Friday, June 03, 2005
Channeling another Michael...
Dan Doodie, you're nothing to me now. You're not a closer, you're not a friend. I don't want to know you or what you do. I don't want to see you at the Ted, I don't want you on the road. When you are going to pitch, I want to know a day in advance, so I won't be there. You understand?
The Latest Hawks Draft Rumor
From Chad Ford:
"Atlanta Hawks: GM Billy Knight needs a lot of help and is in a difficult position. If the Bucks select Marvin Williams, Bogut falls into their laps and the pick becomes much more valuable. However, if the Bucks take Bogut at No. 1, keeping the pick doesn't make much sense. The next best player on the board, Williams, doesn't fit a need, and there seems to be a strong sentiment coming out of Atlanta right now that the Hawks prefer Deron Williams to Paul.
"If that's true, the Hawks could make a deal with the Bobcats, Hornets or possibly the Jazz, and still get the guy they want plus either another first-rounder or an established young player. The Hawks probably won't pull the trigger until they have a better idea what the Bucks are going to do."
Personally, I'd be thrilled if the Hawks got Deron Williams and the #13 pick from Charlotte. I like Williams' game a lot and he's a terrific defensive player, which is always underrated in the NBA Draft. The key to a trade-down with Charlotte strategy is that he has to be available at the #5 pick, which means that some team is going to have to take Gerald Green in the top four.
"Atlanta Hawks: GM Billy Knight needs a lot of help and is in a difficult position. If the Bucks select Marvin Williams, Bogut falls into their laps and the pick becomes much more valuable. However, if the Bucks take Bogut at No. 1, keeping the pick doesn't make much sense. The next best player on the board, Williams, doesn't fit a need, and there seems to be a strong sentiment coming out of Atlanta right now that the Hawks prefer Deron Williams to Paul.
"If that's true, the Hawks could make a deal with the Bobcats, Hornets or possibly the Jazz, and still get the guy they want plus either another first-rounder or an established young player. The Hawks probably won't pull the trigger until they have a better idea what the Bucks are going to do."
Personally, I'd be thrilled if the Hawks got Deron Williams and the #13 pick from Charlotte. I like Williams' game a lot and he's a terrific defensive player, which is always underrated in the NBA Draft. The key to a trade-down with Charlotte strategy is that he has to be available at the #5 pick, which means that some team is going to have to take Gerald Green in the top four.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Interesting page on overrated/underrated college football teams
Since I'm obsessed with the factors that cause teams to be overrated, here's a great compilation of which teams have over or underperformed since 1989. A few thoughts:
1. A ranking like this will necessarily look bad for teams that are perennially in the pre-season top ten because those teams have nowhere to go but down. That said, it can be interesting to compare major powers. For instance, Georgia is near the top of the list, while Florida is near the bottom. And speaking of the Gators, they have finished below their pre-season ranking every year since 1996. That's understandable for the Zook era, but it also reflects that Florida was slightly underachieving over the second half of Spurrier's tenure. Then again, Florida plays the most consistently brutal schedules in the country and the polls are notorious for failing to take this into account. They tend to use schedule strength only when breaking ties between teams of similar records; it's inconceivable to pollsters that a two-loss team could be better than an unbeaten team.
2. Notre Dame is the most overrated team in the country by a wide margin. That won't be the case this year with a new coach, but as soon as they start doing well, it will be fun to watch the world overreact to their success. Compare them to another fallen power, Alabama, which has performed up to its pre-season rankings over the past 15 years.
3. My goodness, Clemson has overperformed their pre-season ranking exactly once in the past 15 years. In other words, there's no difference between them and the rest of the ACC (save for the Florida schools and Virginia Tech,) but they are still viewed as a potential power because they have a big stadium and they were very good in the 80s when a lot of us were forming our opinions about college football.
4. 2003 was the only time in Tommy Tuberville's six years at Auburn that his team underperformed its preseason ranking. Maybe I've underrated him a little. That said, I have a hard time thinking that Auburn will live up to its ranking this year. Pollsters are going to feel obligated to slot them around 15, but they replace all of their stars from last year.
5. Iowa has out-performed their pre-season ranking by 11, 18, and 18 spots over the past three years, but I suspect that the pollsters will not let them do so this year when they rank the Hawkeyes in the top five pre-season. In any event, Iowa's performance over the past three years shows that they go a great job of replacing losses, since they've always been replacing a quarterback or an offensive line or a defense and they still do very well.
1. A ranking like this will necessarily look bad for teams that are perennially in the pre-season top ten because those teams have nowhere to go but down. That said, it can be interesting to compare major powers. For instance, Georgia is near the top of the list, while Florida is near the bottom. And speaking of the Gators, they have finished below their pre-season ranking every year since 1996. That's understandable for the Zook era, but it also reflects that Florida was slightly underachieving over the second half of Spurrier's tenure. Then again, Florida plays the most consistently brutal schedules in the country and the polls are notorious for failing to take this into account. They tend to use schedule strength only when breaking ties between teams of similar records; it's inconceivable to pollsters that a two-loss team could be better than an unbeaten team.
2. Notre Dame is the most overrated team in the country by a wide margin. That won't be the case this year with a new coach, but as soon as they start doing well, it will be fun to watch the world overreact to their success. Compare them to another fallen power, Alabama, which has performed up to its pre-season rankings over the past 15 years.
3. My goodness, Clemson has overperformed their pre-season ranking exactly once in the past 15 years. In other words, there's no difference between them and the rest of the ACC (save for the Florida schools and Virginia Tech,) but they are still viewed as a potential power because they have a big stadium and they were very good in the 80s when a lot of us were forming our opinions about college football.
4. 2003 was the only time in Tommy Tuberville's six years at Auburn that his team underperformed its preseason ranking. Maybe I've underrated him a little. That said, I have a hard time thinking that Auburn will live up to its ranking this year. Pollsters are going to feel obligated to slot them around 15, but they replace all of their stars from last year.
5. Iowa has out-performed their pre-season ranking by 11, 18, and 18 spots over the past three years, but I suspect that the pollsters will not let them do so this year when they rank the Hawkeyes in the top five pre-season. In any event, Iowa's performance over the past three years shows that they go a great job of replacing losses, since they've always been replacing a quarterback or an offensive line or a defense and they still do very well.
Ever wonder why the 49ers have gone downhill?
This article might go a long way to explaining (or at least illustrating) an organization that can't tie its own shoelaces at this stage. In short, the 49ers' HR department are a collection of bumbling idiots who put together a training video to instruct their players on living in San Francisco and in so doing, they managed to offend the two most prominent minority groups in the city: gays and Asian-Americans. G-d help them if they ever get sued for harassment or discrimination in the near future. A centerpiece of any employment suit is usually an attack on the HR department for failing to investigate properly and no jury or judge is going to take the 49ers' defense seriously when it involved an HR manager who thought that topless lesbians and bad jokes about George Bush's "erection" were a great way to train his employees. And pissing off the mayor? What a lovely added touch.
On a related note, if anyone sees this video on Ebay, let me know. My interest is purely professional.
On a related note, if anyone sees this video on Ebay, let me know. My interest is purely professional.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Quickies
1. Would it be too much to ask for the geniuses who run RFK Stadium to paint the entirety of the foul pole?
2. What's galling about the decision yesterday to rule Brian Jordan's home run foul is not just that the call was initially made correctly, but rather that it was made initially by the third base ump, who had the best view of the play. Once he has made the initial call, there's no way that anyone else had a better look or was more sure that he was right. In the end, the call came down to 1) the umps liking Frank Robinson more, 2) the umps not wanting to anger the crowd or 3) Ed Montague being the alpha male in the group. Who knows. Anyway, with Brian Jordan struggling to show any power, this was especially upsetting. (Is it a coincidence, by the way, that he played one of his better games of the year after Raul Mondesi, who has similar stats to Jordan, was released?)
3. Who didn't know that Roman Colon was going to concede a run once he came into the game?
4. The controversy over the home run obscures the fact that the team didn't hit the ball for shit against a mediocre starting pitcher. The team didn't have an extra-base hit until Andruw's homer with two outs in the 9th. When you get out-hit 9-4, you probably don't deserve to win. Not only did the Nationals out-hit the Braves, but they had more close calls, namely Jose Guillen's two drives that would have been out of a lot of stadia.
5. John Foster is up to nine innings without allowing a run. (Jinx?)
2. What's galling about the decision yesterday to rule Brian Jordan's home run foul is not just that the call was initially made correctly, but rather that it was made initially by the third base ump, who had the best view of the play. Once he has made the initial call, there's no way that anyone else had a better look or was more sure that he was right. In the end, the call came down to 1) the umps liking Frank Robinson more, 2) the umps not wanting to anger the crowd or 3) Ed Montague being the alpha male in the group. Who knows. Anyway, with Brian Jordan struggling to show any power, this was especially upsetting. (Is it a coincidence, by the way, that he played one of his better games of the year after Raul Mondesi, who has similar stats to Jordan, was released?)
3. Who didn't know that Roman Colon was going to concede a run once he came into the game?
4. The controversy over the home run obscures the fact that the team didn't hit the ball for shit against a mediocre starting pitcher. The team didn't have an extra-base hit until Andruw's homer with two outs in the 9th. When you get out-hit 9-4, you probably don't deserve to win. Not only did the Nationals out-hit the Braves, but they had more close calls, namely Jose Guillen's two drives that would have been out of a lot of stadia.
5. John Foster is up to nine innings without allowing a run. (Jinx?)
Monday, May 30, 2005
Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr-aul
In an effort to spur him through his dreadful start to the season, I tried a new tactic on behalf of Raul Mondesi on Wednesday night when he pinch-hit in the 8th inning against Roberto Hernandez. During the wind-up, I rolled an "R" on my tongue and then unleashed "ah-ool!" during the delivery. Sadly, this tactic didn't work and Raul struck out, although the eight-year olds in front of us found iot terribly amusing and my wife rolled her eyes, so two important tasks were achieved. Anyway, that was pretty much it for Raul, as he went 0-3 on Friday night, sat out Saturday, and was given his walking papers (with a two-day delayed fuse) on Sunday.
This move was inevitable for the Braves. Mondesi was simply not hitting and his arm, while still strong, was somewhat erratic. He's ranked dead-last in Baseball Prospectus' rankings of right fielders. In the end, it wasn't Raul's rumored bad attitude that doomed him. The Braves all spoke highly of him, especially regarding his work ethic. He genuinely realized that this was his last chance and he worked very hard during spring training to get his swing back. Unfortunately, he never healed from his torn quadricep last year and he doesn't have the leg strength needed to hit the ball. I was going to write a post about whether the Braves should cut Mondesi or Jordan to make room for Kelly Johnson, but you'll have to take my word for it that I thought that Mondesi was the guy to go. He's not as versatile in the outfield and he's not as good a role model for Langerhans and Johnson as Jordan is. That said, Jordan shouldn't feel too comfortable, since he has virtually no power any more. If you don't believe me, go to a game and watch where the opposing outfielders play him.
I'm excited about getting to watch Kelly Johnson play. His .438 OBP at Richmond was tittilating and he showed that plate discipline yesterday, drawing one walk and generally working the count. He hit two line drives to the outfield, which was far more encouraging than his RBI groundout. He also made two very good plays in the outfield. Hopefully, he'll have the same impact that Charles Thomas had last year, although Johnson is a bigger prospect and his good hitting would have less of a feeling of flukishness to it. (By the way, poor Charles is hitting .098 for Oakland. A's fans have to be cursing the Braves right now, since Thomas has been useless, Juan Cruz has a 7.20 ERA, and Dan Meyer is on the DL after pitching very poorly in AAA. I like Billy Beane, but wow are the early returns on the Hudson deal bad for the A's.)
Other thoughts from the weekend:
1. The Braves' struggles against the last place team in their division are, in part, a reflection of how deep the division is. Right now, the Phillies are 24-27. The other five last place teams are 19-32 (Tampa), 13-37 (Kansas City), 17-32 (Oakland), 18-31 (Houston), and 14-34 (Colorado). None of those teams have a 3-4-5 combo like Abreu (who is the most underrated player in baseball), Thome, and Burrell, nor do they have an ace like Brett Myers or a closer like Billy Wagner. Although the Braves and Marlins are two of the four best teams in the NL (they're #1 and #4 in baseball in fewest runs allowed), it will be hard for either of them to win the wild card, given that they don't get 18-19 gimme games like the teams in every other division do.
1a. To summarize the last point, WAAAAAAHHHHH!!!
2. Horacio looked dreadful on Saturday. He's never been much of a strikeout pitcher and his recent struggles could be confirmation of the "three true outcomes" philosophy, namely that if you aren't strong in getting strikeouts and preventing walks and homers, then you'll inevitably have problems. All of those batted balls were finding holes on Saturday and as a result, Ramirez allowed 11 of 21 batters faced to reach base. There were no big hits; it was just death by singles and occasional doubles. The bullpen looked sharp until the 9th, when Bernero was left in too long and he couldn't throw a strike. For the first time this season, I was asking for more Dan Kolb. He had a strong 7th, retiring the Phillies on nine pitches and should have gotten a crack at the 8th, as well. Unfortunately, the Phillies bullpen was even better, going four innings and allowing no runs on two hits in cleaning up for a shaky John Lieber.
3. The Braves didn't draw a single walk on Saturday. The most egregious instance of swinging too much was that of Andruw Jones (big shocker) in the 5th. With one run in, runners on the corners, and no one out in a 7-4 game, he got ahead of Lieber 2-0 and then promptly swung and missed, then grounded into a double play. Threat over. If he's going to swing in that situation, he needs to make sure he's swinging at a strike and is going to do something with it.
3. Yesterday's win was another instance of the Braves beating a very good starter. How they can touch up Brett Myers, but can't hit Victor Zambrano is beyond me.
This move was inevitable for the Braves. Mondesi was simply not hitting and his arm, while still strong, was somewhat erratic. He's ranked dead-last in Baseball Prospectus' rankings of right fielders. In the end, it wasn't Raul's rumored bad attitude that doomed him. The Braves all spoke highly of him, especially regarding his work ethic. He genuinely realized that this was his last chance and he worked very hard during spring training to get his swing back. Unfortunately, he never healed from his torn quadricep last year and he doesn't have the leg strength needed to hit the ball. I was going to write a post about whether the Braves should cut Mondesi or Jordan to make room for Kelly Johnson, but you'll have to take my word for it that I thought that Mondesi was the guy to go. He's not as versatile in the outfield and he's not as good a role model for Langerhans and Johnson as Jordan is. That said, Jordan shouldn't feel too comfortable, since he has virtually no power any more. If you don't believe me, go to a game and watch where the opposing outfielders play him.
I'm excited about getting to watch Kelly Johnson play. His .438 OBP at Richmond was tittilating and he showed that plate discipline yesterday, drawing one walk and generally working the count. He hit two line drives to the outfield, which was far more encouraging than his RBI groundout. He also made two very good plays in the outfield. Hopefully, he'll have the same impact that Charles Thomas had last year, although Johnson is a bigger prospect and his good hitting would have less of a feeling of flukishness to it. (By the way, poor Charles is hitting .098 for Oakland. A's fans have to be cursing the Braves right now, since Thomas has been useless, Juan Cruz has a 7.20 ERA, and Dan Meyer is on the DL after pitching very poorly in AAA. I like Billy Beane, but wow are the early returns on the Hudson deal bad for the A's.)
Other thoughts from the weekend:
1. The Braves' struggles against the last place team in their division are, in part, a reflection of how deep the division is. Right now, the Phillies are 24-27. The other five last place teams are 19-32 (Tampa), 13-37 (Kansas City), 17-32 (Oakland), 18-31 (Houston), and 14-34 (Colorado). None of those teams have a 3-4-5 combo like Abreu (who is the most underrated player in baseball), Thome, and Burrell, nor do they have an ace like Brett Myers or a closer like Billy Wagner. Although the Braves and Marlins are two of the four best teams in the NL (they're #1 and #4 in baseball in fewest runs allowed), it will be hard for either of them to win the wild card, given that they don't get 18-19 gimme games like the teams in every other division do.
1a. To summarize the last point, WAAAAAAHHHHH!!!
2. Horacio looked dreadful on Saturday. He's never been much of a strikeout pitcher and his recent struggles could be confirmation of the "three true outcomes" philosophy, namely that if you aren't strong in getting strikeouts and preventing walks and homers, then you'll inevitably have problems. All of those batted balls were finding holes on Saturday and as a result, Ramirez allowed 11 of 21 batters faced to reach base. There were no big hits; it was just death by singles and occasional doubles. The bullpen looked sharp until the 9th, when Bernero was left in too long and he couldn't throw a strike. For the first time this season, I was asking for more Dan Kolb. He had a strong 7th, retiring the Phillies on nine pitches and should have gotten a crack at the 8th, as well. Unfortunately, the Phillies bullpen was even better, going four innings and allowing no runs on two hits in cleaning up for a shaky John Lieber.
3. The Braves didn't draw a single walk on Saturday. The most egregious instance of swinging too much was that of Andruw Jones (big shocker) in the 5th. With one run in, runners on the corners, and no one out in a 7-4 game, he got ahead of Lieber 2-0 and then promptly swung and missed, then grounded into a double play. Threat over. If he's going to swing in that situation, he needs to make sure he's swinging at a strike and is going to do something with it.
3. Yesterday's win was another instance of the Braves beating a very good starter. How they can touch up Brett Myers, but can't hit Victor Zambrano is beyond me.
Friday, May 27, 2005
Please, G-d, let this be the answer
From this morning's AJC:
"Kolb and Mazzone cite progress Kolb has made in the past 10 days. Kolb said Mazzone noticed something Wednesday in the bullpen they believe contributed to his erratic pitch location — swinging his front foot instead of stepping straight down in his delivery."
"'Now it’s just trying to repeat it,' said Kolb, who is also paying heed to a suggestion to use his changeup more. 'I’m going to fight, not give up. I’m going to try to get my job back, get things turned around by the All-Star break and have a great second half.'"
I promise, I'll take it all back if you start throwing competently. I'll call you "Dan Dynamo" instead of "Dan Doodie." I'll sing along whole-heartedly when you prance in to "Enter Sandman." I'll proclaim that four-letter last names are the bomb. (Right now, I feel like Stifler pleading with the two faux lesbians at the end of American Pie 2 - "I'll kiss anyone in here! Dudes, chicks, anything!")
"Kolb and Mazzone cite progress Kolb has made in the past 10 days. Kolb said Mazzone noticed something Wednesday in the bullpen they believe contributed to his erratic pitch location — swinging his front foot instead of stepping straight down in his delivery."
"'Now it’s just trying to repeat it,' said Kolb, who is also paying heed to a suggestion to use his changeup more. 'I’m going to fight, not give up. I’m going to try to get my job back, get things turned around by the All-Star break and have a great second half.'"
I promise, I'll take it all back if you start throwing competently. I'll call you "Dan Dynamo" instead of "Dan Doodie." I'll sing along whole-heartedly when you prance in to "Enter Sandman." I'll proclaim that four-letter last names are the bomb. (Right now, I feel like Stifler pleading with the two faux lesbians at the end of American Pie 2 - "I'll kiss anyone in here! Dudes, chicks, anything!")
This is not encouraging
"Boy, I'll tell you, we could be looking at some real delays!" - Federal Aviation Administration Administrator Marion Blakey
Given that the normal posture of the FAA is to reassure the public that "everything is well," a la Kevin Bacon in Animal House, I think the message for those of us traveling this summer is "grab your ankles." Time to fuel up Guderian (my car, named after the German general/tank genius from WWII) for the summer, although I have a trip to Vegas on tap for early July and I don't think that driving is a great option, although it would allow me to sample the delights of Texas Barbecue. Incidentally, that article gave me an insatiable desire for barbecue. Fat Matt's for lunch, it must be. (I saw Revenge of the Sith last night and now speaking like Yoda, I am. Oldest joke in the galaxy, this must be.)
Given that the normal posture of the FAA is to reassure the public that "everything is well," a la Kevin Bacon in Animal House, I think the message for those of us traveling this summer is "grab your ankles." Time to fuel up Guderian (my car, named after the German general/tank genius from WWII) for the summer, although I have a trip to Vegas on tap for early July and I don't think that driving is a great option, although it would allow me to sample the delights of Texas Barbecue. Incidentally, that article gave me an insatiable desire for barbecue. Fat Matt's for lunch, it must be. (I saw Revenge of the Sith last night and now speaking like Yoda, I am. Oldest joke in the galaxy, this must be.)
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Terence Moore: Genius
I was originally going to title this Post "Terence Moore: Total Idiot", but upon reflection, the guy had written a piece so ineptly argued and full of ludicrous generalizations, that he must be some sort of evil genius. He's got everybody talking. Hell, I'm giving him free advertising right now by discussing his idiotic piece. Anyway, here are his arguments for why Atlanta should not get the 2009 Super Bowl:
1. "Speaking of which, James Wilson is finishing his 23rd year as a senior meteorologist at the Weather Channel, and he told me Wednesday from its national headquarters in Marietta that ice storms occur in this region 'about once every three to five years.'
"Between pauses, while checking various charts and graphs, Wilson added, 'We're due for the next one around 2009. When was Atlanta trying to get another Super Bowl?'"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but ice storms are not cyclical and even if they arrive, they can come at any point in a three-month period, which means that the odds of an ice storm on Super Bowl weekend 2009 are still minute. And given that the NFL has given Super Bowls to Detroit and New York in recent history, Atlanta does not have to apologize weather-wise. Yes, Tampa's weather is marginally better, but Tampa also lacks a hub airport, a public transport system, and Atlanta's capability to host lost of visitors.
2. "It's just that, when we're talking about bringing Super Bowls to Atlanta, we're talking about doing so for an over-stuffed city, with its vehicle-clogged streets and its strikingly provincial attitude."
Over-stuffed? Try overly spread out. And yes, there's a traffic problem here, but you list Southern California on your preferred list of Super Bowl locales. Ever drive the 405 at rush hour?
And the provincial remark? I know you're just trying to get everyone's goat, but you're from the highly-segregated upper Midwest and you're lecturing people here on being provincial? By the way, the term means "limited in perspective," which describes your columns nicely.
3. Yes, the '96 Olympics presented logistical problems, but the main criticism of those Olympics elsewhere was that they were too commercial. Atlanta/Georgia made the decision to finance the Games primarily through sponsorship, rather than taking on massive governmental debt. I'm quite happy with that decision. And don't even bother comparing the NBA All-Star Game, unless you think that Super Bowl week is going to bring a bevy of visitors whose objective is simply to cruise. Nothing like that happened at the previous Atlanta Super Bowls. And how exactly is Tampa supposed to be better, with their non-existent public transport system?
Terence, go back to arguing that the Braves don't want competitive players because they got rid of Brian Jordan. Thanks for reminding me why I rarely read your swill.
1. "Speaking of which, James Wilson is finishing his 23rd year as a senior meteorologist at the Weather Channel, and he told me Wednesday from its national headquarters in Marietta that ice storms occur in this region 'about once every three to five years.'
"Between pauses, while checking various charts and graphs, Wilson added, 'We're due for the next one around 2009. When was Atlanta trying to get another Super Bowl?'"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but ice storms are not cyclical and even if they arrive, they can come at any point in a three-month period, which means that the odds of an ice storm on Super Bowl weekend 2009 are still minute. And given that the NFL has given Super Bowls to Detroit and New York in recent history, Atlanta does not have to apologize weather-wise. Yes, Tampa's weather is marginally better, but Tampa also lacks a hub airport, a public transport system, and Atlanta's capability to host lost of visitors.
2. "It's just that, when we're talking about bringing Super Bowls to Atlanta, we're talking about doing so for an over-stuffed city, with its vehicle-clogged streets and its strikingly provincial attitude."
Over-stuffed? Try overly spread out. And yes, there's a traffic problem here, but you list Southern California on your preferred list of Super Bowl locales. Ever drive the 405 at rush hour?
And the provincial remark? I know you're just trying to get everyone's goat, but you're from the highly-segregated upper Midwest and you're lecturing people here on being provincial? By the way, the term means "limited in perspective," which describes your columns nicely.
3. Yes, the '96 Olympics presented logistical problems, but the main criticism of those Olympics elsewhere was that they were too commercial. Atlanta/Georgia made the decision to finance the Games primarily through sponsorship, rather than taking on massive governmental debt. I'm quite happy with that decision. And don't even bother comparing the NBA All-Star Game, unless you think that Super Bowl week is going to bring a bevy of visitors whose objective is simply to cruise. Nothing like that happened at the previous Atlanta Super Bowls. And how exactly is Tampa supposed to be better, with their non-existent public transport system?
Terence, go back to arguing that the Braves don't want competitive players because they got rid of Brian Jordan. Thanks for reminding me why I rarely read your swill.
Hiram Kyle Davies is Invincible!
Ten and one-third innings pitched, no earned runs allowed. Not a bad start to young Kyle Davies' career. Davies doesn't have dominating velocity or movement, but he throws in the low 90s and his location is very good. Mark Lemke was also talking on the post-game show about how Davies' delivery is deceptive and that makes his fastball appear faster. He also has a very good change-up, which also makes the fastball tougher. I can't imagine that he won't be touched up at some point in the next few weeks now that major league teams have film on him, but he's provided the Braves with two good starts in spots that they've really needed them. The sad thought behind all the excitement is that he might just be pitching his way into being the centerpiece of a trade for a quality outfield bat (or a shortstop during next off-season if Furcal flies the coop.)
Other thoughts on the game:
1. Wifey and I sat close to first base and there was an obnoxious Red Sox fan a few seats down who was riding Doug Mientkiewicz mercilessly for the entire game for keeping the World Series ball. Aside from the fact that the heckler probably wouldn't just give up a six-figure asset if he ever had one, the vitriolic reaction from the fan annoyed me. You would think that Sox fans would be so happy to have won the Series for the first time in 86 years that everyone from that team would be untouchable for the rest of time. You'd think the fans would be happy, but no. If this loudmouth is representative of Red Sox Nation, then the Nation are a group of people who thrive off of their own unhappiness. They don't know how to handle success, so they try to find villains from the team that broke their 86-year duck. Nice.
2. Jose Reyes, one of the fastest players in baseball, hit into two double plays last night. I'm no Elias Sports Bureau, but I bet that he doesn't do that again in his career, since he had only grounded into 5 in over 700 plate appearances prior to last night. Reyes would drive me crazy if I were a Mets fan because he has neither power, nor plate discipline. Pitchers can throw him anything and know that he'll swing if the ball is close, rather than forcing the pitcher to pitch from behind. Reyes' defense is also spotty. He made an error on Monday night that allowed an insurance run to score and last night, he failed to make a play on a Langerhans liner in the Braves' three-run 5th. Speaking of balls going off of gloves...
3. As further evidence of my "Andruw is held to excessive standards" idea, a guy sat down next to me last night because he noticed that I was keeping score and wanted to know how many strikeouts Davies had. He then said that he thought that Mike Cameron's triple that chased Davies should have been an error on Andruw because he got the heel of his glove on the ball, never mind that Andruw was diving at full extension in the right-center field gap at the time.
4. Things that annoy my wife: the drop-down Cingular logos that denote strikeouts for Braves pitchers weren't working last night. Things that amuse my wife: children making farting noises with their hands.
5. Continuing with the "Mike Piazza is done" theme: the Braves stole on him at will last night. His throws have poor velocity and most of them skip in front of second base. When Furcal got on in the 5th, I told Wifey that he would be going on the first pitch because he knew that he didn't need a good jump to steal on Piazza. For once, I was right. The Mets operate from a disadvantage when any single by a semi-fast batter becomes a double or triple because of their catcher.
6. Chris Reitsma looked great last night. He completely dominated the Mets' hitters for two innings, or at least he did after Chipper made a nice play to turn a Miguel Cairo liner into the first out in the 8th. One defensive play can be the difference between a long, painful inning and a quickie. Victor Zambrano knows that this morning, as his throwing error was essentially the deciding factor in a close game. Back to Reitsma, I was concerned by the decision to leave him in to pitch a second inning, but he made it through two innings only throwing 18 pitches.
7. David Wright is the Mets' best hitter. Given that, why is he hitting 7th? Wouldn't the Mets have benefited from having him at the plate in the key situations that Piazza blew over the past two nights? Willie Randolph needs to get past Piazza's reputation and put together an order that can score some runs. If he could do so this weekend against the Marlins, that would be great.
8. John Foster, like Davies, requires some bullpen help to remain perfect on the season, but it bears mentioning that he hasn't allowed a run in seven and two-thirds innings this year.
9. Not to be a curmudgeon, but the offense produced only one earned run and one double last night. Marcus Giles had half of the team's six hits, but his only unsuccessful at-bat was a strikeout with Furcal on 3rd and one out in the 5th. Andruw and Estrada were both hitless, although they both lined balls right at outfielders. Mondesi looked completely overmatched when he pinch-hit in the 8th against Roberto Hernandez.
10. Pete Orr in left was an interesting experiment and I approve of getting him more at-bats, but there is a definite defensive trade-off there because he doesn't have good instincts in the outfield.
Other thoughts on the game:
1. Wifey and I sat close to first base and there was an obnoxious Red Sox fan a few seats down who was riding Doug Mientkiewicz mercilessly for the entire game for keeping the World Series ball. Aside from the fact that the heckler probably wouldn't just give up a six-figure asset if he ever had one, the vitriolic reaction from the fan annoyed me. You would think that Sox fans would be so happy to have won the Series for the first time in 86 years that everyone from that team would be untouchable for the rest of time. You'd think the fans would be happy, but no. If this loudmouth is representative of Red Sox Nation, then the Nation are a group of people who thrive off of their own unhappiness. They don't know how to handle success, so they try to find villains from the team that broke their 86-year duck. Nice.
2. Jose Reyes, one of the fastest players in baseball, hit into two double plays last night. I'm no Elias Sports Bureau, but I bet that he doesn't do that again in his career, since he had only grounded into 5 in over 700 plate appearances prior to last night. Reyes would drive me crazy if I were a Mets fan because he has neither power, nor plate discipline. Pitchers can throw him anything and know that he'll swing if the ball is close, rather than forcing the pitcher to pitch from behind. Reyes' defense is also spotty. He made an error on Monday night that allowed an insurance run to score and last night, he failed to make a play on a Langerhans liner in the Braves' three-run 5th. Speaking of balls going off of gloves...
3. As further evidence of my "Andruw is held to excessive standards" idea, a guy sat down next to me last night because he noticed that I was keeping score and wanted to know how many strikeouts Davies had. He then said that he thought that Mike Cameron's triple that chased Davies should have been an error on Andruw because he got the heel of his glove on the ball, never mind that Andruw was diving at full extension in the right-center field gap at the time.
4. Things that annoy my wife: the drop-down Cingular logos that denote strikeouts for Braves pitchers weren't working last night. Things that amuse my wife: children making farting noises with their hands.
5. Continuing with the "Mike Piazza is done" theme: the Braves stole on him at will last night. His throws have poor velocity and most of them skip in front of second base. When Furcal got on in the 5th, I told Wifey that he would be going on the first pitch because he knew that he didn't need a good jump to steal on Piazza. For once, I was right. The Mets operate from a disadvantage when any single by a semi-fast batter becomes a double or triple because of their catcher.
6. Chris Reitsma looked great last night. He completely dominated the Mets' hitters for two innings, or at least he did after Chipper made a nice play to turn a Miguel Cairo liner into the first out in the 8th. One defensive play can be the difference between a long, painful inning and a quickie. Victor Zambrano knows that this morning, as his throwing error was essentially the deciding factor in a close game. Back to Reitsma, I was concerned by the decision to leave him in to pitch a second inning, but he made it through two innings only throwing 18 pitches.
7. David Wright is the Mets' best hitter. Given that, why is he hitting 7th? Wouldn't the Mets have benefited from having him at the plate in the key situations that Piazza blew over the past two nights? Willie Randolph needs to get past Piazza's reputation and put together an order that can score some runs. If he could do so this weekend against the Marlins, that would be great.
8. John Foster, like Davies, requires some bullpen help to remain perfect on the season, but it bears mentioning that he hasn't allowed a run in seven and two-thirds innings this year.
9. Not to be a curmudgeon, but the offense produced only one earned run and one double last night. Marcus Giles had half of the team's six hits, but his only unsuccessful at-bat was a strikeout with Furcal on 3rd and one out in the 5th. Andruw and Estrada were both hitless, although they both lined balls right at outfielders. Mondesi looked completely overmatched when he pinch-hit in the 8th against Roberto Hernandez.
10. Pete Orr in left was an interesting experiment and I approve of getting him more at-bats, but there is a definite defensive trade-off there because he doesn't have good instincts in the outfield.
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Lottery Thoughts
1. Typical stupid statement on sports radio this morning: "It's so unlucky that the Hawks had a 25% chance of getting the first pick, the Bucks had a 6% chance, and yet the Bucks got the first pick." No wonder casinos make so much money with that ironclad logic. Yes, the Hawks had a greater chance than the Bucks, but the relevant question is rather what the Hawks' chances were against the field. They only had a one in four chance of getting the top pick, so it's not a surprising result at all that they finished with the second pick. In fact, since their chances of getting a top two pick were only marginally better than 50/50, this is a slight victory. More importantly, this isn't a year in which the first pick is worth a lot more than the second pick and in fact, it might cause the Hawks to resist falling in love with size and taking Andrew Bogut. If Chris Paul is the guy, then it's a good thing that the Bucks have the first pick, since they spent a high pick on T.J. Ford two years ago and will therefore shy away from taking Paul.
2. If one assumes that this is a four- or five-player Draft, then Billy Knight's decision to gut the team mid-season was a smart one, even aside from the first round pick that they acquired, because the extra losses ended up being the difference between picking second and picking fourth (New Orleans) or fifth (Charlotte). That said, if the Bobcats are gung-ho on moving up to get Paul or Marvin Williams, do the Hawks entertain the idea of swapping the #2 pick for the #5 and #13? If Deron Williams is still on the board, he certainly answers a major need and if he's as good for this team as Chris Paul, then it's a good deal. The Hawks could then add a Sean May (or some foreigner or high schooler about whom we know nothing) with the #13 pick. Then again, because depth isn't a great asset in the NBA like it is in the NFL, it's probably more important to get one great player than two good ones.
3. How angry did the Utah representative look? They won't get the chance to draft local icon Andrew Bogut and not only that, but the Bucks and Jail Blazers jumped over them, so they're now drafting sixth in a 4-5 player draft.
2. If one assumes that this is a four- or five-player Draft, then Billy Knight's decision to gut the team mid-season was a smart one, even aside from the first round pick that they acquired, because the extra losses ended up being the difference between picking second and picking fourth (New Orleans) or fifth (Charlotte). That said, if the Bobcats are gung-ho on moving up to get Paul or Marvin Williams, do the Hawks entertain the idea of swapping the #2 pick for the #5 and #13? If Deron Williams is still on the board, he certainly answers a major need and if he's as good for this team as Chris Paul, then it's a good deal. The Hawks could then add a Sean May (or some foreigner or high schooler about whom we know nothing) with the #13 pick. Then again, because depth isn't a great asset in the NBA like it is in the NFL, it's probably more important to get one great player than two good ones.
3. How angry did the Utah representative look? They won't get the chance to draft local icon Andrew Bogut and not only that, but the Bucks and Jail Blazers jumped over them, so they're now drafting sixth in a 4-5 player draft.
So that's the Tim Hudson in whom we've invested the farm
After several consecutive shaky starts, it was great to see Hudson pitch a gem last night. He was Avery-esque in the early innings, allowing two runners on in each of the first three innings. I listened to the first few innings while doing a 4.2 mile run and it seemed like each top-half inning took forever and a day because Hudson was allowing the lead-off men on and was then pitching deep into counts from the stretch. After three innings, it was a miracle that the game was scoreless and it looked like Hudson was going to have a start similar to Smoltz's Sunday effort, but all of a sudden, he turned himself around. The movement on his pitches was great, even in the early innings, and once he started to locate better after the third inning, the Mets could do nothing but ground the ball to the Braves' infielders. Hudson was dominant as the game went on and could have thrown a complete game shutout if not for all of the early pitches. He still only threw 105 pitches in eight innings after throwing 53 pitches in the first three.
Other thoughts:
1. The Turner South crew did a very good job highlighting the fact that Hudson's herky-jerky delivery leaves him in poor fielding position, unlike Tom Glavine. Given that Hudson is now a groundball pitcher, this is something of a concern, although it helps to have a SS with Furcal's range behind him. Hudson with Derek Jeter behind him would be a problem. He'd be fine with weak outfielders behind him because he gives up nothing in the air. If you want a recipe for allowing baserunners without allowing runs, keeping the ball on the ground is a good start.
2. Oddly enough, Johnny Estrada, who did not play with the Braves during the Glavine era, had the best approach at the plate. He was the one guy who waited on outside pitches and then lined them to right field. Raul Mondesi, on the other hand, couldn't figure this out, although he did score the team's first run because he made the mistake to trying to pull Glavine's change-up and ended up hitting a perfect swinging bunt. And speaking of pulling the ball, why isn't Julio Franco hitting to the opposite field anymore? Are pitchers going inside on him exclusively?
3. Mike Piazza is either hurt or done. His bat isn't nearly as quick as it used to be. He terrified me more than any other hitter in baseball, but I think he's hit the wall as many catchers do in their 30s.
4. Chris Reitsma, having only thrown one inning in the past week, looked terrific in the 9th. His curve ball, in particular, was very impressive. Hopefully, his batteries have been recharged.
5. Shouldn't official scorers have discretion in awarding sacrifice hits? For instance, in the first inning last night, Jose Reyes led off with an infield single and Miguel Cairo then immediately "sacrificed" him to second. Why shouldn't he be charged with an out in that instance? He gave up a free out to a pitcher who struggled to get anyone out in the first three innings. He did so on the first pitch, which deprived Reyes of the chance to steal second and also kept Hudson from having to throw extra pitches. He did so with Franco holding Reyes on and therefore with a gap in the right side of the defense. The bunt reduced the chance of a big inning. Statistically, a team's expected scoring in an inning is lower with a runner on second and one out as compared to a runner on first and no outs. Given all of that, why shouldn't Cairo be charged with an out for his bunt? Willie Randolph moaned after the game that the Mets missed their chances early. Well, you had a hand in that, Willie.
Other thoughts:
1. The Turner South crew did a very good job highlighting the fact that Hudson's herky-jerky delivery leaves him in poor fielding position, unlike Tom Glavine. Given that Hudson is now a groundball pitcher, this is something of a concern, although it helps to have a SS with Furcal's range behind him. Hudson with Derek Jeter behind him would be a problem. He'd be fine with weak outfielders behind him because he gives up nothing in the air. If you want a recipe for allowing baserunners without allowing runs, keeping the ball on the ground is a good start.
2. Oddly enough, Johnny Estrada, who did not play with the Braves during the Glavine era, had the best approach at the plate. He was the one guy who waited on outside pitches and then lined them to right field. Raul Mondesi, on the other hand, couldn't figure this out, although he did score the team's first run because he made the mistake to trying to pull Glavine's change-up and ended up hitting a perfect swinging bunt. And speaking of pulling the ball, why isn't Julio Franco hitting to the opposite field anymore? Are pitchers going inside on him exclusively?
3. Mike Piazza is either hurt or done. His bat isn't nearly as quick as it used to be. He terrified me more than any other hitter in baseball, but I think he's hit the wall as many catchers do in their 30s.
4. Chris Reitsma, having only thrown one inning in the past week, looked terrific in the 9th. His curve ball, in particular, was very impressive. Hopefully, his batteries have been recharged.
5. Shouldn't official scorers have discretion in awarding sacrifice hits? For instance, in the first inning last night, Jose Reyes led off with an infield single and Miguel Cairo then immediately "sacrificed" him to second. Why shouldn't he be charged with an out in that instance? He gave up a free out to a pitcher who struggled to get anyone out in the first three innings. He did so on the first pitch, which deprived Reyes of the chance to steal second and also kept Hudson from having to throw extra pitches. He did so with Franco holding Reyes on and therefore with a gap in the right side of the defense. The bunt reduced the chance of a big inning. Statistically, a team's expected scoring in an inning is lower with a runner on second and one out as compared to a runner on first and no outs. Given all of that, why shouldn't Cairo be charged with an out for his bunt? Willie Randolph moaned after the game that the Mets missed their chances early. Well, you had a hand in that, Willie.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Notice a common thread running through this list of lottery busts?
How about the fact that every single one of them were either power forwards or centers? (OK, maybe Jonathan Bender is a small forward, but he's also 6'11, so maybe the point is that they're all very tall people.) That sets up two possible explanations:
1. We remember the Pervis Ellisons of the world more than we remember the Bo Kimbles.
2. Most major Draft mistakes are caused by GMs reaching for big men.
I'm leaning with #2. Because great (or even good) big men are incredibly rare and a tremendous asset, GMs go overboard trying to find them. As a result, they take B centers over A perimeter players. Think about these examples:
1993 - Shawn Bradley is taken in between Chris Webber, Penny Hardaway, and Jamal Mashburn.
1998 - Michael Olowokandi goes ahead of Mike Bibby, Raef LaFrentz, Antawn Jamison, Vince Carter, and Paul Pierce.
2003 - Darko Mlicic is taken in between LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony, Chris Bosh, and Dwayne Wade. (Admittedly, this is imperfect because Mlicic and Bosh play the same position.)
You think this might have any implications for the 2005 Draft? I said it before and I'm saying it again: there's nothing wrong with taking Marvin Williams. It's more important to get a great player than it is to fill a need, especially when good centers are so rare that championship teams can win with power forwards at center.
1. We remember the Pervis Ellisons of the world more than we remember the Bo Kimbles.
2. Most major Draft mistakes are caused by GMs reaching for big men.
I'm leaning with #2. Because great (or even good) big men are incredibly rare and a tremendous asset, GMs go overboard trying to find them. As a result, they take B centers over A perimeter players. Think about these examples:
1993 - Shawn Bradley is taken in between Chris Webber, Penny Hardaway, and Jamal Mashburn.
1998 - Michael Olowokandi goes ahead of Mike Bibby, Raef LaFrentz, Antawn Jamison, Vince Carter, and Paul Pierce.
2003 - Darko Mlicic is taken in between LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony, Chris Bosh, and Dwayne Wade. (Admittedly, this is imperfect because Mlicic and Bosh play the same position.)
You think this might have any implications for the 2005 Draft? I said it before and I'm saying it again: there's nothing wrong with taking Marvin Williams. It's more important to get a great player than it is to fill a need, especially when good centers are so rare that championship teams can win with power forwards at center.
How much more of this must we take?
Nice performance by the Braves last night, including a solid start from Horacio Ramirez, who gave the team seven innings that the tired bullpen desperately needed, and a significant spark from Furcal and Giles, the engines that make the offense go. All that is forgotten in the late-inning fireworks, which included an interference call on David Wright that was obviously correct, despite Wright's protestations to the contrary, and another dreadful performance from Dan Kolb. In the realm of ludicrous statements, here are a couple regarding our apparently undeposed closer:
"Dan Kolb, getting another chance to close after being demoted last week, allowed a leadoff homer in the ninth inning to Chris Woodward, but managed to get his 11th save and possibly quiet at least a few of his critics."
Let's see, Kolb allows a home run to a no-name batter, then nearly walks the dreadful Mike DeFelice, strikes out Mike Piazza, allows a double to the gap, a walk, a stolen base moving the tying run into scoring position, and then another strikeout. He entered with a three-run lead and ended up pitching out of a jam with the tying run on second. What critics are going to be silenced by a performance like that? The guy sucks right now. He should be in a mop-up role until he figures out how to stop allowing multiple base runners every inning. And that leads us into Dan's explanation for his performance:
"Said Kolb of his struggles this season, 'I think I've got a curse or something. I need a horseshoe.'"
No, a curse would be you giving up a bunch of seeing-eye grounders and Texas leaguers. You're getting shelled. You're walking a batter an inning and you're giving up sharply-hit balls left and right. You want better luck? Stop serving up meatballs.
"Dan Kolb, getting another chance to close after being demoted last week, allowed a leadoff homer in the ninth inning to Chris Woodward, but managed to get his 11th save and possibly quiet at least a few of his critics."
Let's see, Kolb allows a home run to a no-name batter, then nearly walks the dreadful Mike DeFelice, strikes out Mike Piazza, allows a double to the gap, a walk, a stolen base moving the tying run into scoring position, and then another strikeout. He entered with a three-run lead and ended up pitching out of a jam with the tying run on second. What critics are going to be silenced by a performance like that? The guy sucks right now. He should be in a mop-up role until he figures out how to stop allowing multiple base runners every inning. And that leads us into Dan's explanation for his performance:
"Said Kolb of his struggles this season, 'I think I've got a curse or something. I need a horseshoe.'"
No, a curse would be you giving up a bunch of seeing-eye grounders and Texas leaguers. You're getting shelled. You're walking a batter an inning and you're giving up sharply-hit balls left and right. You want better luck? Stop serving up meatballs.
You'll have to forgive Arizona Cardinals fans for a little excessive euphoria
Here are the most recent rankings for NFL jersey sales:
1. Randy Moss, Oakland Raiders
2. Michael Vick, Atlanta Falcons
3. Tom Brady, New England Patriots
4. Donovan McNabb, Philadelphia Eagles
5. Ben Roesthlisberger, Pittsburgh Steelers
6. LaDainian Tomlinson, San Diego Chargers
7. Byron Leftwich, Jacksonville Jaguars
8. Carnell Williams, Tampa Bay Buccaneers
9. Jeremy Shockey, New York Giants
10. Tiki Barber, New York Giants
11. Mike Alstott, Tampa Bay Buccaneers
12. Alex Smith, San Francisco 49ers
13. Braylon Edwards, Cleveland Browns
14. Daunte Culpepper, Minnesota Vikings
15. Ronnie Brown, Miami Dolphins
16. Brett Favre, Green Bay Packers
17. Jake Plummer, Denver Broncos
18. Roy Williams, Dallas Cowboys
19. Curtis Martin, New York Jets
20. Brian Urlacher, Chicago Bears
21. Peyton Manning, Indianapolis Colts
22. Ray Lewis, Baltimore Ravens
23. Cedric Benson, Chicago Bears
24. Kurt Warner, Arizona Cardinals
25. David Carr, Houston Texans
Most of them are pretty understandable, as they are either the best players in the league or the newest Draft picks. That said, what in G-d's name is Kurt Warner doing on the list? He's completely done as a player, as his stint in New York showed last year. He can't possibly be in Arizona for long. What are those Cardinals fans going to do with those jerseys when his stint there is remembered like Joe Namath's stint in San Diego is? Is there anything more pathetic than someone wearing the jersey of a player who had a cup of coffee with a team at the end of a fading career? What's wrong with an Anquan Boldin jersey? Passe in Tempe?
1. Randy Moss, Oakland Raiders
2. Michael Vick, Atlanta Falcons
3. Tom Brady, New England Patriots
4. Donovan McNabb, Philadelphia Eagles
5. Ben Roesthlisberger, Pittsburgh Steelers
6. LaDainian Tomlinson, San Diego Chargers
7. Byron Leftwich, Jacksonville Jaguars
8. Carnell Williams, Tampa Bay Buccaneers
9. Jeremy Shockey, New York Giants
10. Tiki Barber, New York Giants
11. Mike Alstott, Tampa Bay Buccaneers
12. Alex Smith, San Francisco 49ers
13. Braylon Edwards, Cleveland Browns
14. Daunte Culpepper, Minnesota Vikings
15. Ronnie Brown, Miami Dolphins
16. Brett Favre, Green Bay Packers
17. Jake Plummer, Denver Broncos
18. Roy Williams, Dallas Cowboys
19. Curtis Martin, New York Jets
20. Brian Urlacher, Chicago Bears
21. Peyton Manning, Indianapolis Colts
22. Ray Lewis, Baltimore Ravens
23. Cedric Benson, Chicago Bears
24. Kurt Warner, Arizona Cardinals
25. David Carr, Houston Texans
Most of them are pretty understandable, as they are either the best players in the league or the newest Draft picks. That said, what in G-d's name is Kurt Warner doing on the list? He's completely done as a player, as his stint in New York showed last year. He can't possibly be in Arizona for long. What are those Cardinals fans going to do with those jerseys when his stint there is remembered like Joe Namath's stint in San Diego is? Is there anything more pathetic than someone wearing the jersey of a player who had a cup of coffee with a team at the end of a fading career? What's wrong with an Anquan Boldin jersey? Passe in Tempe?
Georgia needed a story like this
As an illustration of "if it bleeds, it leads," I was unaware of this great story from the Macon Telegraph (words that I can't remember ever using before) as it has gotten little or no play in Atlanta. It's a sad commentary that every DUI and driving offense committed by a Georgia player is hyped endlessly, but a story about two Georgia players pulling a number of accident victims from their burning cars doesn't get a mention, I guess because it doesn't fit with the storyline that the media likes to tell about football players. In fact, I only became aware of the story from a national outlet, namely Bruce Feldman's college football blog.
So anyway, kudos to Dennis Roland and Russ Tanner. And remind me to never share the road with Phillip Leachman of Commerce, who was driving drunk on the wrong side of the road with a woman (his girlfriend? wife?) and 11-month old baby (his baby?). Naturally, the baby wasn't even properly restrained. Phillip sounds like a real class act.
So anyway, kudos to Dennis Roland and Russ Tanner. And remind me to never share the road with Phillip Leachman of Commerce, who was driving drunk on the wrong side of the road with a woman (his girlfriend? wife?) and 11-month old baby (his baby?). Naturally, the baby wasn't even properly restrained. Phillip sounds like a real class act.
Monday, May 23, 2005
I have very little to say
And not because I'm ignoring our beloved Braves and their dreadful week, but rather because I was in Charlottesville this weekend for my wife's hooding (that's receiving a doctorate, not something you do to the gimp, you dirty bastards) and my sports consumption consisted of 15 minutes of SportsCenter at 2 a.m. on Sunday morning and a couple innings of Braves baseball on the way back home. No Suns/Mavs, no FA Cup Final, and no Preakness. That said, I have a few random thoughts from the weekend:
1. Andruw gets so much grief from Braves fans in comparison to Chipper, who rarely gets criticized for anything. A lot of that disparity is racially driven, not in the sense that fans don't like Andruw because he's black, but rather because he's black and considered to be naturally gifted, but lazy, whereas Chipper is seen as a hard-working white guy. That said, why does Chipper not get any grief for being brittle, especially in comparison to Andruw, who gets all sorts of stick for being an "underachiever," but who also plays every day. Chipper's injured oblique was supposed to be a minor issue, but it's cost him three games, all of which the Braves lost. Meanwhile, Andruw just keeps playing every day (knock on wood) and gets no credit for being durable.
2. One of the disturbing developments from this road trip, other than Dan Doodie's demotion, two injured starting pitchers, and a sputtering offense, is the fact that Chris Reitsma, who had been the star of the pen, completely imploded. To a slightly lesser extent, Jorge Sosa, who had been the other star, also petered out, as he gave up two earned runs in 3 2/3rds innings. At this stage, Adam Bernero and John Foster are the only two reliable relievers and who knows how long that will last.
3. This quote from Jason Varitek is a classic "this is why you fail" summary for why the Braves' offense struggles so much: The Braves "gave us some early-in-the-count outs that kept [Matt Clement's] pitch total down." The Sox worked counts all weekend and were able to touch up Smoltz and Hudson as a result. (This makes me reconsider my belief that the Braves would be great in the playoffs because of Smoltz and Hudson. If this is how they get treated by a quality offense, then they aren't as great an asset as I thought.) The Braves swung at everything that moved and therefore allowed Clement and Wade Miller, two former NL pitchers with whom they are familiar, to dominate them.
4. After exams during my second year of law school, I made a one-night play for a girl I knew in school, but she said that she couldn't because she was going to the Preakness the next morning. Now, I associate that race with "I have to wash my hair and can't go out with you, Michael."
5. One of the advantages of having a wife who has a sophisticated understanding of statistics (as a result of having written a dissertation that required such analysis) is that I can bounce college football column ideas off of her and she can explain how she could analyze my data. We spent about 40 miles in South Carolina yesterday discussing how we would analyze 1) the importance of returning starters on the offensive line, as compared to other positions, and 2) whether success in close games replicates itself within seasons or from season to season. If I ever get off my ass and write these columns, I'll be sure to share them.
5a. I had a slight re-examination of my views on a college football playoff while talking with this wife on the drive. If the rankings are basically arbitrary because they are forced to compare teams that never played one another based on a limited sample size, then what's wrong with a similarly arbitrary playoff?
6. I've been driving for over 14 years. During that time, I've been in three cars pulled over for speeding. All three times were in North Carolina. I avoided such a fate yesterday, but we drove through four states and North Carolina featured, by far, the most pulled-over motorists. I received my only speeding ticket in 2000 in Salisbury, North Carolina. Not coincidentally, that same shithole had a 55-mph speed limit yesterday for "road work," even though there was barely any evidence of work being done. Moral of the story: be careful in Salisbury, but not so careful that you stop yourself from throwing your trash out the window as a show of defiance.
1. Andruw gets so much grief from Braves fans in comparison to Chipper, who rarely gets criticized for anything. A lot of that disparity is racially driven, not in the sense that fans don't like Andruw because he's black, but rather because he's black and considered to be naturally gifted, but lazy, whereas Chipper is seen as a hard-working white guy. That said, why does Chipper not get any grief for being brittle, especially in comparison to Andruw, who gets all sorts of stick for being an "underachiever," but who also plays every day. Chipper's injured oblique was supposed to be a minor issue, but it's cost him three games, all of which the Braves lost. Meanwhile, Andruw just keeps playing every day (knock on wood) and gets no credit for being durable.
2. One of the disturbing developments from this road trip, other than Dan Doodie's demotion, two injured starting pitchers, and a sputtering offense, is the fact that Chris Reitsma, who had been the star of the pen, completely imploded. To a slightly lesser extent, Jorge Sosa, who had been the other star, also petered out, as he gave up two earned runs in 3 2/3rds innings. At this stage, Adam Bernero and John Foster are the only two reliable relievers and who knows how long that will last.
3. This quote from Jason Varitek is a classic "this is why you fail" summary for why the Braves' offense struggles so much: The Braves "gave us some early-in-the-count outs that kept [Matt Clement's] pitch total down." The Sox worked counts all weekend and were able to touch up Smoltz and Hudson as a result. (This makes me reconsider my belief that the Braves would be great in the playoffs because of Smoltz and Hudson. If this is how they get treated by a quality offense, then they aren't as great an asset as I thought.) The Braves swung at everything that moved and therefore allowed Clement and Wade Miller, two former NL pitchers with whom they are familiar, to dominate them.
4. After exams during my second year of law school, I made a one-night play for a girl I knew in school, but she said that she couldn't because she was going to the Preakness the next morning. Now, I associate that race with "I have to wash my hair and can't go out with you, Michael."
5. One of the advantages of having a wife who has a sophisticated understanding of statistics (as a result of having written a dissertation that required such analysis) is that I can bounce college football column ideas off of her and she can explain how she could analyze my data. We spent about 40 miles in South Carolina yesterday discussing how we would analyze 1) the importance of returning starters on the offensive line, as compared to other positions, and 2) whether success in close games replicates itself within seasons or from season to season. If I ever get off my ass and write these columns, I'll be sure to share them.
5a. I had a slight re-examination of my views on a college football playoff while talking with this wife on the drive. If the rankings are basically arbitrary because they are forced to compare teams that never played one another based on a limited sample size, then what's wrong with a similarly arbitrary playoff?
6. I've been driving for over 14 years. During that time, I've been in three cars pulled over for speeding. All three times were in North Carolina. I avoided such a fate yesterday, but we drove through four states and North Carolina featured, by far, the most pulled-over motorists. I received my only speeding ticket in 2000 in Salisbury, North Carolina. Not coincidentally, that same shithole had a 55-mph speed limit yesterday for "road work," even though there was barely any evidence of work being done. Moral of the story: be careful in Salisbury, but not so careful that you stop yourself from throwing your trash out the window as a show of defiance.
Thursday, May 19, 2005
"Lindsey Lohan checks into rehab"
"Family Research Council angry at Hollywood"
"New David Lynch project described as 'bizarre'"
"Dan Kolb demoted from closer role"
Does this sound like someone who is taking responsibility for an ERA north of six and a WHIP north of two:
"You've just got to respect what he says," Kolb said, looking away as he answered a reporter's questions. "He's trying to do what's best for the team."
Dan, take a lesson from Bill Clinton's biggest political mistake. A simple "I sucked and I'm sorry and I'll try to get better" goes a long, long way. Being defensive about your atrocious pitching doesn't help anyone. Gosh, and Atlanta is supposed to be a low-stress environment in which to pitch. What would this guy have done if he would have been acquired by the Cubs or Mets, both of whom were looking for closers in the off-season?
Right now, the Braves simply need to find effective relievers who can retire opposing batters. They're 3-6 on this road trip instead of 6-3 because of the pen's failures in the 8th and 9th and the final three games are in Boston against a potent lineup. This weekend isn't shaping up well, given John Thomson's injury, which sounds pretty serious, and Mike Hampton's short-term unavailability. The Kyle Davies vs. Tim Wakefield match-up on Saturday is an almost certain loss, given that Davies has been slumping in Triple-A and the Braves never hit Wakefield for shit. (Then again, I also thought that Smoltz vs. Byung Hyun-Kim or Darrell May were sure wins. Thanks, Dan Doodie and mediocre offense!) Friday night could also be tricky because Tim Hudson has a 6.67 ERA against the Red Sox over the past three seasons. I'm trying to come to grips with the possibility of Smoltz trying to halt a five-game losing streak on Sunday.
The parenthetical above highlights the fact that Kolb has been made the scapegoat for the Braves' struggles on this road trip, but that obscures some underwhelming offensive performances against mediocre pitchers. Two runs against Kim? One run against May? The Braves are getting very little offensive production from three spots - the corner outfield and shortstop - and with Chipper banged up, the offense is very weak. I'd much rather Schuerholtz acquire a solid bat for the outfield than a closer, especially since the closer market is going to be a seller's market and we really need reliable relievers regardless of whether they have a lot of saves.
"New David Lynch project described as 'bizarre'"
"Dan Kolb demoted from closer role"
Does this sound like someone who is taking responsibility for an ERA north of six and a WHIP north of two:
"You've just got to respect what he says," Kolb said, looking away as he answered a reporter's questions. "He's trying to do what's best for the team."
Dan, take a lesson from Bill Clinton's biggest political mistake. A simple "I sucked and I'm sorry and I'll try to get better" goes a long, long way. Being defensive about your atrocious pitching doesn't help anyone. Gosh, and Atlanta is supposed to be a low-stress environment in which to pitch. What would this guy have done if he would have been acquired by the Cubs or Mets, both of whom were looking for closers in the off-season?
Right now, the Braves simply need to find effective relievers who can retire opposing batters. They're 3-6 on this road trip instead of 6-3 because of the pen's failures in the 8th and 9th and the final three games are in Boston against a potent lineup. This weekend isn't shaping up well, given John Thomson's injury, which sounds pretty serious, and Mike Hampton's short-term unavailability. The Kyle Davies vs. Tim Wakefield match-up on Saturday is an almost certain loss, given that Davies has been slumping in Triple-A and the Braves never hit Wakefield for shit. (Then again, I also thought that Smoltz vs. Byung Hyun-Kim or Darrell May were sure wins. Thanks, Dan Doodie and mediocre offense!) Friday night could also be tricky because Tim Hudson has a 6.67 ERA against the Red Sox over the past three seasons. I'm trying to come to grips with the possibility of Smoltz trying to halt a five-game losing streak on Sunday.
The parenthetical above highlights the fact that Kolb has been made the scapegoat for the Braves' struggles on this road trip, but that obscures some underwhelming offensive performances against mediocre pitchers. Two runs against Kim? One run against May? The Braves are getting very little offensive production from three spots - the corner outfield and shortstop - and with Chipper banged up, the offense is very weak. I'd much rather Schuerholtz acquire a solid bat for the outfield than a closer, especially since the closer market is going to be a seller's market and we really need reliable relievers regardless of whether they have a lot of saves.
Winners wear red? Really?
Maybe the English researchers are biased because the three most successful English soccer teams in recent memory (Liverpool, Manchester United, and Arsenal) are biased in their conclusion. Let's take a look at American sports:
None of the winningest teams in each of the three major pro sports (Celtics in the NBA, Cowboys in the NFL, and Yankees in baseball) wear red. Ditto for the two winningest college football programs (Michigan and Notre Dame, both of which have slightly less successful arch-rivals [Ohio State and USC] who wear red) and three winningest college basketball programs (UCLA, North Carolina, and Kentucky.) In contrast, the archetypes for losing in the NFL (Arizona/St. Louis/Chicago Cardinals) and the NBA (San Diego/L.A. Clippers) both wear red uniforms.
And no, my Michigan bias has nothing to do with this conclusion.
None of the winningest teams in each of the three major pro sports (Celtics in the NBA, Cowboys in the NFL, and Yankees in baseball) wear red. Ditto for the two winningest college football programs (Michigan and Notre Dame, both of which have slightly less successful arch-rivals [Ohio State and USC] who wear red) and three winningest college basketball programs (UCLA, North Carolina, and Kentucky.) In contrast, the archetypes for losing in the NFL (Arizona/St. Louis/Chicago Cardinals) and the NBA (San Diego/L.A. Clippers) both wear red uniforms.
And no, my Michigan bias has nothing to do with this conclusion.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Great Discussion on Mayhem this Morning about Vick
I feel tremendously conflicted about Michael right now. On the one hand, it's hard to argue with the simple fact that he wins. The Falcons are 24-12-1 over the past three seasons when Vick starts and 3-12 when he doesn't. The Falcons have finished in the top eight and the top four in the NFL in his two seasons as a starter. I'm normally not a fan of attributing team success to one individual, especially in football, which is such a team game. That said, when there is a clear disparity when a player is in the lineup, that can't be dismissed.
Additionally, this Falcons team just isn't that good other than Vick. The defense was decent in '02 and '04, but nothing special. I've never been a fan of the offensive line or the receivers, although they aren't really tested properly, as we'll discuss below. I am a fan of Warrick Dunn, who's a perennially underrated running back. The best explanations I can come up with for the Falcons' success with Vick are two-fold:
1. He inspires the rest of the team because they know they have a freak under center and they play better with him in the lineup. I hate fuzzy explanations like this, but it might have some merit.
2. Vick's presence castrates opposing front sevens. Linebackers can't be aggressive in responding to the run because they're constantly worried about a bootleg. Defensive linemen cannot penetrate into the backfield because they have to stay in their rush lanes to prevent Vick from escaping. If they don't do their jobs, then Vick is fast enough and has good enough moves to turn their mistakes into marathon touchdowns. Because of this effect, the Falcons' running game is far greater than the sum of its parts and they win by outrushing their opponents. This is a novel concept in the NFL, where points come from the passing game and the running game is usually a device to keep defenses off-balance and to run out the clock at the end of a game. If the run-first approach has worked in college, then could it work in the NFL?
On the other hand, I have major reservations about Vick as a passer. Here's an anecdote: a friend of a friend was at a banquet and met Ron Jaworski. Jaws is one of the few NFL talking heads whom I respect because he watches a ton of film and his statements are always backed up by solid facts. (I would KILL for an "Edge College Football Match-Up" show that used game film heavily.) As such, his comment to the friend of a friend that Vick will be out of the NFL within three years unless he learns how to throw as a pocket passer scares me. Jaws watches a ton of film and clearly has the impression that Vick's passing problems are not solely the result of receivers who can't get open or linemen who can't block, but rather, are the result of a quarterback who doesn't do a good job of reading coverages (the most important skill for a quarterback) and then delivering the ball accurately (the second most important skill for a quarterback.) I hold out hope that he'll develop as a decision-maker, but there's a possibility that he just doesn't have this skill, in which case the Falcons' massive investment in him will be an albatross.
Speaking of which, the second concern about Vick is that Arthur Blank has a man-crush on Michael and he coddles him, as does the rest of the organization. Giving him a massive extension after a year in which he finished 13th in passer rating, although in his defense, the NFL's passer rating formula badly overrates completion percentage and Vick finished a more respectable, but still not outstanding 7th in the NFC in yards per attempt. His interception percentage of 3.7% was 14th in the NFC, so it isn't like he avoided turnovers. Anyway, getting back to the point, the organization shelters Vick from the media, they pay him like he's the best player in the league, and they spend first round picks every year to give him receivers. That sort of cocoon could destroy Vick's desire to improve. It all depends on what sort of person Vick is.
The Brady/Vick debate on Mayhem this morning was good, but so much depends on the type of team we're discussing. Brady is perfect on a talented team that is going to be playing in big games, where his "cool under pressure" skill comes to the fore. Brady benefits from playing on the best coached team in the NFL and he has a defense that keeps New England in every game. If he was on a less-talented team, would he still be that successful? We'll never know, unless it turns out that he looks average without Charlie Weis calling the shots anymore. Vick is a fine fit on a team without much talent because he can create a running game from nothing and he can survive with minimal pass protection. That said, on a team like New England with a number of good receivers, Vick would be a bit of a waste because he can't get the ball to all of them. He also doesn't have Brady's "cool under pressure" skill, so he wouldn't win every close game for a good team like Brady does.
The Brady/Vick debate, at this stage, seems to be analogous to the Montana/Randall Cunningham debate of the late 80s. Randall wasn't as good as Vick; his teams had great defenses and yet they didn't advance as far as Vick has. On the other hand, Brady isn't quite Montana yet, although he's getting close if he stays on his current career path. Brady/Vick could also be analogized to Bird/'Nique, right down to the cities involved. In both cases, there is a racial overlay that makes for a lot of irrational defenses and criticism. If Vick is the new 'Nique, then maybe we need to simply accept that he's a very good player, but not the best in the league at his position.
And in the end, it helps to remember that Vick turns 25 this June 26, so we're talking about a player who is still several years from his prime.
Additionally, this Falcons team just isn't that good other than Vick. The defense was decent in '02 and '04, but nothing special. I've never been a fan of the offensive line or the receivers, although they aren't really tested properly, as we'll discuss below. I am a fan of Warrick Dunn, who's a perennially underrated running back. The best explanations I can come up with for the Falcons' success with Vick are two-fold:
1. He inspires the rest of the team because they know they have a freak under center and they play better with him in the lineup. I hate fuzzy explanations like this, but it might have some merit.
2. Vick's presence castrates opposing front sevens. Linebackers can't be aggressive in responding to the run because they're constantly worried about a bootleg. Defensive linemen cannot penetrate into the backfield because they have to stay in their rush lanes to prevent Vick from escaping. If they don't do their jobs, then Vick is fast enough and has good enough moves to turn their mistakes into marathon touchdowns. Because of this effect, the Falcons' running game is far greater than the sum of its parts and they win by outrushing their opponents. This is a novel concept in the NFL, where points come from the passing game and the running game is usually a device to keep defenses off-balance and to run out the clock at the end of a game. If the run-first approach has worked in college, then could it work in the NFL?
On the other hand, I have major reservations about Vick as a passer. Here's an anecdote: a friend of a friend was at a banquet and met Ron Jaworski. Jaws is one of the few NFL talking heads whom I respect because he watches a ton of film and his statements are always backed up by solid facts. (I would KILL for an "Edge College Football Match-Up" show that used game film heavily.) As such, his comment to the friend of a friend that Vick will be out of the NFL within three years unless he learns how to throw as a pocket passer scares me. Jaws watches a ton of film and clearly has the impression that Vick's passing problems are not solely the result of receivers who can't get open or linemen who can't block, but rather, are the result of a quarterback who doesn't do a good job of reading coverages (the most important skill for a quarterback) and then delivering the ball accurately (the second most important skill for a quarterback.) I hold out hope that he'll develop as a decision-maker, but there's a possibility that he just doesn't have this skill, in which case the Falcons' massive investment in him will be an albatross.
Speaking of which, the second concern about Vick is that Arthur Blank has a man-crush on Michael and he coddles him, as does the rest of the organization. Giving him a massive extension after a year in which he finished 13th in passer rating, although in his defense, the NFL's passer rating formula badly overrates completion percentage and Vick finished a more respectable, but still not outstanding 7th in the NFC in yards per attempt. His interception percentage of 3.7% was 14th in the NFC, so it isn't like he avoided turnovers. Anyway, getting back to the point, the organization shelters Vick from the media, they pay him like he's the best player in the league, and they spend first round picks every year to give him receivers. That sort of cocoon could destroy Vick's desire to improve. It all depends on what sort of person Vick is.
The Brady/Vick debate on Mayhem this morning was good, but so much depends on the type of team we're discussing. Brady is perfect on a talented team that is going to be playing in big games, where his "cool under pressure" skill comes to the fore. Brady benefits from playing on the best coached team in the NFL and he has a defense that keeps New England in every game. If he was on a less-talented team, would he still be that successful? We'll never know, unless it turns out that he looks average without Charlie Weis calling the shots anymore. Vick is a fine fit on a team without much talent because he can create a running game from nothing and he can survive with minimal pass protection. That said, on a team like New England with a number of good receivers, Vick would be a bit of a waste because he can't get the ball to all of them. He also doesn't have Brady's "cool under pressure" skill, so he wouldn't win every close game for a good team like Brady does.
The Brady/Vick debate, at this stage, seems to be analogous to the Montana/Randall Cunningham debate of the late 80s. Randall wasn't as good as Vick; his teams had great defenses and yet they didn't advance as far as Vick has. On the other hand, Brady isn't quite Montana yet, although he's getting close if he stays on his current career path. Brady/Vick could also be analogized to Bird/'Nique, right down to the cities involved. In both cases, there is a racial overlay that makes for a lot of irrational defenses and criticism. If Vick is the new 'Nique, then maybe we need to simply accept that he's a very good player, but not the best in the league at his position.
And in the end, it helps to remember that Vick turns 25 this June 26, so we're talking about a player who is still several years from his prime.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)