I really buy this reasoning:
"A lot of people have it etched in stone that everybody has to be a certain position - you have to fit into a mold, but that really isn't the way that I look at it. If you had him, Josh Smith, Al Harrington, all those guys to me are forwards. They can play some at either position and I think that's a positive for your team and for those players, so it gives them another opportunity to get on the floor. If you say he's a power forward, he's got to play the power forward spot only. You say he's a forward, maybe you're going to go with three forwards, so he can get on the floor at any time. . . . There's such a thing as him being a basketball player."
Positions are mostly overrated in basketball these days. Hell, if you look at the Eastern Conference, are there that many centers that would present a match-up problem for Al Harrington or Marvin Williams? The two-time Eastern Conference champions play a 6'9 power forward at center and they seem to do OK. Admittedly, a frontline of Harrington, Williams, and Josh Smith would be a rebounding liability because none of them can board like Ben Wallace, but if they committed to rebounding, there's no reason why they couldn't play together on the floor, especially with a strong rebounding guard like Josh Childress.
This whole "must have a seven-footer to play center" reasoning reminds me of a dilemma that Michigan has coming into this year. They have a deep receiving corps full of high school All-Americans, as well as two quality tight ends. They also have a major problem in that they lost their fullback from the past two years and don't have a ready replacement. Given that, why would they play a fullback when they would simply be taking snaps away from a better wide receiver or tight end? Why would the Hawks give an Obinna Ekezie major minutes when they can get a better player on the floor, even if that player isn't a true center?
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Since when did pitching become more dangerous than U-Boat duty?
(Note for those not historically inclined: U-Boat duty was possibly the most dangerous position in World War II, with the exception of just about every infantry position in the Red Army in 1941.)
What is it with pitchers that they cannot stay healthy and then when they get hurt, it takes them obscene amounts of time to come back? At some stage, the Yankees and Red Sox are going to figure this out and develop eight-man rotations so they can be prepared for the inevitable maladies that strike hurlers. The Braves don't have their revenue, so they are vulnerable to instances like last night when Horacio Ramirez strained his groin scoring from third in the 5th inning. I played in a softball game with a collection of out of shape lawyers last night, there were 21 runs scored, and everyone managed to round third without putting him/herself on the 15-day DL (which is not to say that that's where Horacio is going to end up.) And the sad thing is that Ramirez was pitching very well last night when he got hurt.
At least Horacio's injury appears to be minor. Listen to Mike Hampton discuss his mysterious strained forearm in today's AJC:
"I don’t think it’s anything minor,” said Hampton, who has pitched once in five weeks and not since May 31. “I’m frustrated. I guess I’ll just hang out, do what they tell me to do. They can keep paying me not to play, I guess.”
The left-hander is 4-1 with a 1.83 ERA in nine starts this season. He’s scheduled to begin light throwing today, but didn’t sound confident.
“It ain’t no better,” he said of his forearm, which hasn’t responded to rest and extensive treatments, first prescribed by Braves doctors and reiterated by noted orthopedist James Andrews.
“We won’t know until he throws,” Braves manager Bobby Cox said.
Andrews told him “at least” two more weeks of rest on June 8.
“And if it don’t work, wait another two weeks,” Hampton said. “So that’s where we’re at now.”
That's encouraging. If this was the NBA, I'd automatically be suspicious that this is another gambling ban on the sly, like the one that David Stern purportedly handed down to Michael Jordan after the '93 season. Bud Selig isn't nearly competent enough to pull that off.
What is it with pitchers that they cannot stay healthy and then when they get hurt, it takes them obscene amounts of time to come back? At some stage, the Yankees and Red Sox are going to figure this out and develop eight-man rotations so they can be prepared for the inevitable maladies that strike hurlers. The Braves don't have their revenue, so they are vulnerable to instances like last night when Horacio Ramirez strained his groin scoring from third in the 5th inning. I played in a softball game with a collection of out of shape lawyers last night, there were 21 runs scored, and everyone managed to round third without putting him/herself on the 15-day DL (which is not to say that that's where Horacio is going to end up.) And the sad thing is that Ramirez was pitching very well last night when he got hurt.
At least Horacio's injury appears to be minor. Listen to Mike Hampton discuss his mysterious strained forearm in today's AJC:
"I don’t think it’s anything minor,” said Hampton, who has pitched once in five weeks and not since May 31. “I’m frustrated. I guess I’ll just hang out, do what they tell me to do. They can keep paying me not to play, I guess.”
The left-hander is 4-1 with a 1.83 ERA in nine starts this season. He’s scheduled to begin light throwing today, but didn’t sound confident.
“It ain’t no better,” he said of his forearm, which hasn’t responded to rest and extensive treatments, first prescribed by Braves doctors and reiterated by noted orthopedist James Andrews.
“We won’t know until he throws,” Braves manager Bobby Cox said.
Andrews told him “at least” two more weeks of rest on June 8.
“And if it don’t work, wait another two weeks,” Hampton said. “So that’s where we’re at now.”
That's encouraging. If this was the NBA, I'd automatically be suspicious that this is another gambling ban on the sly, like the one that David Stern purportedly handed down to Michael Jordan after the '93 season. Bud Selig isn't nearly competent enough to pull that off.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
A little-known anniversary
I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere else, so here's your reward for visiting this remote redoubt of sports speculation (William Safire, eat your heart out with that alliteration):
It was 15 years ago today that Bobby Cox fired Russ Nixon, assumed managerial duties for the Braves, and made Leo Mazzone his pitching coach.
That move has worked out O.K.
It was 15 years ago today that Bobby Cox fired Russ Nixon, assumed managerial duties for the Braves, and made Leo Mazzone his pitching coach.
That move has worked out O.K.
Bobby Cox channels Dusty Baker
Last night was a good illustration of the precept that obsession with the "Moneyball" approach to baseball can sap the fun out of the game. The game was played on a picture-perfect summer night in Atlanta. The Braves played smart baseball (for the most part) against A.J. Burnett, working counts to get his pitch count up and to force him to throw them strikes. They chased him from the game after six innings and then Andruw Jones pounced on their bullpen. John Smoltz was completely dominant, allowing five hits and two walks over nine shutout innings. Hell, there was even a babe sitting in front of us, baring her thong every time she leaned forward.
And despite all of this, I was grumbling on the way home that Cox and Mazzone left Smoltz in for the 9th inning with a five-run lead after he had already thrown 110 pitches. For G-d sakes, the guy is 37 years old and has a history of elbow problems. You have a lead so big that even Dan Kolb would struggle to blow it. (Wait, let me think about that for a second.) Yes, Smoltz had a shutout going, but Cox is famous for thinking about the long-term and pitches 111 through 123 are not good for your only healthy, quality starter's arm. Yes, I'm sure that Smoltz said he was fine to throw the 9th and would have been angry if he would have been taken out. You're the manager, Grady Little, er, I mean Bobby Cox. Take him out! If the Baseball Prospectus' approach to pitcher abuse is right, then expect Smoltz to have trouble in upcoming starts after bearing such a workload in this one, especially if the Braves bring him back on three days rest against the Orioles on Saturday.
On the other hand, maybe Cox and Mazzone know a little more about Smoltz and pitching than I do.
Other thoughts:
1. I'm getting close to having a man-crush on Kelly Johnson. I've waited so long for the Braves' farm system to produce another hitter like Chipper who can lay off of crap and then whack good pitches to all fields. Last night, he turned on a Burnett fastball in the first inning, showing terrific bat speed, and got a double that led to the Braves' first run. He then drew a walk in the third to set up a potential rally that was squelched by a truly dreadful LaRoche at-bat (swinging at two pitches in the dirt from a hurler who had walked three batters in a row, then watching called strike three) and an unlucky instance in which Wilson Betemit hit a screamer right at Alex Gonzalez, who made a nifty play on the ball. Johnson then had a nice RBI chopper in the 5th for the Braves' second run. Johnson and Pete Orr were terrific last night, getting on base five out of six times against Burnett, working the count almost every time. Orr did get charged with two errors, although one was harsh, since it was on an absolute laser from the bat of Carlos Delgado. (The official scorer was in bizarro world last night. He gave the Marlins a hit on a soft liner that Furcal could have easily caught, then he tagged Orr and Betemit with errors on very difficult plays.)
2. Andruw continued to carry the team offensively. Orr and Johnson kept getting on base and Andruw kept moving them along or bringing them in. His Katyusha shot off of Chad Bentz put the game away and was a proper reward for the team's good job driving up Burnett's pitch count. He also did a good job in the first inning putting the ball in play to score Orr after falling behind 0-2 with runners in scoring position and one out.
3. Maybe I'm a nerd (wait, don't answer that,) but I highly recommend ESPN's Stat Pack when going to a baseball game. It's an easily printable score sheet (that allowed me to play Joe Simpson and Don Sutton during the game - "you can close the book on Burnett, six innings...") and complete batting and pitching stats for the teams. Without it, I wouldn't have known that Cox was playing Orr in place of Giles because Giles is 0/8 in his career against Burnett, or that A.J. Burnett's control is actually pretty good this year. Bore your companions at games; use the Stat Pack!
4. Why are the Marlins at .500 despite a seemingly very good roster? If last night's game is any indication:
a. They have dreadful Mike Lowell batting behind Cabrera and Delgado, which allows opposing pitchers to be careful with the Marlins' best two hitters. They also have Juan Pierre and his poor OBP in the lead-off spot, which means that their three best hitters - Castillo, Cabrera, and Delgado - typically come up with one out and no one on. In other words, they have a spotty lineup. Of course, that lineup will look a lot better against Horacio Ramirez than it did against John Smoltz.
b. Their bullpen outside of Todd Jones is dreadful, so when the Braves got past Burnett, they could feast Chad Bentz (31.50 ERA) and Travis Smith (7.20 ERA).
5. I love the way that Smoltz responds to a challenge. He decided that he needed to get back at the Marlins for tagging him on Opening Day, so what does he do? He twirls a shutout at them. Mazzone should get in his ear right now: "John, your challenge is to make it through the season without missing a start. Your detractors say you can't do it."
And despite all of this, I was grumbling on the way home that Cox and Mazzone left Smoltz in for the 9th inning with a five-run lead after he had already thrown 110 pitches. For G-d sakes, the guy is 37 years old and has a history of elbow problems. You have a lead so big that even Dan Kolb would struggle to blow it. (Wait, let me think about that for a second.) Yes, Smoltz had a shutout going, but Cox is famous for thinking about the long-term and pitches 111 through 123 are not good for your only healthy, quality starter's arm. Yes, I'm sure that Smoltz said he was fine to throw the 9th and would have been angry if he would have been taken out. You're the manager, Grady Little, er, I mean Bobby Cox. Take him out! If the Baseball Prospectus' approach to pitcher abuse is right, then expect Smoltz to have trouble in upcoming starts after bearing such a workload in this one, especially if the Braves bring him back on three days rest against the Orioles on Saturday.
On the other hand, maybe Cox and Mazzone know a little more about Smoltz and pitching than I do.
Other thoughts:
1. I'm getting close to having a man-crush on Kelly Johnson. I've waited so long for the Braves' farm system to produce another hitter like Chipper who can lay off of crap and then whack good pitches to all fields. Last night, he turned on a Burnett fastball in the first inning, showing terrific bat speed, and got a double that led to the Braves' first run. He then drew a walk in the third to set up a potential rally that was squelched by a truly dreadful LaRoche at-bat (swinging at two pitches in the dirt from a hurler who had walked three batters in a row, then watching called strike three) and an unlucky instance in which Wilson Betemit hit a screamer right at Alex Gonzalez, who made a nifty play on the ball. Johnson then had a nice RBI chopper in the 5th for the Braves' second run. Johnson and Pete Orr were terrific last night, getting on base five out of six times against Burnett, working the count almost every time. Orr did get charged with two errors, although one was harsh, since it was on an absolute laser from the bat of Carlos Delgado. (The official scorer was in bizarro world last night. He gave the Marlins a hit on a soft liner that Furcal could have easily caught, then he tagged Orr and Betemit with errors on very difficult plays.)
2. Andruw continued to carry the team offensively. Orr and Johnson kept getting on base and Andruw kept moving them along or bringing them in. His Katyusha shot off of Chad Bentz put the game away and was a proper reward for the team's good job driving up Burnett's pitch count. He also did a good job in the first inning putting the ball in play to score Orr after falling behind 0-2 with runners in scoring position and one out.
3. Maybe I'm a nerd (wait, don't answer that,) but I highly recommend ESPN's Stat Pack when going to a baseball game. It's an easily printable score sheet (that allowed me to play Joe Simpson and Don Sutton during the game - "you can close the book on Burnett, six innings...") and complete batting and pitching stats for the teams. Without it, I wouldn't have known that Cox was playing Orr in place of Giles because Giles is 0/8 in his career against Burnett, or that A.J. Burnett's control is actually pretty good this year. Bore your companions at games; use the Stat Pack!
4. Why are the Marlins at .500 despite a seemingly very good roster? If last night's game is any indication:
a. They have dreadful Mike Lowell batting behind Cabrera and Delgado, which allows opposing pitchers to be careful with the Marlins' best two hitters. They also have Juan Pierre and his poor OBP in the lead-off spot, which means that their three best hitters - Castillo, Cabrera, and Delgado - typically come up with one out and no one on. In other words, they have a spotty lineup. Of course, that lineup will look a lot better against Horacio Ramirez than it did against John Smoltz.
b. Their bullpen outside of Todd Jones is dreadful, so when the Braves got past Burnett, they could feast Chad Bentz (31.50 ERA) and Travis Smith (7.20 ERA).
5. I love the way that Smoltz responds to a challenge. He decided that he needed to get back at the Marlins for tagging him on Opening Day, so what does he do? He twirls a shutout at them. Mazzone should get in his ear right now: "John, your challenge is to make it through the season without missing a start. Your detractors say you can't do it."
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Braves Notes
1. This little nugget escaped me, but if you scroll down the page, you'll see that John Thomson is throwing again. Notice, he's throwing and not pitching, but he seemed to be the starter who would be out the longest because his injury - a torn ligament in a pitching finger - sounds worse than forearm tightness or a strained oblique, so sounds of progress are very encouraging. As I've said before, Thomson is one underrated pitcher. His return would be a major boost for the team.
2. Buster Olney, whose baseball blog is outstanding and worth the $4.95 I pay every month for ESPN Insider (the fact that ESPN the Magazine shows up in my mailbox every two weeks and gives me spare paper for tasks around the condo is another perk,) seems bullish on the Braves' chances of winning the division:
"Some predictions I wouldn't take back:
"1. The Braves winning the NL East. Right now, it looks like the Braves might actually finish out of the top stop in their division. They've been ravaged by injuries, from Mike Hampton to John Thomson to Chipper Jones, and you can't feel bad about giving the benefit of the doubt to Bobby Cox and Co."
Actually, upon reading that again, it looks like he's saying that the Braves aren't going to win the division, but he has a good excuse for picking them to win. Never mind.
3. The more I think about it, the more moving Rafael Furcal out of the lead-off spot makes sense. Right now, he has the most at-bats on the team, but he has the lowest on-base percentage of any player on the roster. Whether his shoulder is killing him or he has just forgotten how to hit, he needs to be moved down so if he continues to struggle, he'll have less of an impact.
4. When I look at the pitchers that the Marlins are throwing in this three-game series against the Braves - A.J. Burnett, Brian Moehler (and his 2.70 ERA,) and Dontrelle Willis - I am completely mystified that this team is behind the Braves in the standings. How is this possible for a team that has Miguel Cabrera and Carlos Delgado in the middle of its lineup? Is it their bullpen, which has only one reliever with over 15 innings pitched and an ERA below four? Is it Al Leiter, eating up 63 innings with a 6.39 ERA? Is it Jack McKeon making the same mistake that Bobby Cox makes with Rafael Furcal and putting the light-hitting Juan Pierre (OBP of .300) in the lead-off role so he has the most at-bats on the team? Is it Mike Lowell, who has fallen off a cliff this year? Inquiring minds want to know.
2. Buster Olney, whose baseball blog is outstanding and worth the $4.95 I pay every month for ESPN Insider (the fact that ESPN the Magazine shows up in my mailbox every two weeks and gives me spare paper for tasks around the condo is another perk,) seems bullish on the Braves' chances of winning the division:
"Some predictions I wouldn't take back:
"1. The Braves winning the NL East. Right now, it looks like the Braves might actually finish out of the top stop in their division. They've been ravaged by injuries, from Mike Hampton to John Thomson to Chipper Jones, and you can't feel bad about giving the benefit of the doubt to Bobby Cox and Co."
Actually, upon reading that again, it looks like he's saying that the Braves aren't going to win the division, but he has a good excuse for picking them to win. Never mind.
3. The more I think about it, the more moving Rafael Furcal out of the lead-off spot makes sense. Right now, he has the most at-bats on the team, but he has the lowest on-base percentage of any player on the roster. Whether his shoulder is killing him or he has just forgotten how to hit, he needs to be moved down so if he continues to struggle, he'll have less of an impact.
4. When I look at the pitchers that the Marlins are throwing in this three-game series against the Braves - A.J. Burnett, Brian Moehler (and his 2.70 ERA,) and Dontrelle Willis - I am completely mystified that this team is behind the Braves in the standings. How is this possible for a team that has Miguel Cabrera and Carlos Delgado in the middle of its lineup? Is it their bullpen, which has only one reliever with over 15 innings pitched and an ERA below four? Is it Al Leiter, eating up 63 innings with a 6.39 ERA? Is it Jack McKeon making the same mistake that Bobby Cox makes with Rafael Furcal and putting the light-hitting Juan Pierre (OBP of .300) in the lead-off role so he has the most at-bats on the team? Is it Mike Lowell, who has fallen off a cliff this year? Inquiring minds want to know.
Monday, June 20, 2005
Let's not start sucking each other's....
With apologies to the Wolf, that's my take on the Braves' 4-3 road trip. Yes, it was nice to see a team that had been playing poor baseball win four out of six at a stretch. Yes, it's nice that they are staying within striking distance of the top of the division. That said, the team's offense came alive in two of the most hitter-friendly stadia in baseball against the following motley crew of starters:
RHP Pedro Astacio (2-7, 5.60)
RHP Ramon Ortiz (2-4, 6.10)
LHP Eric Milton (3-8, 7.97)
RHP Luke Hudson (1-1, 6.55)
Hopefully, the experience of hitting against these weak pitchers will give the bats some confidence, but it's a waste of time trying to read too much into an offensive outburst against those guys. If the Braves have solid performances against A.J. Burnett and Dontrelle Willis this week, then we'll know that the team is officially playing better. Incidentally, the Braves go up against Dontrelle on June 23, the anniversary of their low-point in 2004: a 6-0 shutout loss to the Marlins and Brad Penny that represented their third loss in a row and dropped the team to six games under .500.
Other thoughts from the weekend:
1. I'm willing to accept Kelly Johnson's excellent performance with the bat as being more than just feasting on bad pitching. Even when he was 1-30, I liked watching him hit because he has terrific plate discipline and he tends to hit line drives. It was a matter of time before he started to hit and you'll have to take my word that I thought as much before he doubled his OPS in the space of a week. Maybe I'm crazy, but he reminds me of Chipper at the plate with his stance, his selectivity, and his swing. He doesn't have Chipper's power, but watching him hit makes me wonder why the Braves were fooling with Mondsi and Jordan for two months. His 12 walks equal Mondesi's total in 88 fewer at-bats. Right now, I feel far more comfortable with him in the lead-off role than I do with Furcal, whose shoulder apparently prevents him from hitting competently. I suspect that we'll see a lot of Betemit in place of Furcal in the coming months, especially if Wilson keeps hitting at a .330/.412/.636 clip. Now I'm channeling Lou Brown from Major League: there's two or three potential all-stars there.
1a. Incidentally, Johnson's .737 OPS, which is admittedly inflated by a small sample size and his torrid week, is .039 points higher than that of Aubrey Huff, the player whom the Braves were supposedly trying to acquire to solve their leftfield problem. The more I look at the mid-season trading market, the more I see overrated closers and otherwise average hitters whom the media in various cities are going to clamor for and then bitch when their hometown team shows that they "don't care about winning" by not mortgaging the future for them.
2. What in the name of Tom Browning has happened to the Reds' pitchers? How can a team assemble a good lineup with Adam Dunn, Ken Griffey, Jr., Sean Casey, Austin Kearns, Wily Mo Pena, and Joe Randa and then let them die on the vine with a dreadful starting pitching staff? That's a wild card capable lineup and a Double-A pitching staff. Speaking of which, have the Reds produced a competent starting pitcher from their farm system in the past five years? Ten years? I'm not counting Brandon Claussen because he was already a prospect when they acquired him for Aaron F***ing Boone. Ditto for Aaron Harang from Oakland. If Reds fans want to know why their team sucks, it's because they can't produce starters from the minors, despite the fact that they draft high every year. As a result, they have to overpay for whiplash candidates like Eric Milton. That said, how are the Reds not electing to trade some of their glut of offense for competent pitching?
3. I worry for the Braves' bullpen. Because of the injuries to the starting staff, they are going with a four-man rotation right now. Of those pitchers, Jorge Sosa can't throw more than five innings because he's just come from the bullpen, Kyle Davies can't last into the later innings because opposing teams are figuring him out, and Horacio Ramirez can't go deep because his weak three true outcome (HR/K/BB)numbers have finally caught up with him. John Smoltz is the only reliable starter right now. If his elbow starts to act up, then we might as well light the 2005 team on fire and throw the ashes into the Ganges. On the other hand, if Hampton, Thomson, and Hudson get healthy, they'll come back to a deeper team with a better offense, plus they won't have too many innings on their odometer.
3a. Speaking of my favorite Braves this year, how about a shout-out for Jorge Sosa. If the past week ends up being a turning point or simply a stage that the Braves survived en route to later success, Sosa's two good starts (and the bullpen's shut-out work behind him) will be a forgotten reason why. Sosa has terrific stuff that again makes me wonder why he wasn't used more as a reliever earlier in the year. Plus, he has an Alfonseca-like flourish after strikeouts that makes me smile and miss EL PULPO!!!
4. On the Braves' stat sheet for 2005, three pitchers have ERAs over six:
Tom Martin - CUT!!!
Roman Colon - SENT DOWN!!!
Dan Kolb - ???
5. Please tell me you saw Adam Dunn's home run off of Smoltz on Thursday night. Wow. Moon shot doesn't do it justice; Probe to Pluto might be more apt. And the best part about it was that Dunn and Smoltz were yukking it up at first base later in the game after Smoltz singled. I get the sense that Smoltz likes to challenge great hitters when he has a lead and isn't miffed when they hit him. He gave up a cannon shot to Barry Bonds in the 2002 NLDS when pitching with a three-run lead and no one on base. Alternatively, Smoltz might be pulling a Maddux and setting Dunn up for an at-bat later this year. (Thankfully, the Braves see the Reds seven more times.)
RHP Pedro Astacio (2-7, 5.60)
RHP Ramon Ortiz (2-4, 6.10)
LHP Eric Milton (3-8, 7.97)
RHP Luke Hudson (1-1, 6.55)
Hopefully, the experience of hitting against these weak pitchers will give the bats some confidence, but it's a waste of time trying to read too much into an offensive outburst against those guys. If the Braves have solid performances against A.J. Burnett and Dontrelle Willis this week, then we'll know that the team is officially playing better. Incidentally, the Braves go up against Dontrelle on June 23, the anniversary of their low-point in 2004: a 6-0 shutout loss to the Marlins and Brad Penny that represented their third loss in a row and dropped the team to six games under .500.
Other thoughts from the weekend:
1. I'm willing to accept Kelly Johnson's excellent performance with the bat as being more than just feasting on bad pitching. Even when he was 1-30, I liked watching him hit because he has terrific plate discipline and he tends to hit line drives. It was a matter of time before he started to hit and you'll have to take my word that I thought as much before he doubled his OPS in the space of a week. Maybe I'm crazy, but he reminds me of Chipper at the plate with his stance, his selectivity, and his swing. He doesn't have Chipper's power, but watching him hit makes me wonder why the Braves were fooling with Mondsi and Jordan for two months. His 12 walks equal Mondesi's total in 88 fewer at-bats. Right now, I feel far more comfortable with him in the lead-off role than I do with Furcal, whose shoulder apparently prevents him from hitting competently. I suspect that we'll see a lot of Betemit in place of Furcal in the coming months, especially if Wilson keeps hitting at a .330/.412/.636 clip. Now I'm channeling Lou Brown from Major League: there's two or three potential all-stars there.
1a. Incidentally, Johnson's .737 OPS, which is admittedly inflated by a small sample size and his torrid week, is .039 points higher than that of Aubrey Huff, the player whom the Braves were supposedly trying to acquire to solve their leftfield problem. The more I look at the mid-season trading market, the more I see overrated closers and otherwise average hitters whom the media in various cities are going to clamor for and then bitch when their hometown team shows that they "don't care about winning" by not mortgaging the future for them.
2. What in the name of Tom Browning has happened to the Reds' pitchers? How can a team assemble a good lineup with Adam Dunn, Ken Griffey, Jr., Sean Casey, Austin Kearns, Wily Mo Pena, and Joe Randa and then let them die on the vine with a dreadful starting pitching staff? That's a wild card capable lineup and a Double-A pitching staff. Speaking of which, have the Reds produced a competent starting pitcher from their farm system in the past five years? Ten years? I'm not counting Brandon Claussen because he was already a prospect when they acquired him for Aaron F***ing Boone. Ditto for Aaron Harang from Oakland. If Reds fans want to know why their team sucks, it's because they can't produce starters from the minors, despite the fact that they draft high every year. As a result, they have to overpay for whiplash candidates like Eric Milton. That said, how are the Reds not electing to trade some of their glut of offense for competent pitching?
3. I worry for the Braves' bullpen. Because of the injuries to the starting staff, they are going with a four-man rotation right now. Of those pitchers, Jorge Sosa can't throw more than five innings because he's just come from the bullpen, Kyle Davies can't last into the later innings because opposing teams are figuring him out, and Horacio Ramirez can't go deep because his weak three true outcome (HR/K/BB)numbers have finally caught up with him. John Smoltz is the only reliable starter right now. If his elbow starts to act up, then we might as well light the 2005 team on fire and throw the ashes into the Ganges. On the other hand, if Hampton, Thomson, and Hudson get healthy, they'll come back to a deeper team with a better offense, plus they won't have too many innings on their odometer.
3a. Speaking of my favorite Braves this year, how about a shout-out for Jorge Sosa. If the past week ends up being a turning point or simply a stage that the Braves survived en route to later success, Sosa's two good starts (and the bullpen's shut-out work behind him) will be a forgotten reason why. Sosa has terrific stuff that again makes me wonder why he wasn't used more as a reliever earlier in the year. Plus, he has an Alfonseca-like flourish after strikeouts that makes me smile and miss EL PULPO!!!
4. On the Braves' stat sheet for 2005, three pitchers have ERAs over six:
Tom Martin - CUT!!!
Roman Colon - SENT DOWN!!!
Dan Kolb - ???
5. Please tell me you saw Adam Dunn's home run off of Smoltz on Thursday night. Wow. Moon shot doesn't do it justice; Probe to Pluto might be more apt. And the best part about it was that Dunn and Smoltz were yukking it up at first base later in the game after Smoltz singled. I get the sense that Smoltz likes to challenge great hitters when he has a lead and isn't miffed when they hit him. He gave up a cannon shot to Barry Bonds in the 2002 NLDS when pitching with a three-run lead and no one on base. Alternatively, Smoltz might be pulling a Maddux and setting Dunn up for an at-bat later this year. (Thankfully, the Braves see the Reds seven more times.)
Friday, June 17, 2005
Thoughts from today's "Ask CFN"
1. I strongly recommend Phil Steele. Unlike most other previews, he gets outside of the usual cliches and actually analyzes stats and schedules critically. His predictions are routinely more accurate than those of the other magazines, which tend to echo one another. Fiutak's criticism of most previews as out-of-date by the time the games roll around is misplaced. If the only purpose of a pre-season preview was to provide a depth chart, then he would have a point. However, Phil Steele provides a ton of information, such as stats on programs for the past five years and consensus recruiting rankings for players on the three-deep. That kid of stuff is useful throughout the season. Maybe this is the Moneyball fan in me peeking through, but I have a whole lot more respect for someone who has data to support his predictions than someone who just says "Tennessee looked great in their bowl game, so pencil them in for the top five," which is essentially what most previews do. Speaking of whichÂ…
2. I strongly disagree with ranking Tennessee in the top five defenses for 2005. They return nine starters from a defense that finished 9th in the SEC in pass efficiency defense, 7th in total defense, and 7th in scoring defense. Forget the 72 points they allowed in two games against Auburn or the 30 first downs they allowed against South Carolina. How does a good defense allow Vandy and Kentucky to go over 30 points? I'd take Auburn, LSU, or Georgia over Tennessee defensively. Tennessee still has an image of being a fast, effective defense, just like Michigan has an image of being a dominant running team, but both programs have shed those positive attributes over the past several years.
3. Is it a coincidence that Penn State and Alabama both had great defenses "despite" having terrible offenses last year? Is it possible that opposing offenses played very close to the vest, knowing that they didn't need to score more than 17 points to win? I'm not sure about the answer, but I think there's evidence that the "good defense/bad offense" phenomenon cuts both ways. I'd be interested in taking a look at other teams that finished in the top ten in total defense with bad offenses and how those defenses did the next year. I'd bet that their defenses tended to regress.
2. I strongly disagree with ranking Tennessee in the top five defenses for 2005. They return nine starters from a defense that finished 9th in the SEC in pass efficiency defense, 7th in total defense, and 7th in scoring defense. Forget the 72 points they allowed in two games against Auburn or the 30 first downs they allowed against South Carolina. How does a good defense allow Vandy and Kentucky to go over 30 points? I'd take Auburn, LSU, or Georgia over Tennessee defensively. Tennessee still has an image of being a fast, effective defense, just like Michigan has an image of being a dominant running team, but both programs have shed those positive attributes over the past several years.
3. Is it a coincidence that Penn State and Alabama both had great defenses "despite" having terrible offenses last year? Is it possible that opposing offenses played very close to the vest, knowing that they didn't need to score more than 17 points to win? I'm not sure about the answer, but I think there's evidence that the "good defense/bad offense" phenomenon cuts both ways. I'd be interested in taking a look at other teams that finished in the top ten in total defense with bad offenses and how those defenses did the next year. I'd bet that their defenses tended to regress.
Evidence that Atlanta doesn't suck as a sports town
For all the guff that Atlanta fans take (and specifically Hawks fans,) this fact is pretty impressive, especially in light of the fact that the Finals involve no transcendent personalities (read: stars from major markets) and the games have been that deadly combination of uncompetitive and overly defensive. G-d bless fans in this town for watching the Finals; they're better basketball fans than I am. If the Hawks could just show something of a pulse, there would be loads of excitement here. I'm channeling William Wallace's speech to Robert the Bruce: "There is strength in you, I have felt it. And if you would just LE-EE-AD you r people to freedom, they would follow you. And so would I."
Post-script: thanks to imdb.com, here's the actual quote: "Your title gives you claim to the throne of our country, but men don't follow titles, they follow courage. Now our people know you. Noble, and common, they respect you. And if you would just lead them to freedom, they'd follow you. And so would I" It appears that I was channeling Luke Skywalker as well as William Wallace. Oops.
Post-script: thanks to imdb.com, here's the actual quote: "Your title gives you claim to the throne of our country, but men don't follow titles, they follow courage. Now our people know you. Noble, and common, they respect you. And if you would just lead them to freedom, they'd follow you. And so would I" It appears that I was channeling Luke Skywalker as well as William Wallace. Oops.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Why I love soccer
Think that the Swamp is a hostile venue? Think that Philly fans are rough for cheering when players are paralyzed? Boca Juniors fans laugh in your face and pull up your skirt. Can you imagine the media reaction in the U.S. if the following happened at a sporting event:
1. Several players head-butted one another;
2. A fan ran onto the field, punched a visiting player, and then scurried back into the stands;
3. A number of players were pelted with missiles from the crowd; and
4. The game was called when a mass of fans assembled and led a visiting player to show abject terror as he headed back to his area of the field.
Can you imagine "Old School/Nu Skool" after an episode like that. Skip Bayless' head would explode like the Death Star. Stephen A. Smith's saliva would coat the camera. In short, it would be the first installment of "Old School/Nu Skool" worth watching. And the number of overwrought "fans are over the line" pieces from typical, white, middle-aged, sports writers (TWMASWs) would be off the charts. Couldn't we send the Red Sox to play Boca Juniors in ping pong at the Bombonera?
1. Several players head-butted one another;
2. A fan ran onto the field, punched a visiting player, and then scurried back into the stands;
3. A number of players were pelted with missiles from the crowd; and
4. The game was called when a mass of fans assembled and led a visiting player to show abject terror as he headed back to his area of the field.
Can you imagine "Old School/Nu Skool" after an episode like that. Skip Bayless' head would explode like the Death Star. Stephen A. Smith's saliva would coat the camera. In short, it would be the first installment of "Old School/Nu Skool" worth watching. And the number of overwrought "fans are over the line" pieces from typical, white, middle-aged, sports writers (TWMASWs) would be off the charts. Couldn't we send the Red Sox to play Boca Juniors in ping pong at the Bombonera?
Seven Strikeouts, No Walks
That sums up Jorge Sosa's night in Texas last night. Sosa has borderline electric stuff and has always had high strikeout rates, but the reason why he was available from Tampa for a utility infielder and why Cox and Mazzone didn't trust him even as the rest of the bullpen was imploding was his inability to avoid walks. Last night, he got ahead of just about every hitter and then punched them out once he had the upper hand. David Dellucci is probably still wondering what Sosa was throwing him. And let's not forget that Sosa was pitching to one of the best lineups in baseball in their home stadium, which is an offensive park. It's never a good idea to draw too many conclusions from one start, especially a start that only went five innings, but Sosa's performance was encouraging last night.
As usual, one good Braves performance has me thinking all sorts of optimstic thoughts. If this team can stay in striking distance of the top of the division, then some combination of the following might boost them into another hot July and August:
1. Chipper returns and bolsters a lineup that clearly misses him;
2. Giles and Furcal (especially Furcal) play up to their potential and allow the middle of the order to hit with runners on;
3. Adam LaRoche starts to hit like he did in the second half of last season;
4. Kelly Johnson, Andy Marte, and Ryan Langerhans all follow LaRoche's pattern from last year and hit better and better as they see more major league pitching; and/or
5. Thomson and Hampton return healthy and the Braves again have the best starting rotation in the division.
And now, to bring the room down for a moment, let's consider the implications of Tim Hudson's recent struggles and the rumors that he has oblique problems again. Assuming that this condition will only get worse as he ages, the Braves will face a future where roughly half of their payroll will be consumed by Hudson, Chipper Jones, and Mike Hampton, all of whom are aging, oft-injured, and on the downward slopes of their careers. There's a pleasant thought.
As usual, one good Braves performance has me thinking all sorts of optimstic thoughts. If this team can stay in striking distance of the top of the division, then some combination of the following might boost them into another hot July and August:
1. Chipper returns and bolsters a lineup that clearly misses him;
2. Giles and Furcal (especially Furcal) play up to their potential and allow the middle of the order to hit with runners on;
3. Adam LaRoche starts to hit like he did in the second half of last season;
4. Kelly Johnson, Andy Marte, and Ryan Langerhans all follow LaRoche's pattern from last year and hit better and better as they see more major league pitching; and/or
5. Thomson and Hampton return healthy and the Braves again have the best starting rotation in the division.
And now, to bring the room down for a moment, let's consider the implications of Tim Hudson's recent struggles and the rumors that he has oblique problems again. Assuming that this condition will only get worse as he ages, the Braves will face a future where roughly half of their payroll will be consumed by Hudson, Chipper Jones, and Mike Hampton, all of whom are aging, oft-injured, and on the downward slopes of their careers. There's a pleasant thought.
Great post on schedule strength since 1993
This post is from my favorite Michigan board and, unfortunately, it omits Georgia, but it's pretty interesting for some of the major powers in college football:
"I looked at 14 Division 1-A programs using Sorenson's rating system and data base to compare them in terms of schedule strength and their relative success against Top 10, Top 25 and Top 50 teams for each season between 1993 (when Penn State joins the conference and the 85-scholarship limit is implemented) and 2004. I picked marquee named teams from the different BCS conferences and Notre Dame for the comparison. All these rankings include bowl games as well as the regular season.
Here's the won-loss rankings of these teams during the 1993-2004 time period from the highest to the lowest winning percentage:
1. Florida State (124-25-1)
2. Nebraska (124-28)
3. Tennessee (119-31)
4. Miami-FL (114-31)
5. Ohio State (116-33-1)
6. Florida (117-34-1)
7. Michigan (111-37)
8. Texas (108-39-2)
9. Oklahoma (100-47-1)
10. Southern Cal (98-48-2)
11. Penn State (96-49)
12t. Louisiana State (90-53-1)
12t. Notre Dame (90-53-1)
14. Alabama (82-65)
Sorenson gives each team a strength-of-schedule raking for each season. Here's the average SOS ranking for these teams over the 12-year period with the programs ranked highest to lowest:
1. Florida State - 13.3
2. Florida - 14.7
3t. Miami FL - 17.7
3t. Notre Dame - 17.7
5. Southern Cal - 18.4
6. Michigan - 21.5
7. Ohio State - 23.3
8. Alabama - 25.3
9. Tennessee - 25.7
10. Penn State - 27.8
11. Nebraska - 29.8
12. Louisiana State - 31.3
13. Oklahoma - 32.3
14. Texas - 41.2
Using Sorenson's power rankings, here's the number of Top 10 teams each program has faced during this period with the won-loss record:
1. Florida - 37 (14-22-1)
2. Tennessee - 29 (11-18)
3. Florida State - 28 (12-15-1)
4. Michigan - 26 (11-15)
5. Nebraska - 25 (12-13)
6. Louisiana State - 24 (6-18)
7t. Southern Cal - 23 (6-17)
7t. Oklahoma - 23 (8-15)
7t. Notre Dame - 23 (2-21)
10t. Texas - 22 (6-16)
10t. Ohio State - 22 (10-11-1)
12t. Alabama - 21 (1-20)
12t. Miami-FL - 21 (9-12)
14. Penn State - 17 (1-16)
Here's the listings for Top 25 teams that each school has played:
1. Florida - 68 (37-30-1)
2t. Ohio State - 60 (32-37-1)
2t. Florida State - 60 (39-20-1)
4. Michigan - 56 (31-25)
5t.Tennessee - 55 (29-25-1)
5t. Notre Dame - 55 (31-33-1)
7t. Alabama - 53 (17-35-1)
7t. Louisiana State - 53 (19-34)
9. Penn State - 52 (20-32)
10. Southern Cal - 49 (21-27-1)
11. Oklahoma - 48 (22-25-1)
12. Miami-FL - 47 (27-20)
13. Nebraska - 46 (26-20)
14. Texas - 45 (18-27)
Here's the listing of the Top 50 teams played by each program:
1. Southern Cal - 100 (57-41-2)
2. Florida State - 99 (74-24-1)
3. Florida - 97 (63-33-1)
4t. Michigan - 95 (61-34)
4t. Notre Dame - 95 (44-50-1)
6t. Tennessee - 91 (60-30-1)
6t. Alabama - 91 (39-51-1)
8. Ohio State - 90 (58-31-1)
9. Penn State - 87 (44-43)
10t. Oklahoma - 85 (46-38-1)
10t. Nebraska - 85 (59-26)
12. Miami-FL - 82 (54-28)
13. Louisiana State - 84 (37-47)
14. Texas - 80 (41-37-2)
There's been discussion on this board regarding Michigan's non-conference schedule, etc., but when you look at the numbers, UM does pretty well against a number of its contemporaries. Not quite at the level of a Florida or Florida State, but certainly in the upper third of the 14 teams that were researched."
My thoughts:
1. I always ripped on Florida State for joining the ACC and playing a sub-standard schedule, but these computer ratings clearly debunk that myth. Playing Florida, Miami, and a major bowl opponent every year did wonders for their strength of schedule and makes their streak of top four finishes even more impressive, especially since pollsters are not noted for taking strength of schedule into account.
1a. As I would have expected, Florida has played the most top ten and top 25 teams. There's no way to escape the fact that they have the toughest schedule set-up in the country, since they play Florida State, Tennessee, LSU, and Georgia every year. No one else plays a foursome of similar power. How dominant did Spurrier's teams have to be to play for the national title in consecutive years against that level of opposition? (I suppose that LSU and Georgia being down in 95-96 helped.)
2. On the other end, Texas has the weakest schedule by a significant margin and also has the worst record against top 25 and top 50 opponents. I was going to write a lot of that off as a function of playing in the Southwest Conference, but the Horns were in the Big XII for all but three of the years measures. I was also going to write their numbers against quality opponents off as a function of David McWilliams and John Mackovic, but Mack Brown has been the head man in Austin for seven of the 12 years covered in this study. Texas has two major rivals - Oklahoma and Texas A&M - and they haven't been up at the same time, so they've typically only played one top team a year. You combine that with a game against Baylor, 1-2 games against Missouri, Iowa State, or Kansas, and a typically weak non-conference schedule, and you have a recipe for an average schedule. Their weak numbers against top 25 teams ought to give us major pause before anointing them #2 in the country this year.
2a. Three of the bottom four teams in the strength of schedule rankings are Big XII teams. Toughest conference in the country, my ass.
3. Penn State's strength of schedule is lower than either Michigan or Ohio State's, which is probably a function of their weak non-conference schedule. Their 1-16 record against top ten teams is abysmal, topped only by Alabama's 1-20. I suppose that Notre Dame's 2-21 record is also in the same ballpark. Fans have been wondering over the past couple years what happened to these three major powers, probably not realizing that their decline has been a long-term phenomenon.
3a. And speaking of the Irish, these numbers debunk the notion that their schedule is tougher than anyone else's and is therefore the reason why they have struggled over the past decade. They are middle of the pack in terms of top ten and top 25 opponents. If Florida and Florida State can win against tough schedules, then why can't the Irish? Probably because they ran off their Bowden/Spurrier and replaced him with Bob Davie and Ty Willingham.
"I looked at 14 Division 1-A programs using Sorenson's rating system and data base to compare them in terms of schedule strength and their relative success against Top 10, Top 25 and Top 50 teams for each season between 1993 (when Penn State joins the conference and the 85-scholarship limit is implemented) and 2004. I picked marquee named teams from the different BCS conferences and Notre Dame for the comparison. All these rankings include bowl games as well as the regular season.
Here's the won-loss rankings of these teams during the 1993-2004 time period from the highest to the lowest winning percentage:
1. Florida State (124-25-1)
2. Nebraska (124-28)
3. Tennessee (119-31)
4. Miami-FL (114-31)
5. Ohio State (116-33-1)
6. Florida (117-34-1)
7. Michigan (111-37)
8. Texas (108-39-2)
9. Oklahoma (100-47-1)
10. Southern Cal (98-48-2)
11. Penn State (96-49)
12t. Louisiana State (90-53-1)
12t. Notre Dame (90-53-1)
14. Alabama (82-65)
Sorenson gives each team a strength-of-schedule raking for each season. Here's the average SOS ranking for these teams over the 12-year period with the programs ranked highest to lowest:
1. Florida State - 13.3
2. Florida - 14.7
3t. Miami FL - 17.7
3t. Notre Dame - 17.7
5. Southern Cal - 18.4
6. Michigan - 21.5
7. Ohio State - 23.3
8. Alabama - 25.3
9. Tennessee - 25.7
10. Penn State - 27.8
11. Nebraska - 29.8
12. Louisiana State - 31.3
13. Oklahoma - 32.3
14. Texas - 41.2
Using Sorenson's power rankings, here's the number of Top 10 teams each program has faced during this period with the won-loss record:
1. Florida - 37 (14-22-1)
2. Tennessee - 29 (11-18)
3. Florida State - 28 (12-15-1)
4. Michigan - 26 (11-15)
5. Nebraska - 25 (12-13)
6. Louisiana State - 24 (6-18)
7t. Southern Cal - 23 (6-17)
7t. Oklahoma - 23 (8-15)
7t. Notre Dame - 23 (2-21)
10t. Texas - 22 (6-16)
10t. Ohio State - 22 (10-11-1)
12t. Alabama - 21 (1-20)
12t. Miami-FL - 21 (9-12)
14. Penn State - 17 (1-16)
Here's the listings for Top 25 teams that each school has played:
1. Florida - 68 (37-30-1)
2t. Ohio State - 60 (32-37-1)
2t. Florida State - 60 (39-20-1)
4. Michigan - 56 (31-25)
5t.Tennessee - 55 (29-25-1)
5t. Notre Dame - 55 (31-33-1)
7t. Alabama - 53 (17-35-1)
7t. Louisiana State - 53 (19-34)
9. Penn State - 52 (20-32)
10. Southern Cal - 49 (21-27-1)
11. Oklahoma - 48 (22-25-1)
12. Miami-FL - 47 (27-20)
13. Nebraska - 46 (26-20)
14. Texas - 45 (18-27)
Here's the listing of the Top 50 teams played by each program:
1. Southern Cal - 100 (57-41-2)
2. Florida State - 99 (74-24-1)
3. Florida - 97 (63-33-1)
4t. Michigan - 95 (61-34)
4t. Notre Dame - 95 (44-50-1)
6t. Tennessee - 91 (60-30-1)
6t. Alabama - 91 (39-51-1)
8. Ohio State - 90 (58-31-1)
9. Penn State - 87 (44-43)
10t. Oklahoma - 85 (46-38-1)
10t. Nebraska - 85 (59-26)
12. Miami-FL - 82 (54-28)
13. Louisiana State - 84 (37-47)
14. Texas - 80 (41-37-2)
There's been discussion on this board regarding Michigan's non-conference schedule, etc., but when you look at the numbers, UM does pretty well against a number of its contemporaries. Not quite at the level of a Florida or Florida State, but certainly in the upper third of the 14 teams that were researched."
My thoughts:
1. I always ripped on Florida State for joining the ACC and playing a sub-standard schedule, but these computer ratings clearly debunk that myth. Playing Florida, Miami, and a major bowl opponent every year did wonders for their strength of schedule and makes their streak of top four finishes even more impressive, especially since pollsters are not noted for taking strength of schedule into account.
1a. As I would have expected, Florida has played the most top ten and top 25 teams. There's no way to escape the fact that they have the toughest schedule set-up in the country, since they play Florida State, Tennessee, LSU, and Georgia every year. No one else plays a foursome of similar power. How dominant did Spurrier's teams have to be to play for the national title in consecutive years against that level of opposition? (I suppose that LSU and Georgia being down in 95-96 helped.)
2. On the other end, Texas has the weakest schedule by a significant margin and also has the worst record against top 25 and top 50 opponents. I was going to write a lot of that off as a function of playing in the Southwest Conference, but the Horns were in the Big XII for all but three of the years measures. I was also going to write their numbers against quality opponents off as a function of David McWilliams and John Mackovic, but Mack Brown has been the head man in Austin for seven of the 12 years covered in this study. Texas has two major rivals - Oklahoma and Texas A&M - and they haven't been up at the same time, so they've typically only played one top team a year. You combine that with a game against Baylor, 1-2 games against Missouri, Iowa State, or Kansas, and a typically weak non-conference schedule, and you have a recipe for an average schedule. Their weak numbers against top 25 teams ought to give us major pause before anointing them #2 in the country this year.
2a. Three of the bottom four teams in the strength of schedule rankings are Big XII teams. Toughest conference in the country, my ass.
3. Penn State's strength of schedule is lower than either Michigan or Ohio State's, which is probably a function of their weak non-conference schedule. Their 1-16 record against top ten teams is abysmal, topped only by Alabama's 1-20. I suppose that Notre Dame's 2-21 record is also in the same ballpark. Fans have been wondering over the past couple years what happened to these three major powers, probably not realizing that their decline has been a long-term phenomenon.
3a. And speaking of the Irish, these numbers debunk the notion that their schedule is tougher than anyone else's and is therefore the reason why they have struggled over the past decade. They are middle of the pack in terms of top ten and top 25 opponents. If Florida and Florida State can win against tough schedules, then why can't the Irish? Probably because they ran off their Bowden/Spurrier and replaced him with Bob Davie and Ty Willingham.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
No, I'm pretty sure that you aren't G-d, Wyatt
File this under "truth is stranger than fiction." There has to be a mad rush on Florida Gator message boards right now to come up with the best one-liner to describe Florida State's starting quarterback proclaiming himself to be "G-d" or the "Son of G-d." Initially, I would say that he's simply trying to get in good with Saint Bowden and his on-going religious war against the government to let Fisher DeBerry rename his team "Christ's Air Force." Upon further examination, the Bonnaroo reference makes it pretty clear that Wyatt got his hands on some truly powerful shrooms and they knocked him into the sort of place The Beatles were in when they wrote "Sargeant Pepper." (By the way, it's clear that Ivan Maisel has no idea what Bonnaroo is, based on his description in the article.) Sexton's performance in the middle of the street isn't quite the menace to society that we've come to expect from Florida State players, but if he really responded to the pressure of being the FSU starter by going insane, then he's certainly not the right guy to lead an alleged top ten team.
And on a related note, Miami becomes a smidge more likely to win the national title now that their trip to Lower Alabama will entail facing either a redshirt freshman or a guy who had a psychotic break 12 weeks before the opener.
And on a related note, Miami becomes a smidge more likely to win the national title now that their trip to Lower Alabama will entail facing either a redshirt freshman or a guy who had a psychotic break 12 weeks before the opener.
The Top 25, according to compulsive gamblers
Based on the odds in Vegas, here's the Top 25 for next season in college football:
1. USC
2. Texas
3. Miami
4. (tie) Tennessee, Oklahoma
6. (tie) Florida, FSU, Michigan, Ohio State
10. (tie) Iowa, LSU
12. Virginia Tech
13. (tie) Auburn, Georgia, Texas A&M
16. Louisville
17. (tie) Alabama, Boston College, K-State, Nebraska, Wisconsin
23. (tie) Arizona State, Cal, Texas Tech
A few thoughts:
1. There is (or at least oughta be) a slight difference between ranking the Top 25 and ranking teams based on their likelihood of winning the national title. The former should solely be a measure of which teams are better than the teams ranked below them; the latter combines an evaluation of a team's merits with the ease of their schedule.
2. The rankings reflect the gambling public's view of the hierarchy in college football this year (or the casinos' views of the gambling public's views.) Thus, in a way, this is nothing more than a public poll, although the public in question is generally very knowledgeable, especially the gamblers who put down the most money and therefore weight the rankings the most.
3. USC is an obvious #1, but I'm not sold on any of the next three. Texas is overrated because of their performance in the Rose Bowl last year, but we'll see how Vince Young does without Cedric Benson in the backfield to take pressure off. On the other hand, they did hire former Auburn DC Gene Chizik, so an offensive regression could be paired with defensive improvement. Miami has major questions. Aside from their QB issues, they haven't run the ball well in several years and they are replacing a lot of talent. Additionally, their two toughest games - FSU and Virginia Tech - are on the road. Tennessee is overrated because their defense was dreck last year and I'm not buying their hype until they come close to showing a national title caliber defense. Plus, they go to Florida, LSU, Alabama, and Notre Dame. Good luck running that gauntlet.
4. LSU presents great value at #10. They have as much talent as any team in the country and their schedule is very favorable. Plus, Les Miles is at least as qualified for that job as Nick Saban was when he arrived from Michigan State. Miles is an offensive guy, which LSU needed, and he adds a great defensive coordinator in Bo Pelini, who is coaching for a major head coaching gig. I'm also surprised that Virginia Tech is behind Miami and FSU, since the Hokies return more starters from a team that was better last year and their schedule is more favorable.
5. How is Louisville so low, given their returning starters and weak schedule. On the other hand, maybe Vegas is telling us something about them. Mid-majors rarely live up to high rankings.
6. How is Wisconsin on the list, given that they were overrated last year, they lose all the good parts of their 2004 team, and their schedule is tougher? And Purdue isn't on the list with 18 returning starters and a schedule that omits Ohio State and Michigan and sees Iowa and Notre Dame come to West Lafayette.
1. USC
2. Texas
3. Miami
4. (tie) Tennessee, Oklahoma
6. (tie) Florida, FSU, Michigan, Ohio State
10. (tie) Iowa, LSU
12. Virginia Tech
13. (tie) Auburn, Georgia, Texas A&M
16. Louisville
17. (tie) Alabama, Boston College, K-State, Nebraska, Wisconsin
23. (tie) Arizona State, Cal, Texas Tech
A few thoughts:
1. There is (or at least oughta be) a slight difference between ranking the Top 25 and ranking teams based on their likelihood of winning the national title. The former should solely be a measure of which teams are better than the teams ranked below them; the latter combines an evaluation of a team's merits with the ease of their schedule.
2. The rankings reflect the gambling public's view of the hierarchy in college football this year (or the casinos' views of the gambling public's views.) Thus, in a way, this is nothing more than a public poll, although the public in question is generally very knowledgeable, especially the gamblers who put down the most money and therefore weight the rankings the most.
3. USC is an obvious #1, but I'm not sold on any of the next three. Texas is overrated because of their performance in the Rose Bowl last year, but we'll see how Vince Young does without Cedric Benson in the backfield to take pressure off. On the other hand, they did hire former Auburn DC Gene Chizik, so an offensive regression could be paired with defensive improvement. Miami has major questions. Aside from their QB issues, they haven't run the ball well in several years and they are replacing a lot of talent. Additionally, their two toughest games - FSU and Virginia Tech - are on the road. Tennessee is overrated because their defense was dreck last year and I'm not buying their hype until they come close to showing a national title caliber defense. Plus, they go to Florida, LSU, Alabama, and Notre Dame. Good luck running that gauntlet.
4. LSU presents great value at #10. They have as much talent as any team in the country and their schedule is very favorable. Plus, Les Miles is at least as qualified for that job as Nick Saban was when he arrived from Michigan State. Miles is an offensive guy, which LSU needed, and he adds a great defensive coordinator in Bo Pelini, who is coaching for a major head coaching gig. I'm also surprised that Virginia Tech is behind Miami and FSU, since the Hokies return more starters from a team that was better last year and their schedule is more favorable.
5. How is Louisville so low, given their returning starters and weak schedule. On the other hand, maybe Vegas is telling us something about them. Mid-majors rarely live up to high rankings.
6. How is Wisconsin on the list, given that they were overrated last year, they lose all the good parts of their 2004 team, and their schedule is tougher? And Purdue isn't on the list with 18 returning starters and a schedule that omits Ohio State and Michigan and sees Iowa and Notre Dame come to West Lafayette.
Monday, June 13, 2005
Great article from Peter Gammons on bullpen problems
And speaking of bullpens, the Braves aren't the only team in search of help in that area. To me, the article highlights that trading for new relievers won't necessarily be a panacea because those guys have often over-performed early in the season in a small sample-size of innings and their teams have often overused them. Internal solutions or waiver-wire pick-ups (see: Wright, Jaret) are the best solution.
And then there's this problem with assembling a bullpen:
"If teams like the Yankees and Red Sox can develop some of their own power arms, they wouldn't have to spend $6 million a year for pitchers like Steve Karsay. It would also allow them to avoid a major problem: Do they know that even if a Mesa or Grabow performs in Pittsburgh that he can pitch in a pennant race in one of the tough cities? See Hawkins. Or the Jay Witasick/Mark Wohlers experiment in New York in 2002. Or Sauerbeck, Jones and Jeff Suppan in Boston in 2003. Or, for now, Kolb in Atlanta."
The fact that bullpen success is so variable from year to year highlights the impressiveness of the Braves' streak of divisional titles. They've been able to win consistently despite the fact that they, like the rest of the teams in baseball, can't count of consistent performances from relievers (with limited exceptions for great pitchers like John Smoltz) from year to year. A lot of credit should also go to Leo Mazzone for consistently doing a good job with the pen, although the current crop don't seem to be responding to him.
And then there's this problem with assembling a bullpen:
"If teams like the Yankees and Red Sox can develop some of their own power arms, they wouldn't have to spend $6 million a year for pitchers like Steve Karsay. It would also allow them to avoid a major problem: Do they know that even if a Mesa or Grabow performs in Pittsburgh that he can pitch in a pennant race in one of the tough cities? See Hawkins. Or the Jay Witasick/Mark Wohlers experiment in New York in 2002. Or Sauerbeck, Jones and Jeff Suppan in Boston in 2003. Or, for now, Kolb in Atlanta."
The fact that bullpen success is so variable from year to year highlights the impressiveness of the Braves' streak of divisional titles. They've been able to win consistently despite the fact that they, like the rest of the teams in baseball, can't count of consistent performances from relievers (with limited exceptions for great pitchers like John Smoltz) from year to year. A lot of credit should also go to Leo Mazzone for consistently doing a good job with the pen, although the current crop don't seem to be responding to him.
Where is Rick Luecken when we need him?
For those who weren't watching the Braves during their seven years of famine, Luecken was a disaster of a middle reliever for the Braves during the 1990 season. My brother and I would joke about seeing him on the Arsenio Hall Show some day, after his third straight 60-save, Cy Young award-winning season and the thought of this guy emerging to a studio full of woofing fans before doing a seven-step hug with Arsenio was the height of comedy. I don't know what dates me more: the reference to the Braves as one of the worst teams in baseball or the Arsenio Hall Show fantasy. I digress.
The point is that Luecken would fit right in with the Braves' current bullpen. They went 2-4 on their homestand, including losing two of three to an Oakland team that had lost eleven in a row on the road coming in. In all four losses, the Braves' bullpen was a chief culprit:
Monday night - Cox is forced to leave Smoltz in in the 8th inning when it's clear that he's out of gas and as a result, a 2-1 lead becomes a 4-2 loss.
Wednesday night - Tim Hudson exits a 4-4 game and the bullpen proceeds to turn that situation into an 8-4 loss.
Friday night - Kyle Davies exits a 4-4 game and Roman Colon's fine pitching turns that into a 6-4 loss.
Sunday afternoon - Horacio Ramirez exits a 4-4 game and the bullpen completely implodes, led by the rapidly decomposing Adam Bernero. Final score: 11-5.
Part of the problem is the offense, which can't hit opposing bullpens. (Notice how the Braves' score didn't increase in the late innings of each loss? Think the pressure of an extended dry spell is getting to the hitters in the late innings of close games?) However, the Braves could stomach a below-average offense because of their "strong to...quite strong" starting pitching, but only if they had a bullpen that could get anyone out. To their credit, the organization isn't standing pat, as they made a series of moves, including the much anticipated demotion of Colon. They also demoted Brayan Pena, who demonstrated no plate discipline or power during his brief stint in Atlanta (23 at-bats, three singles, one walk, five strikeouts, no extra-base hits). Blaine Boyer didn't look like much of a solution yesterday, as he allowed one run and would have allowed more if not for great plays in the field by Andruw and Giles. (That reminds me: the defense was outstanding yesterday. Giles, Furcal, Langerhans, and Andruw all made great plays to support the Braves' sub-standard pitching. Andruw generally had a terrific weekend, but the bullpen has ensured that he'll get little credit.) Jorge Vasquez had great stats for Mississippi, but we'll see how he does when he's pitching against the Rangers instead of the West Tennessee Diamond Jaxx.
Aside from the Braves' poor pitching and the fact that they essentially had three pitchers in the batting line-up (Ramirez, Pena, and Brian Jordan), yesterday wasn't a great day at the park for other reasons. I got a sunburn in a game that featured a rain delay, which was really the worst of all possible worlds. When we moved under an overhang and then tried out new seats down the rightfield line in a virtually empty section, we were ejected by an usher. Apparently, our "these seats are worse than the ones for which we actually have tickets and this section is almost completely empty" reasoning doesn't work with people who have no ability for abstract thought. The upshot was that my psychologist wife got to explain that whole brain principle as the bullpen collapsed, so the game wasn't a total loss.
A couple other thoughts:
1. Horacio did not look good yesterday. Most annoyingly, he walked the lead-off hitter in each of the first three innings. For an alleged contact pitcher who doesn't strike many batters out, this was a disturbing sign. I predicted that he would have problems in the 5th, based on the fact that he'd struggled through four and his luck was likely to run out against the top of the A's order, not that one had to be a rocket scientist to see trouble coming.
2. The home runs that Adam Bernero surrendered yesterday were not cheap. Chavez's blast was to the spacious right-center alley and Kotsay's shot was a line drive scorched right down the line. I predicted his bad inning as well, but still had to go fishing for compliments from the wife.
3. The combination of Barry Zito pitching and Jason Kendall catching deterred Furcal from trying to steal second. Zito, by the way, was unimpressive. His velocity isn't especially good, which forces him to constantly nibble. He had to throw 80 pitches through the first three innings and barely averted a disaster when Andruw just missed a three-run homer in the first.
The point is that Luecken would fit right in with the Braves' current bullpen. They went 2-4 on their homestand, including losing two of three to an Oakland team that had lost eleven in a row on the road coming in. In all four losses, the Braves' bullpen was a chief culprit:
Monday night - Cox is forced to leave Smoltz in in the 8th inning when it's clear that he's out of gas and as a result, a 2-1 lead becomes a 4-2 loss.
Wednesday night - Tim Hudson exits a 4-4 game and the bullpen proceeds to turn that situation into an 8-4 loss.
Friday night - Kyle Davies exits a 4-4 game and Roman Colon's fine pitching turns that into a 6-4 loss.
Sunday afternoon - Horacio Ramirez exits a 4-4 game and the bullpen completely implodes, led by the rapidly decomposing Adam Bernero. Final score: 11-5.
Part of the problem is the offense, which can't hit opposing bullpens. (Notice how the Braves' score didn't increase in the late innings of each loss? Think the pressure of an extended dry spell is getting to the hitters in the late innings of close games?) However, the Braves could stomach a below-average offense because of their "strong to...quite strong" starting pitching, but only if they had a bullpen that could get anyone out. To their credit, the organization isn't standing pat, as they made a series of moves, including the much anticipated demotion of Colon. They also demoted Brayan Pena, who demonstrated no plate discipline or power during his brief stint in Atlanta (23 at-bats, three singles, one walk, five strikeouts, no extra-base hits). Blaine Boyer didn't look like much of a solution yesterday, as he allowed one run and would have allowed more if not for great plays in the field by Andruw and Giles. (That reminds me: the defense was outstanding yesterday. Giles, Furcal, Langerhans, and Andruw all made great plays to support the Braves' sub-standard pitching. Andruw generally had a terrific weekend, but the bullpen has ensured that he'll get little credit.) Jorge Vasquez had great stats for Mississippi, but we'll see how he does when he's pitching against the Rangers instead of the West Tennessee Diamond Jaxx.
Aside from the Braves' poor pitching and the fact that they essentially had three pitchers in the batting line-up (Ramirez, Pena, and Brian Jordan), yesterday wasn't a great day at the park for other reasons. I got a sunburn in a game that featured a rain delay, which was really the worst of all possible worlds. When we moved under an overhang and then tried out new seats down the rightfield line in a virtually empty section, we were ejected by an usher. Apparently, our "these seats are worse than the ones for which we actually have tickets and this section is almost completely empty" reasoning doesn't work with people who have no ability for abstract thought. The upshot was that my psychologist wife got to explain that whole brain principle as the bullpen collapsed, so the game wasn't a total loss.
A couple other thoughts:
1. Horacio did not look good yesterday. Most annoyingly, he walked the lead-off hitter in each of the first three innings. For an alleged contact pitcher who doesn't strike many batters out, this was a disturbing sign. I predicted that he would have problems in the 5th, based on the fact that he'd struggled through four and his luck was likely to run out against the top of the A's order, not that one had to be a rocket scientist to see trouble coming.
2. The home runs that Adam Bernero surrendered yesterday were not cheap. Chavez's blast was to the spacious right-center alley and Kotsay's shot was a line drive scorched right down the line. I predicted his bad inning as well, but still had to go fishing for compliments from the wife.
3. The combination of Barry Zito pitching and Jason Kendall catching deterred Furcal from trying to steal second. Zito, by the way, was unimpressive. His velocity isn't especially good, which forces him to constantly nibble. He had to throw 80 pitches through the first three innings and barely averted a disaster when Andruw just missed a three-run homer in the first.
Friday, June 10, 2005
Randomisms
I'm at a firm retreat near Dulles Airport with no Braves game to discuss, so here are the odds and ends going through my mind right now:
1. On the plane ride up here yesterday, it seemed as if half the men onboard were either wearing Nationals caps or were discussing the team. Their season must be like what the Braves' '91 season was like for us...except for the fact that we had lived through seven years of terrible baseball, whereas DC is getting a winner in their first season. I know that deserve's got nothing to do with it, but does a city really deserve a winner in their first year of having a team? It was bad enough that the Marlins won in year seven and the D-Backs won in year four, but what about a team winning in year one?
1a. On the other hand, I prefer the Nats to the obnoxious Mets, the unsupported Marlins, or the Phillies and their "abuse makes us good fans" support.
2. More signs of my decline as a sports fan: last night, I could have watched the Finals, but I preferred to drink and schmooze. (About what? I'm a little hazy on those details. I think I made fun of transactional lawyers.) I was also talking to a couple Texas grads and when the topic of the Rose Bowl came up, I changed the subject so the woman sitting with us could talk about her high school sorority in Vestavia Hills, Alabama. What the hell happened to me? I used to revel in Michigan's losses as something fun to complain about. Now, I change the subject. I liked the old me better.
3. We just had a seminar on visualizations to use at cocktail parties to aid in interacting with new people. I'm apparently supposed to think of a house with kids and pets and a palm tree and remember what they represent. In my own mind, I just think about one thing: a football helmet. At cocktail parties, my sole motivation is to turn the topic to sports (except when painful Michigan losses are involved) and talk about that until I decide that the talkee doesn't like the subject. Then, I sputter around like the T-1000 in the vat of molten metal at the end of Terminator 2. I am figuring out that most people like to talk about their kids, but is marketing success really worth constant boredom on my part?
1. On the plane ride up here yesterday, it seemed as if half the men onboard were either wearing Nationals caps or were discussing the team. Their season must be like what the Braves' '91 season was like for us...except for the fact that we had lived through seven years of terrible baseball, whereas DC is getting a winner in their first season. I know that deserve's got nothing to do with it, but does a city really deserve a winner in their first year of having a team? It was bad enough that the Marlins won in year seven and the D-Backs won in year four, but what about a team winning in year one?
1a. On the other hand, I prefer the Nats to the obnoxious Mets, the unsupported Marlins, or the Phillies and their "abuse makes us good fans" support.
2. More signs of my decline as a sports fan: last night, I could have watched the Finals, but I preferred to drink and schmooze. (About what? I'm a little hazy on those details. I think I made fun of transactional lawyers.) I was also talking to a couple Texas grads and when the topic of the Rose Bowl came up, I changed the subject so the woman sitting with us could talk about her high school sorority in Vestavia Hills, Alabama. What the hell happened to me? I used to revel in Michigan's losses as something fun to complain about. Now, I change the subject. I liked the old me better.
3. We just had a seminar on visualizations to use at cocktail parties to aid in interacting with new people. I'm apparently supposed to think of a house with kids and pets and a palm tree and remember what they represent. In my own mind, I just think about one thing: a football helmet. At cocktail parties, my sole motivation is to turn the topic to sports (except when painful Michigan losses are involved) and talk about that until I decide that the talkee doesn't like the subject. Then, I sputter around like the T-1000 in the vat of molten metal at the end of Terminator 2. I am figuring out that most people like to talk about their kids, but is marketing success really worth constant boredom on my part?
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Boooo! Boooooo!!! BOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!
Sorry, it was just a reflex from last night. I was praying that there wouldn't be any little children around us last night so I can harangue Darrin Erstad with "I hope you get Syphilis!" and "Did you learn to hit like that from Christian Peter? Or maybe Lawrence Phillips?" Unfortunately, there were kids around and the experience of being reprimanded by an angry parent at a Michigan-Michigan State game for adding a string of obscenities to MSU's fight song stays with me to this day. (If I had a pair, I would have reminded this guy that he brought his child, in a Michigan State jacket, into the Michigan student section and he would have to live with my filthy mouth.) The sad thing last night is that the kid was with his Dad and Dad's two friends, both of whom were about as weathered and red as two people could be and they were double fisting $6.25 beers for the whole game. What a glorious example to set. It did lead to a nice discussion between my brother Dan and I, playing the "guess which suburb they're from" game. He went with Villa Rica; I commended him for the 20 West/85 South decision and then went with Carrollton. Oh, about the game:
1. A surprisingly strong outing from Horacio Ramirez, who gave the Braves eight strong innings. That said, he wasn't especially strong on his three true outcomes - one homer allowed, two walks, three strikeouts - and was lucky in a couple instances that line drives were hit at people. (On the other hand, Bengie Molina's homer looked like an opposite-field pop-up.) He was also very lucky in the 8th inning that Darrin Erstad's towering blast that would have put the Angels ahead hooked foul, although I would have attributed that disaster to Cox and Mazzone for leaving Ramirez in after getting tagged by Robb Quinlan (who was hitting .164) and Chone "What the hell is wrong with nice, normal Sean?" Figgins for extra base hits. The last two nights have illustrated one of two things: 1) Cox, for all of his strategic success, is not a good tactician in some areas and one of those areas is pulling pitchers, since he's left tired starters in in the 8th inning of the past two games; or 2) Cox has no faith in his bullpen, other than Chris Reitsma right now. Last night, though, the Angels' 2-3-4 hitters were all lefties and Cox had John Foster available, having only thrown 1.2 innings in the past six games and still not having allowed an earned run this year.
2. Celebrity sightings at Hawks games: Jamie Foxx, Michael Vick, Samuel L. Jackson, Terrell Owens, Ludacris, Lil' Jon, Big Boi. Celebrity sighting at the Braves game last night: Bill Engvall and Larry the Cable Guy. Big ovation.
3. Andy Marte's debut was pretty good. For all the hype, I expected four homers and several Caminiti-esque throws across the diamond. Instead, Marte went 0-3 with an RBI and a fly-out to the wall in left. He also made a beautiful defensive play on a bunt. The most encouraging sign from him was that he got ahead of Byrd in his first two at-bats, which allowed him to take some cracks at swinging for power.
4. Aside from Ramirez, the hero last night was Ryan Langerhans, who had three singles and made a terrific throw from the wall in left to almost nail Figgins at second in the 8th. Furcal also played a pretty good game. He was very unlucky not to knock in a run in the second when he hit a screamer at Adam Kennedy at second with two on. He made up for it with a homer in the 7th and he used his normal, short swing to hit the ball out, which means that he won't necessarily change his swing after showing a little power. He also got to show off his arm for the final out, which is always a treat.
5. The Angels miss Vlad Guerrero in a big way. Not only is he their best hitter, but he leaves them very vulnerable to left-handed pitching. They also aren't a very deep team, as evidenced by the fact that their two pinch hitters last night were Quinlan (542 OPS) and Jeff DaVanon (573 OPS). You know you're in a world of hurt when a Braves fan is mocking your offensive stats.
6. I don't put that much stock into batting orders, but batting Brian Jordan, the weakest hitter in the line-up, other than Brayan Pena and the pitcher, clean-up doesn't make much sense. I guess he can handle the "pressure" better than Andruw or one of the youngsters, but the guy has no power anymore.
1. A surprisingly strong outing from Horacio Ramirez, who gave the Braves eight strong innings. That said, he wasn't especially strong on his three true outcomes - one homer allowed, two walks, three strikeouts - and was lucky in a couple instances that line drives were hit at people. (On the other hand, Bengie Molina's homer looked like an opposite-field pop-up.) He was also very lucky in the 8th inning that Darrin Erstad's towering blast that would have put the Angels ahead hooked foul, although I would have attributed that disaster to Cox and Mazzone for leaving Ramirez in after getting tagged by Robb Quinlan (who was hitting .164) and Chone "What the hell is wrong with nice, normal Sean?" Figgins for extra base hits. The last two nights have illustrated one of two things: 1) Cox, for all of his strategic success, is not a good tactician in some areas and one of those areas is pulling pitchers, since he's left tired starters in in the 8th inning of the past two games; or 2) Cox has no faith in his bullpen, other than Chris Reitsma right now. Last night, though, the Angels' 2-3-4 hitters were all lefties and Cox had John Foster available, having only thrown 1.2 innings in the past six games and still not having allowed an earned run this year.
2. Celebrity sightings at Hawks games: Jamie Foxx, Michael Vick, Samuel L. Jackson, Terrell Owens, Ludacris, Lil' Jon, Big Boi. Celebrity sighting at the Braves game last night: Bill Engvall and Larry the Cable Guy. Big ovation.
3. Andy Marte's debut was pretty good. For all the hype, I expected four homers and several Caminiti-esque throws across the diamond. Instead, Marte went 0-3 with an RBI and a fly-out to the wall in left. He also made a beautiful defensive play on a bunt. The most encouraging sign from him was that he got ahead of Byrd in his first two at-bats, which allowed him to take some cracks at swinging for power.
4. Aside from Ramirez, the hero last night was Ryan Langerhans, who had three singles and made a terrific throw from the wall in left to almost nail Figgins at second in the 8th. Furcal also played a pretty good game. He was very unlucky not to knock in a run in the second when he hit a screamer at Adam Kennedy at second with two on. He made up for it with a homer in the 7th and he used his normal, short swing to hit the ball out, which means that he won't necessarily change his swing after showing a little power. He also got to show off his arm for the final out, which is always a treat.
5. The Angels miss Vlad Guerrero in a big way. Not only is he their best hitter, but he leaves them very vulnerable to left-handed pitching. They also aren't a very deep team, as evidenced by the fact that their two pinch hitters last night were Quinlan (542 OPS) and Jeff DaVanon (573 OPS). You know you're in a world of hurt when a Braves fan is mocking your offensive stats.
6. I don't put that much stock into batting orders, but batting Brian Jordan, the weakest hitter in the line-up, other than Brayan Pena and the pitcher, clean-up doesn't make much sense. I guess he can handle the "pressure" better than Andruw or one of the youngsters, but the guy has no power anymore.
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
Renegade Program?
The discussion on Mayhem this morning was about the latest "black eye" for the Georgia football program: Derrick White's dismissal for a DUI. The conclusion seemed to be that Georgia gets a pass because Richt wins games and is a personally upstanding guy. Personally, I think that's unfair. Georgia certainly hasn't been taking questionable characters into their program. Look at the rejection of Michael Grant last year for comparatively minor offenses as an example. When the players have arrived in Athens, Richt certainly hasn't been lax in punishing them. He hasn't invoked the "Warsaw Rules" to keep his kicker eligible or given light punishment to players like a forgiving New Testament G-d. (Incidentally, the dichotomy between a wrathful Old Testament G-d and a forgiving New Testament G-d is a bunch of BS, but that might be a little far afield for this Blog.) Finally, most of the offenses committed by Georgia players have been weed, which is harmless, and driving while impaired, which is bad, but is still non-violent. (Negligent is the best way to describe it.)
If Richt isn't bringing in bad characters, he's disciplining them when they arrive, and the players aren't raping and pillaging Clarke County, then what else is the coach supposed to do? What, pray-tell, is the solution? (How childish of me to actually ask for solutions.)
If Richt isn't bringing in bad characters, he's disciplining them when they arrive, and the players aren't raping and pillaging Clarke County, then what else is the coach supposed to do? What, pray-tell, is the solution? (How childish of me to actually ask for solutions.)
We're F***ed
Let's see:
40% of the pitching rotation from the start of the season is on the DL for the foreseeable future. Another 40% of the rotation is a serious injury risk. The final 20% can't get anyone out.
Chipper Jones is on the disabled list and possibly out for the entire season with an injured toe, thus illustrating why teams don't give out seven-year contracts anymore such that they're paying them big dollars in their late 30s. Well, teams other than the Mets.
The four players that I identified as the key to the season were Giles, Furcal, Andruw, and LaRoche. None of them currently have an OPS above .800, led by Furcal, a lead-off hitter with a microscopic .278 OBP and a bad shoulder. (Actually, this point is a cause for optimism. There's no way that these four will play as badly for the rest of the season as they have for the first two months. If the Braves get torrid in the summer as they've been wan to do over the past several years, then these guys will be the reason, along with the starting pitching, of course.)
The bullpen is listing like the Lusitania. The closer from April has been demoted and is probably a couple bad performances from getting axed from the team entirely. The current closer is pitching well, but has a history of burning out when he has to throw too many innings. The rest of the pen is dicey, with the exception of John Foster, who apparently won't give up an earned run all season.
On the bright side, we have enough injuries now to make me feel good about the end of the 13-year streak of divisional titles. (Actually, the bright side is bigger than that. We're getting a look at the future with Davies, Langerhans, Johnson, Marte, and possibly Francoeur in a couple months. Plus, the defense has been generally solid.)
I hope that I look back on this post in September and laugh at the pessimism, but it's hard seeing this team win with such a wrecthed offense and unhealthy pitchers.
40% of the pitching rotation from the start of the season is on the DL for the foreseeable future. Another 40% of the rotation is a serious injury risk. The final 20% can't get anyone out.
Chipper Jones is on the disabled list and possibly out for the entire season with an injured toe, thus illustrating why teams don't give out seven-year contracts anymore such that they're paying them big dollars in their late 30s. Well, teams other than the Mets.
The four players that I identified as the key to the season were Giles, Furcal, Andruw, and LaRoche. None of them currently have an OPS above .800, led by Furcal, a lead-off hitter with a microscopic .278 OBP and a bad shoulder. (Actually, this point is a cause for optimism. There's no way that these four will play as badly for the rest of the season as they have for the first two months. If the Braves get torrid in the summer as they've been wan to do over the past several years, then these guys will be the reason, along with the starting pitching, of course.)
The bullpen is listing like the Lusitania. The closer from April has been demoted and is probably a couple bad performances from getting axed from the team entirely. The current closer is pitching well, but has a history of burning out when he has to throw too many innings. The rest of the pen is dicey, with the exception of John Foster, who apparently won't give up an earned run all season.
On the bright side, we have enough injuries now to make me feel good about the end of the 13-year streak of divisional titles. (Actually, the bright side is bigger than that. We're getting a look at the future with Davies, Langerhans, Johnson, Marte, and possibly Francoeur in a couple months. Plus, the defense has been generally solid.)
I hope that I look back on this post in September and laugh at the pessimism, but it's hard seeing this team win with such a wrecthed offense and unhealthy pitchers.
Sunday, June 05, 2005
We're all Chowderheads now
Fortunately, I was out of town this weekend and unable to partake in the sweet nectar that was the Braves amassing four runs in three games against the mighty Pirates. Instead, I was in Boston, visiting my best friend from college, Josh. As I sit and swelter in an apartment without air conditioning in 85 degree heat, here are my observations:
1. People in this town LOVE the Red Sox. I've never seen a city where the local baseball cap is more ubiquitous. Maybe Alabama football and the Packers in the NFL are in the same league, but the rest of the list is pretty short. How much do people here love this team? There was a guy on the T today with a Doug Mirabelli t-shirt. Yes, that's right, the Sox' back-up catcher. There was an elderly woman on the train talking in Italian with her husband and then talking about the Sox. Josh's roommate has no fewer than three DVDs from the Sox' '04 season, which probably isn't abnormal. At a bookstore in Brookline, there was virtually an entire shelf on the Red Sox. Interestingly, there was nothing on the Patriots (or the sport of football,) which means that either football fans are illiterate or people in Brookline just like the Sox more than the Pats.
Generally speaking, there was one Pats reminder for every ten of the Sox. To a certain extent, that's understandable because of the season, but Josh confirmed that the Sox are just more popular than the Pats. I got to thinking about why that is. Part of the reason is the same as why college sports in the South are bigger than pro sports: deeper roots. The Sox date back to the turn of the century, while the Pats are an invention of the 60s. The Sox have a great, traditional home; the Pats played in a dump outside of town and then threatened to move to Hartford. The Sox found noble, excrutiating ways to lose. The Pats, for the most part, just sucked. The Sox had Ted Williams. The Pats had...Steve Grogan?
In short, I was annoyed by the excessive love-in that the media had with the Red Sox last year when they finally won the World Series, but putting that aside, their fans truly treat the team as a religion and it was nice for them to win. I've always been a believer that, in the sports world, Clint Eastwood put it best in "Unforgiven": "deserve's got nothing to do with it." However, if anyone deserved to win a World Series, it was the Red Sox.
2. We took a tour of JFK's birth home and managed to avoid asking pointed questions about "is this where Jack first learned to charm a woman?" and "was Joe Sr. a Nazi sympathizer at this point or was that later?" I did buy a JFK bookmark to mark my place in "The Best and the Birghtest", which is about how his administration full of accomplished intellectuals managed to make the Vietnam mistake. Jack alwasy did appreciate irony.
3. I had to restrain my laughter when listening to some of the accents, which I guess most Northerners have to do when they come down South. It was amazing how many women actually talk like Rachel Dratch's Zazu character from Saturday Night Live.
1. People in this town LOVE the Red Sox. I've never seen a city where the local baseball cap is more ubiquitous. Maybe Alabama football and the Packers in the NFL are in the same league, but the rest of the list is pretty short. How much do people here love this team? There was a guy on the T today with a Doug Mirabelli t-shirt. Yes, that's right, the Sox' back-up catcher. There was an elderly woman on the train talking in Italian with her husband and then talking about the Sox. Josh's roommate has no fewer than three DVDs from the Sox' '04 season, which probably isn't abnormal. At a bookstore in Brookline, there was virtually an entire shelf on the Red Sox. Interestingly, there was nothing on the Patriots (or the sport of football,) which means that either football fans are illiterate or people in Brookline just like the Sox more than the Pats.
Generally speaking, there was one Pats reminder for every ten of the Sox. To a certain extent, that's understandable because of the season, but Josh confirmed that the Sox are just more popular than the Pats. I got to thinking about why that is. Part of the reason is the same as why college sports in the South are bigger than pro sports: deeper roots. The Sox date back to the turn of the century, while the Pats are an invention of the 60s. The Sox have a great, traditional home; the Pats played in a dump outside of town and then threatened to move to Hartford. The Sox found noble, excrutiating ways to lose. The Pats, for the most part, just sucked. The Sox had Ted Williams. The Pats had...Steve Grogan?
In short, I was annoyed by the excessive love-in that the media had with the Red Sox last year when they finally won the World Series, but putting that aside, their fans truly treat the team as a religion and it was nice for them to win. I've always been a believer that, in the sports world, Clint Eastwood put it best in "Unforgiven": "deserve's got nothing to do with it." However, if anyone deserved to win a World Series, it was the Red Sox.
2. We took a tour of JFK's birth home and managed to avoid asking pointed questions about "is this where Jack first learned to charm a woman?" and "was Joe Sr. a Nazi sympathizer at this point or was that later?" I did buy a JFK bookmark to mark my place in "The Best and the Birghtest", which is about how his administration full of accomplished intellectuals managed to make the Vietnam mistake. Jack alwasy did appreciate irony.
3. I had to restrain my laughter when listening to some of the accents, which I guess most Northerners have to do when they come down South. It was amazing how many women actually talk like Rachel Dratch's Zazu character from Saturday Night Live.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)