Wednesday, October 25, 2006

There's a Catch is moving!

There's a Catch is moving to http://theresacatch.blogspot.com/ on the new Blogger Beta, with dynamic pages, labels, and all sorts of RSS feeds! Head on over to see the latest.

Blogger isn't migrating team blogs to Beta yet, so we chose a new URL in order to make the change. This would have been the URL all along except that, in the very beginning, we weren't sure the name was going to stick.

All of the old content has been transferred, and some of it has been tagged/labelled. There are still some formatting glitches consequent to the transfer process, but those will gradually go away as the rest of the pages find their categories.

Monday, October 23, 2006

McNabb for Bucs MVP

A few weeks ago, I wrote a post dismissing McNabb as a shoe-in for MVP, despite gaudy early-season numbers. Essentially, I said things would get worse for McNabb as the schedule got more difficult. After torching Dallas, he's posted his two worst games in losses to New Orleans and Tampa Bay. Against the Saints, he compiled a 91.5 passer rating, had his least yards passing and threw his 2nd pick of the year. Yesterday, against the Bucs, he threw three picks (2 were returned for TD's by CB Ronde Barber) and posted a passer rating of 83.3. Before these last two games, his low for the season was 99.3 (against the NY Giants in the Eagles' first loss).

McNabb is now 2nd in the league in passer rating (behind Indianapolis Colts QB and meat-cutting fan Peyton Manning). More importantly, his Eagles have lost two in a row and aren't in first place in the NFC East. If Jacksonville can right the ship this week, Philly could be 4-4 at the halfway point of the season ... and you can hang the TB loss right on McNabb's head.

Gambler into Foreign Substances?

Video replays show discoloration at the base of Detroit P Kenny Rogers' left thumb in the 1st inning of last night's game. Similar video footage from Rogers' two previous post-season starts (one against the Yankees and the other against the A's) showed Rogers had similar discoloration in the same spot during those games. Something is reproducible. Maybe he is able to put the pine tar on his hand in the same spot over and over. The scientific community would applaud the reproducibility. Or, maybe the way he grabs the rosin bag results in the same pattern each time he takes the mound.

I don't know what was on Rogers' hand, nor do I really care. Maybe it was dirt. Perhaps it was a foreign substance; apparently, most major league pitchers use pine tar (60-70% is a number I heard thrown around). And, if Rogers did use pine tar, or something similar, to help him grip the ball on a cold night, I don't have a problem with that. Baseball is a warm-weather sport played during the summer. I grew up in Alaska and I pitched when it was just above freezing, raining, and windy. By the end of the game, you can barely spread your fingers and every pitch is a palm ball because that's the only grip you can manage. Obviously, the elements weren't that adverse for Rogers, but let them use pine tar, or something else, if they are going to continue to schedule games in 30-40 degree weather.

Friday, October 20, 2006

Big East Revisited ... Again

The Big East is, apparently, 32-8 in non-conference games. Big East teams are 11-7 against teams from other BCS conferences (Pac-10, ACC, Big 10, Big 12, SEC). That means that Big East teams are 21-1 against teams from non-BCS conferences. It is good that teams from the Big East are beating teams that they should beat. Unfortunately, I don't think the Big East has a marquee win this year.

West Virginia: Marshall, Eastern Washington, Maryland (ACC), East Carolina, Mississippi State (SEC) - (5-0), (2-0)
Pittsburgh: Virginia (ACC), Citadel, Toledo, Central Florida, Michigan State (Big 10) - Loss - (4-1), (1-1)
Louisville: Kentucky (SEC), Temple, Miami (ACC), Kansas State (Big 12), Middle Tennessee State - (5-0), (3-0)
Rutgers: North Carolina (ACC), Illinois (Big 10), Ohio, Howard, Navy - (5-0), (2-0)
South Florida: McNeese State, Florida International, Central Florida, North Carolina (ACC), Kansas (Big 12) - Loss - (4-1), (1-1)
Connecticut: Rhode Island, Indiana (Big 10), Army, Wake Forest (ACC) - Loss, Navy - Loss - (3-2), (1-1)
Syracuse: Illinois (Big 10), Miami (OH), Wyoming, Wake Forest (ACC) - Loss, Iowa (Big 10) - Loss - (3-2), (1-2)
Cincinnati: Eastern Kentucky, Miami (OH), Akron, Ohio State (Big 10) - Loss, Virginia Tech (ACC) - Loss - (3-2), (0-2)
Just checking myself, that is 32 wins with 11 against BCS conference schools. And, I count 8 losses with 7 of those against BCS schools. Poor UConn, they are the only team to lose to a non-BCS conference school (Navy).

Where is the signature win for the conference? ACC losers Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina (x2), and Miami aren't among the top 25 teams in the country. The big name, Miami, beat the Houston Cougars at home by 1 point. Wake Forest is in the AP top 25 but not the USA Today list, but the Demon Deacs won their games against the Big East. MS State and Kentucky aren't among the dominant teams in the SEC ... they're bottom feeders. Indiana and Illinois (x2) reside in a similar spot in the Big 10. And, Kansas State can't even compete in the Big 12 North!

If one of the top Big East teams(WVU, Louisville, Rutgers) runs the table, they may be worthy of playing for a national championship. Unfortunately, while the league has done well in the W & L column, the strength of schedule is ridiculous. No Big East team has beaten a top 10 team from another conference. No top 15's or top 20's. None of the top 25. Miami is in the "others receiving votes" in the AP and USA Today polls.

Is there another BCS conference with the same shortcoming? Michigan beat Notre Dame and Ohio State beat Texas. Check the Big 10 off the list. USC beat Nebraska and Arkansas. The Pac-10 is represented. Tennessee knocked off #11 California. The SEC got it done despite having only 4 non-conference games per team instead of the Big East's 5.

Each Big East team plays 5 non-conference games (8 teams in the conference, so 7 games are accumulated playing everyone else). How can they not find time to schedule solid teams from someplace?

Oklahoma went to Eugene and beat the Oregon Ducks ... oh, wait ... what happened? Oregon won? No they didn't. That would be the big Big 12 win, if the Pac-10 officiating crew wasn't either corrupt or blind ... take your pick. Texas Tech beat UTEP, who is 4-2 but not in the top 25. But, the Big 12 does have the defending national champion Texas Longhorns. The ACC has a near miss with GA Tech losing to Notre Dame, 14-10. Florida State has a date with Florida later in the year and Ga Tech takes on Georgia, too. So, there are possibilities there for the ACC to right the ship.

So, recapping, Big East ... NOPE! Big 10, SEC, and Pac-10 ... CHECK! Big 12 ... ROBBED! ACC ... JURY'S OUT! Look for this topic to be revisited once more (at least) if a Big East team ends the season undefeated and is lobbying for a spot in the title game.

Randolph uses right bullets but misses elusive Cards

Former Phillies 1B and current ESPN analyst John Kruk was critical of Mets Manager Willie Randolph for his handling of his bullpen in the Mets 3-1 game 7 loss to the St. Louis Cardinals in the NLCS. Kruk thought Mets closer Billy Wagner should have been in the game in the top of the ninth, with the score tied 1-1, instead of Mets set-up man Aaron Heilman. I disagree.

I agree with Kruk that Wagner is the best reliever the Mets have and you want to go down with your best pitcher on the mound, not your #2 reliever, if you are going to have to swallow a loss to end your season. Do you want Michael Jordan taking the last-second jump shot? Tiger Woods standing over a tournament-clinching putt on 18?

However, last night's game wasn't setting up to be a one-shot deal. It was a tied game. The game could have lasted indefinitely, it's one of the enduring traits about baseball. The game was tied 1-1 with the bottom portion of each team's line-up due up in the ninth. The Cardinals had Edmonds, Rolen, and Molina due up in the top of the ninth. That's 5-7 in the St. Louis line-up. Heilman had just manuevered through the top of the order in the 8th, getting Eckstein, Spiezio (hitting for Wilson) and Encarnacion, with an intentional walk of Albert Pujols with 2 outs. Potentially, Heilman could work through two more innings without much danger if he could get Edmonds-Rolen-Molina, then Belliard-pinch hitter-Eckstein. Then, Billy Wagner could come in to face Spiezio, Pujols, Encarnacion, Edmonds, etc.

The Mets had the bottom of their order due up in the ninth. That was probably a contributing factor to not bringing in Wagner. The Mets would be trying to push across a run with Valentin-Chavez-pinch hitter, the 7-9 spots in the order, starting the inning. If you have the top of your order up in the ninth and think you'll score runs to win the game, you might be more willing to burn Heilman and bring in Wagner. That wasn't the case, though.

It's one of those inconvenient rules in baseball that you can't bring players back into the game after you take them out. So, Randolph couldn't use Heilman for the 8th, then Wagner for the 9th and 10th, then come back with Heilman. A bullpen has a few bullets, but how many of them do you actually trust to hit the target. Wagner had even had troubles during the series. Heilman seemed like he was breezing along. You don't want to waste a valuable commodity like that by removing him after just one inning. You also don't want to waste a valuable commodity like Wagner against the weak part of the opposition's line-up.

Willie Randolph shouldn't be 2nd guessed. His decision to leave Heilman in the game was fine. Not only was it not a bad decision, it was the correct decision. If the game had gone to the 14th tied at 1 and the Mets had to use Steve Trachsel because they'd brought Wagner in in the 9th, people would be bemoaning the fact that Randolph wasn't more careful burning through his quality relievers. Heilman made a bad pitch at a bad time to Yadier Molina. His changeup didn't sink and moved back over the fat part of the plate. Molina took advantage. That kind of thing happens. Pitchers make bad pitches. Wainwright hung some curves in the bottom half of the ninth, but the Met hitters didn't take advantage. That is why you play the games. It isn't always a strategical decision that loses the game ... and in this case, it just wasn't in the cards for the Mets.

Sylvester and Tweety

A few weeks ago, the Detroit Tigers and the St. Louis Cardinals entered the MLB playoffs with the worst performances in their last fifty games ever—19-31 and 22-28 respectively. Of course, the sensationalism is a bit frivolous: baseball has been sending eight teams to the playoffs only relatively recently. Still, raise your hand if you expected this unlikely pairing in the World Series. . . . That's what I thought.

But why don't we expect it by now? Wild card teams won the World Series three years in a row! (Granted, the Cardinals are not a wild card team. But they did have the worst record among playoff teams.) How do we account for this?

One proposal that has been made specifically with the Houston Astros in mind is that playoff teams don't need a full field of starting pitchers. If they have three good ones—e.g. Oswalt, Pettitte, Clemens—they can make it past teams with better overall starting pitching. But, the Astros haven't won the World Series lately.

I'm going to suggest something completely different. And I'm going to do so without any evidence. Feel free to ignore everything I'm about to say. Maybe the home field advantage that baseball and other sports try to give teams in playoff series doesn't really work. I mean, did they ever do any analysis before constructing the 2-2-1 or 2-3-2 systems? It's great to have the first two games at home, we can probably all agree. But those games will never completely decide a series. Whereas games three and four (of five), or four and five (of seven), may be decisive. And those games are always at home for the team that is supposed to have a disadvantage.

If I can dig up some data and some free time, I'll try to confirm or debunk this intuition in the next few days. Until then, just think about it.


Related:

Thursday, October 19, 2006

The dirty details

Evan's not the only one who's annoyed by Rodney Harrison's late hits. In a preseason poll, 23% of NFL players voted Rodney Harrison the dirtiest. I wonder who Rodney voted for? Not himself, obviously. Says Harrison,
All I can say is as many guys as say I'm a dirty player, just as many come up and tell me they admire how I play, the hard work, the commitment, the toughness. That's the pride you're looking for. I take pride in that.
Does that mean 23% of the league admires him for his toughness, too? I'm guessing no. I'm guessing he's as deluded about his image as he is about his play.

The Patriots safety leads the list by a wide margin. Joey Porter and Jon Runyan come in second, each with 6% of the 361 votes. Now, I have no idea how Sports Illustrated conducted the poll. But it's hard to argue with these results. Imagine we thought that Porter, Runyan, and Harrison were all equally dirty—say 12% each—and that this outcome was just a statistical anomaly. Then the statistics would say, "No! Not a chance!" Okay, there's a chance. But it's like one in a trillion (according to a chi-squared test treating all other votes as one bin). I don't think that's what happened.

No, the NFL players think Rodney Harrison plays dirty, just like Evan thinks.


Related:

If one is good, three are definitely better!

Back in the good old days of the double reverse pass, SF 49'er dominance (heck, NFC dominance) and football not at all resembling Chinese Checkers, pass rushers were allowed to hit the QB as long as they only took a couple steps after the ball was released. Unnecessary roughness was, oddly, called when plays were unnecessarily rough in the football context. Strange.

I've watched as the league office and officials cracked down, moving from a couple to less than two, then one. Can you imagine if the NBA only allowed one step after you picked up your dribble before you took off for a lay-up? Now, as Cincinnati Bengal Justin Smith learned against Tampa on Sunday, you have to coddle the QB as you take him down, even on a sack. Not only can you not be unnecessarily rough if you want to avoid a penalty, you also have to be extra careful not to let them get injured. Maybe the officials were on heightened alert because Chris Simms had his spleen ruptured; Simms was the Bucs starting QB before being sidelined with the injury. Justin Smith received a 15-yard penalty for routinely sacking the QB. That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen.

I think I have a way to improve the situation that is evolving with the treatment of QB's in the NFL. You can't go low, you can't go high, you can't lead with your helmet, and now you can't tackle them regularly. Maybe they should have flags! Now that I actually wrote that, it seems like that might be the next step for the NFL, though it isn't the recommendation I have in mind. The solution to the roughing the passer epidemic is a graduated system. Roughing the passer is currently 15 yards. Not all roughing the passer fouls are created equal, so why is there a uniform penalty. There are two face mask levels. I think there should be three face mask levels (5, 10, and 15 instead of just 5 and 15). Running into the kicker results in 5 yards, roughing the kicker gives the opponents 15 yards.

There should be multiple levels of roughing the passer, too. I'd lobby for three. If Justin Smith tackles another QB a little too hard, give him a 5 yard penalty. It would be applied to the end of the play and not an automatic first down. Serious offenses would garner the 15 yard penalty and an automatic first down. The medium level would be for slightly late hits that aren't that vicious, going low or high lightly, and other similar infractions. The 10-yarders would also be tacked on to the end of the play, with no automatic first down.

The NFL rules are evolving and that is fine. The QB position is valuable to the league and also to individual teams. I don't really want to watch Indy play without Peyton Manning. Who is the backup for Cincy now that Kitna is in Detroit? Doug Johnson or Anthony Wright. Personally, I'd love to see Tom Brady go down, but I doubt many NE fans want to see Matt Cassell with his hands under center. The penalties need to evolve with the rules, though. Fifteen yards for something that wasn't a foul last year is absurd. It's bad for the game and there is a simple solution. Graduated levels. The punishment should fit the crime. You don't line up the firing squad for someone who steals a pack of gum from the neighborhood 7-Eleven ... at least not in America!

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

The New Orleans Saints: Brees, Bush and Payton

The Jim Haslett-led Saints of the last few years had been classified as enigmatic. They'd lose games they weren't supposed to, win games they weren't supposed to, suffer through lengthy losing skids and then turn around and reel off a few in a row. They were a .500'ish team quarterbacked by Aaron Brooks, who experts say is one of the more talented QB's in the league, but isn't the QB you'd want for your team.

Last year, Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans. The Saints were displaced. Jim Haslett and Aaron Brooks were no longer wanted. They practiced in San Antonio and played seemingly everywhere. The Saints were not the 2nd worst team in the league last year. Hurricane Katrina and the resulting circumstances put New Orleans in a position to get the USC star with the #2 pick. The poor play also allowed them to cut ties with Haslett, who'd been rumored to be on the hot seat for a couple years, and Brooks, who never quite got New Orleans over the hump.

The replacements, QB Drew Brees and Head Coach Sean Payton have been widely praised for the turnaround. Brees has played pretty well and has developed into a quality starting QB (7th in QB rating this year) in the NFL, something Brooks never seemed to do. Sean Payton has led the Saints to a 5-1 record. Reggie Bush has 480 yards from scrimmage, that's an average of 80 per game ... 80*16=1280 yards per scrimmage for the season (his current pace). Plus, he's contributing on punt returns. Those three are being hailed for turning the team around.


In 2001, the Saints were 7-9. The next year, they finished 9-7. Then, in 2003 and 2004 they posted 8-8 records. The Saints have been mediocre for years, just look at the graph (sorry, my Apple PowerBook is the reason "Wins" is upside down). They aren't an awful franchise. Last year's 3-13 record was an aberration, not a trend. This year, the Saints are 5-1 with wins over Cleveland (1-4), Green Bay (1-5), Atlanta (3-2), Tampa Bay (1-4) and Philadelphia (4-2). The two big wins, over Atlanta and Philly were at home in the renovated Superdome in front of enthusiastic - to say the least - fans. The only blemish on their record is a road loss to 4-2 Carolina, a quality opponent.

You never know how an NFL season is going to materialize, but it seems like the toughest part of the Saints' schedule is still to come. Tampa Bay has been playing better recently and they are, along with San Francisco, the easy games remaining on the schedule. They have division foes Carolina and Atlanta again, along with the big 3 from the AFC North, Baltimore, Cincinnati and Pittsburgh. They also have 3 more games against the NFC East: at Dallas and NY Giants and home for the 'Skins. Hey, shouldn't they play that Saints - Giants game in the Superdome in New Orleans and just say the Giants are the home team to make up for last year?

The Saints should be better this year with Brees and Bush, over Brooks and whoever they would have taken with a mid first round draft pick. But, they aren't going to go 14-2. They shouldn't have much trouble getting to .500, but 11 wins would be an accomplishment given the remaining schedule and Deuce McAllister's ailing hamstring. That would be a significant improvement, but it's not fair to compare them to the 2005 Saints who really didn't have much of a chance ... compare them to all the years before that.

Go North young man!

Reggie Bush is a very talented athlete with speed, quickness, and good hands. He's adept at lining up in the backfield or out wide at WR and can also hurt you in the return game. However, Bush is doing his team damage with his indecisiveness and desire to bust a big play on every snap.

University of Oklahoma RB Adrian Peterson was praised earlier this year for making the most of what is available to him on every run, rather than dancing around looking for a home run on every play. Peterson gained 1925 yards as a freshman. You can put up big numbers while not fulfilling potential, obviously. Now, that isn't to say that big plays won't come, but you shouldn't actively seek them out. Peterson had two 40+ yard runs against Iowa State, including the 53-yard TD run on which Peterson suffered a broken collarbone.

On one play in the Saints-Eagles game Sunday, the Saints ran a sweep to the left. LT Jamaal Brown was blocking Eagles S Sean Considine. Considine was on the sideline side of Brown for at least one of two reasons: (1) Considine was trying to prevent Bush from getting to the sideline and was attempting to force him back inside and/or (2) Brown was trying to kick him out wide so Bush could get downfield quicker and leave himself more room to manuever, rather than head straight for the sideline and then cutting it upfield. Bush needed to cut it upfield right away. He had a huge, gaping even, hole between the tackle and guard. The Eagles had one defender coming in to fill the hole, but the hole was big enough that it needed 3 defenders to fill. Bush needed to make that guy miss and then head for the endzone.

However, looking for a path where no defenders were, Bush danced, allowing the hole to close a little bit, and headed for the sideline. Brown had no choice but to hold to keep Considine off Bush and the little yardage Bush gained along the sideline was negated by the holding penalty. The dancing allowed the defense to improve their position and Bush's proximity to the sideline decreased his effectiveness in space. So, rather than a positive gain and potential for a big play if Bush could juke one defender, the Saints were backed up by a needless penalty.

Bush is a great talent, but this is the type of mistake he can't continue to make if he is going to be a legitimate great in the NFL. He can be a star dancing, but Matt Leinart is already a star, so that's not saying much.

On a related note, I'm getting tired of all-purpose yards being thrown around like they are a meaningful stat. Or, as FOX did for Bush, touches and yards. Against the Eagles, Bush had 11 runs for 25 yards (2.3 ypc with a long of 7 yards), 4 catches for 35 yards (8.8 ypc), and 29 yards on 3 punt returns (9.7 ypr). So, on 18 touches, Bush had 89 all-purpose yards. That's an average of almost 5 yards per touch. What does it mean? Not much, really.

Reggie Bush shouldn't be judged on just his rushing yardage. He is on pace for just over 500 yards rushing. That's not fair. Reggie Bush is a big contributor in the passing game; Bush is on track for 100+ receptions and 750+ yards receiving. That is how he should be used. Deuce McAllister is a better every down back than Bush. The Houston Texans passed on Bush at least in part because they thought Domanick Davis was a fine every down back and Bush would just be an accessory for the offense, and they thought Mario Williams would fill a bigger need. But, 1300 yards from scrimmage as a rookie in the NFL would be a solid accomplishment, and I wouldn't be surprised to see his numbers improve as the year goes on. He might rack up 1500 yards from scrimmage, and that is the number that I want to see. Give me yards from scrimmage, not all-purpose yards because if a player returns kicks, that's usually at least 20 yards per pop. The Saints had 3 different people return kickoffs against the Eagles and they all averaged over 20 yards per return, although Bush wasn't one of them (he just did punt returns). But, punt returns are usually 8-10 yards per, so if you get a lot of opportunities, you'll rack up considerable yardage. So, what I want to know is how Bush ranks as a punt returner. Bush is in the top tier (#8), racking up an average of 10.7, trailing Devin Hester, Kevin Faulk, Dante Hall, Terrence Wilkins, Dennis Northcutt, Allen Rossum, and Wes Welker. So, there are 32 teams and Bush is #8, so he's ahead of returners for 75% of the teams. That's solid, but not spectacular. But, lumped in with his yards from scrimmage, he's a good, not great, player.

Monday, October 16, 2006

Flavor of the Week

I might have to road trip to Arizona, but I think the Matt Leinart slurpee will be available at 7-Eleven this week. Why? Because Leinart can throw short passes with great efficiency? Because in a MNF matchup between the Arizona Cardinals and Chicago Bears, Rex Grossman played like a Florida QB product?

I'm not going to bash Leinart. He's been decent, but the Bears didn't bring their A, B, or C game to the desert, at least not offensively. Leinart started the game with a bang, going 5-5 on the Cardinals' first drive, which ended with Bryant Johnson taking a Leinart pass into the end zone. The offensive coordinator put Leinart and the WR's in a position to succeed with short, safe pass plays on the drive. The execution was solid, but the scheme tore a hole into the Bears ... or maybe they were just warming up. Since that 12 play, 77 yard drive, the Cards have scored just once on a possession they started in their own territory. The result of that drive was their third FG of the game.

When you turn the ball over 6 times (4 INT's and 2 fumbles lost) as Rex Grossman has, you usually won't win the game. However, the Chicago Bears have scored two TD's of their own on returns of fumbles. But, the Chicago defense has made this a game. Other notable Arizona drives include:
- 3 plays for 25 yards resulting in TD number 2 and a 14-0 lead
- a missed FG after going backwards after starting at the Chicago 29
- a FG after starting on the Chicago 33 and fizzling after gaining 10 yards
- a FG after starting on the Chicago 32 and making it to the 10 yard line

The Chicago Bears escaped the desert because they got 2 TDs from the D and one on a punt return by Devin Hester. Neil Rackers missed a 40-yard FG wide left with 48 seconds left in the game. But, it shouldn't have been that close. After a hot start, Leinart ended the game 24-42 for 232 yards and 2 TD's. That's 5.5 yards per attempt. It speaks volumes of the types of throws Leinart was making. The Edge averaged just 1.5 yards per carry, had a huge fumble, and couldn't get a first down on 3rd and short just before Rackers yanked the FG.

My wife wants me to explain to her why the Cardinals were running the ball late in the game, instead of throwing more short passes to try to get into better position for a FG. I can't. James averaged 1.5 ypc and I was surprised the number was that high when I looked at the boxscore because the Bears were stuffing the run all night long. Leinart was making fairly solid decisions, why not let him throw?

I think Matt Leinart is what he is ... just like Big Ben is what he is. Leinart wasn't the reason the Cards were up by 20 and he isn't the reason they lost the game. But, I don't think he's the savior Mike, Joe and TK were making him out to be on the MNF broadcast. I'm surprised the Bears didn't press the receivers more early and force Leinart to beat them long, because it's readily apparent that Leinart can make good reads and throws on short stuff if he's aware of what's coming.

On the other hand, I think the gunslinger in Rex Grossman came out tonight and he didn't do his receivers or the defense any favors with all the mistakes he was making. He was putting his defense in the position that his defense usually puts the other team's defense in, and the Cards were able to capitalize, sort of. Rex was pressing, the Bears weren't running the ball despite Jones and Benson putting up okay rushing numbers: averages of 3.5 and 4.0 ypc, respectively. Rex was too busy slinging the ball around for 148 yards on 14-37 with 4 INT's! The Bears were never that far behind because you knew their defense would hold if given a reasonable position on the field. Why throw 37 times and run 13? The Bears need to figure that out or there will be many more days like this and a better team (Carolina, Seattle, etc.) will knock them off come January.

A Wee Bit Bitter?

Scott Linehan is complaining about the "integrity of the 10-second runoff." He wasn't complaining about it before his St. Louis Rams lost to the Seahawks on a last second 54-yard FG. The Seahawks were flagged for an illegal formation with less than 10 seconds left ... if they'd been flagged for a false start, the game would have been over. Unfortunately for Linehan, no one was moving on the Seahawks' side of the ball.

Linehan has a point, in theory, if you don't have to attempt to have a legal formation. Linehan, as reported by the AP, came up with the idea to just have WR's Isaac Bruce and Tory Holt run a play while having the rest of the team not run downfield. If Bruce snaps it to Holt, it will be an illegal formation, but if everyone else is just standing still, there will be no runoff. Hypothetically, that is correct. However, the league doesn't need to have a 10-second runoff for normal illegal formations, such as one receiver forgetting that he needs to line up on the line of scrimmage instead of one yard back from it. The league should add an addendum to the rule preventing teams from obviously taking advantage of loopholes allowing penalties to aide the team that is penalized ... that's the reason for the 10-second runoff in the first place.

However, Linehan's timing is a little bit off. He wanted a 10-second runoff yesterday so his Rams would beat the Seahawks and remain in 1st place. The Rams weren't cheated, they just happened to lose. So, it sounds like sour grapes for Linehan ... and while he has a point, it's not one that is applicable to the recent game, so he would have been much better served to wait a few days, or weeks, before bringing light to the potential loophole.

Friday, October 13, 2006

Too many plays for replay?

On Cold Pizza's 1st and 10 on ESPN, Chicago White Sox C A.J. Pierzynski said that there are too many plays in a baseball game to use replay. He was serving as a guest on the one-year anniversary of the play against the Angels when A.J. ran to first after the "dropped?" third strike. So, I'm going to watch the entire Cardinals-Mets game (game 2 of the NLCS) to see how many plays would benefit from being upheld or overturned by replay. I have it on DVR, so I'm not going to be missing any of the action, even as I type. I'm not going to be commenting on balls and strikes. Replay isn't the solution for balls and strikes, automation is.

The top of the first was uneventful, with the Cardinals going three up, three down. Reyes kicked off the bottom of the 1st in style against Cardinal ace Chris Carpenter, hitting a double then moving to 3rd on a sac bunt by Lo Duca. Carpenter got robbed on the 0-1 pitch to Carlos Beltran, which definitely helped Beltran draw a walk. Carpenter got robbed on the BB issued to David Wright too, with time being called just prior to a flyout by Wright because a beach ball came onto the field. But, the 1st base ump waddling in was somewhat entertaining. The tag on David Wright on the groundout by Shawn Green could use a quick replay, though it will confirm that Eckstein's swipe tag missed Wright, so the call on the field was correct. So, through one inning, one replay is necessary.

The ball hit by Spiezio off Carlos Delgado's glove could use a cursory glance, but it would be upheld quickly as a fair ball. The Mets are starting to get on the home plate umpire, just a half inning after the Cards were getting on him. At least he's not favoring one team. Did I just hear Carpenter cuss after fouling back the 2-1 pitch? The pitch Carpenter struck out on most certainly wasn't a strike ... that was horrible. The double by Chavez could be quickly reviewed, but a quick look would confirm that it was 1-2 feet inside the line. The play at first on the sac bunt by Maine could be looked at too, but it was readily aparent that he was out The Mets tacked on another run ... so after two it's 4-2 with 4 potential replays but nothing real complicated so far in the game.

Jim Edmonds tried to check his swing on an 0-1 pitch in the top of the 3rd. Check swings are often controversial, but I think automation, rather than replay, is the way to deal with those. So, there will be no more talk about check swings, at least as replay pertains to check swings. We're now tied at 4 after the Edmonds homer. The 3rd is done, with the replay count remaining at 4.

SB's are often close, but not Eckstein's. The throw skipped by Jose Reyes, allowing the Cardinal SS to go to 3rd. Duncan couldn't get him in, though. Chavez is gone. Tucker should have tried to get out of the way of that ball. He stuck his back leg forward as he turned and just got nicked. That's ridiculous. He shouldn't get first for that. Tucker should be fined (or suspended) for his slide, too. He jumped over the bag to try to take out Eckstein. He's not going hard into the base, he's going hard into the defender and that shouldn't be tolerated. Whether or not Reyes beat the throw to first could be looked at, but it was obvious that he made it. Man, Reyes is quick. Lo Duca is gone at first, so through 4, it's 4-4 with 5 replays all confirming calls on the field.

Pujols, Edmonds and Spiezio: three up, three down. Beltran's grounder to Pujols could use a look, but it wasn't really that close. No controversy on Delgado's 2nd homer ... although the ball does seem to be carrying well in NY tonight. I thought Edmonds' fly out went a long way for the way he hit it. The play at first on Wright's grounder should be reviewed, I think, although I haven't seen a replay yet. LaRussa argued, though. It was close and from the view from behind Pujols, it's difficult to tell when he actually catches the ball. Maybe Belliard should have fielded it cleanly or not bounced the throw. The last two outs were uneventful. So, we have 6 replays with one needing more than one look through 5 innings.

Molina just took his battery mate out of the game with his single to left. It's probably about time, considering the way Carpenter has labored through the first five. Hey, Bradford's night is over now too ... enter Feliciano to face the left-handed John Rodriguez. That was a weak AB for the Cards' pinch-hitter. What was the call on the Anderson Hernandez K? Does he think he made contact? That could be reviewed, although it doesn't look like he made contact. What is Josh Hancock doing walking Jose Reyes? I know he hit 19 HRs this year, but you have to make him put it in play. Reyes just scored on the Lo Duca double that was obviously fair. That run is a gift from Hancock. Wow, Belliard made a great play to get Beltran. You can take a look at whether or not the throw beat Beltran, but it got him by a half a step and the review isn't really necessary. Might as well, though. What surprised me was that Belliard would have time to make that play. Delgado's gone, inning over. Two replays, one worth a couple looks and one worth just one. That's 8 replays with 2 of those being a little bit in-depth in the first 6 innings.

So, to update, only about a minute is necessary for the reviews in the first 2/3rd of the game. The six easy ones just need one look, and can be performed while the ball is returning to the pitcher and the pitcher is getting the sign for the next pitch. The play at first on Wright and the Hernandez strikeout would benefit from a couple different angles to make sure the on-field call is correct, but they are straightforward calls that should be quickly resolved. At most, a minute is needed for each if the replays are readily available, and they should be.

It's the top of the 7th, two down, and how did Pujols pull a 97 mph fastball that far foul? Did he think the Mets borrowed Joel Zumaya for his AB? Pujols has great stats through his first 5 years, but comparing him to Barry Bonds based only on AVG., HR and RBI isn't really fair. Bonds was a speedy lead-off hitter and great defensive LF early in his career. Pujols probably has Bonds beat through 5, but not by as much as those stats say. I'm not sure what's more surprising: (1) that Pujols is looking this bad at the plate or (2) that Mota has yet to get Pujols out with Albert looking so off-balance. Pujols' ball was well-struck and obviously fair. He got a crappy bounce, though, and it allowed Chavez to hold him to a single. I didn't like the walk to Reyes and I don't like the 4-pitch walk to Edmonds, although Mota is making Spiezio look silly with his changeup. After two changes, Spiezio yanks a 99 mph fastball foul to the stands down the right side. That's as odd as Pujols' foul ball. He just yanked another fastball to right. That was a great call. It should be reviewed, but the right call was made. There was an odd sound that made me think the ball hit off something behind the fence, but the replay clearly shows it hits Green's glove and then comes back into the field. The triple by Spiezio should have been reviewed, but the review would have been quicker than Tony coming out to argue and then the umpires getting together to talk about it. The replay was pretty obvious and the call was simple.

As we hit the 7th inning stretch, with 9 replays (3 in some detail), I'm glad I picked an interesting game to watch every pitch. Wright's gone. Green's grounder to Pujols was obviously fair, a few feet inside the line. And, Chavez routinely grounds out to 2nd after the Valentin single.

Molina's one-out single was obviously fair. Preston Wilson's 0-1 foul ball was obviously foul. It is odd seeing Wilson in a Cards uniform. Why would the Astros trade a starter to a division rival. I know they wanted to make room for Luke Scott, and they should have dealt Wilson, but not to the team in front of you in the NL Central. Maybe they thought they were too far behind to make a run. Oops. Or, maybe they knew how horrible Wilson was this year and were trying to sabotage the red birds. Just as I'm typing this, Wilson whiffs. Eckstein's HR-distance foul ball wasn't really close ... 10-15 feet to the right would have been close. Eckstein is pretty good at fouling balls off. Impressive, kind of. Annoying? Certainly. It was nice of Fox to show a guy spitting chewing tobacco into a plastic bottle after a couple more foul balls. Finally, Eckstein's gone ... and so is the top half of the eighth.

With one out, Reyes singles and then Lo Duca is issued a 4-pitch walk. How hard is it to throw strikes? You're a major league pitcher! I'm not sure Kinney threw any strikes to Reyes either. I thought both the pitches Reyes swung at were a little up and away. Beltran was beat by Eckstein's throw by half a step on the DP he grounded into. Take a quick look, nothing more, if you want.

So Taguchi, the defensive replacement, just took Wagner deep. I know, I'm a few hours behind. Pujols just put a good swing on a hit to left. After the grounder to 2nd by Edmonds, Met relievers have thrown 104 pitches. Maine threw 88. That is a lot of pitches for one team in a regular game. Take a quick look at the Spiezio ball down the line, but that's all you'll need. Three runs are in against Wagner and it hasn't just been bleeders. Encarnacion didn't nail that grounder to right, but there haven't been any real cheap hits in this flurry. I am surprised Wagner was removed with 2 outs, though. I'm skipping over a lot of the commentary. They're referencing pitch count, but why not take Wagner out after the Encarnacion single? One pitch is all it took Roberto Hernandez to end the top half of the inning. Again, no major replays necessary in this half inning.

Delgado strikes out to start the bottom half of the 9th ... and we get to hear him cursing at himself. Lovely. Fox is on top of it tonight. Scott Rolen made a nice play to get David Wright; I'm surprised it wasn't a close play at first, but it wasn't. A groundout to Belliard ends the game. Cards win 9-6 to even the series at 1-1.

So, recapping, 11 plays could have a look by replay. That would be overdoing it, but I didn't want to be too selective because I wanted to give A.J. the benefit of the doubt. Only 3 plays in the entire game need more than a cursory look and none of them should take more than a minute. You get the plays right and remove doubt about whether or not the umps are doing a good job. Pierzynski's assertion that there are too many plays in a baseball game to use replay is pure idiocy and it's time for MLB to look into using replay for the betterment of the game. Fortunately, this game didn't need replay because the umps did a good job. But, we all know that umps screw up calls and that's why you have replay as a crutch to support the umps, not undermine them.

Thursday, October 12, 2006

Butterfly Effect

Recently, I've been seeing adds for a 2nd Butterfly Effect movie. I thought the first one was pretty good ... Ashton Kutcher surprised me with the fact that he is actually a solid actor, given the correct role. What does this have to do with sports? The movie, not so much. The butterfly effect, a little more. I lobbied for certain rules governing bad calls in college football games. At some point, though, you have to just allow bad calls to be a part of any sport. But, if we limit the bad calls, we limit the potential alteration of the outcome due to the bad calls.

The idea is that a bad call in the 1st inning of a baseball game can change everything that occurs from then on out. There isn't a set amount of time that elapses during baseball play, unlike in football or basketball. In baseball, even if you're down 18 with 2 outs left in the 9th, you have a shot. The chances of a comeback are slim, but not none, even if it has never happened. So, in baseball, anything can happen. That is why baseball needs replay and a computerized ball/strike program.

I don't know how accurate the technology is that shows the relationship between the pitch and the strike zone. But, I think the potential is there for the system to revolutionize balls and strikes in MLB. Calibrate it and validate it in every park. Keep umps there in case it fails, but use the technology, it's far superior to the human umpires for calling balls and strikes, just as the tennis system is superior to the line judges. Use the technology for what it is good at. I'm pretty good at math, but I don't run through seemingly endless computations when I can set up a computer model to do it for me. It's common sense. Develop the technology and make sure it works, then use it! Measure each of the players before each season to set up the vertical criteria for the strike zone and then let the technology do its magic.

There aren't that many close calls in baseball. Use replay for home runs. Use replay for foul balls (let the play go if it's close). There was a ball that knocked up chalk in the playoffs that was ruled foul. It landed between the 3rd base ump and the ump down the left field line. How did they get it wrong? Why are they allowed to get it wrong? Have someone upstairs reviewing every play. Take a couple looks at the close ones and get them right! At least give it a try. What is the harm in seeing if it would work in spring training?

It won't have happened until it happens!

To the best of my recollection, Berra never said that, though he may have. Everyone is giving up on the A's because they lost the first two games at home. No team has ever won a series after losing the first two games at home. Well, why don't the Athletics pack up and go home. The Tigers will represent the AL in the World Series this year. If the Cards beat the Mets in the first two, they can go straight to the WS too! Right?

Wrong! No team had ever come back from an 0-3 deficit until the Red Sox did. The funny thing is that nothing has ever happened until it happens. I got a "B" (87%, I believe) on my 1st college exam. It was in Physics I and I screwed up a rectilinear motion problem where a cop chases down a speeding motorist because I forgot the part in the instructions about there being a maximum velocity for the police cruiser. Oops! It still haunts me to this day. Every exam the rest of my undergraduate career - that I saw my score on - resulted in me receiving an "A" (sometimes, you don't know exactly how you do on final exams). Strange things happen. I screwed up a simple physics problem. The Yankees coughed up a 3-0 lead to the hated Red Sox. The A's have Rich Harden and Dan Haren in games 3 and 4 against Kenny Rogers and Jeremy Bonderman. The Tigers aren't great, there is no reason the A's can't catch some wins on the backs of their starting staff.

Throw it to me!

Drew Bledsoe attempted 13 passes to Terrell Owens. Woody Paige, on 1st and 10 today, pointed out that the WR with the most balls thrown his way last weekend was Buffalo Bill Lee Evans. Unfortunately, Bledsoe wasn't getting the ball to his star receiver. Owens caught 3 balls for 45 yards, dropped another, and had another go off his hands that may actually have been intended for the guy behind him.

Terrell Owens needs to shut up. I think he should take a leadership role on the sideline and he can yell all he wants. But, he should keep it in house and not talk to the media. For some reason, the media wants to stir stuff up between "The Player" and "The Coach." Maybe football teams need two games a week so there isn't so much downtime for the media circus? No matter what Owens says, the media is going to spin it to try to build the next rift between Owens and a QB or coach. Maybe it's Owens' fault, maybe it's not. Maybe he is throwing Bledsoe under the bus, maybe he isn't. But, someone needs to take him aside and keep him away from the media. He's a big star whether he does interviews or not.

But, the idea that Bledsoe throwing the ball in the vicinity of TO 13 times should appease Owens is ridiculous. Many of the balls weren't even close to catchable, at least not by Owens. The Eagles caught a couple of them for INT's. Two that were on Owens' hands weren't good throws, especially for as short as they were. Owens should have caught them, but Bledsoe wasn't on target. The Cowboys are using TO mostly on short routes, so Bledsoe should be able to get him the ball. If he was running deep on every play, then you wouldn't expect him to see as many balls. Owens wasn't complaining about the number of balls, he was frustrated by Bledsoe's inability to get the ball to him. I think it's a valid concern. Maybe it isn't totally Bledsoe's fault, but the seven sacks were contributed by Bledsoe's inability to move in the pocket and get the ball out quickly, to someone.

Bledsoe challenged the Eagles to blitz because he was going to get the ball into the hands of TO, Terry Glenn, and Jason Witten. What happened? Was it scheme? Was it the line folding? Bledsoe not making the right reads? The receivers not beating the defenders? Something was wrong and it needs to be corrected ... TO may be part of the problem, but he is not THE PROBLEM.

Pitch to Pujols?

Baseball is set up so that you can minimize the effectiveness of certain opposing players by pitching around them. Is it good? Bad? Maybe it depends on your allegiance. I tend to support situational intentional walks (think runners on 2nd and 3rd in a tie game with one out in the bottom of the 9th), while I dislike IBB's issued primarily based on the batter in the box (think pitching team is up 2 in the bottom of the 9th with the bases loaded and Bonds up ... and he's issued an IBB to force in a run to decrease the lead to 1). That's just one take on it, though ... mine.

Some in the media have suggested that baseball is unlike other sports because you can take the other team's best player out of the game in baseball. Well, that isn't entirely true. Plus, you can do similar things in other sports to minimize key players. If you intentionally walk Pujols every time up, he probably won't compile many RBI's. However, he will always be on base and available to score runs. Additionally, all the RBI opportunities Pujols would have are passed on to the guy hitting behind him. And, as my brother so eloquently pointed out earlier in a conversation on the issue, "he still gets to play defense." And, to steal a line from the same conversation: true that!

So, you can't totally take a player out of the game in baseball. But, the point is well taken. So, what about basketball? Well, ever hear of the box-and-one or the triangle-and-two. Essentially, in the box-and-one, one defender plays man-on-man and the other four play zone. In a triangle-and-two, three play zone while two play man-on-man, either on one or two offensive players. So, you can minimize the effectiveness of certain players with these types of defenses. Also, you can not help off certain players or run a double team at them every time they do get the ball. In a summer camp before my senior year in HS, a kid from out-of-town was getting some hype so when my team played his, I hounded him the entire game, denying him the ball and harrassing him the couple times he did get his hands on it. Turns out, he wasn't all that good, at least not against good defense.

Well, you can't do that in football! Really? You can double team Dwight Freeney or chip him with a back every passing play. You can put 8 or 9 in the box to minimize the effectiveness of a star RB (or a crappy one). You can shade safeties over to a side of a big play WR, or just straight up double team him. You can drop 9 into coverage consistently to try to keep Peyton Manning from picking your secondary apart. I'd transition to hockey, but I think if you're going to catch on, you've already done it, so another example would just be superfluous, much like this recent verbiage. Oh well. Roy can edit it if he wants.

And, so ends Part 1 of this two part (at least) post. Stay tuned for one potential fix and why it is necessary to bring baseball more in-line with the other major sports.

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

Ball, don't bawl over the ball

NBA players are in an uproar over the new synthetic ball being used by the NBA. What are they worried about, sloppier play? Worse shooting? If the officials were switching back and forth between the different models then I'd say the players had something to gripe about, but it's still round, it still bounces, and the fact of the matter is that half the players can't shoot no matter what ball is in play.

Tuesday, October 10, 2006

College QB Rating Update

Colt McCoy for Heisman! Absurd? Well, Texas QB Colt McCoy is right below Ohio State QB Troy Smith in the QB rating rankings. Ok, maybe that's a little far fetched. Smith's Buckeyes beat McCoy's Longhorns in Austin earlier this season and Smith is ahead of McCoy in the rankings.

However, what about Nebraska QB Zac Taylor? Taylor has more yards, more yards per attempt, and the same number of INT's (2) as Smith. He has 13 TD's to Smith's 15, but has taken one less sack and has a higher QB rating. Or, there is Erik Ainge of Tennessee. He has more yards and yards per attempt than Smith. He also has a higher rating and higher completion percentage. He has 5 INT's and only 14 TD's, but he has led the Volunteers to a 5-1 record with victories over California and Georgia. Tennessee's only loss is to Florida. Ainge has 2 games with 300+ yards (Air Force and Memphis) and was 11-18 for 291, 4 TD's and 1 INT against UC-Berkeley. That is a Heisman-worthy performance! Why isn't Ainge getting Heisman hype?

Troy Smith is 25th in yards among D-1A QB's. That isn't even 80th percentile. Houston Cougars QB Kevin Kolb has almost 500 yards more than Smith (1756 to 1261) with 14 TD's and 1 INT. Kolb almost led his Cougs to a win at Miami. Houston lost to the U by 1 point. Texas Tech QB Graham Harrell has 18 TD's. Smith is 21st in yards per attempt (8.5), behind leader Tyler Palko (10.2), Bobby Reid of Oklahoma State, Paul Thompson of Oklahoma, Kolb, Florida's Chris Leak, and numerous others. Again, Smith is solid, but it's WAY too early to give him the Heisman. Plus, he shouldn't even be among the leaders based on his play thus far.

ALCS

I know, I'm a day late. But, I'd like to congratulate Jay Mariotti on his pick of the A's in today's game. That went about as well as Jay jumping on the Minnesota Twins' bandwagon. The A's have a solid pitching staff. However, the Tigers led the lead in ERA. They earned their stripes this season and mowed down an impressive Yankee line-up in the division series. Did I mention the Tigers led the entire league (NL included) in ERA? Maybe it was all the games against weak sisters like the Twins, White Sox, and Indians. Sure, they got to beat up on KC, but the A's got to whip on the AL West and the Yanks had both the O's and D-Rays to push around, although they somehow struggle with Tampa. Maybe Steinbrenner tells them to take it easy on 'em. I imagine there will be some solid pitching match-ups later in the series and the A's will probably win some games. But why is everyone dismissing the Tigers prematurely, it doesn't make sense.

Monday, October 09, 2006

Heisman race: mid-season update

I know, this is a post related to college football. But, I think someone needs to shed a little light on the Heisman race. Or, perhaps, someone needs to detract a little from the hype machine that is pumping up Troy Smith. Conveniently, the media overlooks poor performances when they want to. For the aforementioned Smith, his game was the controversial win against Penn State. Smith was 12-22 in that game, with one TD and two INT's. He managed only 115 yards through the air against the Nittany Lions and the offense really struggled. Overhyped Ohio State WR Tedd Ginn Jr. managed just 2 catches for 15 yards in that game.

I noticed something a little troubling looking at Ginn's stats that translates to Smith's. That isn't entirely surprising, as the QB is throwing to the WR, but stats aren't always closely related. But, the only two games Ginn has gone over the 100 yard mark receiving have been the two games Troy Smith has posted a QB rating over 200 (I'm not sure how the college QB rating is computed and how it differs from the NFL rating, but they are different - I think). Those two games were against major powerhouses: (1) Northern Illinois and (2) Bowling Green. Is it a coincidence that the four games against BCS conference schools have been the worst statistically for Ginn and Smith, against Texas (without a starting CB who was suspended for the game after being arrest on drug and gun charges), Cincinnati, Penn State and Iowa? Maybe. Or, maybe Ohio State's big guns struggle a little with stiffer competition and pick on weaker foes.

Troy Smith for Heisman is ridiculous. Troy Smith is a solid QB on the number 1 team in the country. But, when did that qualify you for a Heisman? How many times has he gone over 300 yards? 0. How many times has he gone over 250? 2 - against NIU and Texas. Texas is a major national power. But, Troy Smith wasn't working against Texas at full strength. Remember, Tarell Brown wasn't playing against Ohio State. He played against Oklahoma and OU QB Paul Thompson threw for 209 yards. Brown and Ross are a great tandem. Ross can't cover Ginn and Gonzalez by himself. In the last 4 games, Smith's high for yards is 203, against Cincy. Smith is a good athlete, but he doesn't beat people with his feet. He's been praised for not running and being patient in the pocket. But, his passing numbers aren't good enough to justify winning the Heisman if he's not hurting people with his feet. Vince Young could throw for 225 because he was making plays on designed runs and running off broken plays. Smith is averaging about 10 ypg, with most of his yardage against Bowling Green.

Calvin Johnson, on the other hand, has had two games that he hasn't reached 100 yards in. He's 4 for 6 getting to 100. Johnson, a junior WR for the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets put up 111 yards and 1 TD against ND, 165 and 2 against Virginia, 115 and 2 against Va Tech, and 133 and 1 against Maryland. His two down games were against Troy (9 receiving yards, 21 rushing yards) and Samford (26 yards and two TD's). He puts up numbers without any other major threats. Reggie Ball has to get him the ball, but he just makes plays ... big plays. He's a game-changing receiver on the outside and he has stepped up in the biggest games against the best opponents, something that can't be said of Mr. Smith.

Similarly, OU RB Adrian Peterson went for 211 yards at Oregon. His lowest rushing total of the year in 5 games was Saturday against Texas. He only gained 109 yards. Texas hadn't allowed 100 yards to a team all year. They held Ohio State to 79 yards and Ohio State was winning that game. They held Big 12 foe Iowa State to 27 yards. Peterson hasn't laid an egg this year and shouldn't be punished for a bad call by officials who can't tell whether a ball travels forward or not. Dave Revsine said Peterson lacked awareness by not going after the ball. You don't have to pick up an incomplete pass to prevent the other team from running it in for a TD ... I think Peterson was aware of that and that is probably why he didn't go try to pick it up. Peterson lit UW up for 165 and 2 TD's, and Washington is looking better than people thought they were going to be. Peterson is also returning kicks, giving him those all important all-purpose yards! Obviously, I'm being sarcastic. But, if you praise Bush for accumulating them, you have to give a little credit to AD for his, even if they are just kicking it away from Reggie Smith.

I'm not lobbying for Johnson or Peterson for the Heisman at this point. They'd be my top two, although I'll throw Slaton into the mix as soon as his WVU Mountaineers play someone. You don't have to play for the best team in the nation to win the Heisman. Vince didn't win it last year. It's too early to give it to anyone, especially someone with lackluster numbers like Troy Smith. He's been good, but not great. He's been fairly consistent, but he laid an egg against Penn State and it might have cost them if the officials had realized the guy running in for the pick 6 actually lost the ball before he got into the end zone. Troy Smith has been on the radar since before the season, and the ability of his Buckeyes to keep winning through the 1st half of the season has made him the favorite (for whatever reason) to win the Heisman. Why? I can't even begin to fathom the rationale.

Saturday, October 07, 2006

What the **** is going on?

I spent the day flipping between baseball and college football, along with unloading hundreds of pumpkins from an 18-wheeler. I end the day wondering if this will be my last college football related post of the 2006 season. It almost seems worthless to watch college football anymore, it's a joke. From Pete Carroll and his #3 USC Trojans sneaking WR Steve Smith in from the sidelines on a fake FG (similar to a play Oregon used in a bowl game against OU last year) to Arkansas having a player hide behind the line of scrimmage on a running play against #2 Auburn. I was rooting against USC and for Arkansas, but I thought both the plays were bush league. Those types of plays should be outlawed. It's akin to breaking the huddle with 12 guys and running someone off the field.

Then, in the Red River Shootout, OU TE Joe Jon Finley was called for offensive pass interference on a big first down catch. How was it pass interference? I thought the ball had to be in the air when contact was made for it to be pass interference. That definitely wasn't the case. It seems like Finley should be allowed to push the defender before the pass is in the air because it was right near the line of scrimmage where tight ends often are blocking. What on Earth was the flag for?

Then, in the second half, Texas took the lead on a TD pass to Texas WR Sweed. Sweed pushed off of OU CB Wolfe. Wolfe was running stride for stride with Sweed, then all of a sudden, there was space in between the players. Wow, it coincided with the time when Sweed put his hand on Wolfe's shoulder and gave him a little shove. THAT is pass interference! Those were big plays.

Then, trailing 21-10, OU QB Paul Thompson threw a swing pass to Adrian Peterson that Peterson wasn't able to handle. A Texas defender picked up the incompletion and ran it in for the final points (aside from the subsequent PAT) of the game. You can't score on an incomplete pass! I know, but apparently the refs weren't able to figure out that it was a forward pass and not a lateral. Way to go zebras! OU made some mistakes, but it would be nice to have a big game where there aren't eggregious officiating errors to point to afterwards that definitely affect the outcome.

Speaking of crappy officiating, let's move back out to the left coast and the UW-USC game. Why wasn't time added to the clock? The clock should have been stopped with 4 or 5 seconds to move the chains, not 2. There was plenty of time for a Husky attempt to beat the Trojans. Then, inexplicably, it took them way too long to spot the ball and wind the clock. Then, time expired before Washington could get off another play. What? I have no idea what the clock person and officials were doing. I don't know if Pete Carroll has them in his pocket or if they are just inept, but it looks more and more like both are probably true the more USC games I watch.

Which leaves me wondering: why watch college football? It's pretty much a big money-making, athlete exploiting joke on so many levels that it really isn't funny. Maybe I'll spend next Saturday painting the trim on my house, out on the lake with my waverunner, or taking down wallpaper. Anyone have any other ideas for ways I can productively use my Saturday?

Thursday, October 05, 2006

Psychological jujitsu and pitching rotations

Evan and I once (he may not remember) played a card game called "psychological jujitsu" I had discovered in a book. It works like this:

Both of the players are given one suit of a standard deck of playing cards. A third suit is shuffled and placed face down between the players. (The fourth suit is discarded.) One at a time, the cards in the middle deck are turned over. Each player chooses one of his/her own cards as a bid, and they are revealed simultaneously and discarded. The player with the higher bid wins the card in the middle. The goal is to win the most points, where each card counts its value from 1 to 13.

Psychological jujitsu is not a sport, if that's what you're wondering. But I think it is related to the issue of pitching rotations in general, and playoff starters in particular.

The differences are numerous:
  1. each game is worth the same,
  2. game outcomes are not deterministic given starter selection,
  3. starters can be reused given enough rest.
However, the similarities—the list of which I'll leave as an exercise for the reader—are what struck me as I was pondering the question of why Jim Leyland chose Nate Robertson as the game 1 starter for the Detroit Tigers in their divisional series against the Yankees.

The justification at the time was that Robertson was tough on lefties. The Yankees line-up is certainly loaded therewith. But their list of righties—Jeter, Sheffield, Rodriguez, Posada (switch-hitter)—is no walk in the park. Is it crazy to think that perhaps Leyland was willing to risk losing game 1 to try to increase Detroit's chances of winning the series as a whole? And is that what he did?


Related:

Free with every column: stupidity!

Sports Illustrated columnist Dr. Z proved my point in his power rankings. First, he bashed the CBS crew doing the game between the Bengals and Patriots for not mentioning that the Patriots were playing a 4-2-5 defense with newly signed Hank Poteat as the starting nickelback. Dr. Z writes in the column "you'd never know it from CBS' No. 1 announcing crew because they don't bother with trivial details such as this, but the Pats opened against the Bengals in a 4-2-nickel". Perhaps Dr. Z should get his memory checked because the team most definitely did divulge that information. I was tuned into the game and remember that little tidbit. Many of the announcers are just about worthless, but at least get your facts right when you are bashing them.

The second issue I have with his column is his assessment that "[Saints LB Scott] Fujita's foul [on Panthers WR Stever Smith], while potentially more dangerous than what Haynesworth did, was on the other side of the field, away from the play, and not noticed by many." He may be on to something that it wasn't as readily noticed by the masses. However, to say that it was potentially more dangerous, is absurd. Fujita could have put Smith out for the year with a broken leg or blown out knee. So, Fuijta should be suspended, and a suspension of five games seems like a suitable penalty. Haynesworth stepped on Gurode's exposed face twice with cleats. He took spikes to another player's face, with quite a bit of force behind the spikes. He could have ruined Gurode's career by puncturing an eye. Career vs. season, I'm going with Haynesworth's as the more dangerous act. Plus, while I'm not going to make excuses for Fujita and think he should be punished, he dove at Smith's legs once (at least as far as I know). Haynesworth stepped on Gurode's face twice! It's possible that Fujita figured out after his first dive that maybe he shouldn't do that any more. Haynesworth's brain didn't check in and tell him that he shouldn't keep after it ... that's dangerous.

Leaving Dr. Z alone for a bit and moving on to other football action from last week, I'm a little put off by all the criticism of NY Jets Head Coach Eric Mangini. That game wasn't on in my home market, and while I have a new 2006 Nissan Pathfinder and a new waverunner, I haven't convinced my wife that we need NFL Sunday Ticket, yet. So, I'm saying I didn't see the game. But, it seems like Mangini was taking a lot of risks. Sometimes, risks work out (onsides kick), sometimes they don't (4th and goal interception instead of taking the FG). Sure, you have to be smart about when you do certain things, but if they had scored a TD on 4th and goal, everyone would be praising Mangini for that. If they hadn't recovered the onsides kick, everyone would be bashing him for that. He was taking risks because that is what he felt gave his team the best chance to beat the Indianapolis Colts. I'm not going to second guess him because he put them in a great position to steal that game. You have to ignore the actual result when analyzing calls, and I don't think that is being done nationally in this instance.


Related:

McNabb for MVP!!!

Michael Smith wrote a column for ESPN.com stating that Donovan McNabb is sending a reminder that he's still a great QB. I'm guessing Smith is citing McNabb's 106.0 QB Rating during the Eagles 3-1 start. Did you know that McNabb made the Pro Bowl 5 straight seasons (2000-2004)? During that span, only once did Donovan end the season with a QB Rating over 90 ... 2004. Guess who his go to receiver was that year? Yep, one Terrell Owens. McNabb finished '04 with a 104.7. His previous best (which he failed to beat last year as well), was a rating of 86.0 in 2002.

I didn't read Smith's column. I don't particularly care what he has to say about McNabb, but you are welcome to read it. I usually tend to agree with a lot of what Smith is saying. He may be on to something with McNabb too, but I'm going to play Devil's advocate on this one.

McNabb is not torching the league, he's torching the teams he has played so far. While he didn't make the schedule (unlike some college coaches who will remain nameless in this post), he was given multiple early-season gifts by those who did. Houston, NYG, SF and Green Bay the first month of the season. If you're going to break in new receivers, those are the teams to do it against. Houston has been torched by everyone except Miami, but the Dolphins couldn't block a group of girl scouts rushing the passer. The Texans allowed 43 to Indy and 31 to Washington, although the Redskins do seem to be figuring out Al Saunders' playbook in recent weeks. The Giants gave up 26 to Indy and 42 to Seattle in their two other games (they had a bye the 4th week of the season). And, while the 49ers play home games at Monster Park, their defense doesn't scare anyone (except 49er fans). SF allowed 41 points to a Damon Huard led Chiefs team that was previously averaging 8 ppg. They also allowed Arizona to put up 34 on them. The 49ers did hold the Rams to 13 points, but 3 out of 4 is pretty bad. I don't want to pile on the Packers, so I'll keep this brief: Chicago (26), New Orleans (34), Detroit (24).

The same argument I'm using against McNabb could be used to counter my argument. But, I'm really not trying to nail Donovan as much as I'm trying to shed light on my belief that numbers, especially early-season numbers, need to be viewed with a little perspective. McNabb hasn't faced any good defenses. He may torch the Cowboys this week. However, it is my belief that McNabb and the Eagles will regret letting that Giants game slip away as they fight for the NFC East crown the rest of the way. And, in that fight, McNabb's rating will decrease significantly as he is put into more difficult situations against better defenses.

Looking at the schedule, Philly has 5 division games left, 2 each with Dallas and Washington and a visit to Giant Stadium. They also play games against the NFC South, a division loaded with quality defenses in Carolina, Tampa Bay (if they get that Bucs ship righted), Atlanta, and New Orleans. They also play Indy (a solid defense when healthy), Jacksonville, and Tennessee. The Titan game will be a get well game for McNabb, but there aren't a whole lot of cupcakes left on the docket. Low 90's would be a good accomplishment for McNabb ... he might even deserve to make the Pro Bowl with those numbers.

Wednesday, October 04, 2006

I'd Like to Apologize

At this point, I have no idea what I'm apologizing for, but I'd like to go on the record as saying that I apologize for anything I do or say to anyone that they find offensive over the next couple of years. I may have thought long and hard about the action beforehand, but in retrospect, it was obviously childish and disgraceful, and it definitely wasn't in-line with my kind nature. I respect the laws of the land and certainly did not intend to hurt anyone by my actions.

That should cover my butt for a little bit. Heck, it might even fetch me a 5 game suspension instead of being sidelined for the entire year. Or, maybe it will help get me reinstated by the NCAA.

The problem is that sports are becoming an act first, apologize later society. Well, maybe society is becoming more and more that way ... or maybe it has always been that way. I don't really care how it came about, but it would be nice to go back in the other direction a little bit. Don't allow people to apologize and get away with it. Blast them with questions about what they were thinking beforehand. If they weren't thinking beforehand, why weren't they thinking? Don't they think they should think before stepping on someone's face twice? What was Albert Haynesworth thinking after the first stomp before the second? What was Rhett Bomar thinking when he got some beer at a NO/OKC Hornets game - keep in mind he was still underage and had already been cited for minor consuming previously at OU? What was Esteban Loaiza thinking before he got into his car drunk and took off at 100+ mph? Odell Thurman could barely stand up, much less walk a straight line, when he was pulled over for DUI recently. What was Bengals WR Chris Henry thinking getting into the car? If you just let them apologize, they'll end up back in the same position later. Instead, go out on a limb and hold people accountable for their actions.

What are the chances?

Fox reported last night that the Detroit Tigers were 19-31 in their last fifty games of the 2006 regular season, the worst ever such record for a playoff team. (St. Louis was 22-28 over the same stretch, the second worst ever.) 19 wins in 50 games is a winning percentage of .380. A whole season like that would have put them smack between the Royals and the Devil Rays, competing for the worst record in baseball. (Note that the Royals won 62 games, the D-Rays 61, so there's no room between them.)

What are the chances that a single team would start 76-36, and finish 19-31? Let's assume (naively, of course) that they have the same chance of winning each game. The most likely explanation is that their underlying winning percentage is about .586 (exactly how they finished), in which case this pair of events still has a probability of less than 1 in 50,000. Not very likely. But, to be fair, no particular event is all that likely in this scenario. Still, if they had won 66 of their first 112, and then 29 of their last 50, for a more balanced season, the probability would be more than .008, and more than 500 times as likely.

I think it's fair to conclude what everyone already suspects: the Tigers of the last fifty games were not the same as the Tigers of the first hundred. Whereas the Cardinals snapped out of their late season funk to hold off the Astros and win the division, and then won the first game of their Divisional Playoff against the Padres, the Tigers fell all the way to second in the AL Central and have now lost their first game with the Yankees. Do they stand a chance against the Bronx juggernaut? Let's hope the 76-36 Tigers are still in there somewhere.


Related:

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

NFL suspends Haynesworth for 5 games

What was Roger Goddell thinking? He gave Tennessee Titans DT Albert Haynesworth a 5-game suspension for making a doormat out of Andre Gurode's face. That's absurd. However, while I'm disappointed in the lack of moxie in the NFL league office (not to mention MLB and the NHL), I'm not all that surprised.

The new commish is hiding behind the fact that this is the most harsh penalty ever handed out for an on-field action. Well, how many times have you seen a 300+ lb. man with spikes on his shoes step on an opponent's face not once, but twice. Personally, I've never seen it. I hope I never see anything like it again in my life. I have a bad temper, but Haynesworth had to realize after he'd stepped on Gurode once that maybe he screwed up royally ... and you'd think his brain would have chimed in "don't do it again!" Haynesworth, obviously, has a problem. I don't think missing 5 meaningless games (the Titans are 0-4 and aren't close to competitive this year) and giving up $500k is going to solve the problem.

Why are you allowed to assault people just because you are on a sporting pitch? Haynesworth should be in jail the rest of the season, not to mention suspended. Todd Bertuzzi ended Steve Moore's career by slamming his head against the ice. That's not part of hockey, just like stepping on someone after a TD isn't part of football. I'm fine with big hits in both sports. I'm fine with pitchers throwing inside (but not at people's heads intentionally). What I don't understand, and don't appreciate, is the league offices haphazardly cracking down on contact. Why not just get rid of all the extracurricular BS taking place and allow the players to bash each other in the flow of the game. Makes a whole lot more sense to me than limiting the play but allowing the extra crap. Why have 50:50 when you can have the same injuries and a better product (the actual sport being played like it should be) by shifting the ratio to 100:0?

Monday, October 02, 2006

Parity or Mediocrity?

Major League Baseball's regular season ended yesterday, finally. Three of six division races remained to be decided. Two of them (the NL West and the AL Central) only decided how the Division Series' would be arranged, though, not who would be in the playoffs. The Astros' loss gave the Cardinals the NL Central.

Despite the fantastic finish—six relevant games on the last day of the season—2006 in baseball may be unprecedented in its mediocrity. No pitcher won twenty games, and no team won 100. Never before, in a complete season (not strike-shortened), has no pitcher won 20.

It has often happened that no team reached 100 victories. However, both the Mets and Yankees finished 2006 with only 97 wins, for a winning percentage that rounds up to .599. Only five other years on record have a best winning percentage smaller than .600—1900, 1926, 1958, 1982, and 2000.

There are lots of easy explanations. The Mets would have won more, we can suppose, if the Phillies—maybe even just someone else in the National League—had been closer. Chien-Ming Wang might have won another if he hadn't skipped a start. Whatever. It's still never happened before. Why not? Maybe revenue sharing and other aspects of Bud Selig's magic commissionering have given us unprecedented parity? If we want to buy that hypothesis, though, we have to explain the two teams with 100 losses.

Maybe it's easier just to accept that no teams nor pitchers put together a really good season from start to finish. But if it is parity, then maybe we can look forward to a nail-biting postseason.

The Return of "The Greatest Show on Turf"

The St. Louis Rams piled up 41 points on the Detroit Lions yesterday. Shades of the glory days of OC Mike Martz sending out Warner, Faulk, Holt and Bruce to obliterate NFL defenses once a week? Possibly. A return to glory? Hardly. A Cold Pizza contributor remarked this morning that the win is a positive sign that the St. Louis O is on the right track after Sunday's performance against the Lions.

Well, 41 is just about the status-quo against the Lions these days. Seattle laid an egg in their opener against Detroit and won 9-6. Seattle is 3-1, but they only beat Arizona 21-10, had a good half against the Giants and held on for a 42-30 win, and got blasted by the Bears 37-6 last night. In Detroit's 2nd and 3rd games, they allowed 34 points to Chicago (in a blowout) and 31 points to Brett Favre and the Pack in a closer game. St. Louis has three point totals between 13-18 this season and one game where they score 41.

If your son was taking calculus and got 42, 58, and 47% on his three exams, then phoned home with a 95% on a basketweaving final the day before his calculus final, would you then expect him to score close to 100% on his calculus final? No. Just because the last result is the most recent does not mean it is the most meaningful. The Patriots had looked awful all season, losing to Denver at home and barely beating Buffalo and the Jets. So, you'd expect them to lose in Cincy? Right? NE was averaging 16.7 ppg. The Bengals were 3-0. But, the Patriots drubbed the Bengals 38-13. The Patriots will probably whip the Dolphins next week, but does one good game against the Bengals fix the problems the Patriots are having due to their lack of explosiveness on the outside after they off-loaded Deion Branch? Nope.

What I'm saying is that anything can happen once. Let's wait for something more substantial than one game against the Lions before we praise the St. Louis offense ... even after the outburst they are averaging a respectable, but far from extraordinary, 22 ppg.

Sunday, October 01, 2006

Send him home!

Titan DT Albert Haynesworth stepped on Andre Gurode's head twice. Gurode, an OG, was on the ground at the end of a TD run by Julius Jones. During the play, Gurode lost his helmet, so he was on the ground without his helmet on. Haynesworth proceeded to blantantly step on his head not once, but twice. It looks like Gurode will be okay, although it looked like Haynesworth's spikes cut him open. However, Haynesworth could have easily done major, permanent damage.

This type of behavior is unacceptable. There was outrage after Marcus Vick stepped on the calf of Louisville DE Elvis Dumervill. That was bad, but Haynesworth did it twice to a guy's head! The NFL needs to take a stand that it isn't ok to be a thug on the field (or off, but that is a totally different subject altogether). Haynesworth should be suspended without pay for at least the rest of this season. Just send him home! I wouldn't automatically reinstate him at the beginning of next year either.

Haynesworth was pleading with the official and Titans Coach Jeff Fisher after the play. I can't imagine what he was saying. But, obviously, if he was trying to state his case he doesn't realize that there is absolutely no justification for his actions. Did Gurode say something about his mom? Seriously, the league shouldn't make an example of Haynesworth. That wouldn't be fair. But, I think his action was far more reprehensible than being caught with drugs, performance enhancing or otherwise. The league should make sure Haynesworth is remorseful and has been punished sufficiently before they allow him back into the league, if they ever do.