Showing posts with label Reputation always wins. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reputation always wins. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 5, 2015

9 comments MMQB Review: Peter King Wrote that Depression is a Character Flaw, But Don't Worry He Apologized So It's All Better Now

Peter King stalked a woman on a running trail last week in MMQB. I'm overstating what happened. He didn't stalk her. He just ran behind her for a mile and listened to her conversation while eagerly trying to remember what she was talking about. That's totally different from stalking. It's like eavesdropping, which is so much better. Peter got ready for the 2015 NFL Draft that had no consensus top players, unlike yet very much like, NFL Drafts in the past. Peter insisted there was a consensus #1 pick last year, yet I showed where Peter didn't even mock Clowney to the Texans three days before the start of the 2014 NFL Draft. This week Peter talks about THE CRAZIEST DRAFT IN THE HISTORY OF DRAFTS, how the Buccaneers didn't talk themselves into Jameis Winston, talks about the best moves (moves regarding players whose names Peter had heard of) and worst moves (moves that Peter didn't understand based on his knowing for a fact when all the players were going to be taken), and Peter enjoyed the Clippers-Spurs series even though (DID YOU KNOW THIS?) he's not a basketball fan.

Pick up the Tampa Bay Times, and see a huge photo of Jameis Winston in a red Bucs cap surrounded by nine blaring all-caps words:
 

Bring the paper to One Buc Place, where the team has its offices and practice facility. Winston is resplendent in a black suit, black tie, white shirt, Bucs lapel pin and that same red cap.

I still don't know if I think the crab legs photo was excellent trolling or a sign of immaturity. It probably doesn't matter either way.

Take out the paper to show Winston what greets him on his first day as a professional, the ink barely dry on his four-year, $25.3-million rookie contract, which he signed 90 minutes earlier. Open it for him to see. He looks. He’s emotionless.

What’s your reaction, Jameis?

(Winston stands on a table and screams "Fuck her righ----" as Jason Licht immediately tackles Winston and plunges a syringe into his neck)

Winston said: “I had to grow the last couple of years, because of what I’ve done, because of what I have brought on myself. It’s all a part of growing up. I can’t change people’s opinions of me. I just gotta keep getting better every day, as a player and as a man.

“The only thing I can do … It’s not words. It’s actions. It’s by my actions.”

That's a great point by Manzi---I mean Jameis Winston. It's his actions that people will judge him by.

I feel bad for Winston because the sports media just got burnt by Johnny Manziel swearing he was a different person from who he was in college and then he wasn't (I'm not blaming him, he's a person who has to grow up like any early 20-something does), so they are going to be very skeptical of Jameis Winston and his insistence he's totally different now.

Winston knows. It’s a talk-is-cheap time of his life, and he knows he has to stack day after day after day of business-like days together, one after another.

See? Manziel has ruined it for everybody over the next couple of years.

He has to win too.

What? The Buccaneers expect Winston to win them some games? The things you can learn in MMQB...

Two top-10 picks in January turning into the 23rd and 60th picks because of off-field problems. A first-round tackle turning into an undrafted player because of a Louisiana murder.

The NFL everyone!

The draft began with boredom: fairly predictable first round, and only two trades. But we’ve known Winston was going to be the first pick for so long that we forgot what a seminal pick he was, and what a risky pick too, for such a downtrodden franchise that needed him so badly.

Just like last year, when Peter had the Texans picking Blake Bortles #1 overall like everyone knew they would, the top of this draft was pretty boring. 

On Friday, when Winston and his family stepped off a plane from their home in Alabama, the entire Bucs staff was in the lobby to give Winston an ovation. There might be some hate in the community and the wider world, but not here. Not today. Livelihoods are at stake, and the new quarterback can save jobs if he plays like he often did up the road at Florida State.

Yeah, no pressure Jameis. You are not only supposed to learn how to be an NFL quarterback in no time at all but everybody wants you to save their jobs. These people shouldn't be expected to save their own jobs I guess.

“One of the pivotal moments came when Lovie and I went to the Rose Bowl,” says Licht, of the Jan. 1 game that pitted Oregon against FSU, Mariota against Winston, the two best quarterbacks facing off. “We got on the plane here in Tampa and Lovie pulled out his [Microsoft] Surface to watch tape, and I didn’t even want to see what he was looking at. I wanted Lovie to come to his own decision, not influenced in any way by me.”
 
The game: Oregon 59, Florida State 20. A walkoff win by Mariota. Now the two men who share the final say on Bucs’ draft choices and trades were alone, thinking. After the game, in the car back to the hotel, Licht was dying to know. He said to Smith: “All right, Lovie. Who’s your guy?”
 
“Jase, you know who it is,” Smith said.

It's Rex Grossman isn't it?

Licht didn’t know exactly how Smith arrived at this conclusion, but he knew Smith meant Winston.

Meanwhile, Lovie Smith sat there awkwardly because he was clearly referring to the quarterback whose team won by 39 points, but he didn't want to bring this up. After all, he had made a Super Bowl with Rex Grossman and Kyle Orton. Lovie could handle Jameis being his quarterback.

I don't want to be a wet blanket, but if I'm a Bucs fan it scares me a bit that Licht had it in his mind to pick Winston for over a year now. This is the same guy who thought Josh McCown could be a full-time NFL starter just last year.

So why didn’t the Bucs, who talked to more than 75 people as part of the organization’s investigation into Winston’s character, talk to the woman who accused him of attacking her, Erica Kinsman? Did the Bucs just want the investigation to be finished, and to say what the team wanted it to say?
 
“That’s not the case,” Licht said adamantly. “We are not talking about this now… but we read the depositions. We knew what she was going to say. This was a thorough investigation. We were not going to mistake charisma for character.”

So the Bucs didn't talk to anyone who gave a deposition during that investigation because they knew what these people would say? Or did the Bucs talk to some people who gave a deposition, except the person who was making the accusations during the investigation? I have no dog in this fight, but talking to some who gave a deposition, while also knowing what they would say, then saying "We didn't talk to the alleged victim because we knew what she would say," sounds a bit like reaching a conclusion the team wanted to reach. If the Bucs interviewed another person who had given a deposition then why did they interview this person if they just knew what he/she would say?

Said Licht: “The more I watched of him, the more I thought, what worries you about him, you love. He’s so damn tough. So clutch. When things are going bad, he rises.”

I mean, I could make a joke about bad things and Winston "rising" in those situations, but it would not be appropriate and in poor taste.

There is no question that Licht will be judged by this pick.

BREAKING NEWS: A General Manager will be judged by his draft picks.

But Smith is adamant about one thing.

“I try as a rule to make my own decisions about a person,” he said Saturday, sitting on the edge of the couch in his office. “So we had some incidents in college about Jameis to consider. The crab legs, shooting BB guns, standing in the cafeteria and shouting things out. You know, you do stupid things sometimes when you’re 20, 21 years old. You get off track. You say later, ‘I wish I hadn’t done those things.’ But then there was a serious accusation we had to come to grips with. [The accusation that he sexually assaulted a Florida State student, Kinsman.] That was investigated three times. No charges were filed. I understand something happened. But when do you get to the point where you say, ‘We have to let the courts decide, and we abide by their ruling?’ They did not charge Jameis with anything. And at that point, I am going to make the judgment that I am not going to hold this incident against him.”

Okay...I don't think the point is to hold the incident against Winston. The point is that the Buccaneers need to know if this incident is an example of Winston's behavior towards women, if it was a one-time incident that would never happen again if it ever happened originally or it's just one example of behavior that will cause problems for him as a professional in the NFL. It's not about holding incidents against a player, but judging behavior as representative of behavior you want associated with your franchise now and in the future.

Smith met an uncle of Winston’s who asked him: “You like the NBA?” Smith said he did.

“You remember the Michael Jordan draft?”

Peter doesn't remember this because he doesn't like basketball. Has Peter ever mentioned he doesn't watch much basketball when he's busy making judgments about basketball players/teams?

Smith did. That’s the year, 1984, that Portland took the ill-fated Sam Bowie second overall, and Chicago took Jordan third.

“Don’t pick the wrong guy,” the uncle said.

Don’t pick Marcus Mariota over Winston, he meant.

IS THAT WHAT HE MEANT, PETER?

I do believe that Peter King thinks his readers are absolute morons. He feels the need to explain that "Don't pick the wrong guy," coming from Jameis Winston's uncle means Winston's uncle thinks the Bucs should choose his nephew over Marcus Mariota. Does this need an explanation? Does Peter think his readers are so stupid that they would believe Jameis' uncle is warning the Bucs NOT to choose his nephew? Does Peter think Jameis' uncle thought this would be a good chance to advocate for Dante Fowler Jr. to be the #1 overall pick? Of course Jameis' uncle is referring to drafting Mariota over Winston. Yet, Peter is compelled to explain that's the meaning to his readers of MMQB. Peter thinks his readers are idiots. So haughty of him.

They’d give this test to both Winston (first) and then Mariota (a week later). Winston reported to the facility one day in early March, and offensive coordinator Dirk Koetter and quarterback coach Mike Bajakian taught him what he’d learn on the first day of rookie minicamp. “Day 1 Install,” it was called. Fifteen plays, runs and passes, with a slew of formations, progressions in the quarterback’s read, snap counts, coverages, hot receivers if the defense blitzed, offensive-line protections. Bajakian took 90 minutes to explain the “install,” flying through it on purpose, to throw a lot at Winston to see what he’d remember—more conceptually than in memorization. Then, as part of the information-overload, the coaches took him to lunch in the Bucs cafeteria,

To see if he would stand up on a table and start screaming something obscene? 

introducing him to a slew of people, talking to him about his family, doing whatever to get his mind off the football and on to something else. They wanted to test his recall, and his football acumen.

And if Winston couldn't remember the name of Beverly, a fine lady who was in charge of all desserts at the Buccaneers facility, well then he certainly wasn't worth the #1 overall pick. 

Licht was blown away by Koetter’s impression after that couple of hours with Winston. “I’m going to compare every guy I test like that the rest of my career to Jameis,” Koetter told Licht. 

But there was one other thing that Koetter saw as a danger sign—and the Bucs realize is part of the education of a young quarterback. At Florida State, Winston threw 18 interceptions last season, and had at least seven more dropped or missed. Winston has bravado, which every team wants in its quarterback.

“I’m not afraid of making any throw,” Winston told Koetter that day in March.
“You need to be,” Koetter told Winston.
 
Good advice.

I think it's bad advice. Part of the reason behind Winston's success at Florida State is his confidence that he can make any throw, so why try to take that away from him? Sure, refine it and convince him to not make certain throws in certain situations, but to tell him he needs to be afraid of making any throw? I think that neuters Winston and could eventually erode his confidence by turning him into a quarterback who goes against what has made him successful in college. Teach Winston to recognize coverage and why he shouldn't make a certain throw, don't teach him to be afraid of making that throw though. Let him figure out why he shouldn't make the throw he knows he could make. What do I know though?

You may recall when I wrote about Winston—the Florida State baseball team’s closer last season—at the combine in my Feb. 23 column that I asked him whether he would ever want to play both sports as a professional. “I can’t speak on that,” he said. “It has always been my dream, but I’m just playing football right now.”

Licht and agents Greg Genske and Kenny Felder negotiated the Winston contract so he’d have the business of football out of the way and he could focus solely on football starting with the Bucs’ minicamp starting this Thursday in Tampa. In the contract, a Bucs’ source said, is a clause prohibiting Winston from playing professional baseball during the life of his Tampa Bay deal.

Winston was never really thinking of playing baseball professionally. I like how this statement made to Peter King caused some to wonder about Winston's commitment to football, yet no one seems to have a huge issue with Russell Wilson pretending he may play baseball as a negotiating tool to get a new contract. Wilson has won a Super Bowl, so his commitment to football could never be questioned, even if he spends part of the offseason hanging around the camp of the MLB team that drafted him and constantly is like, "Man, I'd like to play baseball" as an obvious negotiating tactic.

Some inside football here.

I like how Peter has to warn his readers there is some "inside football" coming up. He wants them to have this warning in case they stumbled upon MMQB and thought it was just a collection of short stories about coffee, beer and how women on running trails should really not talk on the phone because they never know who may be following them for a mile. Shows me where the priority is for MMQB these days.

Four really good stories happened between the 53rd pick in the draft, held by Cincinnati as day two of the draft began, and the 61st pick, held by Indianapolis and traded to Tampa Bay when the Colts were on the clock.

Pick 53, Cincinnati: Jake Fisher, tackle, Oregon.

Coach Marvin Lewis loved Fisher. Owner Mike Brown lives by the draft board, and midway through the round, Fisher was the only player left with a first-round Bengal grade. The Bengals turned in the pick. Alexander, working his 22nd draft with the Bengals (the coaches in Cincinnati are more involved than with any other franchise), got the biggest surprise of his personnel evaluation career: He thought one or both of Ogbuehi and Fisher would be gone at pick No. 21, and he got one of them at 21, the other at 53.

As I've said on Twitter of late, teams lie after the draft as well. Either way Marvin Lewis isn't good at player evaluation or he is lying. There was no way that Ogbuehi was going to be gone by #21 due to the injury concerns and I didn't see many mocks that had both Ogbuehi and Fisher gone at that point. I can't imagine what team would pick Ogbuehi in the top 20 picks of the draft given the concern for his knee. I could be wrong, because as we learn later clearly Peter King knows when every player in the draft was due to be drafted.

This could be a redshirt year for Ogbuehi, who won’t be fully healthy until at least November;

Exactly, but Marvin Lewis thinks Ogbuehi would go in the first 20 picks and there is a chance Fisher goes that early too? Once you accept NFL teams lie about shit year-round, it makes what they say much easier to see through.

Pick 55, Baltimore: Maxx Williams, tight end, Minnesota.

But then, maybe 45 minutes before they were scheduled to pick, the Ravens heard reliably (or so they thought) that the Steelers were locked on Williams. Maybe it was true, maybe it wasn’t; you never know in the middle of the draft if you are being played or getting the real scoop. But Baltimore began to call teams ahead of Pittsburgh, picking 56th, to see if they would move. Arizona, at 55, was willing, figuring the guy they wanted here, defensive end Markus Golden of Missouri would likely make it to 58. For the cost of a pick exactly 100 picks later—No. 158 overall—Baltimore leapfrogged Pittsburgh. The Ravens picked Williams.

“So for a fifth-round pick, Ravens stole Maxx Williams from Steelers. Great move,” tweeted Ed Bouchette, long-time and plugged-in Steeler beat man.

It's interesting to me how Peter pays attention to what some NFL beat guys Tweet and ignores others. Ed Bouchette confirms the Steelers may have wanted Williams, so Peter takes this as reality, but later in this MMQB Peter states another prospect was a reach in the 1st round when a Dallas sportscaster stated the Cowboys were going to take this player at #27.

The Steelers got their rookie tight end, Jesse James of Penn State, in the fifth round. It’ll be interesting to see over the next few years how much damage Williams does in this rivalry. The Steelers are the types to look back, but if Williams makes beautiful music with Flacco, he’ll add some spice to a rivalry that doesn’t need it.

Keep creating these storylines and narratives, Peter. We can't let exciting football games between these two teams be the only story. There has to be more.

Pick 60, Dallas: Randy Gregory, defensive end/outside linebacker, Nebraska. My first thought after this pick: Rod Marinelli’s going to have Greg Hardy and Randy Gregory in his defensive team meeting room. Hope he’s ready. The Cowboys honestly considered Gregory in the first round, too, before going for another need guy, cornerback Byron Jones of UConn. When it got close to pick 60, I’m told a serious conversation wasn’t needed; Gregory was such a strong candidate as a player that Dallas was willing to work with him on his marijuana history, and his history of depression and anxiety, according to SI.com’s Don Banks. Other reports say Gregory was either bipolar or had some other personality disorder that made it difficult for him to focus on football, or anything, for long periods. Gregory, without question, was a top-10 value on talent alone. But he tumbled down so many draft boards because of his character flaws.

Yes, in the original draft of this MMQB Peter King referred to a history of depression and anxiety, as well as possibly being bipolar as "character flaws." Of course he did. These are the types of things that Peter writes without thinking. He later apologized on Twitter and all was good. I, of course, made some vague Tweets about a lack of comment from a certain guy who works for "SI" who criticizes other writers and sports talking heads for their comments, as he was suspiciously quiet about this statement. I feel like he gives more leeway to employees of "SI" for statements such as this. He has sort of a "Yeah, he screwed that one up" type of attitude, which is fine, but I get concerned Peter even made the statement in MMQB. Sure, he apologized, but if I Tweet something insensitive on a topic (or do something like this almost every month as it seems of late in regard to Peter King), then what good is an apology if my audience doesn't believe I won't just do it again? That's how I feel about Peter. I feel he is so disconnected from reality in some ways that he needs everyone to say, "Hey buddy, being bi-polar isn't a 'character flaw'" and it shouldn't be that way. Should Peter need someone to correct this statement for him? I wouldn't think so, yet he does. I think that merits some criticism.

Talking football, there have always been rumors that Greg Hardy is a bit bi-polar as well. It's always a rumor and it doesn't mean it's correct. Some guys are just odd. I heard similar stuff about Gregory during the college football season, but in a slightly different version. 

And for the Jones family. On Sunday night, I spoke with Cowboys COO Stephen Jones, who was on the front line of the Gregory decision over the past month:

The MMQB: Did you consider him in the first round? I heard you did.

Jones: I think in this day and time, we want our first-round pick to be clean. That’s how we operated here.

Said with no sense of irony from the team that signed Greg Hardy as a free agent.

The MMQB: Rod Marinelli seems like a my-way-or-the-highway kind of guy. Was he on board with Gregory?

Jones: Absolutely. He is my way or the highway. He has said to us before about certain players, ‘I don’t think I can work with this guy.’ But if they love football, and if they fight their ass off in practice and in games, he can work with them. And he wants them.

Translation (and this goes for every NFL team): If they can win us some games and make their position coach look good, then they have a spot on this team. Just as long as they don't get in trouble again, of course. If these players do get in trouble then the team will try to figure out how good they will be without that player and take action or not take action accordingly.

Pick 61, Tampa Bay: Ali Marpet, guard, Hobart. Not a lot of pressure on Tampa Bay GM Jason Licht in this draft. There’s the Jameis Winston pick, and the dangers of that. There’s the disaster of 2014 free agency, which included the pricey acquisition at left tackle, Anthony Collins, failing miserably and getting cut after the season.

Don't forget the rest of the failure from the 2014 free agency period and win the Buccaneers "won" free agency before by signing Carl Nicks and Dashon Goldson. 

At the Senior Bowl, offensive line coach George Warhop told Licht his favorite two players were Smith and Marpet. At the combine, after Marpet ran a guard-best 4.98 40-yard dash, Licht texted one of the Bucs’ owners in the Glazer family—desperate for news on how the quarterbacks looked in Indianapolis—with news on the passers. And he added: “By the way, our favorite player here is Ali Marpet.”

Isn't it weird how most NFL teams get the exact players they loved prior to the draft on draft day? It's odd how nearly every single team was targeting this specific player and then they ended up drafting that player. Yet it happens all the time. A team is targeting a player and then they land that player. Odd, especially given the NFL teams don't continue to lie after the draft. It's all truth-telling from that point on.

On Sept. 13, 2014, Marpet played left tackle and blocked for quarterback Patrick Conlan against Endicott College in Beverly, Mass., with 1,725 watching. On Sept. 13, 2015, if all goes well, Marpet will line up at right guard and block for the first pick in the NFL draft, Jameis Winston, in his NFL debut against the Tennessee Titans, with 65,908 watching. That’s not too big an adjustment, is it?

Well, since Marpet isn't a woman official then I see no reason why this would be a huge adjustment for him. If Marpet were a female official making her introduction to NFL life, then Peter would have serious issues with this type of adjustment. 

Now Peter names his "GM's of the Weekend" or as it is better known, "GM's who seem to have made good moves on paper because that's all Peter really understands or knows at this point." 

Trent Baalke, San Francisco. No one plays the futures trading game better than Baalke. He held the 15th pick of the first round, and the worst-kept secret in football leading up to the draft was that San Francisco was over-the-top smitten with Oregon defensive end Arik Armstead. Here was Armstead, available at 15. But here came San Diego, picking 17th, desperately wanting to get up to pick Melvin Gordon, fearful that Houston, at 16, might. Baalke got San Diego’s fourth-round pick this year and fifth-round pick in 2016, and still got Armstead picking at 17 … at a savings of about $725,000 in first-round-slotting-system contract dollars because Baalke got him two picks later. Baalke also traded a pick 10 slots from the bottom of the draft, number 246 overall, and flipped that to Dallas for a 2016 sixth-rounder. So the Niners enter the offseason with a league-high nine picks in the 2016 draft.

As Peter is prone to do, he thinks a team "wins" the draft by having the most picks in next year's draft and creating more picks in this year's draft. This "futures game" that Baalke is playing worked so well for the 49ers last year, plus he has Jim Tomsula coaching these guys up so what could go wrong?

Next year around draft time, Peter is sure to have a MMQB where he will state that the 49ers "control" the 2016 NFL Draft. What team "won" the draft the year before will then "control" the draft for the next year. That's how it works for Peter.

Mike Maccagnan, New York Jets.

Maccagnan added a speed merchant used to playing big games, Ohio State’s Devin Smith,

Oh, so how will Smith having experience playing in big games help the Jets then?

and an intriguing quarterback prospect, Bryce Petty, with a value pick at 103.

Intriguing meaning, "He's a white, pocket quarterback who some reporters got duped into believing he would be taken earlier so this seems like a steal based on incorrect previous information these reporters had."

Tom Telesco, San Diego. I like Melvin Gordon a lot, and the Denzel Perryman pick gives San Diego three solid inside linebackers; Perryman will be the best of the lot by midseason. But this nod to Telesco is for not trading Philip Rivers. Making that trade because Rivers is 33 and the Chargers aren’t sure if he’ll sign with the franchise long-term would been a dumb, panicked move

Great job in not doing something stupid by trading a franchise quarterback! Also, the Saints didn't trade Drew Brees, so kudos to their front office for not considering a trade since Brees has a huge cap number next year and the team may have to renegotiate or release him. They could have considered a trade, but did not. Great job!

GM I Couldn’t Figure Out

Dave Gettleman, Carolina. None of these things can be judged for at least a couple of years, of course, so Gettleman, who has done a good job being patient in his Carolina rebuild, deserves time to see if he’s right and everyone else is wrong. 

Whatever. I don't care about Peter's opinion of the Panthers' draft. What I do care about is when Peter says things that aren't factually true. While earlier in this MMQB he paid attention to a Tweet from Ed Bouchette, and created a narrative regarding the drafting of Maxx Williams by the Ravens, when the Steelers wanted him as well. It seems Peter ignores other evidence he could find where a statement he might want to believe is true, is actually incorrect.

But with a significant tackle need (Carolina is due to start the shaky Michael Oher on Cam Newton’s blind side, no pun intended), I thought Gettleman over-drafted Shaq Thompson at 25. Thompson certainly would have been there 10 or more picks later.

Thompson "certainly" would have been there. Really? From a Dallas sportscaster...



 Maybe it is just Dallas saying that and the Panthers stumbled into drafting him at the perfect time.



So I don't care what Peter thinks, but evidence points to Thompson not being a reach at #27. Maybe the Panthers are lying and they really care if "experts" think they reached and the Cowboys are covering for them. Or maybe Peter just sort of wrote what he felt he knew but didn't really know.

And picking wide receiver/tight end combo guy Devin Funchess at 41 was a significant reach, according to the chorus of GMs I spoke with over the weekend. “Can be lazy and become disinterested in the game if he goes stretches without being utilized,” Ourlads Guide to the NFL Draft wrote of Funchess.

You mean like Steve Smith would get, which is why the game plan usually ensured he got the ball early in every game? And of course, these GM's all were lying before the draft, but they are back to always telling the truth after the draft is over.

But Gettleman didn’t just reach for Funchess. He traded third- and sixth-round picks to move up to get him. There will be significant pressure on the 14th tackle picked in this draft, fourth-round pick Daryl Williams, to produce at tackle for Carolina. 

He's not even penciled in as the starter right now. The guy who started the last part of the season and two playoff games is penciled in as the starter. So.............not as much pressure as Peter King wants there to be.

None of these players may be any good and this could be an "F" draft. I don't care, but at least try and base these opinions on fact if you are going to try and pass them off as fact.

Picks I Liked

40. Tennessee: Dorial Green-Beckham, wide receiver, Missouri/Oklahoma. No idea if he’ll boom or bust. But the 40th pick is a good place for a player with Randy Moss raw talent and a risk-reward pockmarked past.

Peter needed to get a quick interview in with Stephen Jones to find out what motivated the Cowboys to draft a guy with "character flaws" at #60, but the guy who pushed a girl down some stairs at #40, well that seems about the right time to take a kid with that kind of talent. Peter likes it.

Idiot Mock Drafter of the Year

Me. When will I learn? I got worse as the month went on. In my mock draft from last Tuesday, I had four direct hits: Jameis Winston, Marcus Mariota, Trae Waynes, Arik Armstead. In my mock draft April 1, I had six direct hits: Winston, Mariota, Waynes, Dante Fowler, DeVante Parker, Kevin Johnson. I mean, who gets worse with four more weeks to research?

Someone who takes the time to speak with NFL GM's and scouts about their feelings regarding which teams will pick which players at certain spots. Someone who then relies on these same anonymous scouts and GM's to honestly evaluate players after the draft is over and yet now feels like he has gotten to the bottom of the truth.

“It doesn’t bother me. It happens all the time. That’s what makes sports great. You have nothing to talk about on sports radio, it’s ‘Hey, let’s talk trades,’ and everybody comes up with a trade. It’s great. I think it’s fun. But if the guy getting talked about in the trade gets a little nervous, my point is, I’ve got to tell him just not to listen to that stuff. I mean, everybody can trade. Trade me. I don’t care.”

—Philadelphia coach Chip Kelly, on the spate of trade rumors around his team, as reports swirled that he desperately wanted to trade up to acquire Marcus Mariota with the first or second pick of the draft.

The wisdom of Chip Kelly. What wisdom it is.

Factoids of the Week That May Interest Only Me

Todd Gurley was the top-rated player on the St. Louis draft board.

It doesn't surprise me the future Los Angeles Rams had Gurley as the top-rated player on their board. He's a stud running back, even if he is coming off a major injury. Plus, Jeff Fisher knows you build a team from the running back position up while ignoring the quarterback position until he has to upgrade at that position.

The Atlanta Falcons in April arranged for a former star linebacker, Jessie Tuggle, to announce the team’s fifth-round pick, live from the new College Football Hall of Fame in Atlanta. All teams did their day-three picks remotely, to boost interest locally somewhere in the home market, and most got at least one former star to announce one or more of them.

Tuggle was handed the card to make the announcement and looked down at it.


Grady Jarrett, defensive tackle, Clemson.

Tuggle’s son.

This is an interesting story, but it's exactly that, a story. This isn't a "factoid" by any stretch of the imagination. I just am saying this probably doesn't fit under the "Factoids of the Week that May Only Interest Me" section of MMQB. It's a story, not a fact.

Marcus Mariota does not have accounts on Twitter, Instagram or Facebook.

Then that must mean he is going to be successful in the NFL because he's too focused on succeeding to have time for social media. It could also mean he doesn't want anyone seeing the things that he does during his life, whether good or bad, but that's probably just the jaded away of looking at it.

Mr. Starwood Preferred Member Travel Notes of the Week

 1. The more big events in my life in Chicago, the better. Love that city. Love walking everywhere. Love the crowds on Michigan Avenue. 

It's a great place to walk behind people for a mile or so while they are talking on the phone or just trying to go about living their lives. 

My Chicago hotel Wednesday and Thursday nights, before traveling to Tampa on Friday, was 1.6 miles from the draft site on Michigan Avenue. I walked it three times in the two days I was in town and wouldn’t have minded walking it six times.

Peter even followed this one lady down an alley. He had been trailing behind her for a few blocks while she was on her phone and then she quickly turned down an alley (she must have been in a hurry!) and ran off. It's weird to Peter how the women in Chicago would take off running after he trailed behind them for a while. It must be a new exercise program.

Then Peter has a Tweet about Floyd Mayweather's team pulling the credential of Rachel Nichols and Michelle Beadle. I didn't feel like embedding it, but if Mayweather pulling a credential from journalists would surprise you then it shouldn't.

Ten Things I Think I Think

1. I think it was cool to see Nate Boyer, the 34-year-old Army Special Forces veteran of three tours in the Middle East, get signed as an undrafted free-agent long-snapper by the Seahawks on Saturday. That shouldn’t be confused with “has a great job at winning the long-snapping job with the Seahawks” because of the clear advantage that incumbent Clint Gresham has to win the job. Not only did Gresham just sign a three-year, $2.7-million deal with Seattle, with a $300,000 signing bonus, but he has some physical advantages. He’s six years younger, and 6-3 and 240. Boyer is 5-11 and 220.

Nate Boyer didn't have a bad snap in three years at Texas. Yet, he went undrafted and finally got on with a team as an undrafted free agent. Was Boyer undrafted because he's old and was in the military? Obviously it couldn't have had anything to do with his skill set. Why did he go undrafted just because he's older and served his country?

(Seeing if anyone gets this non-hilarious parody of last year's post-draft rage)

3. I think there haven’t been many stories like the La’el Collins story since I’ve covered the NFL, and we need to let the legal system take its course. But if I were him, and if I were exonerated by police in the case, I would go play football somewhere this year.

Since apparently I was a homer a little while back while discussing the Panthers draft, let me be a homer for another minute. Robert Klemko responded back to me on Twitter (he's another writer who looks for his name on Twitter, even when it's not tagged) at my criticism that he had the Panthers taking Dorial Beckham-Green at #25. Yeah, it wasn't ever happening. Never. Not happening.

After paying $13.1 million to a guy who sat out the rest of the 2014 season due to legal troubles, the team was going to draft a guy who pushed a girl down stairs? No fucking way. Klemko defended the mock draft choice (found here) by telling me Dave Gettleman (the Panthers GM) was with the Giants when Plaxico got in legal trouble and then the team drafted Hakeem Nicks. He then called Nicks "no angel" at UNC. Interesting, except Nicks did nothing at UNC that could qualify for "no angel" status. He never got in trouble with the law, at least that I could find. Nicks was part of an academic fraud investigation, but that was AFTER he was drafted and had played for the Giants. But sure, whatever way Klemko wants to defend his picks, even he has to play slightly loose with facts. This response bothered me for some reason. He seems to have made up Nicks being "no angel" at UNC, unless there is something else I don't know about or couldn't find he was referring to.

8. I think the NFL allowing the Patriots’ deflated football saga—the Ted Wells investigative team began its work 101 days ago—to stretch past the draft makes this absurdity possible: If New England is punished, say by the loss of a draft choice, something that happened in the 2014 season will be punished in the 2016 season. That’s just wrong. Roger Goodell cannot simply say to Ted Wells or to any investigator: “Get back to me when you get back to me.” He has to either put a time limit on the investigation, or at the bare minimum, say, “You’ve got to have this done some time before the draft, so if there are sanctions to be assessed, we can assess them at the right time, not a year and a half later.”

Look Peter, Roger Goodell is not in charge of a timeline for any type of NFL investigation. Sure, maybe Wells is collecting billing hours while sipping cocktails, but he's doing that without Roger Goodell's knowledge. Sometimes an investigation into whether a bunch of footballs were deflated, and if true, when they were deflated takes over 100 days. Roger Goodell expects the NFL's players to do exactly as he wants them to do, but his hands are tied when it comes to making Ted Wells wrap up an investigation the NFL is paying him to provide conclusions on.

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

a. So Alex Rodriguez tied for number four on the all-time home run list. So? Let me know when he’s going for number one, and then I’ll pay attention. I mean, in what other walk of life does time stop when you become the fourth-best at something, particularly with Rodiguez’s asterisks?

Way to try and pass it off as not a big deal, Peter. Yeah, who really cares about the 4th leading home run hitter in MLB history. Who is Willie Mays anyway? It's no big deal. Nice way to pretend your apathy doesn't revolve entirely around A-Rod's repeated PED use.

b. Kevin Harlan in last two minutes of Clippers-Spurs: “I DO NOT WANT THIS SERIES TO END!”

c. Me either, 

But Peter, you are talking about the NBA. ARE YOU A FAN OF THE NBA? YOU HAVEN'T MADE YOUR POSITION ON THIS CLEAR IN THE PAST!

and I’m not even a basketball fan.

Oh, that's better. No mention of the NBA, and the mentions happen every week now, are complete without a caveat on how much Peter hates the NBA.

d. B.B. King is in hospice care. Comfort to him. Our culture has been so enriched because of him.

I'm betting the only B.B. King song that Peter knows is "When Love Comes to Town," and he only knows this song because King did the song with U2.

i. Always good to steal a game at Wrigley, as I did Wednesday night. Thanks to my SI Chicago ad sales team for a fun evening, even in the 46-degree chill. Gerrit Cole’s something to see. And it was cool to see Andrew McCutchen’s 1,000th career hit, a screaming triple to the center field warning track.

The ball was probably screaming because Peter had been following behind it for a mile, eavesdropping on the conversations it was having.

The Adieu Haiku

Marpet, guard. Hobart.
In the second round. Hobart.
You kidding? Hobart


Congrats, Peter! In a 11 word haiku, you manged to use the same word three times. This is now the most useless "Adieu Haiku" in MMQB history. I would say it's the fourth-worst "Adieu Haiku" but apparently no one cares about the fourth-best or worst at anything.  

Friday, February 15, 2013

5 comments Jack Morris is a Winning Winner Who Just Wins

It should come as no shock that Jerry Green really likes Jack Morris and believes Morris should be in the baseball Hall of Fame. Jerry comes from the old school that says a pitcher who wins game is a very valuable pitcher because he "knows how to win" (as Joe Morgan used to say). Jerry also likes Jack Morris because Morris was super-clutch and had this one really great game that he pitched in the World Series and was otherwise great (but not Hall of Fame worthy) over the rest of his career. So because Jack Morris is a winner, had a lot of complete games, and pitched very well in this one World Series game he should be in the Hall of Fame. Even the title of the article sounds like a parody of those who champion Morris as a Hall of Fame pitcher. It is entitled "Former Tigers Ace Jack Morris Was a Complete Winner." It's like the article is asking to be posted here.

The article starts off with a picture of Lance Parrish and Jack Morris shaking hands. Naturally in Jerry Green's opinion, Lance Parrish should be in the Hall of Fame as well because he's a winner who catches winning pitchers and makes this pitcher win games.

All of baseball America fidgeted in suspense, all of us watching on television, all of those in the ballpark that night. Everybody but … the one guy who stood in the brightly lit middle of this World Series drama.

Wait, is Jerry Green summarizing the plot of "For the Love of the Game" again?

He managed to strike out the batter to end the top of the ninth, the score still zip-zip.

Jack Morris is a winning winner because Lonnie Smith is a dumbass and got confused by Chuck Knoblauch's deception and slowed down before he could score the eventual game-winning run to make the Braves win one-zip in nine innings.

And as he approached the dugout the manager waited, as managers do, with the hook. Their conversation is reconstructed something like this:

"Reconstructed" being a polite way of saying, "completely and utterly made up." Jerry Green is just creating this conversation from nothing to support his own contention. The conversation could have gone like Jerry said it did, as follows:

Manager: "Nice job. You've pitched nine. You're done. If we don't get a run now, I'm going to the bullpen."

Pitcher: "No, you're not. It's my game. I started it, I'll finish it. I want the ball."

This type of conversation completely fabricated by Jerry Green supports his contention that Jack Morris is a gamer who refuses to leave the game until the job is done. Naturally, this merits his being in the Hall of Fame since he is the first and only pitcher ever to insist he stay in a World Series game while the game is tied.

But..................the conversation could have also gone as follows: 

Manager: "Nice job. You are staying in the game though. I'm not taking you out." 

Pitcher: "I'm exhausted and Pierre and I have a party we need to get to later tonight. Please pull me." 

Manager: "If you leave the game now I won't give you the shipment of cocaine I promised you after the game. I know how you and Pierre like to snort cocaine out of an underage boy's belly button. You leave the game, your blow leaves too." 

Pitcher: "Fine, I'm staying in. This mustache does help keep the blow well-organized in my nose and catches any cocaine-related run-off though." 

You know, the conversation could have gone either way. One way makes Jack Morris look like a hero and supports Jerry Green's point. The other way makes Jack Morris look like a homosexual pedophile with a cocaine problem. Hey, I can fabricate stories too.

So Jack Morris got his way, the only way he ever knew. Tom Kelly, the manager, relented, and Morris went out and pitched the 10th inning.

According to Jerry Green's story. According to my story, Jack Morris and his love Pierre did make it to the party to snort cocaine off an underage boy's belly button. Not coincidentally, Jerry Green's story is a desperate attempt to support the induction of Jack Morris into the Hall of Fame. When you don't have facts, make shit up.

And in the bottom of the 10th, the Twins scored the one run necessary to win. To win the game 1-0. To win Game 7 of a grueling World Series with the Braves. To win for Morris, a 10-inning shutout. To win a monumental ballgame etched deeply into the history of baseball itself.

One big win in a World Series Game 7 does not a Hall of Fame career-make. I'm all for taking a player's postseason success into account in addition to using that player's regular season career statistics as a measure for his Hall of Fame-worthiness. It seems the Hall of Fame candidacy for Jack Morris boils down to Game 7 of the 1991 World Series (while ignoring all of his other postseason performances), labeling him as the ace of X amount of MLB teams and remarking on how many complete games he threw as a starter. Those who favor Morris for Hall of Fame induction have to use these measures because otherwise he would be a prime candidate for the proverbial "Hall of Very Good."

He did win this game though. He's a winner.

To win, dammit!

To win! See what Jack Morris' Hall of Fame resume makes Jerry Green do? It makes him use foul language. He's so passionate about letting very good pitchers into the Hall of Fame that is intended to honor only the best of the best.

When the ballgame is over — a World Series game or a Super Bowl or a Thursday game in mid-June — all that truly matters is which team won.

This is very true, but as I have detailed probably 100 times, whether a pitcher wins a game isn't completely dependent on how well he pitches. It also depends on his run support. If the Twins had scored 10 runs against John Smoltz in the first six innings then Morris wouldn't be seen as such a hero. Alas, they did not score 10 runs in the first six innings so Morris is a hero. But the perception of Morris' performance is partially based on the run support he received. Wins are not only measures of how well a pitcher pitched, but also how much run support that pitcher received.

And in this World Series classic in 1991, the Minnesota Twins won — and Jack Morris won — and Tom Kelly won — and Kirby Puckett and Kent Hrbek — they all won.

Everyone won. We get it. You play to win the game.

I challenge all 600-plus voting colleagues in the Baseball Writers Association of America to find any other purpose for playing these ballgames — above winning.

Simply because the purpose of the game is to win doesn't mean because Jack Morris won a Game 7 in the World Series he should be inducted into the Hall of Fame. Look, Jack Morris entire resume, including his playoff record, don't merit him making the Hall of Fame. Morris was a workhorse in the regular season and was very inconsistent in the postseason. He's been very good and very bad. Check out Morris' postseason statistics.

Not even for money, profits.

Don't be naive. The players also play for money. Always have and always will.

Shut out — not like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, their careers tainted — a total zero Hall of Fame election. Jack stood up for 18 major league seasons with the Tigers, Twins, Blue Jays and Indians untainted — and unelected.

Part of the reason Morris isn't in the Hall of Fame is that he doesn't deserve to be. There's that. I can't wait until next year when Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux are up for Hall of Fame consideration. Those two pitchers are an example of what a Hall of Fame pitcher should look like. Their resumes make Jack Morris look like a hobo.

And that one shot next year is clouded by the first-year Hall of Fame eligibility of Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine. Plus Mike Mussina.

Don't you just hate it when deserving Hall of Fame candidates overshadow undeserving Hall of Fame candidates? It's just not fair (stomps feet on the ground).

In a re-analysis, it is obvious that the names of Bonds and Clemens and Sammy Sosa, along with Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro, on the ballot caused the collected voting writers to shoot a blank.

"It threw all of us under the bus," Morris said during a telephone conversation the other day after he was shut out again.

No, they didn't Jack. You don't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame and that is the conclusion that can be drawn. Move along and I bid you a good day, sir. 

Maddux and Glavine are certainly first-ballot worthy — if a sufficient number of my 600-plus voting colleagues decide not to continue to try to shut down the Hall of Fame.

Jerry Green doesn't get it, does he? This year's vote wasn't a case of every player on the ballot not getting inducted because of the steroid users. This year's vote was a case of steroid users not getting elected and the other borderline Hall of Fame candidates not being elected based on their own merit. It's easier and lazier to blame Jack Morris' condition on the steroid users. While we are at it, I'm sure it is Jay Cutler's fault too. Let's partially blame him.

But it was Jack himself who pointed out a hidden issue. Maddux and Glavine pitched exclusively in the National League. No designated hitter there. Weak-hitting pitchers are locked at No. 9 in every NL batting order.

If Jack Morris thinks he would have been as good as Maddux and Glavine if he played in the National League then he is delusional. All of this Hall of Fame support from guys like Jerry Green is clearly going to his head if he thinks Maddux won 101 more games because he pitched in the National League his entire career. The same thing goes for Glavine. He didn't win 51 more games than Morris because he pitched in the National League.

Maddux won 355 games and Glavine won 305 games against NL batting orders. In comparison, Morris won 254 games against batting orders with nine qualified hitters.

God, you are a moron if you think one additional hitter in the lineup equates to 51-101 more games won for Jack Morris. Actually, Jerry Green is on the right track. Imagine how many more games Jack Morris would have won if he managed to keep his career ERA a little further below 4.00 or actually managed to put up statistics that deserve induction into the Hall of Fame. If Morris really was a Hall of Fame pitcher he would have statistics like Glavine and Maddux. Good point by Jerry.

Maybe playing in the National League did have something to do with Maddux or Glavine having the low ERAs they did, but there was still a level playing field because Maddux and Glavine were pitching against other pitchers who pitched in the National League. So Glavine and Maddux didn't win more games because they played in the National League since it was an even playing field. It doesn't make sense to say Maddux or Glavine had an advantage in winning more games than Morris if you think logically or think at all. Perhaps playing right smack in the middle of the Steroid Era that Jerry Green rails so hard against cost Maddux and Glavine some wins. Wait, Jerry didn't think of that counterpoint did he? He didn't think perhaps Glavine and Maddux had to pitch against juiced up players while Jack Morris did not.

I lean more towards the seven years from 1992-1998 when Maddux never had an ERA below 3.00 and had an ERA below twice as why he won so many games.

"I pitched my entire career in the American League during the DH era," Jack said. "How do you justify for that?"

How do you justify for Maddux/Glavine pitching right in the middle of the Steroid Era. Shut up and sit down. You aren't a Hall of Fame pitcher no matter how much you whine otherwise.

The quibble many negative-oriented baseball writers have with Morris, supposedly, is his career earned-run average of 3.90. It compares with ERAs of 3.16 for Maddux on his four National League clubs and 3.54 for Glavine on his two NL clubs.

"The league ERA in the American League is 0.38 higher than the National League," Morris said — a preciously rare statistic.

"I'd be a lot lower if I pitched in the National League."

Do you need your binky now?

Imagine how high Jack Morris' ERA would have been if he pitched in the National League against Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire, and Barry Bonds while they were juicing. I'm not sure Morris could have had an ERA under 5.00.

"My point is I took the ball into a game longer than anybody," he said.

My point is this isn't Hall of Fame-worthy criteria alone.

"I pitched against 17 Hall of Famers," Morris said. "Maddux, Glavine and Mussina can't say that.

Partly because many of the players they pitched against aren't in the Hall of Fame yet.

Morris is a long-distance winner in this category. He pitched 175 complete games in his 18 seasons. Maddux pitched 109 complete games in 23 seasons; Glavine pitched 56 in his 22 seasons.

Wow, if it was the "Hall of Complete Games" then Jack Morris would be a first-ballot Hall of Fame pitcher. Let's play the cherry-picked numbers game. The lowest ERA Morris had in a single season was 3.05. Maddux had a lower ERA in a single-season 11 times, including three years right in the middle of the Steroid Era, and Glavine had a lower ERA in a single-season 6 times, including two years right in the middle of the Steroid Era.

When winning counts the most, in the pennant playoffs and the World Series, Morris excelled.

Really? He had a career 3.80 ERA in the postseason (sound familiar? His career ERA was 3.90) and posted an ERA over 6.00 in a postseason series 3 times. Morris only pitched in 7 postseason series in his career by the way. So he really wasn't that big when it counted most. He was awful in the postseason at times.

"I want the ball," Morris would tell Sparky Anderson before opening days and before the World Series. And Sparky would hand it to him. And then Sparky would ride with Jack longer than he would with any of his other pitchers. There were times Sparky would head out to the mound with his hook, looking toward the bullpen — and Morris would chase his manager right back to the dugout.

That's a great story. It doesn't mean Morris needs to be in the Hall of Fame.

That night in San Diego, Game 1 of the World Series, the Tigers won 3-2, by grace of Larry Herndon's two-run home run. Jack went nine, with Sparky twitching the last three innings. Four days later at Tiger Stadium, the Tigers defeated the Padres, 4-2, by grace of Alan Trammell's two home runs. Jack again went nine.

Notice how Morris needed the benefit of the offense scoring runs in order to win these World Series games. It's almost like winning games as a pitcher is connected in some way to the offense scoring runs for that pitcher.

I'd love to know what happened in 1992 World Series where Morris had an ERA of 8.44. Notice Jerry isn't telling any inspirational and exciting stories about Morris in that World Series when he went up against Atlanta again.

Morris' accumulated World Series ERA for the Tigers, Twins and Blue Jays is 2.96.

His career ERA in the ALCS? 4.87. The cherry-picking of statistics is fun.

Maddux and Glavine were great pitchers. No dispute.

But they did not match Morris' record in playoffs and World Series. Morris went 4-2 in World Series starts with three complete games and 7-4 overall in postseason starts with five complete games. In contrast, Maddux was 2-3 in World Series starts and 11-14 overall in the postseason. Glavine was 4-3 in the World Series and 14-16 in all postseason performances.

I'm afraid reading this idiocy is actually making me dumber. Jerry Green needs to realize that more goes into a pitcher's Hall of Fame resume than how well he pitched in the postseason. Maddux and Glavine are better than Jack Morris in nearly every category when it comes to the larger sample size of the regular season.

Not to mention, if Jerry is going to cherry-pick statistics, I will do so as well. He is showing us wins and losses in the postseason and as I have said repeatedly wins and losses aren't exact measures of how well a pitcher pitched. Clearly Jerry disagrees. Check on the career postseason ERA of Maddux, Glavine, and Morris. Both Maddux and Glavine have a lower ERA than Jack Morris did in the postseason. So Jerry blindly and ignorantly throws out "wins and losses" as his ultimate measure of Morris' postseason superiority over Maddux and Glavine, but this could just be an example of Morris receiving more run support than Glavine and Maddux.

It doesn't matter if the numbers are spewed out by a new-styled Sabermetrics whiz or an old-fashioned codger as I am — winning trumps everything else.

Yes, winning trumps everything, but it doesn't tell you everything. Not to mention, if Jerry Green can only base Jack Morris' Hall of Fame candidacy on complete games and Game 7 of the 1991 World Series, without even mentioning his regular season statistics, then that tells me all I need to know about whether Morris deserves to be in the baseball Hall of Fame or not.

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

5 comments To Write a Winning Column, You Can't Be Really Wrong

I think I am obligated to cover this article by Mike Tully. I see no reason why a blog that covers bad sportswriting shouldn't cover a column written about how certain players are just winners. This entire idea that certain players just win sounds like it comes from an 80's movie involving dialogue spoken by the bully/antagonist of the movie. The title of this article is "To Create a Winner, You Have to Find the Winners." Great, wonderful idea. Unfortunately this principle can be applied only very, very little when discussing team sports. Because they are TEAM sports. B.J. Armstrong isn't a winner because his team won a lot of games with him as the point guard. He was a winner because he played with Michael Jordan and Scottie Pippen and effectively played his role on that team. It is nearly impossible to say an individual player on a team is a winner because there are a bunch of individuals on a team that contribute to a win.

Au contraire, says Mike Tully.

Anson Dorrance has coached the North Carolina women’s soccer team to 21 national titles since 1979, and he has been more than happy to reveal his secret to success.

Sexual harassment?

In his 1996 book, “Training Soccer Champions,” Dorrance described what he calls the jewel of his program: the competitive caldron. U.N.C. soccer players compete in every aspect of the sport, including the weight room, sprints and drills. Coaches then look for the players with a knack for being on the winning side.

So it is like drills at the NFL Combine, but for women soccer players. What a novel concept to look for the fastest, strongest, and most athletically gifted women soccer players! Who would have ever thought to do this. Surely, this novel approach to choosing a team will never get out to where other coaches might think to keep the most athletic, strong and agile players on their team...and then in a miracle of forethought, choose to start these players.

It’s the person who can read the subtleties of the game and knows when certain actions can make a difference.

Right. The subtleties of sprinting and lifting weights. Other than having the right form, I am failing to see some of the subtleties of lifting weights or running that a women's soccer player would have that could translate to soccer or tell us about some secret X-factor this player brings to the table...other than being able to run fast or lift a lot of weight. To me, the certain actions that make the difference is the action of being the strongest or fastest player in a certain group.

It’s the person who involves and inspires teammates, creating emotion or a sense of mission. Coaches have a special name for such a player: starter.

I have a name for this as well: bullshit.

But why is it bullshit you may ask? Because you don't understand the yet-to-be-named subtleties and what certain unnamed actions that make a difference in determining what statements are bullshit and what aren't.

Major league baseball is not college soccer. And baseball players cannot compete in practice the way the Tar Heels do.

But fuck it, let's make the comparison anyway. Why should no comparable characteristics between the two sports really stop this comparison from being made in order to make a point?

Pancakes taste just like burritos. Except they don't really, but ignoring that, they really do taste the same.

So as the season begins this week, the time might be right to ask, How much value do baseball managers place on the team’s record when a given player is in the lineup?

If that player is a really good player, a lot. If that player isn't a good player and there is a better player on the roster for that same position, absolutely none. How do you determine whether a player is good or not, without the aid of sprints or lifting weights? Performance on the field in the given sport.

David Eckstein is one player whose contribution far exceeded his talent.

Oh, here we go.

A walk-on in college and a 19th-round draft pick, he still managed to make the postseason in 4 of his 10 major league seasons,

So Eckstein did while pitching, fielding, and batting all by himself with no assistance from his teammates? No? Then you have no point. Have a good day, please don't write anything on paper, on a computer, on the sidewalk or anywhere ever again.

played on two championship teams and was the most valuable player of the 2006 World Series.

Everyone gives Eckstein credit for helping the 2002 Angels win the World Series, but somehow they forget he hit .278/.316/.278 and .286/.318/.286 in the ALDS and ALCS respectively.

Do you know who else REALLY helped the Angels win that World Series? Troy Glaus, when he hit 3 home runs in that series and had a .385/.467/.846 in the World Series. But no...it was ALL David Eckstein because he's a winner dammit!

Everyone always like to bring up the 2006 World Series MVP that Eckstein won as a way of showing how clutch he can be forget a few things about this "winner." How about his line of .133/.188/.133 in the 2006 NLDS? Why doesn't that get brought up as part of his winning tradition? If the Cardinals won because of Eckstein in the World Series they won in spite of his performance in the NLDS that same year. The same thing goes for the 2005 NLDS when he hit .200/.346/.200 and the Cardinals LOST the NLDS. How come a winner actually helped his team lose a series? Eckstein is a winner dammit, yet he lost, how could that be?

On the other end of the spectrum one might find Carlos Beltran, a four-time All-Star with the Mets. While he recovered from knee surgery last year, they won 48 of their first 88 games, and were only four games out of the National League East lead at the All-Star break. Then Beltran rejoined the team. The Mets went 31-43 (.419) the rest of the way and finished 18 games out of first place.

Were there other factors that coincided with Beltran joining the team again? I am sure there were...like injuries, other players on the Mets team playing well or poorly during this time. You can't chalk up a team's record with one player in the lineup as indicative of that player's effect on the team in a team sport. You just can't.

How did Kevin Garnett go from a loser in Minnesota before joining the Celtics and winning a title? Same thing with Ray Allen. How did Paul Pierce go from a loser in 2006-2007 on a terrible Celtics team to a huge winner during the 2007-2008 season when the Celtics won a title? Oh yeah, there were better players around him and he wasn't injured. These are team sports, you are stupid and short-sighted to chalk up wins and losses directly to one player on that team...unless it is Brooks Conrad. He alone is to blame for the Braves losing to the Giants in the 2010 NLDS due to his approximate 19 errors on 14 field opportunities in the series.

Their decline cannot be attributed solely to Beltran, but the Mets did not improve with him in the lineup.

The decline can't be attributed solely to Beltran, yet that's EXACTLY what Mike Tully is doing. He's basically saying, "Don't let the faulty reasoning and logic behind my argument distract you from my opinion that I indeed have a good argument."

On the other hand, the Mets went 42-36 (.538) with Ruben Tejada, the team’s highest winning percentage among position players with extended time on the field.

Clearly, it was Tejada's .213/.305/.282 line with 1 home run and 15 RBI that inspired his teammates and willed them to win the game. Ruben Tejada knows certain actions, like his 62 OPS+ that helps his team win games. I guess this goes to prove Ruben Tejada does more, beyond the box score, to help his team win games. He probably did the little things, like take the extra base and tell great jokes in the clubhouse, that helped the Mets win games.

If Mike Tully was ever looking for a reason why his theory of creating winners sucks, he need look no further than Ruben Tejada being on the field coinciding with the Mets having the highest winning percentage.

Ike Davis had the best winning percentage at .503 (74-73); only David Wright was on the field for more Mets victories (75).

What do you know? The next two players on that list are really good players. Clearly, this means they are the outlier and not Ruben Tejada.

Baseball insiders cite factors like cohesion, rhythm and percentages to defend the idea of sticking with tried-and-true players.

I guess I am not a baseball insider because this doesn't make a hell of a lot of sense to me.

They argue, with some justification, that baseball involves failure and that players need time to work through it.

So there is "some" justification that baseball involves failure, when the best hitters fail 70% of the time. Since when did 70% of the time become "some" failure?

The YankeesDerek Jeter, who has won five championships, is coming off the worst offensive season of his 16-year career

The Yankees as a team have only three championships in that 16 year period. Derek Jeter has personally won five championships. He's a winner.

Now the team is debating whether he or Brett Gardner should bat leadoff. No matter where Gardner bats, he should play; the Yankees were 93-57 (.620) with him in the lineup, and 2-10 without him.

Gardner hit .263/.317/.355 as the second-place hitter and .316/.427/.449 as the eighth-place hitter. So it does matter where they hit him. Also, I don't need the Yankees record with Gardner in the lineup to tell me he should play on a daily basis. I can merely look at his statistics and the rest of the available outfielders on the Yankees roster to come to this conclusion.

They seemed to get along just fine (21-4) without Alex Rodriguez.

MAYBE BRETT GARDNER SHOULD HIT CLEANUP THEN! BECAUSE THE YANKEES WILL WIN 62% OF THEIR GAMES NO MATTER WHERE HE PLAYS!

There are certain statistics that just don't mean anything much. This is one of them. I guarantee the Yankees would not have a winning percentage of 84% with A-Rod on the bench or on a different team.

In the games Jeter played, the Yankees were 92-65.

Winner. That's a winning percentage of 58.5%.

This means the Yankees were 3-2 without Jeter in the lineup. That means they won 60% of their games without Jeter in the lineup. If the Yankees want to improve their team, trade Derek Jeter immediately! Trade him for David Eckstein, because he had a good World Series five years ago.

Should teams be slaves to such statistics? No, but they should notice. And they might be surprised.

Surprised at how irrelevant these statistics are? Surprised how these statistics take a team game and try to make it sound like an individual game? Surprised at how a person can rationally believe he can prove something from taking one variable (a player in/out of the lineup) out of an equation while ignoring the other variables that are in the equation (strength of schedule, other players in the lineup) and this actually proves something about a player's worth?

Last season Cincinnati won the National League Central at 91-71 (.562). But in games Joey Votto, the league M.V.P., played, the Reds went 83-67 (.553).

Clearly, Votto wasn't the most valuable player then.

Albert Pujols played in 159 games last year. They went 2-1 with him out of the lineup last year for a winning percentage of 66.7%. They won 66% of their games without Pujols and only won 52.8% of their games with him in the lineup. They could have won 108 games last year merely by releasing Albert Pujols in training camp!

Similarly, Texas was 71-62 (.534) with Josh Hamilton, the American League M.V.P., in the lineup. He finished behind several fellow position players: Ian Kinsler (.592), Elvis Andrus (.568), David Murphy (.565) and Michael Young (.561).

What's funny is that Tully doesn't stop. He just keeps on comparing team's records with a player compared to other players on that team while completely ignoring other variables that may result in a team's win or loss. These winning percentages tell us nothing because it completely ignores all the other variables involved with a team winning or losing. You just can't do this. Ignoring other non-constant variables in a situation like this makes your results non-relevant. There's nothing to be learned.

St. Louis traded shortstop Brendan Ryan to Seattle in the off-season after his career-worst .223 batting average. The Cardinals were 17 games over .500 with Ryan, seven games under without him. In his place is Ryan Theriot, whose Cubs went 43-53 with him in the lineup last year, 32-34 without him.

Then obviously the key to a great team is to trade Alex Rodriguez for Brendan Ryan straight up.

Sometimes teams will find a player with an X-factor that goes way beyond talent. Leo Durocher once said that second baseman Eddie Stanky could not hit, field or run — all he could do was win.

Who gives a shit what Leo Durocher says? Stanky's career line was .268/.410/.348. He draw 996 walks in his career versus 374 strikeouts. It's clear Stanky could play the game of baseball. Stanky's X-factor that went beyond talent was that he could draw walks, which I am pretty sure is a talent of some sort.

But Stanky was not helpless. He retired in 1953 with a .410 career on-base percentage, among the best in history.

So Leo Durocher was right there was an X-factor about Stanky that went beyond talent, it is just actually wrong because Stanky had talent. Way to submarine your own point.

On-base percentage was not valued in the 1940s and ’50s, and that is the point. Certain players have always done things that keep them on the winning side, even if they are not always recognized.

For example, Scott Brosius did something that kept him on the winning side...he played for good Yankees teams. Robert Horry also did something that caused him to be a winner, he was on the same roster as Shaquille O' Neal, Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, and Hakeem Olajuwon in their primes. Players have intangibles, I can't argue with that, but the mere attempt to put a value on these intangibles, like defining a player's skill level by measuring how the team does with him in/out of the lineup, doesn't make them "intangible" anymore.

As for Jeter, perhaps the more pressing question is not whether he should be leading off, but whether he should still be playing shortstop.

Of course he should. He's clutch, haven't you heard? One time he made a great play in a playoff game to cut off a throw and get the runner at home and another time he dove in the stands and made a tough catch. He has "intangibles" like that. The question, is why he isn't playing third base AND shortstop, because clearly the Yankees are a better team without Alex Rodriguez.

Where, after all, would he land in North Carolina’s competitive caldron?

First place in everything. He's a winner.

I enjoy how Mike Tully has gone from using the competitive caldron from UNC's women's soccer team to measuring players that have immeasurable characteristics which set them apart as winners. So basically, there are X-factors which helps a player become a winner and only competitive competitions can judge whether this player has the X-factor that help his team become a winner?

See the inherent problem with that? It is using a competitive, solitary situation to determine which player has the characteristics to read the subtleties of a team game. This article is wrong all over the place. Neither David Eckstein or Brendan Ryan would win too many sprints or competitions in practice, so how would this competitive caldron tip Mike Tully off to the "winners" that these players are? So, on its face, the entire premise of the competitive caldron with the premise of the rest of the article doesn't meld together very well.

Thursday, February 17, 2011

6 comments All-Star Weekend Shake Up

In case you didn't know, the NBA All-Star game is this weekend. In all honesty, I had no idea until I looked it up a few minutes ago. But that's just how this NBA season has felt. We're so caught up in the present that we neglect looking to the future. Throughout the previous five seasons, we have awaited a fixed number of playoff series. But not this year. The basketball universe has an imbalance which is yet to be corrected. The San Antonio Spurs, despite leading the West, shouldn't be elite. Tim Duncan is a shell of his former self. Manu Ginobili's bald spot has gone from a hilarious side note to the staple of his appearance. Kevin Durant should be the MVP. The Miami Heat should be hands down the best team in the NBA. The Los Angeles Lakers shouldn't consider making a deal. But all these things are happening and defying the preseason logic that normally proves itself valid.

As we have waited for the ship to right itself, All-Star weekend has snuck up on us (kind of like the guy who sidles in Seinfeld). In its purest form, it's a showcase of the NBA's best talent, regardless of team ability. But this season's rosters, more so than most seasons, have taken an ugly turn. In the East, only six teams are represented, none of which are currently below the 6th seed in the Eastern Conference. In the West, only Kevin Love is not on a playoff team. Clearly this imbalance will always occur; the better players usually play on winning teams. But at some point, we have to be honest with ourselves.

Yesterday I was introduced to the Rik Smits award for the player with the most undeserving, random and never-going to-happen-again All-Star selection. Al Horford, this year's winner, is just one example of the prejudice that afflicts the All-Star game. Mo Williams, a previous winner, is another. But this list should not exist. It's ruining the NBA's supposed showcase.

In short, the coaches are slipping. So much so that reputation and winning precedes on-court ability. And a player with only his reputation to cling to is most likely aging. Taking that one step further, an aging player will probably make an All-Star Game less exciting.

So among other changes to All-Star weekend (A 16 person, 1-on-1 competition which I outlined previously), the NBA should create 2 rosters. Roster 1's selection would proceed with complete coach autonomy. No fan input, no chance of Yao Ming making the roster. Simply the best players in the NBA. When a player's NBA All-Star appearances are considered, this is what we would refer to.

The secondary All-Stars would be the NBA's most exciting players. Instead of coaches picking the best players, have select media members (I know I know, that's probably a bad idea. But I don't have anything better), come up with a list of 50 of the most exciting players in the NBA. No one really wants to watch Paul Pierce operate at 0.5 miles per hour. As fundamentally sound as Tim Duncan's post game is, he's the sole reason why the Spurs have been completely unwatchable (not including this year) for the past 13 seasons. Every time they make an ESPN or TNT appearance, I just want to hit the turbo button, NBA 2k11 style. Even players like Dirk, Kevin Love and Chris Bosh may miss the cut. Finesse and fundamentals represent a one-way ticket away from Youtube. Essentially, if you're a Youtube sensation as an NBA player, this is the game for you. And this would be the All-Star Game we watch. Imagine watching Rudy Gay and Shannon Brown instead of Dirk? Imagine watching Nate Robinson dunk over Blake Griffin? I understand that the NBA All-Star game showcases the best the league has to offer, but sometimes best does not equal best, if you know what I mean.

Maybe this is why they made the dunk contest. But if the most exciting players are unwilling to participate (in general), let's throw them into the All-Star Game mix instead. They wouldn't say no to that, right?

Will this ever happen? Absolutely not. But it's fun to imagine these dunks occurring for 48 minutes on both ends of the floor (A link worth clicking on, I promise).