The Joe Johnson trade has been held up because Steve Belkin, one of the Hawks' owners, refuses to approve it. The scuttlebutt on the radio this morning was that he doesn't think that Johnson is worth the money. Words fail me at this point to describe how dumb this move is by Belkin. Let's leave the issue of whether Johnson is worth the money aside for a moment. Why on earth do you allow Billy Knight to pursue Johnson, get Johnson to agree to contractual terms, and reach a deal with the Suns to ensure that they don't retain Johnson if you have reservations about whether he's worth the money? Now, you look like a jerk and Knight's credibility is damaged, which hurts the Hawks' ability to bring in future free agents that you would presumably find more worthy of your hard-earned dollars than Johnson.
Now, on the issue of whether Johnson is worth the money, Phoenix clearly thinks that he is, since they were willing to match any offer to him. Additionally, you have loads of cap room, so you can sign Johnson and still be paying less than just about every other team in the NBA. If you didn't want to pay for a payroll close to the salary cap, then what are you doing owning an NBA team?
Finally, this snafu has exposed a major problem with the Atlanta Spirit LLC's voting structure. Major decisions are supposed to be made on three-entity votes. If the Washington and Atlanta groups vote in favor of acquiring a player and the Boston group votes against, then the player should be acquired because a unanimous decision is not required. However, because Belkin has veto power by virtue of his spot on the NBA Board of Governors, the majority rules principle flies out the window and the team is paralyzed from making major additions without Belkin's approval. This is a bad set-up and it augurs poorly for both the Hawks and the Thrashers. The solution is that either Boston or Washington buys the other out and the teams would then at least have clear leadership from one entity. As it is now, you have a clusterfuck.
Thursday, August 04, 2005
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Who reads this crap?
I mean, other than people like me who want to get angry?
The article to which I'm referring is Gene Wojciechowski's (thank G-d for cut and paste) fluff piece on the Artist Formerly Known as Joe Paterno. Where to begin?
"This is a pivotal, decisive year for Paterno and a Penn State program that has wobbled like a dessert serving of Jell-O." Anyone want to wager that last year was described in the same way? Or 2001? Every year is a "decisive year" for Paterno to show that his program's precipitous decline isn't really a decline. At this stage, with five years of decline on the books (and arguably longer, if you look at the number of times that Penn State was blown out by Michigan or Ohio State during their first seven years in the Big Ten,) don't we have enough evidence?
"And here's what the longevity now means: bupkis ... zilch ... na-Pa. More often than ever, Paterno is now judged not by his body of work, but by two of the cruelest letters in the alphabet: W and L." Two thoughts. First, no shit, Sherlock. Penn State boosters aren't paying four- and five-figure sums to sit in luxury boxes and watch their team lose games 6-4. What coach isn't judged on wins and losses? Second, it isn't as if everyone has forgotten that Paterno was once a great coach. Every article on him mentions that fact. That said, it isn't as if everyone is judging him based on one bad year. Most people were willing to write off 2000 as a hangover year after losing so many quality players from the '99 team. As I said earlier, Paterno is being judged on a dreadful five-year stretch that wouldn't be acceptable at any major program. There's nothing unfair about judging him based on a large sample size and it doesn't mean that fans don't remember the good times, but when those good times are so far removed, they have a right to be angry at headlines like "Penn State's Paterno simply not the retiring type".
And then we have this gem of a straw man: "He's too old. Too loyal. Too uncool." Maybe the middle criticism has merit. After all, Joe does employ his son Jay as a quarterbacks coach and has retained him despite Penn State's absolutely abysmal record at developing quarterbacks. (Sound familiar, Florida State fans?) Seriously, have you ever seen a quarterback get worse over his career in a more pronounced manner than Zack Mills. Good luck, Anthony Morelli. As for the first and last ones? What does his age have to do with anything? And since when was being cool a requirement? Was Tom Osborne listening to Miles Davis and wearing ribbed shirts when Nebraska dominated the mid-90s?
Paterno's problem is that his offensive design is atrocious and he apparently interferes with anyone who tries to bring it out of the stone ages. Secondarily, his program does not do a good job of developing touted recruits (and they do get their share) into quality starters. (In their defense, they do seem to be doing a good job with their current crop of defensive players.) Those are the right criticisms of Joe Paterno. Anything else is just Jay Mariotti reactionary thinking.
The article to which I'm referring is Gene Wojciechowski's (thank G-d for cut and paste) fluff piece on the Artist Formerly Known as Joe Paterno. Where to begin?
"This is a pivotal, decisive year for Paterno and a Penn State program that has wobbled like a dessert serving of Jell-O." Anyone want to wager that last year was described in the same way? Or 2001? Every year is a "decisive year" for Paterno to show that his program's precipitous decline isn't really a decline. At this stage, with five years of decline on the books (and arguably longer, if you look at the number of times that Penn State was blown out by Michigan or Ohio State during their first seven years in the Big Ten,) don't we have enough evidence?
"And here's what the longevity now means: bupkis ... zilch ... na-Pa. More often than ever, Paterno is now judged not by his body of work, but by two of the cruelest letters in the alphabet: W and L." Two thoughts. First, no shit, Sherlock. Penn State boosters aren't paying four- and five-figure sums to sit in luxury boxes and watch their team lose games 6-4. What coach isn't judged on wins and losses? Second, it isn't as if everyone has forgotten that Paterno was once a great coach. Every article on him mentions that fact. That said, it isn't as if everyone is judging him based on one bad year. Most people were willing to write off 2000 as a hangover year after losing so many quality players from the '99 team. As I said earlier, Paterno is being judged on a dreadful five-year stretch that wouldn't be acceptable at any major program. There's nothing unfair about judging him based on a large sample size and it doesn't mean that fans don't remember the good times, but when those good times are so far removed, they have a right to be angry at headlines like "Penn State's Paterno simply not the retiring type".
And then we have this gem of a straw man: "He's too old. Too loyal. Too uncool." Maybe the middle criticism has merit. After all, Joe does employ his son Jay as a quarterbacks coach and has retained him despite Penn State's absolutely abysmal record at developing quarterbacks. (Sound familiar, Florida State fans?) Seriously, have you ever seen a quarterback get worse over his career in a more pronounced manner than Zack Mills. Good luck, Anthony Morelli. As for the first and last ones? What does his age have to do with anything? And since when was being cool a requirement? Was Tom Osborne listening to Miles Davis and wearing ribbed shirts when Nebraska dominated the mid-90s?
Paterno's problem is that his offensive design is atrocious and he apparently interferes with anyone who tries to bring it out of the stone ages. Secondarily, his program does not do a good job of developing touted recruits (and they do get their share) into quality starters. (In their defense, they do seem to be doing a good job with their current crop of defensive players.) Those are the right criticisms of Joe Paterno. Anything else is just Jay Mariotti reactionary thinking.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
My trip to the gym this morning
1. I couldn't hear the audio, but how clueless does ESPN have to be to do their "50 states in 50 days" feature from North Carolina and do a feature interview with Coach K, the coach of a program that no one in the state likes? Have they never heard of the "University of New Jersey at Durham" before? Does Duke lack for exposure?
2. I read a blurb in Esquire on studies that show that the testosterone levels spike in fans after watching their team win a game and vice versa. Combined with the fact that low testosterone levels are typically found in individuals with depression, I used this fact in an attempt to explain to my wife that my behavior after Michigan losses was perfectly fine, since I was fighting physiology. Needless to say, the argument didn't work, although she didn't use the best comeback at her disposal: "Evolutionary psychologists also say that you are hard-wired to impregnate as many women as possible, but that wouldn't exactly excuse you if you decided to start porking other women. Go back to your weights, honey."
2. I read a blurb in Esquire on studies that show that the testosterone levels spike in fans after watching their team win a game and vice versa. Combined with the fact that low testosterone levels are typically found in individuals with depression, I used this fact in an attempt to explain to my wife that my behavior after Michigan losses was perfectly fine, since I was fighting physiology. Needless to say, the argument didn't work, although she didn't use the best comeback at her disposal: "Evolutionary psychologists also say that you are hard-wired to impregnate as many women as possible, but that wouldn't exactly excuse you if you decided to start porking other women. Go back to your weights, honey."
One thought on the Braves' big deal
I'm a big fan of Kyle Farnsworth. I've always thought that he was kept down by the graveyard for pitchers that is the Cubs' bullpen and he's showed that this year. The biggest hole on the team was a bridge to Chris Reitsma, they needed to add some depth after Jay Powell's gruesome Tom Browning impersonation, and Schuerholtz filled the hole perfectly, getting one of the best relievers in baseball and not overpaying for the overrated Dannys Baez. I'll miss Roman Colon somewhat, but the team has depth in starting pitching with their five from the start of the year, plus Davies and Sosa and several good prospects in the pipeline.
And I guess the old canard about the Braves not liking fiery players can be put to rest by trading for a pitcher who has done a fair Mike Singletary impersonation this year.
And I guess the old canard about the Braves not liking fiery players can be put to rest by trading for a pitcher who has done a fair Mike Singletary impersonation this year.
The AJC does do one thing well...
and that's cover SEC football. Click above if you have AJC Insider. If not, here's my book report:
1. Tommy Tuberville thinks that this year's team is probably his most talented at Auburn. Apparently, he didn't learn from Bear Bryant or Vince Dooley (or, going the other direction, Jim "This is the team I've been waiting 50 years to coach" Donnan) that playing up your talent is never a good thing. Maybe he looks at those five home games to start the season and thinks that he has nothing to worry about. (Does anyone else get the sense that the Auburn-Georgia Tech game will be a "first team to get a seven-point lead wins" game?)
2. Alabama has not made it through a season with one quarterback since 1997. Is that bad luck or a function of the fact that they just haven't had good quarterback play and as a result, have changed their starters constantly. Based on the fact that a Bama QB hasn't started an NFL game since Richard Todd, I'm going with the latter explanation. Your average hard core Bama fan, who believes that an amalgamation of forces ranging from Phil Fulmer and the NCAA to the Trilateral Commission and the Freemasons has kept their program down, probably believes that it's all Roy Kramer's fault.
3. Does anyone see something wrong with this statement by Tony Barnhart: "The first is Leak's size — or lack of it. He is strong but still undersized at 6 foot, 195 pounds. Utah's Smith was much stronger at 6-4, 212." Who would describe lanky-ass Alex Smith as "strong"? Aren't Leak's dimensions indicative of a thicker guy? And since when does height determine whether a player can take a hit? By the way, my sixth sense tells me that a whole lot of dyed-in-the-wool Southern football writers (let alone fans and coaches of teams other than Florida) are hoping that outsider Urban Meyer will fail in Gainesville.
4. By the same token, Barnhart throws Phil Fulmer a bone by not asking the question any sane Vol fan is asking - will our wretched pass defense be better? - and instead posing the straw man of "who will block for Gerald Riggs?", which lets Fulmer and Barnhart gush about Tennessee's offensive line. There'll a "native vs. transplant" thing going on on September 17 if my attempts to read between the lines in Barnhart's writing are correct.
1. Tommy Tuberville thinks that this year's team is probably his most talented at Auburn. Apparently, he didn't learn from Bear Bryant or Vince Dooley (or, going the other direction, Jim "This is the team I've been waiting 50 years to coach" Donnan) that playing up your talent is never a good thing. Maybe he looks at those five home games to start the season and thinks that he has nothing to worry about. (Does anyone else get the sense that the Auburn-Georgia Tech game will be a "first team to get a seven-point lead wins" game?)
2. Alabama has not made it through a season with one quarterback since 1997. Is that bad luck or a function of the fact that they just haven't had good quarterback play and as a result, have changed their starters constantly. Based on the fact that a Bama QB hasn't started an NFL game since Richard Todd, I'm going with the latter explanation. Your average hard core Bama fan, who believes that an amalgamation of forces ranging from Phil Fulmer and the NCAA to the Trilateral Commission and the Freemasons has kept their program down, probably believes that it's all Roy Kramer's fault.
3. Does anyone see something wrong with this statement by Tony Barnhart: "The first is Leak's size — or lack of it. He is strong but still undersized at 6 foot, 195 pounds. Utah's Smith was much stronger at 6-4, 212." Who would describe lanky-ass Alex Smith as "strong"? Aren't Leak's dimensions indicative of a thicker guy? And since when does height determine whether a player can take a hit? By the way, my sixth sense tells me that a whole lot of dyed-in-the-wool Southern football writers (let alone fans and coaches of teams other than Florida) are hoping that outsider Urban Meyer will fail in Gainesville.
4. By the same token, Barnhart throws Phil Fulmer a bone by not asking the question any sane Vol fan is asking - will our wretched pass defense be better? - and instead posing the straw man of "who will block for Gerald Riggs?", which lets Fulmer and Barnhart gush about Tennessee's offensive line. There'll a "native vs. transplant" thing going on on September 17 if my attempts to read between the lines in Barnhart's writing are correct.
Joe Johnsonpalooza
Ending fears that the Hawks will never be able to get rid of their expansive cap room, Joe Johnson has decided that he wants to be a Hawk. It's exciting, but it also provokes a number of questions:
1. What purpose does the AJC's sports page serve in the world?
Could they have been any more asleep at the wheel on this one? Johnson told Marc Stein last Saturday that he asked Phoenix not to match the Hawks' offer to him. Did the AJC have any wind of this? No. It was news to them, just like it was to the rest of us, that the Hawks ultimately reached a deal with the Suns to ensure that they would not match the offer sheet. Compare the AJC's tepid coverage to the azcentral com here and here. More detail, more analysis, hell, they even talked about Manu Ginobili's reaction to the Raja Bell signing, as well as the various incidents that caused Johnson to want to leave.
And then Sekou Smith compounds his slumber in discussing the story by again botching analysis of trading draft picks: "More crucial than the loss of Diaw for the Hawks would be the loss of the draft picks, an integral part of the franchise's rebuilding plan." Gee, Sekou, you think the fact that the picks are lottery-protected might be important? If the picks are transferred in the next couple years, it will mean that the Hawks' rebuilding plan will be virtually complete because they'll be a young team in the playoffs. In essence, the Hawks gave up Boris Diaw, who was mostly worthless in his two years in Atlanta because he's petrified of shooting, and two picks that, in all likelihood, won't be made for several years. The more important question in terms of evaluating the deal is...
2. Is Joe Johnson a maximum deal player?
An excellent question. As an initial matter, his contract is front-loaded, which is good, since he'll be paid a lot next year when they team isn't very good and then he'll make less as the team matures and the need to add additional pieces grows. According to 82games.com, he was one of the best players on the Suns last year, although he's clearly no Zarko Cabarkapa. The Suns were especially better in terms of field goal percentage when Johnson was on the floor, but they suffered in rebounding. (A possible concern: teams often suffer in terms of their rebounding when they have guards who can't stop penetration and therefore the big men have to help on defense and are out of position to rebound missed shots.)
The major concern I have is this: Johnson scored a ton of points from open threes, created because he was playing with a great point guard and a host of quality offensive options. The Hawks have neither right now, although we're all hoping that Marvin Williams and Josh Childress turn into grade-A offensive players. Johnson is a great shooter, but is his offensive game well-rounded enough to thrive in Atlanta? The Suns sure suffered without him against the Spurs, which implies that his value was more than simply as a jump shooter. On the other hand, he went from .305 to .478 in three-point percentage and .430 to .461 in field goal percentage when Steve Nash arrived, so maybe he does need to play with another good point guard.
The good news about Johnson is that the Hawks have him for the prime of his career. He'll be 24 on Opening Night this year and the Hawks have him through age 28. Unlike their past free agent signings, they are getting Johnson at the right time. His scoring numbers have improved each year in the league. He's also durable, having not missed a regular season game in the past three years. Most importantly, he serves a need for the Hawks - filling the point guard position - and he makes the team more attractive to other free agents. If he can play and defend the point guard position, then the Hawks can create tremendous match-up problems for opposing teams by starting two 6'7 guards. He also fits Billy Knight's vision of a team full of 6'7 to 6'10 athletes running up and down the floor, so we'll get closer to seeing if that vision will pay off with wins. (It was also Pete Babcock's vision when he acquired Lorenzen Wright and Isaiah Rider before the '99-'00 season and that didn't work out so well.)
3. Can Johnson play and defend the point guard position?
Obviously, he's going to have a hard time defending players like Allen Iverson and Stephon Marbury, so one question is going to be whether he has the post skills to even out the equation by exploiting his height. (If opponents switch their small guards onto Childress, then the question will become whether he has the skills to score with his back to the basket.) The more important question will be whether he can handle the ball and distribute it properly. 82.games.com has some funky passing stats that show that Joe had a better assist/bad pass ratio than Dwayne Wade or Chauncey Billups. What does that mean? Who the hell knows? The stats show that he didn't turn the ball over much and he seems to be a good passer, so the signs are encouraging that he can play point. We'll see how he does as a full-time point guard, although I have a suspicion that Johnson will be most effective paired with Salim Stoudemire in the backcourt.
4. Has Ray Ratto had an original idea in his life?
No.
1. What purpose does the AJC's sports page serve in the world?
Could they have been any more asleep at the wheel on this one? Johnson told Marc Stein last Saturday that he asked Phoenix not to match the Hawks' offer to him. Did the AJC have any wind of this? No. It was news to them, just like it was to the rest of us, that the Hawks ultimately reached a deal with the Suns to ensure that they would not match the offer sheet. Compare the AJC's tepid coverage to the azcentral com here and here. More detail, more analysis, hell, they even talked about Manu Ginobili's reaction to the Raja Bell signing, as well as the various incidents that caused Johnson to want to leave.
And then Sekou Smith compounds his slumber in discussing the story by again botching analysis of trading draft picks: "More crucial than the loss of Diaw for the Hawks would be the loss of the draft picks, an integral part of the franchise's rebuilding plan." Gee, Sekou, you think the fact that the picks are lottery-protected might be important? If the picks are transferred in the next couple years, it will mean that the Hawks' rebuilding plan will be virtually complete because they'll be a young team in the playoffs. In essence, the Hawks gave up Boris Diaw, who was mostly worthless in his two years in Atlanta because he's petrified of shooting, and two picks that, in all likelihood, won't be made for several years. The more important question in terms of evaluating the deal is...
2. Is Joe Johnson a maximum deal player?
An excellent question. As an initial matter, his contract is front-loaded, which is good, since he'll be paid a lot next year when they team isn't very good and then he'll make less as the team matures and the need to add additional pieces grows. According to 82games.com, he was one of the best players on the Suns last year, although he's clearly no Zarko Cabarkapa. The Suns were especially better in terms of field goal percentage when Johnson was on the floor, but they suffered in rebounding. (A possible concern: teams often suffer in terms of their rebounding when they have guards who can't stop penetration and therefore the big men have to help on defense and are out of position to rebound missed shots.)
The major concern I have is this: Johnson scored a ton of points from open threes, created because he was playing with a great point guard and a host of quality offensive options. The Hawks have neither right now, although we're all hoping that Marvin Williams and Josh Childress turn into grade-A offensive players. Johnson is a great shooter, but is his offensive game well-rounded enough to thrive in Atlanta? The Suns sure suffered without him against the Spurs, which implies that his value was more than simply as a jump shooter. On the other hand, he went from .305 to .478 in three-point percentage and .430 to .461 in field goal percentage when Steve Nash arrived, so maybe he does need to play with another good point guard.
The good news about Johnson is that the Hawks have him for the prime of his career. He'll be 24 on Opening Night this year and the Hawks have him through age 28. Unlike their past free agent signings, they are getting Johnson at the right time. His scoring numbers have improved each year in the league. He's also durable, having not missed a regular season game in the past three years. Most importantly, he serves a need for the Hawks - filling the point guard position - and he makes the team more attractive to other free agents. If he can play and defend the point guard position, then the Hawks can create tremendous match-up problems for opposing teams by starting two 6'7 guards. He also fits Billy Knight's vision of a team full of 6'7 to 6'10 athletes running up and down the floor, so we'll get closer to seeing if that vision will pay off with wins. (It was also Pete Babcock's vision when he acquired Lorenzen Wright and Isaiah Rider before the '99-'00 season and that didn't work out so well.)
3. Can Johnson play and defend the point guard position?
Obviously, he's going to have a hard time defending players like Allen Iverson and Stephon Marbury, so one question is going to be whether he has the post skills to even out the equation by exploiting his height. (If opponents switch their small guards onto Childress, then the question will become whether he has the skills to score with his back to the basket.) The more important question will be whether he can handle the ball and distribute it properly. 82.games.com has some funky passing stats that show that Joe had a better assist/bad pass ratio than Dwayne Wade or Chauncey Billups. What does that mean? Who the hell knows? The stats show that he didn't turn the ball over much and he seems to be a good passer, so the signs are encouraging that he can play point. We'll see how he does as a full-time point guard, although I have a suspicion that Johnson will be most effective paired with Salim Stoudemire in the backcourt.
4. Has Ray Ratto had an original idea in his life?
No.
Friday, July 29, 2005
Some early lines
Here are the early lines on some of the bigger games early in the college football season. While there is a school of thought that it's foolish to bet on games months in advance without knowing who the starters are and who's injured, there's also a school that says that you can get great lines months in advance before the rest of the public has come to their senses on certain picks. With that statement out of the way, here are the lines that jump out at me:
Ohio State (+1) vs. Texas - The Bucks are overrated and all, but at home at night against a one-dimensional offense? Their linebackers and defensive braintrust are much, much better than Michigan's, so using the Rose Bowl as a measuring stick for what Vince Young can do is a bad idea. The only question is whether Texas' defense, which is talented and should be very good under Gene Chizik, will eat up a Tressel-Bollman offense. Still, I'd feel pretty comfortable taking the Bucks in this one.
Miami (-3) at Florida State - I originally thought that the line was even, in which case I would have recommended betting the farm on the Canes, given that FSU is going to be starting a redshirt freshman quarterback who was prepared all summer by Jeff Bowden. (Incidentally, one nugget from Bruce Feldman's blog from the ACC meeting was that Leon Washington said that Florida State never adjusted to Miami blitzing Antrell Rolle off the edge, so he was repeatedly unblocked. Good work, Jeff.) At -3, though, I would stay clear. These games are usually close.
Florida (-3) vs. Tennessee - My thoughts on this one have already been made clear: Urban Meyer vs. John Chavis. Take the Gators.
Purdue (+2) at Arizona - Is this a sucker bet? Phil Steele's pre-season #3 is a dog at Arizona? Too good to be true? Probably.
Ohio State (+1) vs. Texas - The Bucks are overrated and all, but at home at night against a one-dimensional offense? Their linebackers and defensive braintrust are much, much better than Michigan's, so using the Rose Bowl as a measuring stick for what Vince Young can do is a bad idea. The only question is whether Texas' defense, which is talented and should be very good under Gene Chizik, will eat up a Tressel-Bollman offense. Still, I'd feel pretty comfortable taking the Bucks in this one.
Miami (-3) at Florida State - I originally thought that the line was even, in which case I would have recommended betting the farm on the Canes, given that FSU is going to be starting a redshirt freshman quarterback who was prepared all summer by Jeff Bowden. (Incidentally, one nugget from Bruce Feldman's blog from the ACC meeting was that Leon Washington said that Florida State never adjusted to Miami blitzing Antrell Rolle off the edge, so he was repeatedly unblocked. Good work, Jeff.) At -3, though, I would stay clear. These games are usually close.
Florida (-3) vs. Tennessee - My thoughts on this one have already been made clear: Urban Meyer vs. John Chavis. Take the Gators.
Purdue (+2) at Arizona - Is this a sucker bet? Phil Steele's pre-season #3 is a dog at Arizona? Too good to be true? Probably.
Revisiting Biggie and Tupac...
we're going to get all "East Coast-West Coast" with College Football Resource, with whom we've rumbled for his Boise State-Georgia "Georgia has never seen an innovative offense, I guess because Bobby Petrino wasn't innovative when he was at Auburn" pick. Now, he's defending John Walters' whining about SEC teams not wanting to get on airplanes. He makes a few good points, but I'm not buying:
1. As an initial matter, Pac Ten fans crowing about their teams' trips out of their time zone is a little like Bill Clinton taking credit for coming clean about Monica Lewinsky after he found out that Kenneth Starr had his DNA on Monica's blue dress: it's taking credit for necessity. Pac Ten teams have to travel to play high quality out-of-conference opponents because there isn't another major conference in the Pacific time zone and because they need to sign deals with name opponents to put butts in the seats of their stadia. If Pac Ten teams could schedule out-of-conference games without having to give return trips, they would, but they can't because the home gate at Pac Ten stadia is significantly less than the home gate in SEC stadia. Oregon State has a small home stadium in the middle of nowhere; LSU has a massive stadium that's always filled. Of course it makes sense that the teams would play in Baton Rouge and not Corvallis, given the economics of the situation. Louisiana is also a terrific recruiting area, so it makes sense for the Beavers to go there, especially since they can't fill all of their recruiting needs at home; the reverse is not true for LSU.
2. CFR makes a good point when he says that out-of-conference scheduling is done years in advance, which makes the whole process of measuring teams based on the pre-season rankings a little silly. That said, there are "name" opponents who can reasonably be expected to be good in the future. All of the top 30 teams the SEC is playing, with the exception of Boise State, could be expected to be good at the time the game was scheduled. On the other hand, over half of the Pac Ten's games are against upstarts Fresno State, Utah, and Boise State that aren't "name" opponents and couldn't be expected to be this good when they were scheduled. (Maybe that isn't true for Fresno or Boise if the games were scheduled this century, as both were good by about 2000. Utah was on Ron McBride mediocrity until Pope Urban.)
3. And then we get to the inevitable "it's hard to get on a plane and fly five hours" argument. There is a little merit to this; there are physiological effects of traveling a distance to a new climate, as any fan of Brazil or Argentina would tell you from their teams' performances in World Cups in Europe. However, when you're talking about two or three time zones, the effects aren't that great. However, I think that just about any coach in America would rather travel two time zones to play Missouri than travel 90 miles to play Florida State. By far, the most important factor in evaluating the strength of non-conference schedules is the quality of the opponent. Everything else is atmospherics.
CFR points out that Michigan sucks every time they play a road game at a Pac Ten stadium and that's true, but Michigan also sucks every time they play at Notre Dame and South Bend is a four-hour bus trip from Ann Arbor. Unless there is some magical effect that hits Michigan players when they cross into Central time (and doesn't effect them in Big Ten road games,) then I think the conclusion should simply be that Lloyd Carr, for whatever reason, nuts up on the road in non-conference games, regardless of the time zone.
4. And this point was wholly unconvincing: "But keep in mind the Big Twelve doesn't have its butt kissed by the national media, and doesn't self-appoint as the best conference in all the land, no matter the year." Ever meet a Texan? Ever hear Trev Alberts talk? Ever notice that every Big XII team in a close call for a spot in the BCS Title Game (Nebraska in '01, Oklahoma in '03 and '04) gets the nod and then loses? (Hell, there was serious talk in '99 of one-loss Nebraska getting the Sugar Bowl spot opposite Florida State in place on unbeaten Virginia Tech.) The only way to fairly judge the SEC's scheduling is to compare it to the other major conferences. Why is this so complicated?
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Our first warning sign on Vick
For those of you with ESPN Insider, click on the link above to read Len Pasquarelli's negative take on Michael Vick's performance at the practice that he attended. For those of you without Insider, take my word for it that Big Len was not impressed with the accuracy or footwork of our franchise quarterback. At this stage, I feel like a child in a storm, huddling under a blanket and muttering over and over the mantra: "The team wins with him and not without him." All of the evidence, from Pasquarelli's observations (and the article shows why I like Len; he's not afraid of whacking sacred cows, such that compliments that come from him actually mean something) to the analysis by film watchers like K.C. Joyner to statistical analysis from Football Outsiders to Ron Jaworski's purported off-camera comments that Vick won't be a quarterback in three years points to one conclusion: Vick is not a good passer. I'm at a loss to jibe all of those assessments with the fact that the Falcons have had very good seasons in Vick's two years as a starter.
An add-on to the John Walters evisceration
(By the way, am I the only one who thinks of REM Green when using the word "eviscerate"? You know, the line "Eviscerate your memory/here's a scene/you're in the backseat laying down/the windows wrap around to the sound of the travel and the engine." Here's the song if you want it. Green was one of the first rock albums I bought when I started to flower as a music fan in 1989 at the age of 14. We can now return to our regularly scheduled programming.)
I did a little grunt work and, using Stassen's composite pre-season rankings, measure the number of out-of-conference games major conference teams play against pre-season top 30 teams. Here are the results:
Pac Ten - 7 (ASU @ LSU, UCLA vs. Oklahoma, USC vs. Fresno State, Oregon vs. Fresno State, Boise State @ Oregon State, Oregon State @ L'ville, Arizona @ Utah)
SEC - 7 (Ark @ USC, Florida vs. FSU, Kentucky vs. L'ville, LSU vs. ASU, Georgia vs. Boise State, Auburn vs. Georgia Tech, Georgia @ Georgia Tech)
ACC - 5 (FSU @ Florida, Georgia Tech vs. Georgia, Georgia Tech @ Auburn, Clemson vs. Texas A&M, UNC vs. Utah)
Big Ten - 4 (Ohio State vs. Texas, Northwestern @ Arizona State, Illinois @ Cal, Bowling Green @ Wisconsin)
Big XII - 4 (Texas @ Ohio State, Iowa vs. Iowa State, Nebraska vs. Pitt, Colorado vs. Miami)
As expected, the Pac Ten comes our in front, given their smaller size, but lo and behold, the SEC, that stereotypical collection of teams who refuse to play anyone good outside of the league, is right behind them. The Big XII being last is no shock; the exalted Big Ten coming in next-to-last is something of a surprise, although in their defense, if Notre Dame is a top 30 team, then their total shoots up. In any event, the point is that Walters' criticism is unfounded: the SEC's out-of-conference menu is just as good (if not better) than that of the rest of major college football.
I did a little grunt work and, using Stassen's composite pre-season rankings, measure the number of out-of-conference games major conference teams play against pre-season top 30 teams. Here are the results:
Pac Ten - 7 (ASU @ LSU, UCLA vs. Oklahoma, USC vs. Fresno State, Oregon vs. Fresno State, Boise State @ Oregon State, Oregon State @ L'ville, Arizona @ Utah)
SEC - 7 (Ark @ USC, Florida vs. FSU, Kentucky vs. L'ville, LSU vs. ASU, Georgia vs. Boise State, Auburn vs. Georgia Tech, Georgia @ Georgia Tech)
ACC - 5 (FSU @ Florida, Georgia Tech vs. Georgia, Georgia Tech @ Auburn, Clemson vs. Texas A&M, UNC vs. Utah)
Big Ten - 4 (Ohio State vs. Texas, Northwestern @ Arizona State, Illinois @ Cal, Bowling Green @ Wisconsin)
Big XII - 4 (Texas @ Ohio State, Iowa vs. Iowa State, Nebraska vs. Pitt, Colorado vs. Miami)
As expected, the Pac Ten comes our in front, given their smaller size, but lo and behold, the SEC, that stereotypical collection of teams who refuse to play anyone good outside of the league, is right behind them. The Big XII being last is no shock; the exalted Big Ten coming in next-to-last is something of a surprise, although in their defense, if Notre Dame is a top 30 team, then their total shoots up. In any event, the point is that Walters' criticism is unfounded: the SEC's out-of-conference menu is just as good (if not better) than that of the rest of major college football.
Dear Washington...
And the fact that the kings of the one-run wins were swept in three one-runs games is delicious. Welcome to reality, Expos.
One other note: these "Soriano to the Mets" rumors scare me. Long-term, it will probably be a bad trade for the Mets since Alfonso will be a free agent at the end of the year, but in terms of this year, he could be the juice to get the Mets into the playoffs. I've thought for a couple weeks that the pennant race will end up being with the Mets and that trade would cement that fact. Between the Mets getting stronger and the Astros playing out of their minds, the Braves are going to have to hit better to make the playoffs again. Either that or Jeff Francoeur is going to have to continue his "Gregg Jefferies in 1988" run.
One reason to root for the Mets: the ideal conclusion to the season would be the Braves winning the division and the Mets winning the Wild Card because then the Braves would get the winner of the dreadful West and the Cards and Mets could bludgeon one another to death.
This has gone too far
We're up 5-4 on the Nats in the 8th with a chance to sweep and Bobby calls on Dan Kolb again? The same guy who blew a two-run lead in the 8th last night and a one-run lead in the 8th on Saturday night? Is the thinking that he can't possibly blow three appearances in a row? Is this like doubling your bet in blackjack after a run of bad luck? Usually when I do that, I end up in my room ten minutes later, muttering and deciding "well, I've already lost a bunch; what's another eight dollars on a bottle of water?" Oh, and Danny boy is facing the meat of the Nats' lineup, such as that may be.
Update: Kolb miraculously gets the first out, then remembers that he's Dan Kolb and allows consecutive singles. With runners on the corners, two outs, and his former four-run lead about to evaporate, Bobby summons Macay McBride, who pitches Dan out of his latest blunder. I'm interested to see who pitches the 9th, since Reitsma has been used for the last two nights. Blaine Brower, possibly?
Update: Kolb miraculously gets the first out, then remembers that he's Dan Kolb and allows consecutive singles. With runners on the corners, two outs, and his former four-run lead about to evaporate, Bobby summons Macay McBride, who pitches Dan out of his latest blunder. I'm interested to see who pitches the 9th, since Reitsma has been used for the last two nights. Blaine Brower, possibly?
John Walters makes me grumpy
Whomever had July 28 in the "which national columnist will make the first ill-reasoned crack about SEC teams not playing challenging non-conference games" pool wins a prize thanks to John Walters.
Specifically, how in the world does he get off making this statement: "Shame on Auburn, Florida and LSU for playing it safe." Yeah, Florida, with Florida State, Tennessee, Georgia, and LSU - four perennial top 15 teams - on the schedule on an annual basis needs to be traveling to Columbus or Norman. LSU plays Arizona State; what's not intersectional about that? (If they don't return the trip, then maybe he has a point, although I'm sure that Tiger fans would retort that they are still waiting for Virginia Tech to appear in Baton Rouge after the Tigers made an unsuccessful trip to Blacksburg on my wedding day.) Auburn plays Georgia Tech, which is a perfectly reasonable non-conference challenge.
Generally, Walters simply doesn't seem to acknowledge that there are plenty of good out-of-conference match-ups within the Southeast BECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY REGION IN THE COUNTRY WITH TWO HIGH-QUALITY CONFERENCES. Why should Auburn get on a plane and travel thousands of miles when they can play Georgia Tech and make a 90-mile bus ride? Ditto for Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, all of whom have in-state rivals that occupy their non-conference attention. Would Walters be upset if Tennessee dropped Notre Dame and picked up Louisville because that wouldn't be intersectional? (I just noticed this, but how is Kentucky-Indiana intersectional, but Auburn-Georgia Tech isn't? Does Walters need a map?)
And why is the SEC to blame for this trend? Let's take a look at the Big XII, shall we? Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, and Nebraska each play one cool intersectional game, but then you have such slates as the following:
Baylor - SMU, Samford, Army
Kansas - Florida Atlantic, Appalachian State, Louisiana Tech
Kansas State - Florida International, Marshall, North Texas
Missouri - Arkansas State, New Mexico, Troy
Oklahoma State - Montana State, Florida Atlantic, and Arkansas State
Texas Tech - Florida International, Sam Houston State, and Indiana State
Gee, that's only half the conference, why would we ever make fun of the Big XII for scheduling directional Florida schools as fast as they can? I wonder why Walters would make fun of the SEC despite the fact that the Big XII plays an objectively easier out-of-conference slate?
In an ideal world, teams would play more than one challenging non-conference game and maybe when we go back to 12-game schedules, they will. However, the norm right now for major conference teams seems to be one challenging game outside of the league and the SEC hews to that norm. The Pac Ten deserves a little credit for more challenging out-of-conference schedules, but let's face it: they have to do anything they can to get butts in the seats. UCLA isn't going to sell out the Rose Bowl unless they are playing an Oklahoma; Tennessee will sell out Neyland Stadium if they're playing Yale Law School.
Specifically, how in the world does he get off making this statement: "Shame on Auburn, Florida and LSU for playing it safe." Yeah, Florida, with Florida State, Tennessee, Georgia, and LSU - four perennial top 15 teams - on the schedule on an annual basis needs to be traveling to Columbus or Norman. LSU plays Arizona State; what's not intersectional about that? (If they don't return the trip, then maybe he has a point, although I'm sure that Tiger fans would retort that they are still waiting for Virginia Tech to appear in Baton Rouge after the Tigers made an unsuccessful trip to Blacksburg on my wedding day.) Auburn plays Georgia Tech, which is a perfectly reasonable non-conference challenge.
Generally, Walters simply doesn't seem to acknowledge that there are plenty of good out-of-conference match-ups within the Southeast BECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY REGION IN THE COUNTRY WITH TWO HIGH-QUALITY CONFERENCES. Why should Auburn get on a plane and travel thousands of miles when they can play Georgia Tech and make a 90-mile bus ride? Ditto for Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina, all of whom have in-state rivals that occupy their non-conference attention. Would Walters be upset if Tennessee dropped Notre Dame and picked up Louisville because that wouldn't be intersectional? (I just noticed this, but how is Kentucky-Indiana intersectional, but Auburn-Georgia Tech isn't? Does Walters need a map?)
And why is the SEC to blame for this trend? Let's take a look at the Big XII, shall we? Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, and Nebraska each play one cool intersectional game, but then you have such slates as the following:
Baylor - SMU, Samford, Army
Kansas - Florida Atlantic, Appalachian State, Louisiana Tech
Kansas State - Florida International, Marshall, North Texas
Missouri - Arkansas State, New Mexico, Troy
Oklahoma State - Montana State, Florida Atlantic, and Arkansas State
Texas Tech - Florida International, Sam Houston State, and Indiana State
Gee, that's only half the conference, why would we ever make fun of the Big XII for scheduling directional Florida schools as fast as they can? I wonder why Walters would make fun of the SEC despite the fact that the Big XII plays an objectively easier out-of-conference slate?
In an ideal world, teams would play more than one challenging non-conference game and maybe when we go back to 12-game schedules, they will. However, the norm right now for major conference teams seems to be one challenging game outside of the league and the SEC hews to that norm. The Pac Ten deserves a little credit for more challenging out-of-conference schedules, but let's face it: they have to do anything they can to get butts in the seats. UCLA isn't going to sell out the Rose Bowl unless they are playing an Oklahoma; Tennessee will sell out Neyland Stadium if they're playing Yale Law School.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Stop worrying about the Nationals...
and start worrying about the rest of the division. All of the focus in this city has been on the fact that the Braves are tied for first in the division despite an anemic offensive performance this weekend in Arizona and that the series against the Nats this week should propel the Braves into first place (although with the Braves' current hitting and the Nats' still-strong pitching, nothing is certain.) However, while the Braves are entering the easy part of their schedule (19 of 25 at home, 12 of which are against the weak NL West,) the other teams in the division are also playing games against the West and they are getting fat on those teams. The Marlins, Phillies, and Mets all played Western opponents last week and went a combined 13-5 while the Braves were going 3-3. In the Braves' defense, they were on the road for those games and it's always easier to play Western teams at home, as the Phillies and Mets did, than it is to travel three time zones and play. Anyway, my point is that the Braves' lead over the rest of the division is narrow, those other teams all played well last week, and the Braves' offense needs to pick up for a bunch of very winnable games in August so the team can get fat against the easy part of the schedule.
A few other thoughts:
1. I'm going to try not to read too much into yesterday's game, since the Braves have never hit Javier Vazquez well, dating back to his days with the Expos. That said, six baserunners all day?
2. Did Marcus Giles give us anything on the entire road trip? Between him and Kelly Johnson slumping, it's no wonder that Andruw hit five homers and came away with a whopping 9 RBI last week.
3. I don't want to jinx him, but Horacio Ramirez has been good in four straight starts and six of his last seven. Again, with all of the pitching injuries, he needs to get some credit for staying healthy and keeping the rotation afloat.
4. How is Tony Clark, with a 1.024 OPS and 15 homers and 51 RBI in 185 at-bats, not playing every day? There isn't even a platoon excuse because he's a switch-hitter.
A few other thoughts:
1. I'm going to try not to read too much into yesterday's game, since the Braves have never hit Javier Vazquez well, dating back to his days with the Expos. That said, six baserunners all day?
2. Did Marcus Giles give us anything on the entire road trip? Between him and Kelly Johnson slumping, it's no wonder that Andruw hit five homers and came away with a whopping 9 RBI last week.
3. I don't want to jinx him, but Horacio Ramirez has been good in four straight starts and six of his last seven. Again, with all of the pitching injuries, he needs to get some credit for staying healthy and keeping the rotation afloat.
4. How is Tony Clark, with a 1.024 OPS and 15 homers and 51 RBI in 185 at-bats, not playing every day? There isn't even a platoon excuse because he's a switch-hitter.
"There's something wrong with his Medulla Oblongata"
Am I the only one who read about Tavares Kearney's run-in with a TA and immediately thought about the Waterboy annihilating Colonel Sanders? It's too bad that Georgia is past the Jan Kemp era. Otherwise, they could keep Kearney on the team and be locks for the Bourbon Bowl at the end of the year.
One other thought: who feels compelled to cheat on a Nutrition exam?
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Last night as a microcosm of the Braves' season
Three reasons:
1. Andruw Jones was the hero. The fact that he homered on a fastball at shoulder height only adds to the representative quality of the game. Do the D-Backs not have scouts? How do you throw three pitches to Jones in the 9th inning of a tie game and none of them are off-speed?
2. Dan Kolb blew a late lead. He saw three batters and gave up a fly ball to the warning track in center, a walk to punch-and-judy Quinton McCracken, and then a laced double to Tony Clark. Bobby had little patience for Dan's fine work and lifted him for Chris Reitsma, who bailed Danny Boy out of another loss.
3. The Braves' staff didn't do a good job of keeping the opponent off base (15 snakes reached base in nine innings, ten by the free pass variety, and a 3-2 game took over three hours as a result,) but they didn't allow any big hits (only one extra base hit allowed: Clark's double off of Dan Doodie) and therefore, they didn't allow many runs. For the past two years, the strength of the Braves' staff has been not giving up extra base hits. They're 5th in the NL in SLG allowed, but only 9th in OBP allowed; last year, they were 2nd in the NL in SLG allowed and 8th in OBP allowed.
Other thoughts on the game:
1. Jorge Sosa is incredibly consistent. He throws about five innings every start, given up very few runs, strikes out a fair number, and the only bad thing you can say about him is that his control isn't very good and that runs his pitch counts up so he can't last longer into the game. Once he learns to actually pitch, he'll be a real asset.
2. Watching Jeff Francoeur hit, you can't help but notice how the ball jumps off of his bat. The guy has real power. I've been more impressed with him than I was with Andy Marte, which is a bit of a surprise since Marte was thought of as more major league ready prior to the season.
3. Chipper and Hampton's struggles to get healthy illustrate the dangers of committing a lot of money to older players. They've given the Braves almost nothing since May and they suffer regular set-backs in their efforts to get healthy. At this stage, anything we get from either player has to be considered a bonus. I'm just hoping that one of Hampton or Thomson are healthy and effective by September. At this stage, Thomson seems like the more likely bet, but that's probably only because he hasn't tried to come back yet and we haven't been subjected to the "Thomson scratched after injuring shoulder removing carry-on bag from overhead bin" stories.
4. Rafael Furcal was clearly unable to figure out Brad Halsey's move to the plate last night because he was on base twice and never attempted to steal, despite the fact that the patient Kelly Johnson was at the dish. Furcal needed to be running more, given the Braves' struggles against Halsey, especially because Chris Snyder behind the plate has only thrown out 27.5% of the runners attempting to steal against him.
5. My G-d does the Snakes' bullpen suck.
1. Andruw Jones was the hero. The fact that he homered on a fastball at shoulder height only adds to the representative quality of the game. Do the D-Backs not have scouts? How do you throw three pitches to Jones in the 9th inning of a tie game and none of them are off-speed?
2. Dan Kolb blew a late lead. He saw three batters and gave up a fly ball to the warning track in center, a walk to punch-and-judy Quinton McCracken, and then a laced double to Tony Clark. Bobby had little patience for Dan's fine work and lifted him for Chris Reitsma, who bailed Danny Boy out of another loss.
3. The Braves' staff didn't do a good job of keeping the opponent off base (15 snakes reached base in nine innings, ten by the free pass variety, and a 3-2 game took over three hours as a result,) but they didn't allow any big hits (only one extra base hit allowed: Clark's double off of Dan Doodie) and therefore, they didn't allow many runs. For the past two years, the strength of the Braves' staff has been not giving up extra base hits. They're 5th in the NL in SLG allowed, but only 9th in OBP allowed; last year, they were 2nd in the NL in SLG allowed and 8th in OBP allowed.
Other thoughts on the game:
1. Jorge Sosa is incredibly consistent. He throws about five innings every start, given up very few runs, strikes out a fair number, and the only bad thing you can say about him is that his control isn't very good and that runs his pitch counts up so he can't last longer into the game. Once he learns to actually pitch, he'll be a real asset.
2. Watching Jeff Francoeur hit, you can't help but notice how the ball jumps off of his bat. The guy has real power. I've been more impressed with him than I was with Andy Marte, which is a bit of a surprise since Marte was thought of as more major league ready prior to the season.
3. Chipper and Hampton's struggles to get healthy illustrate the dangers of committing a lot of money to older players. They've given the Braves almost nothing since May and they suffer regular set-backs in their efforts to get healthy. At this stage, anything we get from either player has to be considered a bonus. I'm just hoping that one of Hampton or Thomson are healthy and effective by September. At this stage, Thomson seems like the more likely bet, but that's probably only because he hasn't tried to come back yet and we haven't been subjected to the "Thomson scratched after injuring shoulder removing carry-on bag from overhead bin" stories.
4. Rafael Furcal was clearly unable to figure out Brad Halsey's move to the plate last night because he was on base twice and never attempted to steal, despite the fact that the patient Kelly Johnson was at the dish. Furcal needed to be running more, given the Braves' struggles against Halsey, especially because Chris Snyder behind the plate has only thrown out 27.5% of the runners attempting to steal against him.
5. My G-d does the Snakes' bullpen suck.
Barnhart on the ACC
Since we had such a good time playing armchair college football journalist this week with CFN's tepid SEC preview, let's not have some fun with Tony Barnhart's ACC column. I expect a little better from the college football expert for the paper that covers Dixie like dew.
1. He lists the top three coaches on hot seats and Chan Gailey isn't one of the three? Way to be kind to the local guy, Tony. Generally, when your AD has already stated that a certain number of wins are necessary this season, it's a good sign that you're on thin ice. I can't fathom why Chuck Amato would be on the hot seat and Gailey wouldn't. Here's an easy illustration for why that is:
NC State in five seasons with Amato - 39-23
NC State in five season prior to Amato - 25-32
Georgia Tech in three seasons with Gailey - 21-17
Georgia Tech in five seasons before Gailey - 42-19
Now admittedly, Gailey faces tougher schedules than Amato because Georgia Tech plays better out-of-conference foes, but the fact of the matter is that Amato has surpassed his program's prior results, but Gailey has fared worse than his predecessor. As a result, Gailey is on a hotter seat and that's with some justification. If you polled ACC fans as to whether they would want Gailey or Amato coaching their program, what percentage would Amato get? 80%? Would it be like a Soviet election? Probably.
That said, Gailey's seat isn't any hotter than those of John Bunting (although Carolina people don't really put too much pressure on their football program, especially when the hoops program is doing well) or Tommy Bowden. (Clemson people do put pressure on their coaches because, like Alabama fans, they have an inflated sense of how good their program should be, given their recruiting base. Bama fans have an inflated sense of self because they were coached for two decades by the best coach in modern college football history; Clemson fans have an inflated sense of self because they forget how easy it was to beat up on the pre-Florida State ACC, especially when Danny Ford was permitted to view NCAA rules as mere suggestions.)
2. Virginia Tech beat Virginia 24-10, not 16-10. Do they not have fact-checkers at the AJC? I didn't even have to look that up.
3. Way to go to an unbiased source to get a read on whether Florida State's bad off-season will affect their team next year. I'm shocked like Captain Renault that Lee Corso thinks that Florida State will be fine despite losing their starting QB (and FSU did so well the last time they started a redshirt freshman QB,) their best corner, their best defensive tackle, and one or two linebackers (although I suspect that Bobby's famously strict punishment system will keep A.J. Nicholson and Ernie Sims out for a good play or two.) Was Burt Reynolds not available for comment on the Noles? How about Deion Sanders?
1. He lists the top three coaches on hot seats and Chan Gailey isn't one of the three? Way to be kind to the local guy, Tony. Generally, when your AD has already stated that a certain number of wins are necessary this season, it's a good sign that you're on thin ice. I can't fathom why Chuck Amato would be on the hot seat and Gailey wouldn't. Here's an easy illustration for why that is:
NC State in five seasons with Amato - 39-23
NC State in five season prior to Amato - 25-32
Georgia Tech in three seasons with Gailey - 21-17
Georgia Tech in five seasons before Gailey - 42-19
Now admittedly, Gailey faces tougher schedules than Amato because Georgia Tech plays better out-of-conference foes, but the fact of the matter is that Amato has surpassed his program's prior results, but Gailey has fared worse than his predecessor. As a result, Gailey is on a hotter seat and that's with some justification. If you polled ACC fans as to whether they would want Gailey or Amato coaching their program, what percentage would Amato get? 80%? Would it be like a Soviet election? Probably.
That said, Gailey's seat isn't any hotter than those of John Bunting (although Carolina people don't really put too much pressure on their football program, especially when the hoops program is doing well) or Tommy Bowden. (Clemson people do put pressure on their coaches because, like Alabama fans, they have an inflated sense of how good their program should be, given their recruiting base. Bama fans have an inflated sense of self because they were coached for two decades by the best coach in modern college football history; Clemson fans have an inflated sense of self because they forget how easy it was to beat up on the pre-Florida State ACC, especially when Danny Ford was permitted to view NCAA rules as mere suggestions.)
2. Virginia Tech beat Virginia 24-10, not 16-10. Do they not have fact-checkers at the AJC? I didn't even have to look that up.
3. Way to go to an unbiased source to get a read on whether Florida State's bad off-season will affect their team next year. I'm shocked like Captain Renault that Lee Corso thinks that Florida State will be fine despite losing their starting QB (and FSU did so well the last time they started a redshirt freshman QB,) their best corner, their best defensive tackle, and one or two linebackers (although I suspect that Bobby's famously strict punishment system will keep A.J. Nicholson and Ernie Sims out for a good play or two.) Was Burt Reynolds not available for comment on the Noles? How about Deion Sanders?
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Bob Klapisch: A Modern-Day Peter Vescey
One of my favorite bits from Sports Guy's Draft diaries was a line about Peter Vescey being shaken by...something (I can't remember what) and then immediately making up a trade rumor on the spot. His time as a studio analyst for NBC's NBA coverage was marked by a neverending barrage of trade rumors, almost all of which turned out to be baseless. Now, Bob Klapisch has taken his mantle and run with it.
Klapisch, for those of you who don't know him, writes for the Bergen [N.J.] Record (translation: not talented enough to get a job with one of the major dailies in New York City) and also writes for espn.com exclusively about the Yankees and Mets. The last time he crossed my attention, he was writing a piece that can only be described as fellatio on Derek Jeter as the best player in baseball and the heart of the Yankees. Since then, I have occasionally read his pieces on espn.com, which typify the worst of the Northeastern media, namely prone to wild sweeps of mindless emotion. When the Yankees are winning, they're the best team ever and the personification of King George's ruthless desire to conquer. When they're losing, it's a crisis and the Boss is about to clean house.
Anyway, he apparently wrote a piece for his local rag on Leo Mazzone wanting to come to the Yankees. Needless to say, Leo was unimpressed by the rumor. The hubris it takes to assume "Mazzone MUST want to come to the Yankees, since they are the epicenter of baseball and New York is the epicenter of Western civilization and everything else is just a crude backwater" is stunning. Doesn't the fact that Mazzone has stayed in Atlanta for 14 years mean that, G-d forbid, he actually likes it here? Maybe he enjoys working for ownership that aren't constantly summoning their personnel to Tampa for harangues. Maybe he'd rather not be covered every day by ten newspapers, each of which have to make up more elaborate rumors than the next to get oxygen in a media circus. Maybe he enjoys sitting next to Bobby Cox every night. Maybe he'd prefer not to spend 81 nights per year in a shithole in the Bronx? I don't know. Only Leo knows.
By the way, this rumor is classic Yankees in another sense. If they indeed have interest in Mazzone, then they are doing what they always do: linearly look at a weakness and then identify the highest-profile, most obvious target to fill the weakness. That's why they've been in decline over the past several years. Weak starting pitching? Sign the free agent starters who had the best year last year. Holes in the lineup? Mortgage any prospects in the system to get them. That's great long-term thinking.
Klapisch, for those of you who don't know him, writes for the Bergen [N.J.] Record (translation: not talented enough to get a job with one of the major dailies in New York City) and also writes for espn.com exclusively about the Yankees and Mets. The last time he crossed my attention, he was writing a piece that can only be described as fellatio on Derek Jeter as the best player in baseball and the heart of the Yankees. Since then, I have occasionally read his pieces on espn.com, which typify the worst of the Northeastern media, namely prone to wild sweeps of mindless emotion. When the Yankees are winning, they're the best team ever and the personification of King George's ruthless desire to conquer. When they're losing, it's a crisis and the Boss is about to clean house.
Anyway, he apparently wrote a piece for his local rag on Leo Mazzone wanting to come to the Yankees. Needless to say, Leo was unimpressed by the rumor. The hubris it takes to assume "Mazzone MUST want to come to the Yankees, since they are the epicenter of baseball and New York is the epicenter of Western civilization and everything else is just a crude backwater" is stunning. Doesn't the fact that Mazzone has stayed in Atlanta for 14 years mean that, G-d forbid, he actually likes it here? Maybe he enjoys working for ownership that aren't constantly summoning their personnel to Tampa for harangues. Maybe he'd rather not be covered every day by ten newspapers, each of which have to make up more elaborate rumors than the next to get oxygen in a media circus. Maybe he enjoys sitting next to Bobby Cox every night. Maybe he'd prefer not to spend 81 nights per year in a shithole in the Bronx? I don't know. Only Leo knows.
By the way, this rumor is classic Yankees in another sense. If they indeed have interest in Mazzone, then they are doing what they always do: linearly look at a weakness and then identify the highest-profile, most obvious target to fill the weakness. That's why they've been in decline over the past several years. Weak starting pitching? Sign the free agent starters who had the best year last year. Holes in the lineup? Mortgage any prospects in the system to get them. That's great long-term thinking.
NHL Rules Changes
I was going to post the description of the changes on the Thrashers' web site, but this summary and analysis to be much better. Scott Burnside wrote some good material during the lockout and the fact that he's a terrific hockey writer based in Atlanta only increases his appeal.
Overall, I'm happy with the changes, since they are all changes that have been bandied about for several years, but the NHL, seemingly oblivious to its decline in popularity and captured by its purist elements, never had the guts to go with them. As a great man sings, when you ain't got nothin', you got nothin' to lose.
The reduction of goalies' equipment is the most important change, in my mind, because save percentages have gotten completely out of whack and shooters have almost no net to shoot at, not through any skill of the goalie, but rather because they look like the Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man. The expansion of the offensive zone will also make offense a little easier.
I'm skeptical about two of the changes. First, I agree with the idea of calling hooking and obstruction as they are defined in the rule book, but I've heard the claim that those penalties are going to be called dozens of times now and the fact that the NHL is still having to emphasize a crackdown to its officials should tell you how effective those previous efforts have been.
I can't wait for Pat Quinn, the Canadian Ted Kennedy, to start launching whiny fusillades every time one of the dinosaurs on the Maple Leafs tries to play defense the "old-fashioned" way and gets called for muggery. The fact that obstruction/hooking crackdowns tend to occur at the start of the season and are forgotten by the playoffs, the time when interest in the NHL is at its highest, only increases my skepticism that the emphasis will help with the NHL's popularity. One factor that does make me mildly optimistic is the fact that the NHL is going to more form-fitting uniforms, which will make obstruction a little harder.
I'm also not overly happy with the restrictions on goalies playing the puck because it will increase the incentive for teams to play Philly-style dump and chase, which isn't aesthetically pleasing at all. Call me crazy, but I much prefer a rush through the neutral zone than the pattern of cross the red-line, dump the puck in, mug the opposing defenseman behind the net, throw the puck in front, and pray that one of your teammates is there to bludgeon the puck into the net.
I am happy with the changes that weren't made, namely expanding the size of the nets, which seems to me to be a cheap way to increase scoring without requiring more skill on the part of the players, and expanding the playoffs, since 16 is a nice number and there's no reason to go higher in a 30-team league.
One other point: the new schedules will increase games against divisional opponents, which should help the Thrashers somewhat since they aren't in a strong division. On the other hand, I'm sure that fans of Tampa, Florida, Carolina, and Washington are all saying the same things.
Overall, I'm happy with the changes, since they are all changes that have been bandied about for several years, but the NHL, seemingly oblivious to its decline in popularity and captured by its purist elements, never had the guts to go with them. As a great man sings, when you ain't got nothin', you got nothin' to lose.
The reduction of goalies' equipment is the most important change, in my mind, because save percentages have gotten completely out of whack and shooters have almost no net to shoot at, not through any skill of the goalie, but rather because they look like the Sta-Puft Marshmallow Man. The expansion of the offensive zone will also make offense a little easier.
I'm skeptical about two of the changes. First, I agree with the idea of calling hooking and obstruction as they are defined in the rule book, but I've heard the claim that those penalties are going to be called dozens of times now and the fact that the NHL is still having to emphasize a crackdown to its officials should tell you how effective those previous efforts have been.
I can't wait for Pat Quinn, the Canadian Ted Kennedy, to start launching whiny fusillades every time one of the dinosaurs on the Maple Leafs tries to play defense the "old-fashioned" way and gets called for muggery. The fact that obstruction/hooking crackdowns tend to occur at the start of the season and are forgotten by the playoffs, the time when interest in the NHL is at its highest, only increases my skepticism that the emphasis will help with the NHL's popularity. One factor that does make me mildly optimistic is the fact that the NHL is going to more form-fitting uniforms, which will make obstruction a little harder.I'm also not overly happy with the restrictions on goalies playing the puck because it will increase the incentive for teams to play Philly-style dump and chase, which isn't aesthetically pleasing at all. Call me crazy, but I much prefer a rush through the neutral zone than the pattern of cross the red-line, dump the puck in, mug the opposing defenseman behind the net, throw the puck in front, and pray that one of your teammates is there to bludgeon the puck into the net.
I am happy with the changes that weren't made, namely expanding the size of the nets, which seems to me to be a cheap way to increase scoring without requiring more skill on the part of the players, and expanding the playoffs, since 16 is a nice number and there's no reason to go higher in a 30-team league.
One other point: the new schedules will increase games against divisional opponents, which should help the Thrashers somewhat since they aren't in a strong division. On the other hand, I'm sure that fans of Tampa, Florida, Carolina, and Washington are all saying the same things.
Friday, July 22, 2005
Do we want TO?
That was the discussion on Mayhem this morning. To me, that's like discussing whether I'd want Charles Woodson and Ian Gold to play on this year's Michigan defense or whether I'd want Salma Hayek and Catherine Zeta Jones to play on my...nevermind, I'm married. Anyway, the point is that it isn't going to happen. Philly isn't going to trade him to the team they just played in the NFC Title Game, TO probably isn't going to want to play for a team that doesn't throw that much and a quarterback with questionable passing skills (remember his aversion to Kyle Boller?), and the Falcons have shown an aversion to signing players like Owens. Additionally, the Falcons are already paying Peerless Price a boatload of money and they have spent their last two first round picks on receivers. Who do we think we are, the Detroit Lions? (Ugh.)
If I were Rich McKay, I'd make this deal in a second because players like Owens don't come along very often. For one thing, the discussion about having to trade a player like Keith Brooking is ludicrous because stars are traded all the time in the NFL for bupkes. Travis Henry, a 1,400-yard back, just went for a third round pick. Owens went to Philly for what, a third round pick and Brandon Whiting? Corey Dillon was worth what, a low first round pick? A second-rounder? The NFL is this bizarro world where, despite all of the empirical evidence that draft picks aren't worth the value to which teams assign them, stars are traded all the time for picks (and not especially high ones, at that.)
The key with Owens is to approach trading for him the way one would approach dating Angelina Jolie. You go into the relationship knowing that you'll have fun, but ultimately, your target is bat-shit crazy and you can't let yourself get committed to a wack-job. In the NFL world, that means not signing him to a deal that you can't get out of. When he gets mad at Mike Vick, just as he has with every other pro quarterback with whom he's played, you need to be able to get rid of him with a minimum of fuss. That means that the contract cannot have prohibitive up-front money. Come to think of it, this is another reason why a deal for Owens won't happen: Drew Rosenhaus is not going to let Owens sign another idiotic deal like the one he signed with Philly. Owens is in the prime of his career and is looking to max out his income, guaranteed, in the next few years. Those goals are inconsistent with those of any smart team that is going to avoid a long-term commitment to an inherently unstable player.
My feelings on TO are these: I hope that he sits out for the whole year and ends up discrediting himself and Rosenhaus, who is another prominent sports figure who's not winning any image awards for my tribe. (Why can't they all be like lovely David Stern?) I don't root for Philly teams on principle because a group of fans who revel in their own negativity should not be rewarded with championships (and karma being what it is, they haven't,) but I would root for the Eagles this year if they took a stand against TO just to make him look dumb.
If I were Rich McKay, I'd make this deal in a second because players like Owens don't come along very often. For one thing, the discussion about having to trade a player like Keith Brooking is ludicrous because stars are traded all the time in the NFL for bupkes. Travis Henry, a 1,400-yard back, just went for a third round pick. Owens went to Philly for what, a third round pick and Brandon Whiting? Corey Dillon was worth what, a low first round pick? A second-rounder? The NFL is this bizarro world where, despite all of the empirical evidence that draft picks aren't worth the value to which teams assign them, stars are traded all the time for picks (and not especially high ones, at that.)
The key with Owens is to approach trading for him the way one would approach dating Angelina Jolie. You go into the relationship knowing that you'll have fun, but ultimately, your target is bat-shit crazy and you can't let yourself get committed to a wack-job. In the NFL world, that means not signing him to a deal that you can't get out of. When he gets mad at Mike Vick, just as he has with every other pro quarterback with whom he's played, you need to be able to get rid of him with a minimum of fuss. That means that the contract cannot have prohibitive up-front money. Come to think of it, this is another reason why a deal for Owens won't happen: Drew Rosenhaus is not going to let Owens sign another idiotic deal like the one he signed with Philly. Owens is in the prime of his career and is looking to max out his income, guaranteed, in the next few years. Those goals are inconsistent with those of any smart team that is going to avoid a long-term commitment to an inherently unstable player.
My feelings on TO are these: I hope that he sits out for the whole year and ends up discrediting himself and Rosenhaus, who is another prominent sports figure who's not winning any image awards for my tribe. (Why can't they all be like lovely David Stern?) I don't root for Philly teams on principle because a group of fans who revel in their own negativity should not be rewarded with championships (and karma being what it is, they haven't,) but I would root for the Eagles this year if they took a stand against TO just to make him look dumb.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)