I can't believe we got anything for the Out-o-matic 9000. I haven't seen his numbers this year, but my sense is that Church is a decent player. Anything is better that our former rightfielder, but we actually got a decent player to replace him? And Church is a lefty, which will help a team that struggles against right-handed starters.
Our trading partner makes me feel even better about this deal. Has Omar Minaya done anything good as the Mets' GM that didn't involve prospects drafted by his predecessor or the exercise of naked economic power? If the Mets play Francoeur every day, then we've simultaneously helped ourselved and hurt a major rival. The Braves just sent smallpox to New York. Or, I guess to riff on our nickname, we gave them tobacco.
I listened to the Bill Simmons-Colin Cowherd podcast last night. Although their discussion of blogs was at times fatuous, I was most interested when they both proclaimed how much they have grown to like soccer. Footie-haters, you know your days are numbered when sports talk radio stops treating the sport like Bolshevism run amok. And Simmons is the most popular writer for the WWL, so having him write about watching Spurs can't help but push soccer further into the mainstream. As Cowherd was talking about the NBA and the fact that Americans eat up sports that are all about stars and personalities, I thought that ESPN is really going to be able to sell Barca-Real. La Primera will make sense to the network that adores the Yanks and Red Sox. OK, I need to disinfect after that last sentence.
A full post on the Hawks is coming, but this offseason is going great. Best of all, the fears about Atlanta Spirit being skinflints have turned out to be unjustified. Can they really be losing that much money if they are adding payroll? Am I being greedy in imagining that they resign Marvin and then bring Andersen over from Barca to take Solomon Jones' minutes? That team would be a Lebron injury from being a real contender in the East.
You are looking live at Coors Field... Coors is one of the underrated parks in baseball. The stadium isn't any different from every other new park built since Camden, but the way it is worked into Lodo is really cool. Camden and Coors are the best of the new parks that I've been to. To achieve the same effect, the Ted should have been built...next to Midtown? Maybe along with Atlantic Station?
Raging Burrito was just treated to a great live version of "Some Girls.". Sadly, they have a 300-disc changer here, so the bartender couldn't tell me the bootleg title. "Some Girls" is a great track; a way for a Stones fan to make clear that he isn't a casual, greatest hits guy. Also acceptable: "Memo from Turner," "All Down the Line," and "Sister Morphine.". Speaking of drugs, I scared two co-workers this week by volunteering that rain is a euphemism for heroin, before explaining that I know that because of my favorite Dylan song. "Smack addict" isn't a great niche to fill at a law firm.
John Sciambi needs to meet gay Ben, my stylist. Speaking of which, when the guy cutting your hair wants your opinion regarding the Confederations Cup final, you know that soccer is infiltrating.
The only part of me that is sad about Frenchy's departure is that he was the avatar of the '05 Braves, the last and one of the most enjoyable of the 14 straight division champs. For a summer, he was the mayor. Now, he's a f***'in Met.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Is the Outfield Really the Problem?
On one of the Braves' telecasts this week, the production team flashed a stat that Atlanta is dead last in Major League Baseball in run differential after the sixth inning. The Braves lost a game on Saturday when they led 3-0 after six. Last night, the Braves had a 5-4 lead after six, but Peter Moylan and Mike Gonzalez (two of the team's four allegedly reliable relievers) contrived to turn that into a 7-6 loss. The Braves' struggles in late innings imply problems with the bullpen and the bench. There has been a lot of talk of adding a big outfield bat and I'm not opposed to that move if it can be done without mortgaging the future. (There's a controversial conclusion!) However, Frank Wren could more easily improve the Braves' fortunes in the later innings by getting bullpen help and a bat for the bench, two categories of improvements that can typically be done cheaply. The major question is whether the Braves will be in a position to benefit from tinkering.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Bobby Knight Should Have Decked You When He Had the Chance
Let's all feel sorry for John Feinstein. He went to Duke and writes for a major newspaper in Peter King's beloved I-95 corridor, so he doesn't know or care about college football. That's fine with me. I prefer to remember Feinstein for Season on the Brink, which is one of my all-time favorite sports books. I have four of his books on the wall, although none more recent than March into Madness, after which Feinstein ceased being relevant or interesting. Combine a guy who understands college football about as well as I understand Uzbek folklore and a writer whose skills have eroded and you get this gem. The Senator linked it and Orson inspired me, so let's dust off the ol' fisking gloves and get busy:
BCS: Where Money Talks and Hypocrisy Walks
By John Feinstein
Monday, June 29, 2009 1:19 PM
Let's keep in mind that the theme of this article is "name-calling." Count the number of times that Feinstein doesn't make an argument, but instead shouts like the worst sort of purple-faced sports radio caller. Let's also keep in mind that I-A football is unlike all other NCAA sports in two important respects: it doesn't have a massive playoff and it is worth more economically than all the other NCAA sports put together.
So we have hypocrites who tell lies...
Let's see, the idea of the Yankees agreeing not to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars that they generate from being the most popular baseball team in the Milky Way is ludicrous because we would not expect a major entity to act in a manner totally at odds with its own self-interest. So what is it that you are asking the 66 teams the compose the major BCS schools to do? Oh yeah, give away a massive economic advantage that they created so they can share their wealth with teams whose fan bases are comparatively tiny.
You know, a quote would be good here. I smell a whiff of overstatement. And if you're keeping track, we have self-righteous hypocrites who tell lies.
Please do. I need the material in the summer.
We are now up to self-righteous hypocrites who tell lies and administer pompous, arrogant, and obnoxious pummelings.
Uh, Frohmayer probably referred to an "NFL-style" playoff because that's what a college football playoff would look like if people like Feinstein had their way. John, you know that 12-team playoff that you're pining for with the top four seeds getting byes? Where else can we see such a playoff? I wonder?
The self-righteous hypocrites who tell lies and administer pompous, arrogant, and obnoxious pummelings need to shut up.
A I-A college football team has 85 players on scholarship. A Division I college basketball team has 13 players on scholarship. I wonder why college presidents would be more concerned about extending the college football season? Also, John, this may surprise you, but some schools start their semesters very early in January, so those teams would not be playing their games in between semesters.
The self-righteous hypocrites who tell lies, administer pompous, arrogant, and obnoxious pummelings, and are also patently dishonest need to shut up.
Really, there is no possible academic implication for a marginal student playing football throughout the month of January after having already practices and played from August through December? For the record, I'm not a huge fan of the academic concerns professed by college presidents as a reason not to have a playoff, but Feinstein is acting as if these presidents are arguing that Dred Scott and Plessy had overlooked merit. Frohmayer is not making a particularly outlandish claim here.
Again, Feinstein fails to grasp that there are differences between college basketball and football. The early rounds of the NCAA Tournament are played in smaller venues, which means that huge traveling hordes don't need to follow their teams. For a three-round playoff, Feinstein wants to make 40,000 Ohio State fans travel to Orlando one week, then New Orleans the next, then Pasadena the week after that. Now Ohio State fans will do it because they're batshit crazy, but there are differences in the number of people who are having to traipse all over the country. Has Feinstein perhaps missed the gaping maws of empty seats NCAA Tournament regional semis and finals that are played in domes?
OK, even I'm calling bullshit on this one, Frohmayer. You really think that Auburn fans aren't a little sore about 2004?
Right, the Utah team whose own coach voted fifth going into a Sugar Bowl in which they played Alabama without their best player. The Boise State team that lost that lost the Poinsettia Bowl. Another Boise State team that won an overtime classic against a good, but hardly overwhelming Oklahoma team after playing an absurdly easy schedule during the regular season. All of these teams were eligible to play for the national title, but no one - not the computers, not the media, not the coaches, and not the Harris Poll voters - saw them as being serious contenders to be one of the top two teams in the country before the bowls. And bonus points to Feinstein for not using the best example of a non-BCS conference power that could have legitimately played for a national title: 2004 Utah.
The self-righteous hypocrites who tell lies and administer pompous, arrogant, and obnoxious pummelings need to shut up before they spew more hyperbolic trash.
What exactly does the voting method for the post-season have to do with whether the regular season is meaningful? And what's wrong with computers. Last I checked, you like college basketball and the Tournament selection committee tends to rely on the RPI pretty heavily.
I can't disagree here, but again, the NCAA Tournament is populated and seeded based on the workings of a committee that convenes in private and does not even publish the methodologies that it used to create brackets. I'll look forward to your column calling the NCAA Tournament fraudulent because of the lack of transparency in putting teams in various spots.
Earth to John: the college basketball regular season goes on for over four months. If only the last three weeks are relevant, then you have made my point for me. You're supposed to be arguing against the BCS, remember?
And now you've hit on the problem with college basketball. Duke and North Carolina wage their epic battles every spring so the victor can play in Greensboro while the loser has to travel all the way to Philadelphia. Oh, the mighty stakes when the regular season is about seeding!
The self-righteous hypocrites who tell lies and administer pompous, arrogant, and obnoxious pummelings need to shut up before they spew more hyperbolic trash that they don't believe as they're saying it.
John, do you remember when you were in college? Do you recall following Duke basketball way back when? You may recall that the ACC was eight teams at that time. If you care to take a gander, it now has 12 members. When you were in college, Miami, Florida State, Boston College, and Virginia Tech were blips on the college football map. Through good coaching and management, those programs built themselves into powerhouses (well, at least three of them did and the fourth tagged along because it is in a big TV market) that were attractive to the ACC. What is stopping Utah from turning itself into a shiny apple that the Pac Ten will want to pluck?
Uh, right. They're rational actors seeking to create good results for their own schools. What a f***ing disgrace! Hurry, comb through your thesaurus to find more names that you can hurl! That's surely the way to show that you have the best arguments!
BCS: Where Money Talks and Hypocrisy Walks
By John Feinstein
Monday, June 29, 2009 1:19 PM
The latest example of the hypocrisy of the Bowl Championship Series came last week, when the BCS Presidential Oversight Committee met to consider a proposal made by the Mountain West Conference for an eight-team playoff, the kind of championship tournament the NCAA stages for every other sport (including football, at every level except division I-A).
Let's keep in mind that the theme of this article is "name-calling." Count the number of times that Feinstein doesn't make an argument, but instead shouts like the worst sort of purple-faced sports radio caller. Let's also keep in mind that I-A football is unlike all other NCAA sports in two important respects: it doesn't have a massive playoff and it is worth more economically than all the other NCAA sports put together.
After summarily rejecting the proposal, the oversight committee sent forth Oregon President David Frohnmayer to dispense with the usual lies.
So we have hypocrites who tell lies...
First, Frohnmayer claimed the proposal had been given serious consideration. And surely the Yankees have given serious consideration to cutting their payroll in half in the interest of bringing parity to baseball.
Let's see, the idea of the Yankees agreeing not to spend the hundreds of millions of dollars that they generate from being the most popular baseball team in the Milky Way is ludicrous because we would not expect a major entity to act in a manner totally at odds with its own self-interest. So what is it that you are asking the 66 teams the compose the major BCS schools to do? Oh yeah, give away a massive economic advantage that they created so they can share their wealth with teams whose fan bases are comparatively tiny.
Then he went into the BCS presidents' spiel about there being nothing wrong with the BCS -- sort of like when your stockbroker tells you your portfolio is doing just fine even if it's down 70 percent -- and then becoming self-righteous about their position.
You know, a quote would be good here. I smell a whiff of overstatement. And if you're keeping track, we have self-righteous hypocrites who tell lies.
Guys such as Frohnmayer -- who is really no different than the rest of his BCS cronies -- really believe they can throw out any statement they want and they will go unchallenged because they have a bunch of degrees on their office walls. That's why, even though complaints about the BCS are getting nearly as weary as the entity itself, the topic must continually be revisited.
Please do. I need the material in the summer.
After a pompous, arrogant and obnoxious pummeling of the "pundits and broadcasters" who have had the nerve to criticize the BCS -- does President Obama fall under the category of pundit or broadcaster? -- Frohnmayer claimed there were two "fatal" flaws in the arguments for a playoff. In doing so, he referred to those proposing an "NFL-style" playoff system in a blatant attempt to link a playoff with professionalizing college football. Excuse me, but what would be wrong with the "style" of the division I-AA, II or III playoff systems? They all work just fine.
We are now up to self-righteous hypocrites who tell lies and administer pompous, arrogant, and obnoxious pummelings.
Uh, Frohmayer probably referred to an "NFL-style" playoff because that's what a college football playoff would look like if people like Feinstein had their way. John, you know that 12-team playoff that you're pining for with the top four seeds getting byes? Where else can we see such a playoff? I wonder?
The first of Frohnmayer's "fatal" flaws was the claim that the pundits and broadcasters (and presidents of the United States) were completely ignoring the academic calendar. Seriously? Let's walk through this one more time: A college football tournament, whether it was the proposed eight teams or 12 or even 16 would require far less missed class time than the NCAA basketball tournament does in March. Most, if not all, of the games could be played in January, virtually all of them between semesters. Teams would miss less class time during the tournament than they miss during the regular season. Final words to Frohnmayer and the other 66 BCS presidents on this issue: Shut up.
The self-righteous hypocrites who tell lies and administer pompous, arrogant, and obnoxious pummelings need to shut up.
A I-A college football team has 85 players on scholarship. A Division I college basketball team has 13 players on scholarship. I wonder why college presidents would be more concerned about extending the college football season? Also, John, this may surprise you, but some schools start their semesters very early in January, so those teams would not be playing their games in between semesters.
To bring up academics as a reason for not having a tournament is patently dishonest on every level. Let's forget the fact that the significant percentage of football players at national championship contenders will never graduate. Let's pretend that it matters -- and, to be fair, it does matter to some players. Having a playoff will not for one second affect their chances of graduating if that is one of their goals.
The self-righteous hypocrites who tell lies, administer pompous, arrogant, and obnoxious pummelings, and are also patently dishonest need to shut up.
Really, there is no possible academic implication for a marginal student playing football throughout the month of January after having already practices and played from August through December? For the record, I'm not a huge fan of the academic concerns professed by college presidents as a reason not to have a playoff, but Feinstein is acting as if these presidents are arguing that Dred Scott and Plessy had overlooked merit. Frohmayer is not making a particularly outlandish claim here.
The second of Frohnmayer's fatal flaws was the "complete lack of a business plan." Please. A business plan would take about 15 minutes to concoct, and it could be put together by my daughter's fifth-grade class. The TV networks would fall all over themselves to get the contract, or contracts. The potential burden of fans having to travel for three weeks -- if you went with 12 or 16 teams, it would make sense to play first-round games at home sites -- doesn't seem to be a problem for fans whose teams make the Final Four. If a real national championship game was played next year in the Rose Bowl, does anyone think there would be an unsold ticket?
Again, Feinstein fails to grasp that there are differences between college basketball and football. The early rounds of the NCAA Tournament are played in smaller venues, which means that huge traveling hordes don't need to follow their teams. For a three-round playoff, Feinstein wants to make 40,000 Ohio State fans travel to Orlando one week, then New Orleans the next, then Pasadena the week after that. Now Ohio State fans will do it because they're batshit crazy, but there are differences in the number of people who are having to traipse all over the country. Has Feinstein perhaps missed the gaping maws of empty seats NCAA Tournament regional semis and finals that are played in domes?
One more nugget from Frohnmayer: In an attempt to be funny, he commented that, as successful as the BCS has been, he hadn't heard from fans at Auburn and his own school about being left out of past national championship games.
OK, even I'm calling bullshit on this one, Frohmayer. You really think that Auburn fans aren't a little sore about 2004?
How about Utah, David?
Remember Utah, the team that went undefeated last season and thoroughly thrashed BCS power Alabama in the Sugar Bowl? How about Boise State going undefeated this past season and not even playing in a BCS bowl? How about Boise State's 2006 team, which won one of the great games in history against Oklahoma (they're in the BCS, right?) in the Fiesta Bowl, that also wasn't allowed to compete for a national championship?
Right, the Utah team whose own coach voted fifth going into a Sugar Bowl in which they played Alabama without their best player. The Boise State team that lost that lost the Poinsettia Bowl. Another Boise State team that won an overtime classic against a good, but hardly overwhelming Oklahoma team after playing an absurdly easy schedule during the regular season. All of these teams were eligible to play for the national title, but no one - not the computers, not the media, not the coaches, and not the Harris Poll voters - saw them as being serious contenders to be one of the top two teams in the country before the bowls. And bonus points to Feinstein for not using the best example of a non-BCS conference power that could have legitimately played for a national title: 2004 Utah.
Finally, there's the now well-worn claim that college football has the "most meaningful" regular season in sports. Again, this is complete hyperbolic trash. First, how can you call a regular season meaningful when the decisions on who will play where in the postseason are made by computers and frequently biased voters.
The self-righteous hypocrites who tell lies and administer pompous, arrogant, and obnoxious pummelings need to shut up before they spew more hyperbolic trash.
What exactly does the voting method for the post-season have to do with whether the regular season is meaningful? And what's wrong with computers. Last I checked, you like college basketball and the Tournament selection committee tends to rely on the RPI pretty heavily.
The American Football Coaches Association's recent decision to keep secret coaches' ballots in the final poll screams deceit. All polls in all sports -- including Hall of Fame ballots -- should be made public.
I can't disagree here, but again, the NCAA Tournament is populated and seeded based on the workings of a committee that convenes in private and does not even publish the methodologies that it used to create brackets. I'll look forward to your column calling the NCAA Tournament fraudulent because of the lack of transparency in putting teams in various spots.
Are the BCS apologists trying to say that the college basketball regular season has no meaning? Every game played the last three weeks of the season is analyzed, re-analyzed and broken down to determine how it will affect seeding, the bubble and who is in and who is out.
Earth to John: the college basketball regular season goes on for over four months. If only the last three weeks are relevant, then you have made my point for me. You're supposed to be arguing against the BCS, remember?
You want meaning in a regular season? Give the first four teams in a 12-team playoff a bye. Give the next four a first-round home game. Let the last four scramble to avoid playing in the New Mexico Bowl.
And now you've hit on the problem with college basketball. Duke and North Carolina wage their epic battles every spring so the victor can play in Greensboro while the loser has to travel all the way to Philadelphia. Oh, the mighty stakes when the regular season is about seeding!
Of course, Frohnmayer and his partners don't care about or want to hear any of these arguments. That's because they don't believe any of what they're saying either. They just know they have a system they're comfortable with, one that ensures that Utah or Boise State won't ever compete for a national championship. They care about power, and they care about money.
The self-righteous hypocrites who tell lies and administer pompous, arrogant, and obnoxious pummelings need to shut up before they spew more hyperbolic trash that they don't believe as they're saying it.
John, do you remember when you were in college? Do you recall following Duke basketball way back when? You may recall that the ACC was eight teams at that time. If you care to take a gander, it now has 12 members. When you were in college, Miami, Florida State, Boston College, and Virginia Tech were blips on the college football map. Through good coaching and management, those programs built themselves into powerhouses (well, at least three of them did and the fourth tagged along because it is in a big TV market) that were attractive to the ACC. What is stopping Utah from turning itself into a shiny apple that the Pac Ten will want to pluck?
They don't care about the truth. They certainly don't care about their student-athletes. And they certainly don't care about any opinions other than their own.
Uh, right. They're rational actors seeking to create good results for their own schools. What a f***ing disgrace! Hurry, comb through your thesaurus to find more names that you can hurl! That's surely the way to show that you have the best arguments!
Good Thought/Bad Thought
Good Thought
The Braves are two games under .500 and they've been outscored on the season, but they are ahead of their opponents in just about every major category. The Braves have more hits, total bases, doubles, homers, while striking out significantly fewer times than their opponents. The team has a better on-base percentage and a better slugging percentage than its opponents. This team should be a game or three over .500. Do we blame bad luck again? Is Bobby Cox in the "Bobby Bowden after the 2000 season" stage of his career? Our collective grumbling after losing another series to the Nats aside, this isn't a bad team. If Frank Wren was able to rebuild the starting pitching staff into the formidable unit that we can trot out every day, then we should have some optimism that he can do the same with the woeful outfield this winter.
Bad Thought
Peter Moylan leads the NL in appearances. Mike Gonzalez is third, Eric O'Flaherty is sixth, and Rafael Soriano is 19th. We have four reliable relievers and because we have a team with very good pitching and minimal offense, those four pitchers throw seemingly every day. The nightmare scenario for the Braves is this: they have a hot streak in the next several weeks to get to the precipice of first place; Wren mortgages a little of the future to get one more outfield bat; and then the arms fall off of two or more of our four relievers in the final six weeks of the season, leaving the Braves in third place again.
The Braves are two games under .500 and they've been outscored on the season, but they are ahead of their opponents in just about every major category. The Braves have more hits, total bases, doubles, homers, while striking out significantly fewer times than their opponents. The team has a better on-base percentage and a better slugging percentage than its opponents. This team should be a game or three over .500. Do we blame bad luck again? Is Bobby Cox in the "Bobby Bowden after the 2000 season" stage of his career? Our collective grumbling after losing another series to the Nats aside, this isn't a bad team. If Frank Wren was able to rebuild the starting pitching staff into the formidable unit that we can trot out every day, then we should have some optimism that he can do the same with the woeful outfield this winter.
Bad Thought
Peter Moylan leads the NL in appearances. Mike Gonzalez is third, Eric O'Flaherty is sixth, and Rafael Soriano is 19th. We have four reliable relievers and because we have a team with very good pitching and minimal offense, those four pitchers throw seemingly every day. The nightmare scenario for the Braves is this: they have a hot streak in the next several weeks to get to the precipice of first place; Wren mortgages a little of the future to get one more outfield bat; and then the arms fall off of two or more of our four relievers in the final six weeks of the season, leaving the Braves in third place again.
A Thought on the Senate Hearings regarding the BCS
It's not often that I find something in ESPN the Magazine thought-provoking, but as I was leafing through their franchise rankings during Noddy last night, I was struck by their description of the L.A. Clippers. ESPN wasn't breaking any new ground in noting that the Clippers are one of the worst-run franchises in sports. In a free market, the Clippers would have gone out of business or would have been sold to more competent ownership years ago. Instead, the Clippers chug merrily along because they: (1) receive TV money from the NBA regardless of their performance; and (2) are protected from additional competitors in the L.A. market by the NBA restricting the number and location of franchises in the league. Donald Sterling can still make a pile of money while making boneheaded decisions in rapid succession.
This would not happen in other countries. If the Clippers were a soccer club, they would have been relegated years ago and a better-run team would have sprung up to capture part of the L.A. market. For instance, the English Premier League equivalent of the Clippers is Newcastle United. Newcastle is a reasonably large city in the north of England. The club have a famously devoted fan base that packs more than 50,000 bums into St. James Park 19 times per season. Unfortunately, Newcastle are run by muppets. They have gone through a series of inept decision-makers who populated the club with expensive albatrosses. As a result, Newcastle slid down the table gradually, going from a contender in the EPL in the mid-90s and a Champions League participant in 2002-03 to being relegated from the EPL this May. Newcastle were punished for bad management, whereas the L.A. Clippers are not.
My point is this: American sports are not now and have never been an exercise in capitalist, free market activity. Our pro sports leagues are heavily socialized, from the fact that there is no promotion and relegation to salary/spending controls to revenue sharing. If the BCS violates the Sherman Antitrust Act because it treats the six major conferences and Notre Dame better than it treats the five smaller conferences, then what do we say about the NFL, NBA, and Major League Baseball? If I were a wealthy man who wanted to start and fund a pro football team in Columbus, Ohio because Ohioans love football and their two NFL franchises are pathetic, I would not be able to do so because the NFL restricts the number and location of its franchises. My only option would be to find like-minded rich people/entities to start a competing league, an option that is also available to the Mountain West Conference if there was, you know, a major market for their product.
And while we're on the subject of the BCS, I heartily co-sign on
Tony Barnhart's evisceration of Orrin Hatch's position. Here is the highlight for me:
It's a little hard for Senator Hatch to make a compelling case that the Utes were screwed when their own coach did not think that they were good enough to play for the national title. There we go again, expecting logic from a grand-standing politician who is trying to score points at home.
This would not happen in other countries. If the Clippers were a soccer club, they would have been relegated years ago and a better-run team would have sprung up to capture part of the L.A. market. For instance, the English Premier League equivalent of the Clippers is Newcastle United. Newcastle is a reasonably large city in the north of England. The club have a famously devoted fan base that packs more than 50,000 bums into St. James Park 19 times per season. Unfortunately, Newcastle are run by muppets. They have gone through a series of inept decision-makers who populated the club with expensive albatrosses. As a result, Newcastle slid down the table gradually, going from a contender in the EPL in the mid-90s and a Champions League participant in 2002-03 to being relegated from the EPL this May. Newcastle were punished for bad management, whereas the L.A. Clippers are not.
My point is this: American sports are not now and have never been an exercise in capitalist, free market activity. Our pro sports leagues are heavily socialized, from the fact that there is no promotion and relegation to salary/spending controls to revenue sharing. If the BCS violates the Sherman Antitrust Act because it treats the six major conferences and Notre Dame better than it treats the five smaller conferences, then what do we say about the NFL, NBA, and Major League Baseball? If I were a wealthy man who wanted to start and fund a pro football team in Columbus, Ohio because Ohioans love football and their two NFL franchises are pathetic, I would not be able to do so because the NFL restricts the number and location of its franchises. My only option would be to find like-minded rich people/entities to start a competing league, an option that is also available to the Mountain West Conference if there was, you know, a major market for their product.
And while we're on the subject of the BCS, I heartily co-sign on
Tony Barnhart's evisceration of Orrin Hatch's position. Here is the highlight for me:
Fact: Utah was not DENIED a chance to play for the BCS national championship. Utah had as much a chance to play for the BCS title as any other school. But 175 people voted in the Harris Interactive and coaches polls, two of the three components in the BCS formula. The 114 people in the Harris poll voted Utah seventh. The 61 coaches in the USA Today poll also voted Utah seventh and no coach—NONE—voted Utah higher than No. 5. Of the 114 people who voted in the Harris Poll only five voted Utah No. 5 or better.
Fact: Even the coaches in Utah’s league, the Mountain West, did not step up for the Utes when it counted. Joe Glenn of Wyoming had Utah at No. 5. Rocky Long of New Mexico and Gary Patterson of TCU had them at No. 7. Kyle Whittingham, Utah’s own coach, had his team at No. 5.
It's a little hard for Senator Hatch to make a compelling case that the Utes were screwed when their own coach did not think that they were good enough to play for the national title. There we go again, expecting logic from a grand-standing politician who is trying to score points at home.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
Introducing Negative Grohmentum
So I was reading Phil Steele the other night and ruminating on the demise of my beloved Charles Rogers Theorem when something dawned on me. I was looking at the conference stat pages and was reminded of the fact that, at this time last year, Sylvester Croom was the reigning SEC Coach of the Year. A lot of good that did him. And then I remembered that Al Groh has won the ACC Coach of the Year not once, not twice, but thrice. 20 minutes later, I was ploughing through my Phil Steele archive, which dates back to 2001.
An observation started to form: winning the coach of the year award is a curse because the winning coach's team almost inevitably regresses the following year. Negative Grohmentum was born. So how tight is the correlation between a head honcho winning coach of the year in a BCS conference and then watching his team get worse.
SEC
2008 - Nick Saban / Bobby Johnson / Houston Nutt
2007 - Sylvester Croom - 3.5 games worse
2006 - Houston Nutt - 1.5 games worse
2005 - Mark Richt - 1 game worse
2004 - Tommy Tuberville - 3.5 games worse
2003 - Nick Saban - 3 games worse
2002 - Mark Richt - 2 games worse
2001 - Houston Nutt - 1.5 games better
2000 - Lou Holtz - 1 game better
Total - six of eight teams regressed; mean of 1.5 game regression; median of 1.75 game regression.
So which teams are the lucky ones who have a four-in-five chance of seeing their records get worse this year? Alabama, Ole Miss, Vandy, Penn State, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Georgia Tech, Oregon State, and Cincinnati.
Negative Grohmentum has been especially pronounced in recent years. In the the last four seasons, the only team with a reigning conference coach of the year that has improved was last year's Cincinnati team, which went from 10-3 to 11-3.
Negative Grohmentum is also especially pronounced in the Big Ten, mainly because the voters have not given the award to Michigan or Ohio State coaches this decade, most likely because of an assumption that those programs have natural advantages, but those natural advantages make those two programs the consistent winners in the conference. (Insert "3-9!" joke here.) Michigan and Ohio State have also been consistent winners this decade and Big Ten voters appear to be attracted by major changes in a won-loss record. How else does one explain the fact that Jim Tressel's teams have won or shared four Big Ten titles, but he has never won the conference coach of the year. Meanwhile, Joe Paterno has won the conference coach of the year twice because his teams have followed the decent-decent-very good-decent-decent-very good pattern, whereas Tressel's teams have been consistently very good. (Insert "SEC Speed Killz!" joke here.) Tressel is penalized because he almost never has to come back from a mediocre season. Illinois has finished over .500 exactly twice this decade and its coaches have won coach of the year both times. "Hey, you've taken a program that is routinely referred to as a sleeping giant and won enough games to make a bowl in which you'll be slaughtered. Here's a trophy for your trouble!" In case you're interested, the last Big Ten team with a reigning coach of the year that did not regress: the 1992 Michigan Wolverines. 1992 is also the last season in which a Michigan or Ohio State coach won the Big Ten coach of the year, despite the fact that those programs have won or shared the conference title in 12 of the 16 seasons since.
Urban Meyer: two national titles in four years, no SEC coach of the year awards. Hell, does anyone want to take bets on whether Florida mimics the '95 Huskers this fall and Meyer is beaten out for coach of the year by Bobby Petrino because Arkansas goes 8-4?
Coaches who have won three coach of the year titles this decade: Pete Carroll, Bob Stoops, Houston Nutt, and Al Groh. The former two are on just about every list of the best coaches in America; the third has been essentially fired; and the fourth is on the hot seat.
By my unofficial count, 12 of the coaches on this list have been fired or forced out of the jobs they held where they won coach of the year: Nutt, Tuberville, Croom, Smith, Turner, Barnett, Bowden, Dorrell, Doba, Erickson, Harris, and Coker.
An observation started to form: winning the coach of the year award is a curse because the winning coach's team almost inevitably regresses the following year. Negative Grohmentum was born. So how tight is the correlation between a head honcho winning coach of the year in a BCS conference and then watching his team get worse.
SEC
2008 - Nick Saban / Bobby Johnson / Houston Nutt
2007 - Sylvester Croom - 3.5 games worse
2006 - Houston Nutt - 1.5 games worse
2005 - Mark Richt - 1 game worse
2004 - Tommy Tuberville - 3.5 games worse
2003 - Nick Saban - 3 games worse
2002 - Mark Richt - 2 games worse
2001 - Houston Nutt - 1.5 games better
2000 - Lou Holtz - 1 game better
Total - six of eight teams regressed; mean of 1.5 game regression; median of 1.75 game regression.
Big Ten
2008 - Joe Paterno
2007 - Ron Zook - 3.5 games worse
2006 - Bret Bielema - 3 games worse
2005 - Joe Paterno - 2.5 games worse
2004 - Kirk Ferentz - 3 games worse
2003 - John L. Smith - 2.5 games worse
2002 - Kirk Ferentz - 1 game worse
2001 - Ron Turner - 5 games worse
2000 - Randy Walker - 3.5 games worse
Total - all eight teams regressed; mean of 3 game regression; median of 3 game regression.
Big XII
2008 - Bob Stoops / Mike Leach
2007 - Mark Mangino - 4 games worse
2006 - Bob Stoops - no change
2005 - Mack Brown - 3 games worse
2004 - Gary Barnett - 1 game worse
2003 - Bill Snyder - 5 games worse
2002 - Les Miles - 1 game better
2001 - Gary Barnett - 1.5 games worse
2000 - Bob Stoops - 2 games worse
Total - six of eight teams regressed; mean of 1.94 game regression; median of 1.75 game regression.
ACC
2008 - Paul Johnson
2007 - Al Groh - 3.5 games worse
2006 - Jim Grobe - 1.5 games worse
2005 - Frank Beamer - 1 game worse
2004 - Al Groh - 1 game worse
2003 - Tommy Bowden - 2 games worse
2002 - Al Groh - .5 games worse
2001 - Ralph Friedgen - unchanged
2000 - George O'Leary - 1.5 games worse
Total - seven of eight teams regressed; mean of 1.37 game regression; median of 1.25 game regression.
Pac Ten
2008 - Mike Riley
2007 - Dennis Erickson - 4.5 games worse
2006 - Pete Carroll - unchanged
2005 - Pete Carroll - 1 game worse / Karl Dorrell - 3.5 games worse
2004 - Jeff Tedford - 2 games worse
2003 - Pete Carroll - 1 game better / Bill Doba - 4 games worse
2002 - Jeff Tedford - unchanged
2001 - Mike Price - .5 games worse
2000 - Dennis Erickson - 5.5 games worse
Total - seven of ten teams regressed; mean of 2 game regression; median of 1.5 game regression.
Big East
2008 - Brian Kelly
2007 - Brian Kelly - .5 games better
2006 - Greg Schiano - 3 games worse
2005 - Rich Rodriguez - .5 games worse
2004 - Walt Harris - 2.5 games worse
2003 - Rich Rodriguez - .5 games better
2002 - Larry Coker - 1 game worse
2001 - Larry Coker - .5 games worse
2000 - Butch Davis - 1 game better
Total - five of eight teams regressed; mean of .69 game regression; median of .5 game regression.
Grand Total - 39 of 50 teams regressed; mean of 1.76 game regression; median of 1.5 game regression.
So what's going on here?
To a certain extent, this is good ol' regression to the mean. A coach wins coach of the year in a very good season and then his team will typically take a step back the following year. There isn't much room for improvement after a very successful season. A coach will usually win coach of the year when the voters determine that a program is at its absolute apex: an unbeaten season for Texas, eight wins for Virginia, etc. A team might do well with an experienced roster and then fall back to earth the following year with younger replacements. Schedule can also play into the equation. A team might have an excellent record because of a favorable schedule and then regress when they rotate to tougher opponents or more critical road games in the following season.
That said, these numbers demonstrate a misunderstanding that a lot of people have about what truly matters in college football: talent. I'm going to step out of the objective world for a second and speculate that the sort of coach that wins coach of the year is often one whose team was lucky. Not to keep picking on Croom or Groh, but they won coach of the year after their teams won a bunch of close games. The media looked at their teams and concluded "that team had no business winning eight games, so the coach must have done a great job." What the media should be saying is "that team had no business winning eight games, so they were lucky as hell and are going to take a step back." In other words, the coach of the year award is a pronouncement that a team really wasn't as talented as its record. It's an unintentional veiled insult that mistakes good fortune with good coaching.
There's no doubt that we have a strong correlation between a coach winning coach of the year and then his team getting worse. 78% of the teams in this situation this decade have seen their record regress the following year. 34% of the teams in the sample saw their record get worse by at least three games. By way of comparison, Phil Steele likes to look at net close wins and yards per point in finding teams that were especially lucky or unlucky in the previous season and are therefore due for a correction. (Page 299 if you're following along at home.) Teams with three net close wins have been weaker or the same the next year 76.7% of the time. Teams with 11.56 offensive yards per point or less have been weaker or the same 72.3% of the time. Teams with 19.85 defensive yards per point or more have been weaker or the same 77.6% of the time. Again, 78% of the teams whose coach won coach of the year have been weaker (not just weaker or the same, but weaker full-stop) the next year.
Random Thoughts on the Data
So which teams are the lucky ones who have a four-in-five chance of seeing their records get worse this year? Alabama, Ole Miss, Vandy, Penn State, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Georgia Tech, Oregon State, and Cincinnati.
Negative Grohmentum has been especially pronounced in recent years. In the the last four seasons, the only team with a reigning conference coach of the year that has improved was last year's Cincinnati team, which went from 10-3 to 11-3.
Negative Grohmentum is also especially pronounced in the Big Ten, mainly because the voters have not given the award to Michigan or Ohio State coaches this decade, most likely because of an assumption that those programs have natural advantages, but those natural advantages make those two programs the consistent winners in the conference. (Insert "3-9!" joke here.) Michigan and Ohio State have also been consistent winners this decade and Big Ten voters appear to be attracted by major changes in a won-loss record. How else does one explain the fact that Jim Tressel's teams have won or shared four Big Ten titles, but he has never won the conference coach of the year. Meanwhile, Joe Paterno has won the conference coach of the year twice because his teams have followed the decent-decent-very good-decent-decent-very good pattern, whereas Tressel's teams have been consistently very good. (Insert "SEC Speed Killz!" joke here.) Tressel is penalized because he almost never has to come back from a mediocre season. Illinois has finished over .500 exactly twice this decade and its coaches have won coach of the year both times. "Hey, you've taken a program that is routinely referred to as a sleeping giant and won enough games to make a bowl in which you'll be slaughtered. Here's a trophy for your trouble!" In case you're interested, the last Big Ten team with a reigning coach of the year that did not regress: the 1992 Michigan Wolverines. 1992 is also the last season in which a Michigan or Ohio State coach won the Big Ten coach of the year, despite the fact that those programs have won or shared the conference title in 12 of the 16 seasons since.
Urban Meyer: two national titles in four years, no SEC coach of the year awards. Hell, does anyone want to take bets on whether Florida mimics the '95 Huskers this fall and Meyer is beaten out for coach of the year by Bobby Petrino because Arkansas goes 8-4?
Coaches who have won three coach of the year titles this decade: Pete Carroll, Bob Stoops, Houston Nutt, and Al Groh. The former two are on just about every list of the best coaches in America; the third has been essentially fired; and the fourth is on the hot seat.
By my unofficial count, 12 of the coaches on this list have been fired or forced out of the jobs they held where they won coach of the year: Nutt, Tuberville, Croom, Smith, Turner, Barnett, Bowden, Dorrell, Doba, Erickson, Harris, and Coker.
Monday, July 06, 2009
I Wish I were Technically Proficient
My kingdom for the ability to insert subtitles to turn this into an awesome Downfall parody where Ronaldo admits that he's a masochist who enjoyed being dominated by Puyol for 90 minutes in Rome. And the cute little sequences with POW-looking children at the end is straight out of the scene where Hitler pins medals on the Hitlerjugend in his last trip outside.
By the way, nice work by Real to trot out their Champions League trophies to remind us who the holders are. Jerry Jones thinks that the presentation was "a little excessive."
Friday, July 03, 2009
BurritoBlogging with Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd
I thought about buying a "Lou's Tavern" t-shirt today. My dream t-shirt would be either a Wernham Hogg shirt or some sort of esoteric Bond reference. I definitely need a new vintage pop culture shirt because I'm wearing my Appetite for Destruction shirt a whole lot.
Brooks Conrad! Holy f'in shit! Bobby made the peculiar decision of having Matt Diaz bunt after Yunel walked to leadoff the inning despite the fact that the Nats' hurler was a little wild and Diaz was followed by the Out-o-matic 9000. Francoeur grounded out for the second out, then Kotchman predictably walked with a base open and the pitcher's spot on deck. Conrad pinch-hit and belted the Braves into a three-run lead. The guy next to me just pointed out that Jordan Schafer also went deep in his first at-bat. Good point.
Put Hudson in the rotation for Kawakami and Blanco in right for the Out-o-matic 9000 and this would be a good team. The Mets' injuries and the Phils' lack of pitching have left the door open, as has the kick-ass week that our team had. One issue to worry about: Soriano's arm falling off in September like it did in 2007.
Separated at birth: Dunga and Bucho from "Desperado" (a/k/a the henchman for Ernesto Escobedo in "Clear and Present Danger").
Also separated at birth: Mike Gonzalez and new Barca striker (I hope) David Villa.
I just realized that I might have been conceived on the night that Hank Aaron hit number 715. I am quite confident that one didn't cause the other.
Brooks Conrad! Holy f'in shit! Bobby made the peculiar decision of having Matt Diaz bunt after Yunel walked to leadoff the inning despite the fact that the Nats' hurler was a little wild and Diaz was followed by the Out-o-matic 9000. Francoeur grounded out for the second out, then Kotchman predictably walked with a base open and the pitcher's spot on deck. Conrad pinch-hit and belted the Braves into a three-run lead. The guy next to me just pointed out that Jordan Schafer also went deep in his first at-bat. Good point.
Put Hudson in the rotation for Kawakami and Blanco in right for the Out-o-matic 9000 and this would be a good team. The Mets' injuries and the Phils' lack of pitching have left the door open, as has the kick-ass week that our team had. One issue to worry about: Soriano's arm falling off in September like it did in 2007.
Separated at birth: Dunga and Bucho from "Desperado" (a/k/a the henchman for Ernesto Escobedo in "Clear and Present Danger").
Also separated at birth: Mike Gonzalez and new Barca striker (I hope) David Villa.
I just realized that I might have been conceived on the night that Hank Aaron hit number 715. I am quite confident that one didn't cause the other.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
More Evidence that Atlanta Sucks as a Sports Town, Confederations Cup Edition
Atlanta was the #6 market nationally for the USA-Brazil match. Atlanta isn't usually thought of as a great soccer market and it isn't as if there is a huge Brazilian population here. Maybe people here just like sports? NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
The Confederations Cup Final got a 2.7 rating, which is a good number. By way of comparison, Wimbledon got a 1.1 on Saturday afternoon and Fox's MLB broadcasts have failed to get higher than a 2.0 on six of the last seven Saturdays. This interest was not sufficient, of course, to get the Sports Reporters to pay attention on Sunday morning, as they were busy discussing Shaq to Cleveland, Don Fehr's legacy (steroids!), and Manny Ramirez (more steroids!). Mitch Albom made the rarest of perceptive points - that the fans he encounters just don't seem to care that much about PED use - and then the group went merrily along discussing the issue. That show does self parody better than most.
The Confederations Cup Final got a 2.7 rating, which is a good number. By way of comparison, Wimbledon got a 1.1 on Saturday afternoon and Fox's MLB broadcasts have failed to get higher than a 2.0 on six of the last seven Saturdays. This interest was not sufficient, of course, to get the Sports Reporters to pay attention on Sunday morning, as they were busy discussing Shaq to Cleveland, Don Fehr's legacy (steroids!), and Manny Ramirez (more steroids!). Mitch Albom made the rarest of perceptive points - that the fans he encounters just don't seem to care that much about PED use - and then the group went merrily along discussing the issue. That show does self parody better than most.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
The "Holy S***, we're 2-0 up on the Selecao!" Impromptu Live-blog
We're playing like Brazil. I kid you not. The second goal was a carbon copy of Brazil's second against us in the group stage: turnover on the offensive right, leading to a lightning quick two-man counter that ends with the diminutive withdrawn striker knocking the ball home from 18 yards. Donovan and Charlie Davies were phenomenal in using one another on the counter. Brazil would be proud to score a goal like that. Any team in the world would be proud to score a goal like that.
As for the opener, it was a carbon copy of the third goal against Egypt: a great cross from Jonathan Spector that was finished by Clint Dempsey. The finish by Dempsey was incredible if he meant it or good fortune if not. Either way, the run and cross put the US in position to benefit from some luck. If Spector turns into an offensive threat at right back, then the US will have a great set-up. Barca are able to get so much offense from Dani Alves because they have a great defensive midfielder and a left back who can play like a central defender when the back four become a back three. With Bocanegra at left back, the US has the latter and with Ricardo Clark playing so well, we have the former.
I can't say enough about Bob Bradley right now. He is getting his tactics exactly right against: two lines of four working together to frustrate a favored opponent. And it's not just his tactics; it takes great instruction in training and during the game to get the two lines to work together so well. Watch how there is always an American player to cover for a teammate when Brazil tries to play a one-two or a player gets into shooting position.
Listening to Tim Vickery's segments on World Soccer Daily for the past two years has been a total education in terms of the way that Brazil play. They struggle to break down organized, defensive opponents (Read: France) because they don't have the skill in the midfield that marked Brazil's game through the Zico-Socrates generation. They are deadly against opponents that come forward and create space for the counter. (Read: Argentina.) They are dependent on offense from their outside defenders. As bad as our tactics were last week, they have been perfect today because we're staying back and we're paying attention to Maicon.
Min. 46 - Uh oh. Luis Fabiano gets the ball at the head of the box, turns, and fires home. 2-1. Great goal. I'm not sure that you can blame Jay Demerit. Maybe he could have been a smidge closer. Predictably, the pass into Fabiano came from Maicon.
Min. 52 - The US has a great counter, but Davies doesn't find the streaking Donovan and then Dempsey can't play in Altidore. Not the greatest first touches from the US.
Min. 56 - Great save from Howard on a header from a corner. Howard has been outstanding and I'm taking him for granted because the keeper position is the one where the US is undoubtedly world class. The defensive style only works with a good keeper and we have one of the best.
Min. 59 - I guess Howard making a save after the ball crossed the line is a great save. Brazil are getting chances off of crosses, showing that our defenders may be good in the air, but we aren't that good. Kaka should have had the equalizer there. Remind me again why FIFA won't put a chip in the ball so we can actually know when it crosses the line, not that a major tournament has ever been decided by a ball that didn't cross the line before.
Min 64 - We maintain possession in the offensive end for the first time in the half, leading to a couple good shots. Nice to see the Nats relieve pressure on the back line a little.
Min. 70 - Horrendous turnover by Bocanegra leads to Fabiano coming in one-on-one with Howard. Howard takes the ball off his feet. Howard is the man of the match if the US holds on.
Min. 72 - Great run by Davies foiled by equally great tackle by Luisao.
Min. 74 - 2-2. I guess it was inevitable the way the game was going. Too bad that Fabiano was there for the rebound because Robinho hitting the bar from three yards would have been one of the great misses of all-time. Great run and pass by Kaka, who beat Spector badly.
Min. 85 - 3-2. Great header from Lucio. Brazil have killed the US with crosses from the wing in this half. That's a difference between Brazil and Spain. Spain can be frustrated if they're forced to go wide; Brazil are big and athletic and have wing backs who can cross the ball beautifully. This game has the feeling of Spurs going two up at Old Trafford and then conceding five in the second stanza. Sometimes, a more talented team gets rolling and you just have to grin and bear it.
Min. 88 - Onyewu heads over from a corner. That could have been a massive reversal of fortune. Brazil are not totally solid defensively, but when have we ever not been able to say that?
Min. 90 - Fin.
Kudos to Brazil, who put on a clinic in the second half. I'm not sure how much blame to apportion out to the defenders for allowing Brazil to take potshots with headers off crosses. Also, the outside midfielders tired and allowed the Brazilian wing backs to dominate outside. At the end, Brazil had better players and once they got momentum, the game was headed in one direction. The US was a very streaky team in this tournament. When they were good (the first 45 minutes against Italy, all 90 against Egypt and Spain, and then the first 45 in the Final), they were very good. When they were bad (the second half against Italy, all 90 minutes of the first game against Brazil, and the last 45 minutes of the Final), they were very bad. The Nats tended to give up goals in bunches, which might speak to the team having somewhat fragile confidence. If I could play amateur psychologist for a second, our team is talented, but when something goes against them against a name opponent, they appear to decide "oh yeah, Italy are supposed to beat us" and then one goal allowed becomes three.
Although there is some sense of a missed opportunity, this has been the best week in US Soccer history. We dominated the African champions, beat the European champions, and then led 2-0 against the South American champions before succumbing. This is a young team, so we should be better next summer. Bob Bradley figured out how to play against teams like Spain and Brazil. Our players will hopefully have the confidence to make a mark in the coming World Cup. Happy days are here again!
As for the opener, it was a carbon copy of the third goal against Egypt: a great cross from Jonathan Spector that was finished by Clint Dempsey. The finish by Dempsey was incredible if he meant it or good fortune if not. Either way, the run and cross put the US in position to benefit from some luck. If Spector turns into an offensive threat at right back, then the US will have a great set-up. Barca are able to get so much offense from Dani Alves because they have a great defensive midfielder and a left back who can play like a central defender when the back four become a back three. With Bocanegra at left back, the US has the latter and with Ricardo Clark playing so well, we have the former.
I can't say enough about Bob Bradley right now. He is getting his tactics exactly right against: two lines of four working together to frustrate a favored opponent. And it's not just his tactics; it takes great instruction in training and during the game to get the two lines to work together so well. Watch how there is always an American player to cover for a teammate when Brazil tries to play a one-two or a player gets into shooting position.
Listening to Tim Vickery's segments on World Soccer Daily for the past two years has been a total education in terms of the way that Brazil play. They struggle to break down organized, defensive opponents (Read: France) because they don't have the skill in the midfield that marked Brazil's game through the Zico-Socrates generation. They are deadly against opponents that come forward and create space for the counter. (Read: Argentina.) They are dependent on offense from their outside defenders. As bad as our tactics were last week, they have been perfect today because we're staying back and we're paying attention to Maicon.
Min. 46 - Uh oh. Luis Fabiano gets the ball at the head of the box, turns, and fires home. 2-1. Great goal. I'm not sure that you can blame Jay Demerit. Maybe he could have been a smidge closer. Predictably, the pass into Fabiano came from Maicon.
Min. 52 - The US has a great counter, but Davies doesn't find the streaking Donovan and then Dempsey can't play in Altidore. Not the greatest first touches from the US.
Min. 56 - Great save from Howard on a header from a corner. Howard has been outstanding and I'm taking him for granted because the keeper position is the one where the US is undoubtedly world class. The defensive style only works with a good keeper and we have one of the best.
Min. 59 - I guess Howard making a save after the ball crossed the line is a great save. Brazil are getting chances off of crosses, showing that our defenders may be good in the air, but we aren't that good. Kaka should have had the equalizer there. Remind me again why FIFA won't put a chip in the ball so we can actually know when it crosses the line, not that a major tournament has ever been decided by a ball that didn't cross the line before.
Min 64 - We maintain possession in the offensive end for the first time in the half, leading to a couple good shots. Nice to see the Nats relieve pressure on the back line a little.
Min. 70 - Horrendous turnover by Bocanegra leads to Fabiano coming in one-on-one with Howard. Howard takes the ball off his feet. Howard is the man of the match if the US holds on.
Min. 72 - Great run by Davies foiled by equally great tackle by Luisao.
Min. 74 - 2-2. I guess it was inevitable the way the game was going. Too bad that Fabiano was there for the rebound because Robinho hitting the bar from three yards would have been one of the great misses of all-time. Great run and pass by Kaka, who beat Spector badly.
Min. 85 - 3-2. Great header from Lucio. Brazil have killed the US with crosses from the wing in this half. That's a difference between Brazil and Spain. Spain can be frustrated if they're forced to go wide; Brazil are big and athletic and have wing backs who can cross the ball beautifully. This game has the feeling of Spurs going two up at Old Trafford and then conceding five in the second stanza. Sometimes, a more talented team gets rolling and you just have to grin and bear it.
Min. 88 - Onyewu heads over from a corner. That could have been a massive reversal of fortune. Brazil are not totally solid defensively, but when have we ever not been able to say that?
Min. 90 - Fin.
Kudos to Brazil, who put on a clinic in the second half. I'm not sure how much blame to apportion out to the defenders for allowing Brazil to take potshots with headers off crosses. Also, the outside midfielders tired and allowed the Brazilian wing backs to dominate outside. At the end, Brazil had better players and once they got momentum, the game was headed in one direction. The US was a very streaky team in this tournament. When they were good (the first 45 minutes against Italy, all 90 against Egypt and Spain, and then the first 45 in the Final), they were very good. When they were bad (the second half against Italy, all 90 minutes of the first game against Brazil, and the last 45 minutes of the Final), they were very bad. The Nats tended to give up goals in bunches, which might speak to the team having somewhat fragile confidence. If I could play amateur psychologist for a second, our team is talented, but when something goes against them against a name opponent, they appear to decide "oh yeah, Italy are supposed to beat us" and then one goal allowed becomes three.
Although there is some sense of a missed opportunity, this has been the best week in US Soccer history. We dominated the African champions, beat the European champions, and then led 2-0 against the South American champions before succumbing. This is a young team, so we should be better next summer. Bob Bradley figured out how to play against teams like Spain and Brazil. Our players will hopefully have the confidence to make a mark in the coming World Cup. Happy days are here again!
Friday, June 26, 2009
BurritoBlogging with Radioactive Lint
I went to my first Braves game of the year last night and it was a blur of Jeter dunking singles to rightfield, followed by the swarthy masses applauding wildly. It was nice to have a dog at a ballgame like a real American, but it hurt to watch the staff ace get beaten around by the Yanks. And the weather just seemed to get hotter, even after the sun went down. The only good thing was that I was with a client who is a Yankees fan and I got to pretend that our firm got him 11 runs.
OK, so second and first with no one out in the fourth. The game is 0-0. We're facing a pitcher who shut us out six days ago. Friend of the blog Jeff Francoeur is up. Shockingly, he strikes out on four pitches, with the final strike coming from a wave at a pitch in the dirt. Why the f*** is he not bunting? He is one of the worst hitters in the league and we're in a pitching duel. If you're going to hit like a pitcher, then f***ing bunt like one.
And now Big Papi goes deep. If any baseball fan wants to make fun of me for loving soccer, justify a sport where a player like David Ortiz can barely chug his way around the bases. You have to be very charitable with the definition of "athlete" to include him.
I have a Steele-inspired post in my head and it is very simple: pick against teams whose coaches won the conference coach of the year in the preceding season. Proceed at your peril, Joe Paterno and Houston Nutt.
Jair Jurrjens is having a better at-bat in terms of working the count than Francoeur has had in weeks.
The nice thing about baseball in the South is that is is an hors d'oeurve. If this whole Braves thing doesn't work, we have the main course in September. Nice, low risk fun.
For the record, I want Barca to sell Eto'o to Man City and then buy Villa. Eto'o is a little too old and wacky to commit to in a long-term deal. Villa is a natural replacement and he wants to play with Xavi and Iniesta.
The lady next to me just ordered fish tacos. Control yourself, Beavis.
I want to like Yunel, but the goofs in the field are getting very frequent. He's Spanish for Josh Smith.
It's too bad that Big Papi has saved himself, because he is the only guy stopping New England from having the all-white Red Sox lineup that the fans of the last franchise to integrate prefer.
I'm bitter if you can't tell.
I'm wondering right now if the Nats are a good style match for La Furia Roja, but a bad match for La Selecao. And I'm worried that I screwed up the articles in that last sentence.
I am feeling better about the leftfield situation.
OK, Francoeur up with a runner on in a 2-0 game. And before I can even describe the at-bat, he grounds into a double play. Sox fans were considering benching Ortiz and he was never as bad as Francoeur. Christ, make him an icon at Gwinnett. He can be their Gattuso.
OK, so second and first with no one out in the fourth. The game is 0-0. We're facing a pitcher who shut us out six days ago. Friend of the blog Jeff Francoeur is up. Shockingly, he strikes out on four pitches, with the final strike coming from a wave at a pitch in the dirt. Why the f*** is he not bunting? He is one of the worst hitters in the league and we're in a pitching duel. If you're going to hit like a pitcher, then f***ing bunt like one.
And now Big Papi goes deep. If any baseball fan wants to make fun of me for loving soccer, justify a sport where a player like David Ortiz can barely chug his way around the bases. You have to be very charitable with the definition of "athlete" to include him.
I have a Steele-inspired post in my head and it is very simple: pick against teams whose coaches won the conference coach of the year in the preceding season. Proceed at your peril, Joe Paterno and Houston Nutt.
Jair Jurrjens is having a better at-bat in terms of working the count than Francoeur has had in weeks.
The nice thing about baseball in the South is that is is an hors d'oeurve. If this whole Braves thing doesn't work, we have the main course in September. Nice, low risk fun.
For the record, I want Barca to sell Eto'o to Man City and then buy Villa. Eto'o is a little too old and wacky to commit to in a long-term deal. Villa is a natural replacement and he wants to play with Xavi and Iniesta.
The lady next to me just ordered fish tacos. Control yourself, Beavis.
I want to like Yunel, but the goofs in the field are getting very frequent. He's Spanish for Josh Smith.
It's too bad that Big Papi has saved himself, because he is the only guy stopping New England from having the all-white Red Sox lineup that the fans of the last franchise to integrate prefer.
I'm bitter if you can't tell.
I'm wondering right now if the Nats are a good style match for La Furia Roja, but a bad match for La Selecao. And I'm worried that I screwed up the articles in that last sentence.
I am feeling better about the leftfield situation.
OK, Francoeur up with a runner on in a 2-0 game. And before I can even describe the at-bat, he grounds into a double play. Sox fans were considering benching Ortiz and he was never as bad as Francoeur. Christ, make him an icon at Gwinnett. He can be their Gattuso.
Crawford & Teague
It would be a good law firm, but I'm not sure how they would be as a back court.
There's not much to dislike about the Jamal Crawford deal. The Hawks got a good scorer for virtually nothing: Acie Law and the corpse of Speedy Claxton. The only way that this move turns out badly is if Law suddenly turns into a good point guard. Even in that unlikely event, the criticism will go to Mike Woodson for not handling a young player properly, rather than to Rick Sund for getting rid of a player who wasn't producing and wasn't getting minutes. The Hawks should know better than anyone else whether Law is ready for point guard minutes in the NBA.
Crawford is one of the more selfish players in the NBA, but he ought to fit in reasonably well with the Hawks. Atlanta does not need a conventional point guard to run a structured offense, break down defenders, and set up teammates. Whatever it is that Mike Woodson runs on offense does not require a true point guard. It requires a one with a good enough handle to bring the ball up the floor and then a good shot to punish opponents for doubling Joe Johnson. I don't love the idea of the ball in Crawford's hands too much, but if the offense is running through Johnson or if Crawford is running the offense under strict "don't do too much yourself" instructions, then he should be fine. If nothing else, he's a better version of Flip Murray. He's also a second player for the Hawks to use in the Johnson role in Woodson's beloved "Joe Johnson versus the world" offensive sets at the end of close games. Crawford is a streaky scorer, so by the final minutes, Woodson will know if he can be trusted with a big possession. When he's on, Crawford is at least as good one-on-one as Johnson.
As for Jeff Teague, I'm a little underwhelmed. A college point guard with 3.5 assists per game? A 1.1-1 assist/turnover ratio? I like the fact that Teague is described as having a great first step, the ability to finish, a good jumper, and the ability to get to the line. The positive spin on the pick is that an athlete like Teague will do better in an NBA offense, which tends to be less structured than a college offense. I also like the fact that his stock dropped after one bad game in the NCAA Tournament. (Cue another reference to the recency fallacy.) However, can he pass the ball? This seems like a relevant question for a point guard, no? After four years of "can he throw the ball accurately?" questions about Mike Vick, we ought to be concerned when a player is questionable at the most important skill for his position. In the end, I'm lukewarm on the Teague pick, but I like it more than the Acie Law pick and I'll freely acknowledge that it's hard to find a quality starter in the later half of the first round.
Overall, I'm fairly pleased with the Hawks' offseason so far. I'll reserve judgment until they have made decisions on Bibby and Marvin. The best news is that Atlanta Spirit traded for a player with two years and $20M remaining on his contract, so the fears that they weren't going to spend any money in the offseason have proven untrue. As between Bibby and Williams, I'd prefer that the Hawks spend their attention on signing the latter, but I worry in the back of my mind about leaving the guard portion of the roster full of nothing but combo guards. Then again, at this stage in his career without the ability to beat opponents off the dribble, is Bibby a true point? Marvin is a fungible player, but he did get better last year before the injury and he shouldn't be too expensive in this market. Plus, we can all forgive him for not being Chris Paul now that we finally have our Wake Forest point guard, right?
There's not much to dislike about the Jamal Crawford deal. The Hawks got a good scorer for virtually nothing: Acie Law and the corpse of Speedy Claxton. The only way that this move turns out badly is if Law suddenly turns into a good point guard. Even in that unlikely event, the criticism will go to Mike Woodson for not handling a young player properly, rather than to Rick Sund for getting rid of a player who wasn't producing and wasn't getting minutes. The Hawks should know better than anyone else whether Law is ready for point guard minutes in the NBA.
Crawford is one of the more selfish players in the NBA, but he ought to fit in reasonably well with the Hawks. Atlanta does not need a conventional point guard to run a structured offense, break down defenders, and set up teammates. Whatever it is that Mike Woodson runs on offense does not require a true point guard. It requires a one with a good enough handle to bring the ball up the floor and then a good shot to punish opponents for doubling Joe Johnson. I don't love the idea of the ball in Crawford's hands too much, but if the offense is running through Johnson or if Crawford is running the offense under strict "don't do too much yourself" instructions, then he should be fine. If nothing else, he's a better version of Flip Murray. He's also a second player for the Hawks to use in the Johnson role in Woodson's beloved "Joe Johnson versus the world" offensive sets at the end of close games. Crawford is a streaky scorer, so by the final minutes, Woodson will know if he can be trusted with a big possession. When he's on, Crawford is at least as good one-on-one as Johnson.
As for Jeff Teague, I'm a little underwhelmed. A college point guard with 3.5 assists per game? A 1.1-1 assist/turnover ratio? I like the fact that Teague is described as having a great first step, the ability to finish, a good jumper, and the ability to get to the line. The positive spin on the pick is that an athlete like Teague will do better in an NBA offense, which tends to be less structured than a college offense. I also like the fact that his stock dropped after one bad game in the NCAA Tournament. (Cue another reference to the recency fallacy.) However, can he pass the ball? This seems like a relevant question for a point guard, no? After four years of "can he throw the ball accurately?" questions about Mike Vick, we ought to be concerned when a player is questionable at the most important skill for his position. In the end, I'm lukewarm on the Teague pick, but I like it more than the Acie Law pick and I'll freely acknowledge that it's hard to find a quality starter in the later half of the first round.
Overall, I'm fairly pleased with the Hawks' offseason so far. I'll reserve judgment until they have made decisions on Bibby and Marvin. The best news is that Atlanta Spirit traded for a player with two years and $20M remaining on his contract, so the fears that they weren't going to spend any money in the offseason have proven untrue. As between Bibby and Williams, I'd prefer that the Hawks spend their attention on signing the latter, but I worry in the back of my mind about leaving the guard portion of the roster full of nothing but combo guards. Then again, at this stage in his career without the ability to beat opponents off the dribble, is Bibby a true point? Marvin is a fungible player, but he did get better last year before the injury and he shouldn't be too expensive in this market. Plus, we can all forgive him for not being Chris Paul now that we finally have our Wake Forest point guard, right?
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Spain 0 USA...uh, er, 2?!?
The United States is in the final of the Confederations Cup. They followed an incredibly improbably passage from Group B with a solid victory over the best team in the world. I don't know where to begin, so I'm just going to start typing.
1. Don't say I didn't warn you about Sergio Ramos. I hated Bob Bradley's tactics against Brazil, but he got it right against Spain. Take it away, Eduardo Alvarez:
The first goal came from exactly the sort of offensive play that works against Spain: a quick ball out of defense and up the offensive left side to take advantage of Ramos being forward. Charlie Davies (one of the revelations of the tournament for me) and Clint Dempsey played a nice one-two, drawing Pique and Puyol towards the play and away from Jozy Altidore. Dempsey then played the ball to Altidore, who spun away from his club teammate Joan Capdevila (kudos to John Harkes for correctly noting that Capdevila isn't the greatest of defenders) and scored.
And while we're on the subject of Villarreal players, the first goal also showed how much Spain misses Marcos Senna. Barca are able to get away with Dani Alves bombing forward because they have a great defensive midfielder (Yaya Toure) who can cover the vacated space. As Alvarez points out regarding his beloved Real Madrid, the Del Bosque teams of the early aughts were able to get away with Roberto Carlos getting forward because Claude Makelele could cover the space. Xabi Alonso isn't a true defensive midfielder. At Liverpool, he has Javier Mascherano to do a lot of the donkey work. Against the US, he was victimized by the interplay between Davies and Dempsey and thus allowed Dempsey to play a dangerous ball into Altidore.
2. After Brazil clobbered the Nats, I made the point that we should not expect our players to compete on a top level because they haven't showed that they can make their way into top club teams. So what happened yesterday? How do we explain the US winning 2-0 against three Barca players, three Liverpool players, two Real Madrid players, and a player from Arsenal, Valencia, and Villarreal? It's hard to fathom, so I'll just say that if Jozy Altidore could consistently pull off the move that he did in undressing Capdevila, then he would be playing regularly next to Giuseppe Rossi as an all-American strike force for the Yellow Submarine. Our players seem capable of achieving great things, but for some reason, they don't do so consistently for top clubs. Maybe a break-through is around the corner? Or maybe we just shouldn't read too much into a sample size of one, no matter how much we want to do so.
3. FIFA refs are punishing us for something. George W. Bush? Hiroshima? Their kids eating too much McDonald's and getting fat? The Jonas Brothers? I'm at a loss to explain how the US seems to be the only team in the tournament that gets straight red cards and typically for run-of-the-mill tackles. The U.S. will miss Michael Bradley in the final, as he played quite well from box to box.
4. It needs to be said: we were lucky yesterday. It's not every day that David Villa and Fernando Torres both sky their shots over from great positions. Spain easily could have gone into the break up 2-1, at which point the Nats would have been vulnerable chasing the game. The difference between a 2-0 win and a 4-1 loss might have simply been two of the best strikers in the world scuffing their chances.
5. Bradley got his defensive tactics exactly right. The US central defenders are strong in the air, but they aren't the fastest guys in the world. So what did Bob Bradley do? Pack his defense into the middle to prevent Xavi from passing his way through and therefore invite the Spanish to come down the flanks and send crosses into the box. Please throw Demerit and Onyewu into that briar patch. Spain's crosses were weak. Bradley's strategy also ensured that Sergio Ramos would keep bombing forward. Hell, I feel like more insults directed at Ramos...
6. Madrid, cabron... Spain won its first major tournament in 44 years after banishing Real icon (and noted bottler for Spain) Raul out of the team. Spain lost its next major tournament because Real right back Ramos gifted space to the US for the first goal and inexplicably tried to dribble the ball directly in front of his own goal to allow Dempsey to poke home the second. The second goal was the result of a mistake that most ten year olds know not to make. As if 2-6 wasn't enough humiliation, the hits just keep on coming for Franco's favorite team.
1. Don't say I didn't warn you about Sergio Ramos. I hated Bob Bradley's tactics against Brazil, but he got it right against Spain. Take it away, Eduardo Alvarez:
Let the record show that I texted a friend of mine as early as minute 15 of the first half asking him what Ramos was doing on the pitch. As explained earlier, the US gaffer decided to give him plenty of space offensively to exploit his back at the counter attack, and Sergio naively swallowed the bait. The US caught Spain's defence out of place at least four times until Altidore scored, in all cases because Ramos wasn't where he should.
The first goal came from exactly the sort of offensive play that works against Spain: a quick ball out of defense and up the offensive left side to take advantage of Ramos being forward. Charlie Davies (one of the revelations of the tournament for me) and Clint Dempsey played a nice one-two, drawing Pique and Puyol towards the play and away from Jozy Altidore. Dempsey then played the ball to Altidore, who spun away from his club teammate Joan Capdevila (kudos to John Harkes for correctly noting that Capdevila isn't the greatest of defenders) and scored.
And while we're on the subject of Villarreal players, the first goal also showed how much Spain misses Marcos Senna. Barca are able to get away with Dani Alves bombing forward because they have a great defensive midfielder (Yaya Toure) who can cover the vacated space. As Alvarez points out regarding his beloved Real Madrid, the Del Bosque teams of the early aughts were able to get away with Roberto Carlos getting forward because Claude Makelele could cover the space. Xabi Alonso isn't a true defensive midfielder. At Liverpool, he has Javier Mascherano to do a lot of the donkey work. Against the US, he was victimized by the interplay between Davies and Dempsey and thus allowed Dempsey to play a dangerous ball into Altidore.
2. After Brazil clobbered the Nats, I made the point that we should not expect our players to compete on a top level because they haven't showed that they can make their way into top club teams. So what happened yesterday? How do we explain the US winning 2-0 against three Barca players, three Liverpool players, two Real Madrid players, and a player from Arsenal, Valencia, and Villarreal? It's hard to fathom, so I'll just say that if Jozy Altidore could consistently pull off the move that he did in undressing Capdevila, then he would be playing regularly next to Giuseppe Rossi as an all-American strike force for the Yellow Submarine. Our players seem capable of achieving great things, but for some reason, they don't do so consistently for top clubs. Maybe a break-through is around the corner? Or maybe we just shouldn't read too much into a sample size of one, no matter how much we want to do so.
3. FIFA refs are punishing us for something. George W. Bush? Hiroshima? Their kids eating too much McDonald's and getting fat? The Jonas Brothers? I'm at a loss to explain how the US seems to be the only team in the tournament that gets straight red cards and typically for run-of-the-mill tackles. The U.S. will miss Michael Bradley in the final, as he played quite well from box to box.
4. It needs to be said: we were lucky yesterday. It's not every day that David Villa and Fernando Torres both sky their shots over from great positions. Spain easily could have gone into the break up 2-1, at which point the Nats would have been vulnerable chasing the game. The difference between a 2-0 win and a 4-1 loss might have simply been two of the best strikers in the world scuffing their chances.
5. Bradley got his defensive tactics exactly right. The US central defenders are strong in the air, but they aren't the fastest guys in the world. So what did Bob Bradley do? Pack his defense into the middle to prevent Xavi from passing his way through and therefore invite the Spanish to come down the flanks and send crosses into the box. Please throw Demerit and Onyewu into that briar patch. Spain's crosses were weak. Bradley's strategy also ensured that Sergio Ramos would keep bombing forward. Hell, I feel like more insults directed at Ramos...
6. Madrid, cabron... Spain won its first major tournament in 44 years after banishing Real icon (and noted bottler for Spain) Raul out of the team. Spain lost its next major tournament because Real right back Ramos gifted space to the US for the first goal and inexplicably tried to dribble the ball directly in front of his own goal to allow Dempsey to poke home the second. The second goal was the result of a mistake that most ten year olds know not to make. As if 2-6 wasn't enough humiliation, the hits just keep on coming for Franco's favorite team.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
If I were Bob Bradley
I like to think that I know something about the way that Spain play after having watch Barcelona upwards of 40 times this season. This might not be entirely accurate because there are going to be only two to four Barca players in the Spain side today. Xavi and Puyol are certain starters; Busquets and Pique are possibilities, although unlikely because Xabi Alonso will likely fill the defensive midfield role and Albiol will partner Puyol in central defense. Ideologically, there would also be criticism of conflating Spain and Barcelona:
With those caveats out of the way, the Spain and Barca play very similar styles, built around short passing and quick movement. (The Spanish term is tika-taka football.) Xavi is the fulcrum of both sides, spraying passes all over the place and allowing his team to monopolize the ball, thus protecting the defense. Both sides will press aggressively when they give the ball away so as to prevent the opponent from maintaining possession and running at the defense. Both sides have a rampaging right back who will generate offense down the right flank, but will also occasionally leave his team exposed defensively. Spain have more of an aerial threat through Fernando Torres, which makes them more likely to score on crosses; Barca are more of a threat to dribble through the defense through Messi and Iniesta.
The best blueprint for stopping the Barcelona/Spain style was demonstrated by Chelsea in the Champions League semifinal. If Guus Hiddink isn't going to coach the Nats, then we can at least learn from his game plan against the tika-taka style. Hiddink deployed three robust, physical defensive midfielders: Michael Ballack, Michael Essien, and John Obi Mikel. These three screened Chelsea's able back line and presented a big wall in front of Xavi and Iniesta, while also helping on the wings against Dani Alves, Messi, and Thierry Henry. Chelsea's midfield and defensive lines played close together to deny Barca the space to pass their way through.
The US doesn't have Chelsea's personnel, but Bob Bradley can mimic this approach:
1. Play two defensive midfielders. Ricardo Clark should be an automatic on the team sheet. The second option should probably be Jose Francisco Torres. This is not a game for Bradley to play his best 11. Long term, the future of this team is a Michael Bradley-Benny Feilhaber pairing in central midfield, but that pairing would get eaten alive by Xavi, Xabi Alonso, and Cesc Fabregas. Bradley should be playing in front of two defensive midfielders so he can be free to look for shooting chances at the head of the box, a la Frank Lampard or Steven Gerrard.
2. Keep the defensive and midfield lines close together. If Xavi gets space and time, this is what he will do:
Xavi had four assists in one game against Real Madrid, or two fewer than Cristiano Ronaldo had in the entire Premier League season. Real left space between its lines and was eaten alive. The Nats cannot play an expansive game where they leave players forward thinking about goals. All of the midfield will have to come back to help, both in the middle and on the flanks (especially the US left, where Jonathan Bornstein is going to be vulnerable. When the US gets the ball...
3. Get the ball to the left wing quickly. If the US is going to squeeze out a 1-0 result, the goal will need to come from a set piece (unlikely because we aren't going to have the ball that much and won't get many free kicks) or a quick counter catching Sergio Ramos forward. The one match up advantage that the US has is that it can put its best player - Landon Donovan - on the offensive left side to exploit a Spanish defensive weakness. When Spain relinquishes the ball, the American players will need to get the ball out quickly towards Donovan. Donovan can hopefully exploit space, make a run, and then find Jozy Altidore or Clint Dempsey (one of whom should be playing striker, not both) making a run into the box. I might lean towards playing Altidore in this game because his physical presence would allow the US to play a little low-risk longball.
I'll be very interested when I watch the game to see how Bob Bradley adapts his tactics to play against a superior opponent. He has to do better than he did against Brazil, when his horrendous team selection opened the US to be carved apart. He has to resist the urge to think that the US can play the same against Spain as we did against Egypt. The odds are against the Nats, but after beating 9,000 to one odds on Sunday (I significantly underestimated the odds in my last post), nothing's impossible.
With those caveats out of the way, the Spain and Barca play very similar styles, built around short passing and quick movement. (The Spanish term is tika-taka football.) Xavi is the fulcrum of both sides, spraying passes all over the place and allowing his team to monopolize the ball, thus protecting the defense. Both sides will press aggressively when they give the ball away so as to prevent the opponent from maintaining possession and running at the defense. Both sides have a rampaging right back who will generate offense down the right flank, but will also occasionally leave his team exposed defensively. Spain have more of an aerial threat through Fernando Torres, which makes them more likely to score on crosses; Barca are more of a threat to dribble through the defense through Messi and Iniesta.
The best blueprint for stopping the Barcelona/Spain style was demonstrated by Chelsea in the Champions League semifinal. If Guus Hiddink isn't going to coach the Nats, then we can at least learn from his game plan against the tika-taka style. Hiddink deployed three robust, physical defensive midfielders: Michael Ballack, Michael Essien, and John Obi Mikel. These three screened Chelsea's able back line and presented a big wall in front of Xavi and Iniesta, while also helping on the wings against Dani Alves, Messi, and Thierry Henry. Chelsea's midfield and defensive lines played close together to deny Barca the space to pass their way through.
The US doesn't have Chelsea's personnel, but Bob Bradley can mimic this approach:
1. Play two defensive midfielders. Ricardo Clark should be an automatic on the team sheet. The second option should probably be Jose Francisco Torres. This is not a game for Bradley to play his best 11. Long term, the future of this team is a Michael Bradley-Benny Feilhaber pairing in central midfield, but that pairing would get eaten alive by Xavi, Xabi Alonso, and Cesc Fabregas. Bradley should be playing in front of two defensive midfielders so he can be free to look for shooting chances at the head of the box, a la Frank Lampard or Steven Gerrard.
2. Keep the defensive and midfield lines close together. If Xavi gets space and time, this is what he will do:
Xavi had four assists in one game against Real Madrid, or two fewer than Cristiano Ronaldo had in the entire Premier League season. Real left space between its lines and was eaten alive. The Nats cannot play an expansive game where they leave players forward thinking about goals. All of the midfield will have to come back to help, both in the middle and on the flanks (especially the US left, where Jonathan Bornstein is going to be vulnerable. When the US gets the ball...
3. Get the ball to the left wing quickly. If the US is going to squeeze out a 1-0 result, the goal will need to come from a set piece (unlikely because we aren't going to have the ball that much and won't get many free kicks) or a quick counter catching Sergio Ramos forward. The one match up advantage that the US has is that it can put its best player - Landon Donovan - on the offensive left side to exploit a Spanish defensive weakness. When Spain relinquishes the ball, the American players will need to get the ball out quickly towards Donovan. Donovan can hopefully exploit space, make a run, and then find Jozy Altidore or Clint Dempsey (one of whom should be playing striker, not both) making a run into the box. I might lean towards playing Altidore in this game because his physical presence would allow the US to play a little low-risk longball.
I'll be very interested when I watch the game to see how Bob Bradley adapts his tactics to play against a superior opponent. He has to do better than he did against Brazil, when his horrendous team selection opened the US to be carved apart. He has to resist the urge to think that the US can play the same against Spain as we did against Egypt. The odds are against the Nats, but after beating 9,000 to one odds on Sunday (I significantly underestimated the odds in my last post), nothing's impossible.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Wha?
Going into yesterday's games, the US needed a three-goal win over the reigning African champions (Africa is generally considered to be the third-best continent for football after Europe and South America; North America and Asia are in some unknown order behind those three) and they needed the holders of the World Cup to lose by at least three goals against Brazil. The odds on those two events happening had to be in the neighborhood of 200:1. So naturally, Brazil put three past a hapless, aging Italian side in the first half (what did I say about the Brazilians effectiveness on the counter?) and then the US beat Egypt 3-0 to secure a place in the semifinals of the Confederations Cup. We progressed from a group containing Italy and Brazil. Swirl that around in your mouth for a moment.
The outstanding performance yesterday doesn't completely erase the weak second half against Italy or the horrendous 90 minutes against Brazil, but it does show what this US team is capable of. Sometimes, a team will win 3-0 because it got an early lead and then exploited an opponent forced to take serious risks. Yesterday's game was different because, in light of the result in the Italy match, Egypt just had to avoid getting hammered. Thus, the US won 3-0 against an opponent that was trying its best not to lose by that margin, rather than against an opponent that threw caution to the wind.
A few conclusions from the match:
1. It seems to me that Bob Bradley's coaching mindset is dictated by the fact that the US plays in CONCACAF against weaker opponents. He's used to coaching with superior players, so he deploys a relatively offensive formation to prevent the possibility of a 0-0, 1-0, or 1-1 result determined by the odd chance. That strategy was an utter disaster against Brazil, but it worked against an Egypt side missing several of its offensive stars. It was perfect in a match where the US had to win and win big. To me, it's ironic that a number of people want to replace Bradley with Jurgen Klinsmann, a coach who just got fired at Bayern Munich for throwing caution to the wind too often.
2. Clint Dempsey and Jozy Altidore are an either-or proposition. Dempsey is a waste in the midfield, but he's a good finisher. Bradley needs to play one on Wednesday, but not both. If I were Bradley, I'd use the Liverpool 4-2-3-1 with Dempsey as the striker, Bradley in the Gerrard central midfield role, Donovan on the left, and...I'm not sure who on the right. Charlie Davies? The outside attacking midfielders have to be prepared to track back to help the fullbacks. I like the idea of Donovan in an advanced left position to take advantage of Sergio Ramos getting too far forward. I would also make absolutely certain that Ricardo Clark and a friend are playing defensive midfield to present an obstacle to Xavi and Cesc. Speaking of which...
3. You see how important a competent defensive midfielder is? Ricardo Clark was on the pitch for 34 minutes against Italy and the US looked good. After his red card, the US gave up three goals. The US was then overrun against Brazil when they played without a proper defensive midfielder. I'm not saying that Ricardo Clark is the second coming of Claude Makelele, but he was certainly a major difference yesterday because his solid work gave Michael Bradley the freedom to get forward.
4. Holy cow, was Jonathan Spector's cross for the third goal great or what?
The outstanding performance yesterday doesn't completely erase the weak second half against Italy or the horrendous 90 minutes against Brazil, but it does show what this US team is capable of. Sometimes, a team will win 3-0 because it got an early lead and then exploited an opponent forced to take serious risks. Yesterday's game was different because, in light of the result in the Italy match, Egypt just had to avoid getting hammered. Thus, the US won 3-0 against an opponent that was trying its best not to lose by that margin, rather than against an opponent that threw caution to the wind.
A few conclusions from the match:
1. It seems to me that Bob Bradley's coaching mindset is dictated by the fact that the US plays in CONCACAF against weaker opponents. He's used to coaching with superior players, so he deploys a relatively offensive formation to prevent the possibility of a 0-0, 1-0, or 1-1 result determined by the odd chance. That strategy was an utter disaster against Brazil, but it worked against an Egypt side missing several of its offensive stars. It was perfect in a match where the US had to win and win big. To me, it's ironic that a number of people want to replace Bradley with Jurgen Klinsmann, a coach who just got fired at Bayern Munich for throwing caution to the wind too often.
2. Clint Dempsey and Jozy Altidore are an either-or proposition. Dempsey is a waste in the midfield, but he's a good finisher. Bradley needs to play one on Wednesday, but not both. If I were Bradley, I'd use the Liverpool 4-2-3-1 with Dempsey as the striker, Bradley in the Gerrard central midfield role, Donovan on the left, and...I'm not sure who on the right. Charlie Davies? The outside attacking midfielders have to be prepared to track back to help the fullbacks. I like the idea of Donovan in an advanced left position to take advantage of Sergio Ramos getting too far forward. I would also make absolutely certain that Ricardo Clark and a friend are playing defensive midfield to present an obstacle to Xavi and Cesc. Speaking of which...
3. You see how important a competent defensive midfielder is? Ricardo Clark was on the pitch for 34 minutes against Italy and the US looked good. After his red card, the US gave up three goals. The US was then overrun against Brazil when they played without a proper defensive midfielder. I'm not saying that Ricardo Clark is the second coming of Claude Makelele, but he was certainly a major difference yesterday because his solid work gave Michael Bradley the freedom to get forward.
4. Holy cow, was Jonathan Spector's cross for the third goal great or what?
Friday, June 19, 2009
We're Just Not That Good
If you're a masochist and a US soccer fan, here are Jeff Carlisle and Grant Wahl on the game, as well as the player ratings from Goal.com. I have two basic thoughts on that thumping:
1. What in G-d's name was Bob Bradley doing? Generally speaking, an underdog in soccer will try to play defensively. By doing so, it will reduce the number of chances that both teams will get and therefore increase the odds of an anomalous result. (Soccer isn't the only sport in which Davids needs to reduce possessions to beat Goliaths.) A conservative strategy is especially important against Brazil because Brazil struggle mightily against defensive sides. One of the great myths in world football is that Brazil still play Jogo Bonito. Brazil haven't played that way for years. Instead, their current style is to play with two center backs shielded by two defensive midfielders. They generate offense from the wing backs while playing conservatively in the middle. Brazilians are extremely successful in the major European leagues in just about every position, but you'll have a hard time finding a great Brazilian central midfielder (and no, Gilberto Silva is not and never was a correct answer). Brazil struggle to create offense against massed defenses, but if you give them time and space to counter-attack, they'll beat you to death with their wing backs bombing forward. Their second goal yesterday is a perfect example of a modern Brazilian goal. Hell, for that matter, the first goal was a great example as well because the Brazilians have emphasized athleticism over skill in recent years, so they've become very good at out-muscling opponents on set pieces.
(An aside: Brazil-Spain would be a fascinating game on a number of levels. Spain play the Jogo Bonito game that Brazil used to play: short passing, constant movement, and total control of the ball. However, their style will also create space for Brazil to counter. The two team's styles mesh nicely, which ought to create the conditions for an outstanding game. Also, Spain are not the biggest team, so Brazil's physical power could create problems for them. Finally, Puyol will get his first chance to kick the s*** out of Kaka.)
In light of Brazil's style, which has been evident for years and is especially pronounced with the unimaginative Dunga in charge, Bob Bradley's obvious choice was to play defensively and look for a goal on a counter. Instead, he elected to play a 4-3-3 that exposed the US's vulnerable fullbacks to Maicon on the right. He played Sasha Kljestan, an attacking midfielder, in the central midfield role when the game was screaming for defensive midfielders. Does he think that we're Spain or Germany and can go toe-to-toe with Brazil? Is he mad? Bradley had an excellent record in MLS, but he doesn't seem able to manage when his players are inferior to those of the opponent (not that the list of such managers is very long).
2. The result shouldn't surprise us. As mad as I want to get about the US getting undressed by an unremarkable Brazil side, I just can't because rationally speaking, it is the expected result. American players just aren't that good. If you don't follow European soccer, here's a brief primer on the US starting XI from yesterday:
Tim Howard - successful goalie for a major club in England
Jonathan Spector - cannot find the field for West Ham, a mid-table club in England
Jay Demerit - starts for a second division side in England
Oguchi Onyewu - starts for Standard Liege in Belgium; failed on a trial at Newcastle
Jonathan Bornstein - starts for Chivas USA in MLS
Michael Bradley - starts for Borussia Mönchengladbach, a club which barely avoided relegation in Germany
Sacha Kljestan - starts for Chivas USA in MLS
DeMarcus Beasley - cannot find the field for Rangers in Scotland
Clint Dempsey - starter for Fulham, a team that just finished an impressive seventh in the EPL
Landon Donovan - failed on both forays to the Bundesliga; stars for the LA Galaxy
Jozy Altidore - couldn't get on the field for Villarreal or even second division side Xerez.
Other than Tim Howard, the US doesn't have a single player who starts for a major European club. The starting lineup is full of players who made little or no impression in Europe (Donovan, Altidore, Beasley, Onyewu, and Spector) or who are playing well for lesser European sides (Demerit, Bradley, and Dempsey) or an MLS side (Kljestan and Bornstein). Honestly, what do we think would happen when these players ran up against Kaka (2007 world player of the year; just moved between two of the biggest clubs in the world for a then-record transfer fee), Julio Cesar (arguably the best goalie in Serie A), Maicon (the best right back in Serie A), Lucio (stalwart for Bayern Munich), Luis Fabiano (star striker for Sevilla, the third place team in La Liga), and Robinho (4th leading scorer in the EPL for Manchester City)?
We want the US to do well, but can we really expect it when our players cannot make a big impact abroad? I think we're deluded by our success in CONCACAF. We think that winning the Gold Cup and qualifying with ease for the World Cup means that we can compete internationally, but it's really a miracle that we do as well as we do against Mexico. There is no American equivalent to Rafa Marquez (starter for two Barcelona sides that won the Champions League) or Ricardo Osorio (starter for the Stuttgart side who won the 2006-07 Bundesliga), not to mention the fact that the Mexican League is stronger than MLS (as evidenced by the strong performances of Mexican teams in the Copa Libertadores). The poundings that the US often gets when it leaves CONCACAF ought to be a spur to change something. I don't pretend to know what that something is.
1. What in G-d's name was Bob Bradley doing? Generally speaking, an underdog in soccer will try to play defensively. By doing so, it will reduce the number of chances that both teams will get and therefore increase the odds of an anomalous result. (Soccer isn't the only sport in which Davids needs to reduce possessions to beat Goliaths.) A conservative strategy is especially important against Brazil because Brazil struggle mightily against defensive sides. One of the great myths in world football is that Brazil still play Jogo Bonito. Brazil haven't played that way for years. Instead, their current style is to play with two center backs shielded by two defensive midfielders. They generate offense from the wing backs while playing conservatively in the middle. Brazilians are extremely successful in the major European leagues in just about every position, but you'll have a hard time finding a great Brazilian central midfielder (and no, Gilberto Silva is not and never was a correct answer). Brazil struggle to create offense against massed defenses, but if you give them time and space to counter-attack, they'll beat you to death with their wing backs bombing forward. Their second goal yesterday is a perfect example of a modern Brazilian goal. Hell, for that matter, the first goal was a great example as well because the Brazilians have emphasized athleticism over skill in recent years, so they've become very good at out-muscling opponents on set pieces.
(An aside: Brazil-Spain would be a fascinating game on a number of levels. Spain play the Jogo Bonito game that Brazil used to play: short passing, constant movement, and total control of the ball. However, their style will also create space for Brazil to counter. The two team's styles mesh nicely, which ought to create the conditions for an outstanding game. Also, Spain are not the biggest team, so Brazil's physical power could create problems for them. Finally, Puyol will get his first chance to kick the s*** out of Kaka.)
In light of Brazil's style, which has been evident for years and is especially pronounced with the unimaginative Dunga in charge, Bob Bradley's obvious choice was to play defensively and look for a goal on a counter. Instead, he elected to play a 4-3-3 that exposed the US's vulnerable fullbacks to Maicon on the right. He played Sasha Kljestan, an attacking midfielder, in the central midfield role when the game was screaming for defensive midfielders. Does he think that we're Spain or Germany and can go toe-to-toe with Brazil? Is he mad? Bradley had an excellent record in MLS, but he doesn't seem able to manage when his players are inferior to those of the opponent (not that the list of such managers is very long).
2. The result shouldn't surprise us. As mad as I want to get about the US getting undressed by an unremarkable Brazil side, I just can't because rationally speaking, it is the expected result. American players just aren't that good. If you don't follow European soccer, here's a brief primer on the US starting XI from yesterday:
Tim Howard - successful goalie for a major club in England
Jonathan Spector - cannot find the field for West Ham, a mid-table club in England
Jay Demerit - starts for a second division side in England
Oguchi Onyewu - starts for Standard Liege in Belgium; failed on a trial at Newcastle
Jonathan Bornstein - starts for Chivas USA in MLS
Michael Bradley - starts for Borussia Mönchengladbach, a club which barely avoided relegation in Germany
Sacha Kljestan - starts for Chivas USA in MLS
DeMarcus Beasley - cannot find the field for Rangers in Scotland
Clint Dempsey - starter for Fulham, a team that just finished an impressive seventh in the EPL
Landon Donovan - failed on both forays to the Bundesliga; stars for the LA Galaxy
Jozy Altidore - couldn't get on the field for Villarreal or even second division side Xerez.
Other than Tim Howard, the US doesn't have a single player who starts for a major European club. The starting lineup is full of players who made little or no impression in Europe (Donovan, Altidore, Beasley, Onyewu, and Spector) or who are playing well for lesser European sides (Demerit, Bradley, and Dempsey) or an MLS side (Kljestan and Bornstein). Honestly, what do we think would happen when these players ran up against Kaka (2007 world player of the year; just moved between two of the biggest clubs in the world for a then-record transfer fee), Julio Cesar (arguably the best goalie in Serie A), Maicon (the best right back in Serie A), Lucio (stalwart for Bayern Munich), Luis Fabiano (star striker for Sevilla, the third place team in La Liga), and Robinho (4th leading scorer in the EPL for Manchester City)?
We want the US to do well, but can we really expect it when our players cannot make a big impact abroad? I think we're deluded by our success in CONCACAF. We think that winning the Gold Cup and qualifying with ease for the World Cup means that we can compete internationally, but it's really a miracle that we do as well as we do against Mexico. There is no American equivalent to Rafa Marquez (starter for two Barcelona sides that won the Champions League) or Ricardo Osorio (starter for the Stuttgart side who won the 2006-07 Bundesliga), not to mention the fact that the Mexican League is stronger than MLS (as evidenced by the strong performances of Mexican teams in the Copa Libertadores). The poundings that the US often gets when it leaves CONCACAF ought to be a spur to change something. I don't pretend to know what that something is.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Pepidemiology, National Teams Edition
I am an absolute sucker for lists like this. Of all of ESPN's triumphs in their superlative coverage of last summer's Euros, showing the national anthems before the games was the greatest. College football and international soccer have a number of common elements and one of the major ones is that they have pageantry. Honestly, can you ever remember that word being used to describe an MLB, NFL, or NBA game?
My only quibble with the list is the omission of "G-d Save the Queen." Though I root against the English and revel in their biannual humiliations, they have the best national anthem of the lot. It's short, it's got great long notes, and it's eminently singable while drunk.
If you want to know why central defenders tend to be team captains and icons, look at how Ferdinand and Terry belt this song out.
My only quibble with the list is the omission of "G-d Save the Queen." Though I root against the English and revel in their biannual humiliations, they have the best national anthem of the lot. It's short, it's got great long notes, and it's eminently singable while drunk.
If you want to know why central defenders tend to be team captains and icons, look at how Ferdinand and Terry belt this song out.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Spring Training for Mandel's Return
I don't know where to begin with this paragraph from Andy Staples:
I'm going to be a little subjective here, but how in the world was Alabama going to get serious penalties for its players giving free textbooks to other students? On the continuum of sanctionable activity, that is very close to the "who cares?" pole. In contrast, the allegations against USC are that Reggie Bush received massive amounts of improper benefits from an agent and that USC willingly turned a blind eye to his relationship with the agent. These allegations, if true, are a lot closer to the "you dirty bastards!" end of the scale.
What Staples is saying is that a rapist can expect a light sentence because a guy who was caught driving on a suspended license didn't get 20 years. I'm not sure if Staples is making a prediction about the NCAA's behavior (in which the blame should go to the NCAA for picking on Alabama and ignoring USC [although I'll admit that the NCAA does face evidence collection issues with USC]) or if he's saying that it's a good thing that no major program will ever be punished severely (in which case Staples is foolish). Personally, I don't dislike USC because I like seeing quality defense and because they give me great pleasure one Saturday every fall by humiliating Notre Dame. That said, if the Yahoo! articles about USC are correct, the Trojans deserve to burn, regardless of the fact that they are a valuable commercial property.
And then there's this pair of gems:
First of all, it's a pu pu platter. Chinese cuisine did not become ubiquitous in this country because of a prevalence of feces-based dishes. Second, the NCAA cannot force USC to give up a BCS Title because the NCAA does not award the BCS title, just like the NCAA cannot force Reggie Bush to surrender his Heisman because it does not give out the Heisman.
I made it pretty clear in the first sentence of the second paragraph I didn't think the textbook issue merited a serious penalty, but considering 'Bama's recent history, it's no surprise some thought the NCAA should come down harder. My point was the NCAA probably will never again drop the hammer on a program as financially critical as Alabama or -- wait for it, Mike -- USC. Florida State, another key program, recently received a minor scholarship reduction and had to vacate wins for a case of widespread academic fraud. That's far more serious than athletes getting textbooks for friends, but the penalty wasn't much worse. The only reason Florida State challenged any part of that penalty is because the wins in question belong to Bobby Bowden.
I'm going to be a little subjective here, but how in the world was Alabama going to get serious penalties for its players giving free textbooks to other students? On the continuum of sanctionable activity, that is very close to the "who cares?" pole. In contrast, the allegations against USC are that Reggie Bush received massive amounts of improper benefits from an agent and that USC willingly turned a blind eye to his relationship with the agent. These allegations, if true, are a lot closer to the "you dirty bastards!" end of the scale.
What Staples is saying is that a rapist can expect a light sentence because a guy who was caught driving on a suspended license didn't get 20 years. I'm not sure if Staples is making a prediction about the NCAA's behavior (in which the blame should go to the NCAA for picking on Alabama and ignoring USC [although I'll admit that the NCAA does face evidence collection issues with USC]) or if he's saying that it's a good thing that no major program will ever be punished severely (in which case Staples is foolish). Personally, I don't dislike USC because I like seeing quality defense and because they give me great pleasure one Saturday every fall by humiliating Notre Dame. That said, if the Yahoo! articles about USC are correct, the Trojans deserve to burn, regardless of the fact that they are a valuable commercial property.
And then there's this pair of gems:
The way all of this is going, it seems highly unlikely the NCAA will severely punish USC even if all the accusations against Reggie Bush prove true. I'm guessing a poo-poo platter of scholarship reductions and vacated wins. If the NCAA finds evidence Bush was ineligible during the 2004 season, USC could be forced to vacate that season's BCS title. But guess what? No one will have to give back their rings, and the Trojans still thumped Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl.
First of all, it's a pu pu platter. Chinese cuisine did not become ubiquitous in this country because of a prevalence of feces-based dishes. Second, the NCAA cannot force USC to give up a BCS Title because the NCAA does not award the BCS title, just like the NCAA cannot force Reggie Bush to surrender his Heisman because it does not give out the Heisman.
And Now, for the Sports Radio Take on the Braves, here is Jeff Schultz
So, the Braves find themselves three games under .500 with two of the worst corner outfielders in all of baseball. So whom does Jeff Schultz blame for the team's demise? All of the team's "next wave":
Yunel Escobar is currently third among NL shortstops in VORP. Kelly Johnson is in a dreadful slump, but last year, he finished fourth among NL second basemen in VORP. Jordan Schafer has all of 195 major league plate appearances upon which we can judge him. Jeff Francoeur is dreadful this year, he was dreadful last year, and anyone who knows the importance of the ability to tell the difference between a ball and a strike knows that Francoeur will continue to be dreadful until he learns this skill (a rare, but possible occurrence). If the question is whether the Braves should trade Escobar, Johnson, or Schafer as opposed to Francoeur, then the only argument in favor of that proposition is that the former three players have trade value, whereas Francoeur does not. I don't recall the Padres being interested in Francoeur during their trade discussions with the Braves this winter. Escobar was the apple of their eye and that was before Francoeur repeated his horrendous 2008 with an equally bad 2009.
What bothers me about Schultz's analysis is that he gets carried away with irrelevant data. Yunel Escobar is a good hitter who has made a couple more errors more than the average major league shortstop. He made a few mental goofs last week, but that should be compared against a sample size of hundreds of at-bats and fielding chances. Schultz uses Escobar's benching on Sunday to make a ten-cent moral judgment. It's easy to point the finger and say "that's the bad guy"; it's not as easy to actually look at the massive sample size of data that we have for major league players and make judgments based on that.
On Sunday, Yunel Escobar botched a double play and a run-down play in the first two innings, leading to several runs at Baltimore. Braves manager Bobby Cox became so incensed that he benched his starting shortstop — in the third inning — and later referred to him as lackadaisical.
It was right about this time when I started wondering: “Is there some reason why Jeff Francoeur is the only Brave who is central to trade rumors?”
Yunel Escobar is currently third among NL shortstops in VORP. Kelly Johnson is in a dreadful slump, but last year, he finished fourth among NL second basemen in VORP. Jordan Schafer has all of 195 major league plate appearances upon which we can judge him. Jeff Francoeur is dreadful this year, he was dreadful last year, and anyone who knows the importance of the ability to tell the difference between a ball and a strike knows that Francoeur will continue to be dreadful until he learns this skill (a rare, but possible occurrence). If the question is whether the Braves should trade Escobar, Johnson, or Schafer as opposed to Francoeur, then the only argument in favor of that proposition is that the former three players have trade value, whereas Francoeur does not. I don't recall the Padres being interested in Francoeur during their trade discussions with the Braves this winter. Escobar was the apple of their eye and that was before Francoeur repeated his horrendous 2008 with an equally bad 2009.
What bothers me about Schultz's analysis is that he gets carried away with irrelevant data. Yunel Escobar is a good hitter who has made a couple more errors more than the average major league shortstop. He made a few mental goofs last week, but that should be compared against a sample size of hundreds of at-bats and fielding chances. Schultz uses Escobar's benching on Sunday to make a ten-cent moral judgment. It's easy to point the finger and say "that's the bad guy"; it's not as easy to actually look at the massive sample size of data that we have for major league players and make judgments based on that.
Tuesday, June 09, 2009
Revisiting the Joy of Spotting Overrated Teams
For a few years, I had something going with the Charles Rogers Theorem. With seeming scientific accuracy, I could write a column before the season in which I would spot teams that would finish well below their preseason rankings by looking at two factors: (1) a disparity between returning skill position and line talent; and (2) a hot finish obscuring average results over the first ten games. Then, the Theorem spit out Florida in 2006 and Georgia in 2007. Florida won the national title in 2006 and Georgia finished #2 in 2007. If the available evidence disproves a hypothesis, then the hypothesis ought to be retired.
Orson's post on the consensus preseason top ten sent me in a new, simpler direction: just pick the non-traditional powers in the top ten and confidently assert that they are overrated. Doesn't that accomplish what the Charles Rogers Theorem purported to do? Wouldn't that have caught Michigan State in 2002, Auburn in 2003, and Clemson just about every year?
The trick is identifying the elite of college football properly. For instance, one would have to have spotted quickly that Florida State and Miami had departed that category at some point in the first part of the decade. One would have to decide whether Alabama is now in that category or will be joining in the next season or two. Is Virginia Tech an elite program or merely a good program swimming in a shallow pool? Was West Virginia elite when Rich Rodriguez was there? (Could they ever be elite with their recruiting base?) And what about Notre Dame? They certainly fit the definition of traditional power, but they haven't played like one since Lou Holtz's heyday.
However, if you identify the elite properly, then picking overrated teams is easy. Pollsters start to struggle after their first five picks, so they start scraping for teams that will make their preseason polls look interesting. This year, those teams are Ole Miss and Oklahoma State. Last year, those teams were Missouri, West Virginia, and Clemson. In 2007, it was West Virginia, Louisville, and Wisconsin. In 2006, it was Notre Dame, West Virginia, Auburn, and Florida State. On that list, do you see many teams that met expectations, other than the White/Slaton/Rodriguez Mountaineer teams?
The thinking behind this new theory is fairly basic. The elite programs compete with one another to sign the top high school talent. To varying degrees, their rosters are full of it. The programs in the next tier down have talent, but not on the same level. Thus, they are more vulnerable to injuries over the course of the season. They are vulnerable to the phenomenon of good players playing above their talent levels for a period of time and then coming back down to earth. They are vulnerable to having their average defenses finally catch up with them.
I'll freely admit that this new theory has a definitional problem: which programs are truly elite? Which programs are joining that category and which ones are leaving it? The theory also needs a cool name, maybe something from C. Wright Mills' oeuvre? As basic as it sounds, it does seem fairly useful.
Orson's post on the consensus preseason top ten sent me in a new, simpler direction: just pick the non-traditional powers in the top ten and confidently assert that they are overrated. Doesn't that accomplish what the Charles Rogers Theorem purported to do? Wouldn't that have caught Michigan State in 2002, Auburn in 2003, and Clemson just about every year?
The trick is identifying the elite of college football properly. For instance, one would have to have spotted quickly that Florida State and Miami had departed that category at some point in the first part of the decade. One would have to decide whether Alabama is now in that category or will be joining in the next season or two. Is Virginia Tech an elite program or merely a good program swimming in a shallow pool? Was West Virginia elite when Rich Rodriguez was there? (Could they ever be elite with their recruiting base?) And what about Notre Dame? They certainly fit the definition of traditional power, but they haven't played like one since Lou Holtz's heyday.
However, if you identify the elite properly, then picking overrated teams is easy. Pollsters start to struggle after their first five picks, so they start scraping for teams that will make their preseason polls look interesting. This year, those teams are Ole Miss and Oklahoma State. Last year, those teams were Missouri, West Virginia, and Clemson. In 2007, it was West Virginia, Louisville, and Wisconsin. In 2006, it was Notre Dame, West Virginia, Auburn, and Florida State. On that list, do you see many teams that met expectations, other than the White/Slaton/Rodriguez Mountaineer teams?
The thinking behind this new theory is fairly basic. The elite programs compete with one another to sign the top high school talent. To varying degrees, their rosters are full of it. The programs in the next tier down have talent, but not on the same level. Thus, they are more vulnerable to injuries over the course of the season. They are vulnerable to the phenomenon of good players playing above their talent levels for a period of time and then coming back down to earth. They are vulnerable to having their average defenses finally catch up with them.
I'll freely admit that this new theory has a definitional problem: which programs are truly elite? Which programs are joining that category and which ones are leaving it? The theory also needs a cool name, maybe something from C. Wright Mills' oeuvre? As basic as it sounds, it does seem fairly useful.
Sunday, June 07, 2009
Tommy Gregg was Better
I've gotten to the point where I get angry every time Jeff Francoeur comes to the plate. I'm resigned to the fact that this Braves team is pretty good, but nothing special. However, I feel my blood pressure start to rise when Francoeur comes up. He seems like a nice guy who is popular in the clubhouse, but I struggle to come up with examples of athletes in any sport who are so bad at their basic job functions and yet continue to get the opportunity to suck.
Right now, Francoeur is 145th out of 150 players in terms of VORP among NL position players with 100 or more plate appearances. By that statistical measure, he has cost the Braves 6.9 runs as compared to what a replacement level player would produce. If you prefer OPS, he is 80th among 89 qualifying NL position players. This comes on the heels of a season in which he was 133rd out of 134 players in terms of VORP among players who got 324 plate appearances.
Jeff Francoeur is the equivalent of a pitcher with an ERA north of seven. For instance, Francoeur had a VORP of -16.9 last year, meaning he cost the Braves 16.9 over what a replacement level player would have done. By way of comparison, Greg Reynolds of the Rockies had a VORP of -16.8. His ERA was 8.13. This year, Brad Lidge has a VORP of -6.7, which is comparable to Francoeur's number. Lidge's ERA is 7.27. If Francoeur had an ERA starting with the number seven, there is no way in the world that he would get the ball every fifth day for one season, let alone a season and then the first two months of the next. The fans in Atlanta (yes, even Atlanta) would go bananas if Francoeur were a pitcher, getting torched every day. Because we don't get upset about position players making outs in the same way that we do pitchers failing to get outs, the necessary pressure has not been applied. Thus, Bobby keeps trotting out one of the worst players in the Majors with apparently no thought to benching him or even platooning him.
And I think I'm about to say something that I never, ever, ever thought I'd say: where is Terence Moore when we need him? When evaluating the inexplicable patience afforded Francoeur, the facts that he's good-looking, local, and white have to be considered. The Braves do have to deal with a somewhat tepid fan base in Atlanta, one that was spoiled by success for 14 years. I see how they might have some reticence in dealing harshly with Gwinnett's finest. But for the love of G-d, how many more rallies must our rightfielder butcher before someone, anyone, gets a shot in right? How many more opposing pitchers are going to get to pitch an extra inning because one Braves hitter always hacks at their first offering? Frank Wren, you had a good week last week. Let's build on it.
Right now, Francoeur is 145th out of 150 players in terms of VORP among NL position players with 100 or more plate appearances. By that statistical measure, he has cost the Braves 6.9 runs as compared to what a replacement level player would produce. If you prefer OPS, he is 80th among 89 qualifying NL position players. This comes on the heels of a season in which he was 133rd out of 134 players in terms of VORP among players who got 324 plate appearances.
Jeff Francoeur is the equivalent of a pitcher with an ERA north of seven. For instance, Francoeur had a VORP of -16.9 last year, meaning he cost the Braves 16.9 over what a replacement level player would have done. By way of comparison, Greg Reynolds of the Rockies had a VORP of -16.8. His ERA was 8.13. This year, Brad Lidge has a VORP of -6.7, which is comparable to Francoeur's number. Lidge's ERA is 7.27. If Francoeur had an ERA starting with the number seven, there is no way in the world that he would get the ball every fifth day for one season, let alone a season and then the first two months of the next. The fans in Atlanta (yes, even Atlanta) would go bananas if Francoeur were a pitcher, getting torched every day. Because we don't get upset about position players making outs in the same way that we do pitchers failing to get outs, the necessary pressure has not been applied. Thus, Bobby keeps trotting out one of the worst players in the Majors with apparently no thought to benching him or even platooning him.
And I think I'm about to say something that I never, ever, ever thought I'd say: where is Terence Moore when we need him? When evaluating the inexplicable patience afforded Francoeur, the facts that he's good-looking, local, and white have to be considered. The Braves do have to deal with a somewhat tepid fan base in Atlanta, one that was spoiled by success for 14 years. I see how they might have some reticence in dealing harshly with Gwinnett's finest. But for the love of G-d, how many more rallies must our rightfielder butcher before someone, anyone, gets a shot in right? How many more opposing pitchers are going to get to pitch an extra inning because one Braves hitter always hacks at their first offering? Frank Wren, you had a good week last week. Let's build on it.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
An Outfielder! With an Actual Bat! That Hits!
One of the nice things about the Braves' 26-26 start has been that the team has had defined strengths and weaknesses. The pitching is quite good, both in the starting rotation and in the bullpen. The infield, when healthy, has also been good, with Casey Kotchman being an especially pleasant surprise. The outfield has been abysmal. Thus, the solution to push the team into contention has been obvious. Frank Wren has been presented with a situation that does not require much thought.
Enter Nate McLouth. Last year, the Braves' outfielders hit 27 homers; McLouth hit 26. This year, the Braves' outfielders have ten homers; McLouth has nine. McLouth has seven stolen bases; no Brave has more than two. McLouth has a .349 on-base percentage; the starters to his left and right are at .288 and .275, respectively. Nate immediately becomes the best outfielder on the team and closes one of the three gaping holes in the lineup. If Garret Anderson's recent uptick is sustainable (unlikely), then we are down to one big hole. I'm not holding out any hope for Jeff Francoeur, who managed to strike out tonight in a 2-1 game in the 6th with the bases loaded on a pitch that was, I'm not kidding here, two feet inside. And low.
McLouth is also signed through 2011 with a team option for 2012, so this is not a one-year rental like Mark Teixeira was. If Jordan Schafer works through his issues and Jason Heyward continues to progress through the minors, the Braves will have an excellent outfield in 2011...just in time for the pitching to collapse, one would assume. As for the guys the Braves gave up, Charlie Morton was a decent prospect, but 25 is a little late for a pitcher to be waiting for his breakout season. Morton was behind Tommy Hanson and Kris Medlen on the pitching depth chart, so the Braves were dealing from a position of strength. Gorkys Hernandez is behind Schafer on the depth chart, so he was going to be traded at some point. Jeff Locke was having a rotten year at Myrtle Beach, so the Braves are reasonable in throwing him into the deal.
The McLouth deal puts the Braves closer to becoming a good team. In contrast, the decision to release Tom Glavine has no effect on the team's performance this season. Glavine was pitching reasonably well at AAA, but he was allowing a significant number of runners, so there's no reason to think that he would get major league hitters out. Any inning he threw would be an inning that wouldn't go to Hanson or Medlen, so denying Bobby the chance to roll out a veteran is probably a good decision. That said, the decision to sign Glavine, pitch him in Rome and Gwinnett, and then release him after throwing 11 shutout innings is shabby. It's the right baseball decision, but it's no way to treat a guy whose jersey you're inevitably going to retire. If the Braves were not going to pitch Glavine this year, then they should not have signed him in the first place to get his hopes up that he would have a swan song at the Ted. If I were him, my first call would be to Ruben Amaro because the Phillies need pitching and that would be the best way to stick it to Frank Wren. Frank had a good day in terms of the on-field product, but a bad day in terms of public relations. In a somewhat fickle major league market, that's a problem.
Enter Nate McLouth. Last year, the Braves' outfielders hit 27 homers; McLouth hit 26. This year, the Braves' outfielders have ten homers; McLouth has nine. McLouth has seven stolen bases; no Brave has more than two. McLouth has a .349 on-base percentage; the starters to his left and right are at .288 and .275, respectively. Nate immediately becomes the best outfielder on the team and closes one of the three gaping holes in the lineup. If Garret Anderson's recent uptick is sustainable (unlikely), then we are down to one big hole. I'm not holding out any hope for Jeff Francoeur, who managed to strike out tonight in a 2-1 game in the 6th with the bases loaded on a pitch that was, I'm not kidding here, two feet inside. And low.
McLouth is also signed through 2011 with a team option for 2012, so this is not a one-year rental like Mark Teixeira was. If Jordan Schafer works through his issues and Jason Heyward continues to progress through the minors, the Braves will have an excellent outfield in 2011...just in time for the pitching to collapse, one would assume. As for the guys the Braves gave up, Charlie Morton was a decent prospect, but 25 is a little late for a pitcher to be waiting for his breakout season. Morton was behind Tommy Hanson and Kris Medlen on the pitching depth chart, so the Braves were dealing from a position of strength. Gorkys Hernandez is behind Schafer on the depth chart, so he was going to be traded at some point. Jeff Locke was having a rotten year at Myrtle Beach, so the Braves are reasonable in throwing him into the deal.
The McLouth deal puts the Braves closer to becoming a good team. In contrast, the decision to release Tom Glavine has no effect on the team's performance this season. Glavine was pitching reasonably well at AAA, but he was allowing a significant number of runners, so there's no reason to think that he would get major league hitters out. Any inning he threw would be an inning that wouldn't go to Hanson or Medlen, so denying Bobby the chance to roll out a veteran is probably a good decision. That said, the decision to sign Glavine, pitch him in Rome and Gwinnett, and then release him after throwing 11 shutout innings is shabby. It's the right baseball decision, but it's no way to treat a guy whose jersey you're inevitably going to retire. If the Braves were not going to pitch Glavine this year, then they should not have signed him in the first place to get his hopes up that he would have a swan song at the Ted. If I were him, my first call would be to Ruben Amaro because the Phillies need pitching and that would be the best way to stick it to Frank Wren. Frank had a good day in terms of the on-field product, but a bad day in terms of public relations. In a somewhat fickle major league market, that's a problem.
Fussing at the Margins
Paul Westerdawg has an interesting post up about Georgia's struggles at kicking off. While he makes a good point that Georgia's directional kicking is a poor strategy, he goes a little far at the outset of the post:
Thank you, Jim Tressel, but allow me to retort. Football is a game of yardage. The objective is to be very good at moving the ball and stopping the opponent from doing them same. Everything else is secondary. There are games that are decided by field goal kicking, punt coverage, or penalties, but these games are far rarer than games that are decided because the winner is better at moving the ball and stopping the loser from moving the ball. Florida was very good at moving the ball and stopping their opponents from doing so. That's why they won. Does anyone remember how good they were at punting or kicking field goals, as opposed to scoring at will on offense?
Look at the chart that Paul uses to illustrate the importance of kickoff coverage. Two teams were clearly the best in the SEC at kicking off: Kentucky and South Carolina. Those teams combined to go 14-12. Florida won the national title while finishing 6th in the SEC in kickoff coverage. Alabama won the West and finished seventh in that department. Their totals were not far off from Georgia's. If one is looking to explain Georgia's disappointing 2008, kickoff coverage is not the place to start.
If you want a relevant stat to describe Georgia's issues in 2009, look at the 4.97 yards per play they allowed, which placed the Dawgs eighth in the conference. Alabama and Florida finished second and third in that category, behind a Tennessee team that was completely undone by its offense. Georgia was not very good at stopping opponents in 2008, hence the three losses. Looking for other explanations is interesting for off-season discussion, but we shouldn't pretend that Georgia finished behind Florida and Alabama in the SEC because Georgia opponents started drives after kickoffs on the 29, whereas Florida opponents started on the 27 and Alabama opponents started on the 28. That's a little like a Braves fan fixating on the team's bunting or stolen base percentage allowed as opposed to an outfield that cannot produce offensively.
Football isn't a game of yardage. It's a game of field position. That's why hidden yardage (non-offensive and defensive stats are so critical). Field position is also driven by those less obvious / hidden stats such penalty yards per game, punt/kickoff returns and coverage and turnovers allowed and created.
Thank you, Jim Tressel, but allow me to retort. Football is a game of yardage. The objective is to be very good at moving the ball and stopping the opponent from doing them same. Everything else is secondary. There are games that are decided by field goal kicking, punt coverage, or penalties, but these games are far rarer than games that are decided because the winner is better at moving the ball and stopping the loser from moving the ball. Florida was very good at moving the ball and stopping their opponents from doing so. That's why they won. Does anyone remember how good they were at punting or kicking field goals, as opposed to scoring at will on offense?
Look at the chart that Paul uses to illustrate the importance of kickoff coverage. Two teams were clearly the best in the SEC at kicking off: Kentucky and South Carolina. Those teams combined to go 14-12. Florida won the national title while finishing 6th in the SEC in kickoff coverage. Alabama won the West and finished seventh in that department. Their totals were not far off from Georgia's. If one is looking to explain Georgia's disappointing 2008, kickoff coverage is not the place to start.
If you want a relevant stat to describe Georgia's issues in 2009, look at the 4.97 yards per play they allowed, which placed the Dawgs eighth in the conference. Alabama and Florida finished second and third in that category, behind a Tennessee team that was completely undone by its offense. Georgia was not very good at stopping opponents in 2008, hence the three losses. Looking for other explanations is interesting for off-season discussion, but we shouldn't pretend that Georgia finished behind Florida and Alabama in the SEC because Georgia opponents started drives after kickoffs on the 29, whereas Florida opponents started on the 27 and Alabama opponents started on the 28. That's a little like a Braves fan fixating on the team's bunting or stolen base percentage allowed as opposed to an outfield that cannot produce offensively.
Friday, May 29, 2009
BurritoBlogging Believes in a Healthy Chest
I suck at titling my posts, but I'm quite proud of the theme for my Friday night posts generally and this title in particular.
Signs your local NHL team is going out of business: a friend of mine at work and a buddy have had Thrashers tickets since the team's first season, and good tickets at that. They decided after last year not to renew because of the utter ineptitude of the team and ownership's complete lack of caring. After the buddy broke this news to his ticket rep, his ticket rep showed up at his office unannounced. With an autographed jersey. And Thrash. Yes, Thrash was waiting in the lobby of a major law firm to thank a season ticket holder for his years of ticket purchases. Doesn't that strike you as sweet, but utterly desperate? It's like you break up with a girl and she responds by coming over to cook Chateaubriand and give you the girl-on-girl fun you always wanted. It's like Chris Farley trying to keep dancing after losing the Chippendale's competition to Patrick Swayze. I heard that story and thought "this team is headed for Chapter 11." The Thrash cannot be making much from local TV and the NHL makes almost nothing from national TV deals. If the ticket base shrivels up, then the team either folds or Atlanta Spririt write a fat check. It's a shame because this would be a perfectly good hockey market if the league and the team weren't run by boobs.
Since I didn't have time this week to write about Bill Simmons column about NBA refs, I'll give you the short version: incoherent. Is the problem that there are too many fouls? That the refs are inconsistent? That they need to call the game according to the book? Each problem has a different, mutually exclusive solution. The only point that he made that made sense was that superstars hurtling at the basket with no intention other that getting a call is a bad thing, but this has been going on at least since Jordan. It cannot be a coincidence that the playoffs suddenly suck the round after the Celtics were eliminated.
Signs that having a rooting interest cures anything: I am excited about watching some of the Michigan-Florida softball game tonight. Fast-pitch can be fun to watch. There's something cool about a ball being thrown at 70 mph at extremely close range with the third baseman right on top of the play. As a soccer fan, I can appreciate a game in which scoring is very difficult.
In 2007, Barcelona struggled against quality opponents in part because Frank Rijkaard was not the same without his tactical ace, Henk Ten Cate. Manchester United fans, I submit that the same happened to you this year without Carlos Queiroz. The decline wasn't as sharp because Fergie refused to let his Ronnie ruin the chemistry, but it happened. Bad tactics always show up in games against top opponents, the ones that United couldn't out-talent.
I wish there were something to say about the Braves other than that we do not have an outfielder who can hit and no team can win with that dead weight. Francoeur raus!
After Kanu knocked my question about Euro/Champions League winners out of the park, I have a new query: do I have the only two years old in the US who can belt out el Can't del Barca? Both verses?
My friend Ben (the Ben of "Five Outlandish Predictions" fame) called the 800 number listed on Phil Steele's site to ask if he could get an advance copy of the Preview...and the Godfather himself answered! I would have peppered him with questions about the stats that he uses, but Ben (who has more gall than I ever will; he's a plaintiffs lawyer) just complimented Steele on his magazine and that was it. Steele's mag is a real milepost for me. I don't opine on teams until I've read it. I feel naked without Phil, even if he uses the wrong stats. Honestly, does anyone but his special teams numbers?
Friggin' Dylan is coming to town when I'm taking my summer beach trip. His last trip to Atlanta was on Yom Kippur. And NY&G, I know that I owe you a take on the new album. My initial thought is that it picks up steam, but I need to immerse to get the full flavor.
I feel like listening to "Actung Baby."
Visca el Barca!
Signs your local NHL team is going out of business: a friend of mine at work and a buddy have had Thrashers tickets since the team's first season, and good tickets at that. They decided after last year not to renew because of the utter ineptitude of the team and ownership's complete lack of caring. After the buddy broke this news to his ticket rep, his ticket rep showed up at his office unannounced. With an autographed jersey. And Thrash. Yes, Thrash was waiting in the lobby of a major law firm to thank a season ticket holder for his years of ticket purchases. Doesn't that strike you as sweet, but utterly desperate? It's like you break up with a girl and she responds by coming over to cook Chateaubriand and give you the girl-on-girl fun you always wanted. It's like Chris Farley trying to keep dancing after losing the Chippendale's competition to Patrick Swayze. I heard that story and thought "this team is headed for Chapter 11." The Thrash cannot be making much from local TV and the NHL makes almost nothing from national TV deals. If the ticket base shrivels up, then the team either folds or Atlanta Spririt write a fat check. It's a shame because this would be a perfectly good hockey market if the league and the team weren't run by boobs.
Since I didn't have time this week to write about Bill Simmons column about NBA refs, I'll give you the short version: incoherent. Is the problem that there are too many fouls? That the refs are inconsistent? That they need to call the game according to the book? Each problem has a different, mutually exclusive solution. The only point that he made that made sense was that superstars hurtling at the basket with no intention other that getting a call is a bad thing, but this has been going on at least since Jordan. It cannot be a coincidence that the playoffs suddenly suck the round after the Celtics were eliminated.
Signs that having a rooting interest cures anything: I am excited about watching some of the Michigan-Florida softball game tonight. Fast-pitch can be fun to watch. There's something cool about a ball being thrown at 70 mph at extremely close range with the third baseman right on top of the play. As a soccer fan, I can appreciate a game in which scoring is very difficult.
In 2007, Barcelona struggled against quality opponents in part because Frank Rijkaard was not the same without his tactical ace, Henk Ten Cate. Manchester United fans, I submit that the same happened to you this year without Carlos Queiroz. The decline wasn't as sharp because Fergie refused to let his Ronnie ruin the chemistry, but it happened. Bad tactics always show up in games against top opponents, the ones that United couldn't out-talent.
I wish there were something to say about the Braves other than that we do not have an outfielder who can hit and no team can win with that dead weight. Francoeur raus!
After Kanu knocked my question about Euro/Champions League winners out of the park, I have a new query: do I have the only two years old in the US who can belt out el Can't del Barca? Both verses?
My friend Ben (the Ben of "Five Outlandish Predictions" fame) called the 800 number listed on Phil Steele's site to ask if he could get an advance copy of the Preview...and the Godfather himself answered! I would have peppered him with questions about the stats that he uses, but Ben (who has more gall than I ever will; he's a plaintiffs lawyer) just complimented Steele on his magazine and that was it. Steele's mag is a real milepost for me. I don't opine on teams until I've read it. I feel naked without Phil, even if he uses the wrong stats. Honestly, does anyone but his special teams numbers?
Friggin' Dylan is coming to town when I'm taking my summer beach trip. His last trip to Atlanta was on Yom Kippur. And NY&G, I know that I owe you a take on the new album. My initial thought is that it picks up steam, but I need to immerse to get the full flavor.
I feel like listening to "Actung Baby."
Visca el Barca!
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Three of Three
If you asked me before the game to draw up the perfect game for Barcelona, how would it have gone? I would have asked for an early goal to calm everyone's nerves. I would have asked for Eto'o to strike as a reward for turning his attitude 180 degrees and being the embodiment of the difference between last year's team and this. I would have asked for Leo Messi to score to cement the Ballon D'Or. I would have asked for Xavi and Iniesta to boss the midfield as an advertisement for the way Barca teach players to play at La Masia. I would have asked for Puyol to make Ronaldo his bitch, reducing Ronaldo to his arsenal of pouty faces. I would have asked for Paul Scholes to embarrass himself as punishment for knocking Barca out of the Champions League in 2008. I would have asked for Manchester United to wear white uniforms so they look like Real Madrid when getting beaten. I would ask for the final minutes of the game to play out with Barca stroking the ball around, as if to say dismissively "We don't need to score anymore. You've had enough."
In other words, I would have asked for exactly what happened on May 27, 2009 in Rome.
So how did this happen? How did a team that was unbeaten in 25 straight Champions League games get undressed? I'm glad you asked:
1. Whether he wanted to prove a point after last year's semifinal or he was suckered in by a makeshift back four, Sir Alex decided to attack from the start. This was a mistake because it gave Barca's front five oxygen. United played well at the start, but they were creating space for Barca. Look at what happened on the first goal. Iniesta played a one-two at the center circle and suddenly had lots of space to attack. He never had that space against Chelsea or United last year. He freed Eto'o in the box and Samuel made no mistake. Where's the left back Evra when Eto'o cuts in from the right? Where is Anderson covering Iniesta when Carrick goes towards Messi at the start of the play? The amount of space forced United's players into decisions and they often made the wrong choices.
2. United decided to use the new Happy Fun Ball by shooting a lot from distance. This played into Barca's hands as Valdes is a good shot-stopper and United didn't test the Barca backline with crosses. Ronaldo was the worst "shoot from anywhere!" offender. As great as he is, he can be the Iverson of football: a volume shooter who does not involve his teammates. That's fine when he's scoring, but I don't see him as being the right guy for a very talented United frontline. (Then again, United's midfield is not full of creative types, so an individualist makes some sense.) This is the best argument in the Messi-Ronaldo debate: look at the assists.
3. United played the wrong formation. If Barca's weak link was left back, then why play Park, an offensive non-threat, at right forward? Rooney was positioned opposite Puyol, Barca's best defender. In the second half, Ronaldo was opposite Puyol and had no success.
4. Xavi and Iniesta were the men of the match. They assisted on the two goals and dominated United in midfield. Giggs and Anderson are not in their class and Carrick had an off night. I felt bad for Rooney. His midfield was getting bossed and his striker was hogging the ball every time it came forward. He was totally absent and it wasn't his fault.
5. For all of Barca's struggles against English teams, they haven't played with the lead in the last two years. Once Eto'o struck, Barca's possession game came into play and they dominated. Despite a possibly suspect defense, Barca are the perfect team to play with a lead (or in a road first leg) because of their passing style. United had to open themselves up further and play into Barca's hands. (Looking back four years, this is why Arsenal fans were insane to retrospectively want to concede a goal instead of a red card in the '06 Final.)
6. United were not as good as we thought. The Arsenal win over-inflated their value and obscured the fact that they were not very good against top teams this year.
7. Barca were better than we thought. They struggled against Chelsea, but great defensive teams can make great offensive teams look bad (and Barca had the game at Real in between the Chelsea match, so they couldn't be 100% invested). Once Barca's players had two weeks off after the Copa del Rey Final, they were able to recharge and show their best form.
Bullet-point thoughts:
- If you want two unlikely means of goals for this Barcelona team, then you wouldn't do much worse than Eto'o cutting in from the right (a role in which he was woeful in the second leg against Chelsea and even the chorreo at the Bernabeu) and Messi scoring with his head.
- I feel like a damned fool on a night like this coming up with a negative, but there is one. If you were a manager looking to beat Barcelona in 2009-10, what approach would you take? Would you take Manchester United's approach of trying to attack the Blaugrana and thus create space in the midfield for Xavi and Iniesta or would you take the Chelsea approach of packing ten behind the ball and being as physical as possible? Which approach pushed Barca to the brink of elimination and which leaves them astride the football world as a colossus?
- One other sad thought: I couldn't help but think as the final minutes ticked away about what Ronaldinho was doing watching the match. He could have been on the left side of the trident, receiving pass after pass from the dominant midfield. Instead, he let himself become a shadow of the World Player of the Year. That was three short years ago. Imagine the regret he must feel now as he rides the pine for an average Milan side.
- So what does Barca look to buy in the offseason? How do you improve upon this team? I need to give this some thought, but the only answer I can come up with right now is that they need more depth, especially in the midfield.
- After the Chelsea matches, it was nice to watch a match that was played with few fouls and cards and little controversy. The game flowed very well.
- Though we will all choose to forget it, it sure seems like a long time ago that Joan Laporta was barely surviving a no-confidence vote and then the fans were waving white hankies in protest when Barca took one point from the first two games of the season.
- Does anyone know off the top of their heads the list of players who have been reigning European Champions on both a club and a national team level like Puyol, Xavi, and Iniesta are now?
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
It's Time
Five keys for the game tomorrow:
1. Andres Iniesta's Gait - If he doesn't play or plays at less than full speed, then this Barca team is vulnerable. The slump in February occurred when Iniesta was injured. If he gets to play alongside Xavi in the midfield, then Barca can dominate possession and pin United back, thus reducing the pressure on the suspect back line.
2. Alex Ferguson's Hubris - I've said it before, but I'll repeat myself: Barca's best chance as the underdogs in this match is for the greatest manager of our generation (with the possible exception of Capello) to imitate Icarus and try to fly too close to the sun. If he plays his normal, cagey style and relies on counters, then United should be successful. If he tries to make amends for being defensive in 2008 by taking an expansive approach, then Barca could get going like they did in the home first halves against Lyon and Bayern, two of the most dominating displays you'll ever see. Ferguson's most interesting tactical dilemma is that he would normally use Ji Sung Park against a team like Barca to provide defensive oomph from the front line. However, if he sticks Park on the right side of attack, then he's deploying his weakest attacker against Barca's weakest link: the 34-year old second choice left back. Then again, if he doesn't play Park on the right and Henry and Iniesta are healthy, then John O'Shea could have a really tough time defending against Barca's left.
3. Cristiano Ronaldo's Shooting - Barca's defenders are not the most confident bunch, so they'll be wary of letting Ronaldo go past them. That might give Ronaldo the space to put home a rocket, a la Porto and Arsenal. Ronaldo has shaken the choker label, but he can pile further dirt on that myth with a 30-meter screamer tomorrow.
4. Pep's Countermeasures - The Blaugrana struggle against EPL sides that defend in depth because Barca's short passing game gets choked off and they lack the shooting from distance or crossing threats to overcome a massed defense. Dani Alves was the most useful addition to this year's team because of his ability to cross (ask Chelsea), but he'll be watching from the stands. Carles Puyol is a surprisingly adept offensive threat at right back, but he's no Alves. If Barca have a hard time breaking through United's ranks, what do they do as a Plan B?
5. Eto'o's Form - Samuel has been going through a real crisis over the past several weeks. Guardiola kept playing him in the last two meaningless matches after La Liga was sewn up, but Eto'o keeps misfiring. An ineffective striker can make all of Barca's nice creation and passing useless. On the other hand, Eto'o can rise to the occasion (ask Arsenal), so a performance against the run of play could be the difference tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
