distracted by the sight of exploited women who are half or one-third his age that he doesn't pay attention to what happens on the football field. I'm kidding of course. Even if Gregg watches the whole game (or has his "trade secret"/employee watch the game for him) then he still will have inane observations that have the potential to be inaccurate.
Owing to its Nike-driven marketing focus, Oregon has led college sports both toward dazzling flashy uniforms and helmets, and toward scantily attired cheerleaders. Is the latter a good idea?
I don't know, they are cheerleaders. What they wear is irrelevant to me when I'm watching a football game.
Professional cheerleaders ought to exude sex appeal. They are after all professionals, and the dancing girl who shows lots of skin has a long history in entertainment, at least as far back as vaudeville. High school cheerleaders should not show skin.
So the same cheerleaders who Gregg believes are exploited by the NFL should be further exploited by exuding as much sex appeal as possible? After all, it IS their job and they are specifically hired/exploited (in Gregg's opinion) to do this job.
Obviously teens will have sex on the brain no matter how often adults wag their fingers, but sexualizing high school sports is a step one hopes is never taken.
But if high school cheerleaders don't show skin, then how will Gregg know if they are showing the proper amount of cheerleader professionalism required for their high school team to win the game?
That leaves college cheerleaders. They're adults legally, and sociologically more like grown-ups than kids. College women should make their own choices about everything, including whether they want to dance half-naked on national television. But considering that football factories are already exploiting players for income, should colleges also sexualize their cheerleaders in order to rev up crowds and ratings?
Do college cheerleaders who wear less clothing really rev up the ratings for a game? Are there people who watch a football game specifically to see 30 seconds of each team's cheerleaders? I can't believe Gregg believes college cheerleaders who wear less clothing will rev up ratings. I'm dubious about this claim.
Tweet your views to @EasterbrookG.
Tweet your view to Gregg so he doesn't feel bad when he's ogling a 19 year old college student who should make her own choice about anything, like for example, whether she wants to date a 61-year old man. Make Gregg feel better about himself and his urges to find these women sexy. It's not pervy, it's normal and Gregg has the Tweets to prove it!
Bart Starr Can Only Dream Of Under Armour Cold Gear: Not many teams that stage a 99-yard touchdown drive, then lead by 13 points in the second half and go on to lose: Detroit found a way.
That's a pretty specific set of criteria a team must meet, so I would say this doesn't happen often.
Falling behind 24-20, the Lions got the ball back on their 23 with two minutes remaining, holding two timeouts. Here's what happened: short pass, short pass, deep incompletion, short pass, short incompletion, short pass, short pass, fumble and Dallas sends in the victory formation. Seventy-seven yards were needed and every call save was a short pass -- that's the "safe" thing! Ye gods.
I'm sure the Lions never thought to throw the ball deep in this situation. I'm sure it never crossed their mind. If only Gregg Easterbrook were around to remind the Lions to throw the ball deep late in the game when needing to score a touchdown.
Does Gregg really believe the Lions were trying to do the safe thing by throwing short? Does it get through his thick skull that the Lions couldn't go deep because the Cowboys had taken the deep ball away? Matthew Stafford could have just thrown the ball deep, but it very well could have resulted in a turnover. I joked on Twitter the Lions should just throw it deep to Calvin Johnson, but it's not always possible to just sling a deep pass. It's not that the Cowboys expected short passes, it's just they wanted the Lions to throw it short. The Lions were not being safe, they were trying to score without committing a turnover.
Authentic Games Standings: Carolina may have reached the divisional round but still isn't included. How can an NFL team that does not have a winning record in January be considered Authentic?
Because the Authentic Games Standing are a farce?
Today's column lead notwithstanding, the Authentic Games index warns of an Indianapolis upset at Denver.
So for those of you keeping score (me), that is three Super Bowl predictions from Gregg AND he just picked the Broncos to beat the Colts, but wants to warn his readers that the Colts could beat the Broncos. What the fuck does this even mean? "Today's column lead notwithstanding," does that mean "My previous opinion not withstanding"? So ignoring Gregg's previous opinion, here is another opinion. There are two options. The Colts could beat the Broncos or the Colts could lose to the Broncos. Gregg Easterbrook has managed to now predict both outcomes could occur. Thanks for the contribution, now go away.
The funny part is I just know Gregg is going to take credit for whatever happens in the Colts-Broncos game. He'll be sure to crow about how right he was either way, notwithstanding the fact he essentially predicted that both possible outcomes could occur, so he really predicted nothing.
On third-and-1 in the fourth quarter, zebras called defensive pass interference against Dallas. They began walking off the foul to set up a Detroit first-and-10 on the Dallas 34, which would have put the Lions in command. Then referee Pete Morelli announced, without explanation, that he was picking up the flag.
Key issue: Was there pass interference? TMQ thinks no. Despite the popular misconception, NFL pass defenders do not need to turn to the ball -- face-guarding is legal in the pros. (It's not legal in NCAA or NFHS play; these kinds of confusions are one reason football rules should be simplified and standardized.) Boys linebacker Anthony Hitchens made contact with Lions receiver Brandon Pettigrew, but the contact seemed incidental.
Key fact about the play: Pettigrew was never open. Hitchens had him tightly covered all the way down the field. Defensive pass interference usually entails a desperate defender trying to prevent an open man from making the catch. Hitchens had Pettigrew so well covered that incidental contact was inevitable.
There is a very thin line between covering a receiver so well that incidental contact is inevitable and covering a receiver to where the incidental contact is part of the coverage and means this is pass interference. Hitchens had his hands on Pettigrew as the ball got closer to him. It didn't seem like incidental contact to me and Mike Pereira seemed to agree.
I am out of here. Biggest call was the DPI pickup. It was DPI and it was defensive holding as well. Not good. Flying back to Sac tonight.
— Mike Pereira (@MikePereira) January 5, 2015
I can understand why Lions fans are salty and Gregg's explanation doesn't make sense to me. It wasn't incidental contact because Hitchens was extending his arms out to grab Pettigrew with his hand away from the football. He wasn't fighting for position to make the catch and this wasn't incidental contact to me. Of course, Pettigrew did have his hand on Hitchens facemask as well.
Next Week: If right about the divisional round, I will say I told you so. If wrong, I will change the subject.
Oh, don't I know it ever so well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)