There's a Catch

There's a Catch is moving!

2006-10-25T14:25:00.000-05:00

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.

McNabb for Bucs MVP

2006-10-23T16:24:00.000-05:00

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?

2006-10-23T16:13:00.000-05:00

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.

Big East Revisited ... Again

2006-10-20T22:43:00.000-05:00

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

2006-10-20T14:59:00.000-05:00

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

2006-10-20T13:27:00.000-05:00

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.

The dirty details

2006-10-19T19:01:00.000-05:00

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.

If one is good, three are definitely better!

2006-10-19T01:28:00.000-05:00

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!

The New Orleans Saints: Brees, Bush and Payton

2006-10-17T22:11:00.000-05:00

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!

2006-10-17T13:56:00.000-05:00

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.

Flavor of the Week

2006-10-16T22:48:00.000-05:00

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?

2006-10-16T22:36:00.000-05:00

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.

Too many plays for replay?

2006-10-13T22:34:00.000-05:00

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.

Butterfly Effect

2006-10-12T16:24:00.000-05:00

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!

2006-10-12T16:13:00.000-05:00

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!

2006-10-12T15:05:00.000-05:00

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?

2006-10-12T00:02:00.000-05:00

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.

Ball, don't bawl over the ball

2006-10-11T13:34:00.000-05:00

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.

College QB Rating Update

2006-10-10T23:47:00.000-05:00

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

2006-10-10T23:38:00.000-05:00

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.

Heisman race: mid-season update

2006-10-09T20:50:00.000-05:00

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.

What the **** is going on?

2006-10-07T22:46:00.000-05:00

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?

Psychological jujitsu and pitching rotations

2006-10-05T14:40:00.000-05:00

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:

each game is worth the same,
game outcomes are not deterministic given starter selection,
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?

What are the chances?

Free with every column: stupidity!

2006-10-05T13:39:00.000-05:00

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.

Go for broke

McNabb for MVP!!!

2006-10-05T00:34:00.000-05:00

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.

I'd Like to Apologize

2006-10-04T10:33:00.000-05:00

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?

2006-10-04T07:23:00.000-05:00

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.

Parity or Mediocrity?

NFL suspends Haynesworth for 5 games

2006-10-03T01:07:00.000-05:00

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?

Parity or Mediocrity?

2006-10-02T16:48:00.000-05:00

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"

2006-10-02T13:45:00.000-05:00

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.

Send him home!

2006-10-01T13:55:00.000-05:00

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.

For Pete's Sake!

2006-09-30T23:26:00.000-05:00

The USC Trojan players should all thank their coach on the way back to LA from Pullman, Washington. USC eeked out a narrow victory over the WSU Cougars, thanks in part to Pete Carroll sweet-talking the refs, or whatever he was doing. How else can you explain an official rescinding a holding call (on a play where holding was a good call) after Carroll was talking to him? The official threw the flag. He must have seen holding. If he didn't see holding, he shouldn't have thrown the flag signifying that a penalty occurred. And, if he saw holding, Pete Carroll chirping at him shouldn't have made him change his mind. The only thing I can think of is that Carroll made mention of all the money that the Pac-10 will lose if the they don't get two teams in BCS games (Oregon is a definite possibility as the 2nd, having already received help from the Pac-10 officials). It's time for the NCAA to take over officiating for all D-1, rather than having conference-specific officials. D-1 college football is a big-money business and the NCAA needs to regulate it as such.

Thoughts on Reggie

2006-09-27T09:56:00.000-05:00

I will admit that I didn't watch the entire MNF game between the Falcons and the Saints. However, I saw one play in the first half that showed a chink in the armor of Saints RB Reggie Bush. The play was a run to the left. The result was Bush being swallowed up for a big loss by Falcons LB Keith Brooking and a few of his teammates.

The problem was not that Brooking made an outstanding tackle and thwarted a potential big play. By the time Brooking and Bush met, the play was over, with numerous Falcons closing in and no place for #25 to hide. But, it was Bush who allowed Brooking to make the play. Initially, Brooking was blocked by a WR. Instead of hitting the hole hard, Bush reversed direction and danced back to the right a little bit, then decided that wasn't promising and came back to the left. By that time, Brooking and his mates had shed their blockers and didn't have any trouble corralling Bush.

I'm not saying Bush shouldn't dance. Maybe his old Trojan teammate Matt Leinart can give him some ballroom lessons in his free time. But, there are times to dance and there are times to hit the hole hard and get as much as you can, and Reggie Bush hasn't figured out the difference. Bush needs to learn that trying to go the distance every time you touch the ball is actually detrimental to the team.

On a related subject, who will the Texans take with the first pick next year: Adrian Peterson or Calvin Johnson (if they come out)? Or, is the David Carr project finally going to come to an end, with the Texans snapping up Brady Quinn (or Dennis Dixon ... you can always use another "great" QB)?

Beef Up Replay

2006-09-26T00:10:00.000-05:00

Replay is a good thing. Rebuilding New Orleans, it's debatable how responsible that is. Replay does not need tweaking. Replay needs to be spelled out in black and white and aided by technology.

The interception return for a TD by Ohio State against Penn State that made it 20-6 (21-6 with the extra point), shouldn't have been a TD (at least according to MW and TK) because the Buckeye spiked the ball before he got to the end zone! It still would have been a one possession (potentially) game if they'd given the ball to the Nittany Lions, as they should have. Would it have mattered? Maybe. Probably not, though ... PSU wasn't exactly marching up and down the field and lighting up the scoreboard.

At this point, I'd love for Roy to chime in. In a fairly recent discussion, we talked about replay and the idea of using multiple camera shots to recreate a 3-D image of the play (is it NBC that shows the replays that aren't actually replays, the ones that look like video game replays?). I don't know how accurate the current system is or what the exact capabilities are, but it is worth looking into. Tennis is using technology to get tough calls right. That's tennis! Football should be able to keep pace. Sure, it's a slightly more intricate matter, but it would be really nice to create a 3-D animation that allows the replay official to scroll around, change his perspective, zoom in and out, etc.

Taking the OU onsides kick play as an example, the model would allow the replay official to determine who touched the ball first. Then, he could look straight down the 45 yard line and determine exactly where OU WR Malcolm Kelly was when he was hit and where the Oregon Duck was when he contacted the ball. Just pause the replay when the Duck touches the ball and then change the angle to look down the line and see that it's short of the 45. It would be simple. And, maybe it's not the best idea to have retired officials in the box. There is a reason they aren't on the field. Is it really smart to have them determining some of the most important calls in a football game? I guess so, especially if you don't care who wins the game.

Anyone can officiate something. It's easy to know the rules and how to apply them. The difficult part is implementing that knowledge at game speed. I'm not going to say that is easy. But, replay slows it down. You don't do it at game speed. It's easy to apply the rules to replays if you know what the rules are.

This leads to my other point ... there should be strict rules on what is reviewable and what isn't. The replay official in the Oklahoma State v. Houston game wrongly overturned a fumble call that gave the Cougars the ball back and allowed them to continue a TD drive. C-USA has suspended the official for screwing up the call. The worst thing is that he overturned the play based on something that is unreviewable. Apparently, forward progress is only reviewable in certain situations, and whether or not forward progress is stopped before a fumble isn't reviewable. I don't really understand why it is only reviewable in certain circumstances, but that's the rule.

Players, coaches, officials and fans should have access to a list of the reviewable plays (with descriptions) and plays (and descriptions) that aren't reviewable. If something comes up that isn't on the list, then the game official can make a determination, but that shouldn't happen. This is not difficult. It's actually quite simple. I don't know what the hang-up is.

Tell the replay officials what plays they should be looking at and which ones they can't overturn. Tell them what to look for on each play based on the applicable rules. And, finally, give them the technology to get the looks they need to get it right. Or, I guess conferences can just cut their losses and suspend the officials after the damage is done.

Shots at OU

2006-09-21T11:42:00.001-05:00

Bob Knight is not known for being the most level-headed, thoughtful guy before he opens his mouth. So, it comes as little surprise that he's chiming in on the OU v. UO game, bring up a loss by his TTU Red Raiders that he attributes, at least partially, to the officiating in Norman. Knight, apparently, wanted OU to forfeit the game after replay revealed that the clock had started a little bit late at the start of the possession when OU tied it at the end of regulation; the Sooners won the game in OT.

I'm not sure what Knight is trying to accomplish with these comments. I also don't know the exact specifics of the situation his team was involved in. Was the clock operator affiliated with the University of Oklahoma or the Big 12? I'm almost certain that when the clock started isn't reviewable in college basketball. At that time, I doubt they had replay on anything ... possibly whether or not a player got a shot off before the end of a half. Clock operators are notorious for providing a little bit of assistance to the home team. Maybe this bias factored in to the result that day. Maybe it was an honest, split second reaction mistake. I'm sure if you looked at a lot of replays on when the clock started, it would be off a lot of the time. It's much harder to determine, and react, in real-time to when a player first touches the ball (and have the electronics work with you) than it is to figure out who should be awarded an onsides kick. But, even more than that, the onsides kick play was reviewable. I don't think the play Knight is questioning was.

Perhaps Bob Knight knows that there isn't any real basis for his comments and that the situations aren't really that closely related. Non-reviewable calls change the outcomes of many basketball games at the end. Whether or not to call a foul is often a sticky subject in crunch time. The one thing I won't do is go Bill Plascke on TTU and Bob Knight and say that they should have done more before that point to win the game. The officials may well have cost them the game, but it's much more difficult (according to the Pac-10 commish) to officiate in real-time on the field than in a replay booth. Knight should be lobbying to have those types of plays made reviewable. Then, if he had a complaint about a clock operator and the review of clock operation, he'd have a leg to stand on.

So, assuming Knight realizes his bball story has little to do with what happened in Eugene, there are a few alternative explanations for him talking to the Oklahoman: a) it's been a while since the Red Raiders' last game and the ESPN reality show, Knight School, and Knight thinks he needs to be back in the media spotlight; b) Knight enjoys taking shots at Big 12 South rival Oklahoma; or c) Knight wants to shed light on the problems with officiating/timing in college basketball before the season begins.

One last reason the error in Eugene trumps the error in Norman by a couple orders of magnitude: OU got screwed over in football. I'm not saying football is more important than basketball. My athletic glory was achieved on the hardwood, not the gridiron. But, because of the idiotic BCS system employed in college football, losses (especially very questionable ones) are much harder to swollow in football than in basketball. In basketball, all 12 Big 12 teams make the conference tournament. The winner of said tournament gets a shot at the national title, although they are one of 64 (or 65, depending on when you actually think the tournament starts) teams. That is a last chance entry. Solid teams from major conferences usually get into the tourney, so one or two losses won't kill you. In football, the winner of the Big 12 South plays in the Big 12 Championship game. Sure, the Oregon loss has no bearing on conference play. However, a few years back OU lost in the Big 12 Championship and still played for the title in the Sugar Bowl. But, this year, winning the Big 12 is no guarantee for a shot at the championship, especially if the winner has a loss (which will be the case with Texas, OU, and Nebraska all having losses on their record now, though OU shouldn't). An undefeated Oklahoma team has a much better shot at the national title than a one-loss OU team. Whether Bob Knight's Red Raiders have 10 losses or 11 doesn't matter near that much.

Seattle in the Fall? Definitely.

2006-09-21T00:54:00.000-05:00

Who wouldn't want to leave Norman, OK in the fall for a weekend in Seattle, WA? Apparently, the Sooners are contemplating trying to opt out of their visit to UW in '08 if the Pac-10 doesn't revise its rules about officials. I don't think it's a good idea to skip out on the game, even as bad as the officiating against Oregon was at the end of the game. Bob Stoops needs to get his team ready to play, go up to Seattle and smack around UW, then not schedule any more games with the Pac-10. OU does not need to play teams from the Pac-10. The Pac-10 isn't the top conference in the nation. Games against quality SEC, Big 10, ACC or Big East schools are just as valuable and you don't have to worry about the officials taking payments from Nike in the replay booth!

It's an emergency, someone get me the precedent!

2006-09-21T00:10:00.000-05:00

First, I'm going to hit on something Oregon QB Dennis Dixon said on ESPNEWS: "it's something you always dream of, being a quarterback in that situation, in a hostile environment, especially at home ... I fulfilled the answers towards the end, that's what a great quarterbacks do it in the clutch."

Look closely at that quote, or go to espn.com and listen to the piece yourself. I find a number of things disturbing, just in that small snippet. And, it leaves me wondering "why do they interview people like this?" First, Dixon is referring to himself as a great QB. Didn't Dixon get pulled from the OU game for a bit in favor of Brady "I wish I had Ryan's talent" Leaf? Yep, same guy. If I made a list of great QB's, Dennis Dixon wouldn't even be on the really, really, really, long list. He can't even hold Joey Harrington's jock! Second, use the correct word, even if it's not as catchy a word. "In a hostile environment, especially at home" ... that's a contradiction if I've ever heard one. The people in Eugene love their Ducks. Alex Rodriguez confronts hostile environments at home, Dennis Dixon does not. Perhaps he doesn't realize what hostile means. Or, maybe he just likes to throw cliches out there. Finally, "that's what a great quarterbacks do"? Dixon is not a freshman, he's a junior. You'd think that in his first two years in college someone at Oregon would be concerned enough about him academically to turn "that's what a great quarterbacks do" into either a) that's what great quarterbacks do or b) that's what a great quarterback does. No wonder Oregon doesn't rank first in the nation among public universities in national merit scholars per capita!

Now, I'll move on to the precedent issue. Personally, I think OU should be awarded a victory (and Oregon a loss) in response to the hideous officiating. That's my opinion. If you don't agree, I guess that's ok. I might try to convince you to see it my way, or you might be able to convince me to flip sides. However, what I don't understand at all is the people who say "there's no precedent for it." Precedent for what? When was the last time a local replay official blew two obvious calls in the last 75 seconds of a game that led to a win being turned into a loss for the visiting team? Is there precedent for not changing the result? There is never precedent until something happens once. Schools used to be segregated. The first desegregation (way before my time) was met with a lot of resistance from some parties. But, now, the situation is a lot better. I won't turn this into a social commentary on race relations because I'm definitely not an expert in that field. The only liberal arts type classes I had in college were engineering related seminars ... sorry. You get the point though: just because there isn't precedent for something does mean that it shouldn't happen.

What happens if a team uses an ineligible player? They forfeit the game, right? Well, the replay official in the OU v. UO game seems to be similar to an ineligible player in that the official gave an unfair advantage to the Ducks, just like using an ineligible player would. I'm not going formulate a conspiracy theory to explain the officiating. The Oregon Ducks may have nothing to do with the official other than the fact that the official gave them a victory. However, sometimes teams don't realize players are ineligible (St. Bonaventure bball team in 2003).

Replay is fairly new, especially in college football. Judging by the reactions to the job done by the replay official in the OU v. UO game, problems with replay in college football are fairly new. Therefore, people need to be proactive in dealing with problems that occur while the replay system is being optimized.

TK Chimes In

2006-09-19T17:25:00.000-05:00

TK and MW debated the Oklahoma/Oregon/Replay official saga during Sportscenter tonight, with respected columnist and on-air personality Tony Kornheiser stating Oregon has a "hollow win" and "I wouldn't penalize Oklahoma for the loss."

Big East Revisited

2006-09-18T23:17:00.000-05:00

Last week, I ripped into West Virginia for their non-conference scheduling, noting that because they play in the Big East, they need to find a game against a high-quality opponent for at least one of their five non-conference games. I received feedback, in the form of a comment, that the Big East was better than I was giving it credit for. So, a conference that has Louisville, West Virginia, South Florida, Rutgers, Connecticut, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Syracuse should be one of the BCS conferences?

Last week, West Virginia continued to roll through weak non-conference opponents by drubbing border-rival Maryland. Louisville, the other marquee Big East team steamrolled Miami at home. South Florida beat Central Florida, 24-17, and Rutgers beat MAC juggernaut Ohio (sarcasm again?) 24-7. The problem with the weekend was that Connecticut and Pittsburgh got beat at home by Wake Forest and Michigan State, with the Spartans dismantling the Panthers pretty soundly after spotting them a 10-0 lead in the first quarter. You can't count Cincinnati losing to Ohio State against the conference, but I'm not putting much stock in the Syracuse win over Illinois either ... someone had to win that one.

Moving back a week, Pittsburgh beat Cincinnati in a week 2 conference game. West Virginia and Louisville throttled Eastern Washington and Temple, respectively. Rutgers shutout Illinois. South Florida eeked one out over Florida International 21-20 at home and Syracuse lost to Iowa at home despite Hawkeye QB Drew Tate sitting out the game with an injury.

In search of anything sound below Louisville and West Virginia, I'll go back to the opening weekend of the season. Pittsburgh beat Virginia, but the Cavaliers lost to Western Michigan and only beat Wyoming by 1 point. Hard to get excited about that. Louisville over Kentucky and West Virginia over Marshall - that's the Marshall team that Big 12 North middle-of-the-pack Kansas State beat this weekend. Cincinnati beat Eastern Kentucky. The Colonels beat W. Kentucky and lost to W. Carolina in other action this year. South Florida beat McNeese State. So, the Bulls scheduled McNeese State, Florida International, Central Florida, Kansas, and North Carolina. The 3rd best Big East team has UCF, KU and UNC as their big non-conference games? Maybe for basketball, but that doesn't fly in big-time college football, does it? Kansas is probably about the 8th best team in the Big 12. UConn beat Rhode Island (sounds like a good bball game back when Odom, Mobley, and Wheeler were at URI), Rutgers held on 21-16 against UNC, and Wake Forest beat Syracuse.

So, through three weeks, the only thing that we've found out about the Big East is that they do ok against the ACC. I know it is still early but the league only has one win against the top 25. Louisville has been good for a while. West Virginia looks like a pretty good team. My problem all along is the supporting cast in the Big East and I haven't seen anything to support them being on par with other power conferences like the Big 10, Pac-10, SEC, and Big 12. I don't know what's going on with FSU and Miami, but the ACC is a deep league up top, even if they are lacking a truly elite team, with VA Tech, FSU, Clemson, BC, and Miami (despite recent struggles). The Big East has two teams, WVU and Louisville, that can contend for the national championship, potentially. That was never in question. But, if those teams don't play strong non-conference schedules, they'll each only have one real test during the season as long as they don't overlook anyone, and that will be the other one. If WVU beats Louisville, they should run the table. If the Cardinals beat the Mountaineers, they should run the table. USC plays ND and Nebraska, as well as top 25 Pac-10 teams California, Arizona State and Oregon.

That may be just the way it is. Maybe Rich Rodriguez has trouble getting people to play West Virginia. I don't know. Roy mentioned that maybe WVU thought the non-conference teams would be better than they ended up being, but I don't really think that is the case. Marshall and Maryland are mid-level teams, but not in the elites (which includes teams like Miami that are down this year but are usually good) of college football. Eastern Washington, East Carolina and Mississippi State are gimme games. MSU is from the SEC, but they are an SEC bottom feeder. So, the only thing I can hope is that Rich Rodriguez tried to challenge his boys and couldn't get anyone to take the game and had to settle for the lineup he put in front of them to dismantle. They need a Chad Johnson checklist, and other than the Cardinals, they might as well check the boxes now, if they didn't do it this summer.

End of Game Solution

2006-09-18T19:40:00.000-05:00

OU President David Boren wrote a letter to the Big 12 Conference calling for the OU v. UO game Saturday to be wiped from the record. I'm going to go one step farther, although Boren is on to something. Big 12 Commissioner Kevin Weiberg says "There is no provision under NCAA or conference rules for a game result to be reversed or changed as a result of officiating errors, nor do I believe there should be." That's fine. Unfortunately, he's wrong. There should be. The Oregon players shouldn't be saddled with the burden of losing a game that they didn't get credit for losing. Anything Oregon does will be done with an asterisk, even if the asterisk is just a few of the AP voters putting OU ahead of Oregon in the rankings. Also, Oklahoma shouldn't be jobbed out of a W because the officials decided to magically concoct a scenario to turn it into a loss in the last 75 seconds.

So, my solution is two part, one for end of game situations and one for general replay. I'll start with the last-minute fix first because it addresses Weiberg. There should be a provision and it should be this: game outcomes can be changed under the following scenarios:
a) the last play of the game is reviewed and it is revealed that a player scored (or didn't score) and
b) a play that would have changed possession and allowed the team that would gain possession to run out the clock by taking a knee is reviewed and it is found that the wrong team was awarded possession
I'm open to suggestions and rewordings, but that is the jist. So, an example of a) would be the OU v. TTU game last year. Red Raider RB Taurean Henderson was said to have scored on the last play of the game, as time expired. Thus, Texas Tech was awarded a win, whereas Oklahoma would have been victorious if Henderson had been stopped. Henderson didn't score, but it wasn't as obvious as the eggregious call this weekend. The Big 12 reviewed the call and said that there wasn't conclusive evidence to say the wrong call was made, although given all the questionable calls in that game (the phantom 15-yard facemask being one) I'm skeptical of any officiating in Lubbock. A hypothetical would be if Notre Dame is trailing USC by 4 points with 5 seconds left at the USC 40. Brady Quinn throws a hail mary and it is ruled to be caught by ND WR Jeff Samardzija in the end zone, giving Notre Dame the win as time expires. The Irish rejoice. However, the NCAA finds that Samardzija didn't actually catch the ball, that it had hit the ground but they didn't notice, somehow ... maybe the officials didn't have a good angle. Unfortunately, USC would be awarded the win retroactively.

An example of b) would be the play in the OU v. UO game on Saturday. A hypothetical could be the following: in another SEC shoot-out, LSU is leading Georgia 7-3 late in the fourth quarter. Needing a TD, Georgia mounts a drive down to the LSU 15. On 3rd and two with 55 seconds left and no timeouts, Georgia runs a play-action fake and throws for the end zone. The LSU DB catches the ball but is ruled to not have possession before going out-of-bounds. On 4th and two, Danny Ware busts one up the middle and Georgia takes the lead, 10-7 with the subsequent extra point. LSU, not surprisingly, is unable to move into field goal range and goes home Saturday night on the short end of a 10-7 decision. However, subsequent review of the incompletion on 3rd and 2 reveals the LSU player had possession of the ball and the correct call was actually an interception. The TD would be wiped off the board and LSU would be awarded a 7-3 victory because they would have just been able to take a knee and run out the clock, with Georgia unable to do anything about it. Sure, it assumes that a team can correctly execute a kneel down, but I think that's pretty fair, especially considering the alternative. If you want, bring the teams back on a bye week and play out the kneel downs, if the Georgia coach demands it, but I doubt he'll want to go through the trouble.

My issue with replay is that the replay officials don't have enough at stake to do a good job. What happens if the replay officials give Oregon the game? A suspension for one game ... nice, that seems reasonable (catch that sarcasm?). I don't even know if a year suspension is enough. The people with something at stake are the two teams. So, I want to bring them into the process with the NCAA as the oversight. There will be three votes on each replay, one for each team and one for the officials. Majority rules. The caveat, every voted on play is reviewed by the NCAA. If the officials vote wrong, they are suspended for a year, an entire year, not just the rest of the year. If either of the coaches votes wrong, they receive a five-game suspension or whatever penalty is deemed reasonable. The penalty has to be enough to keep from letting the internal bias cloud judgment about what is actually "right" based on the rules. Would Belotti sacrifice 5 games for the possibility that his team would have a chance to have the ball after the onsides kick? Maybe, but not if he didn't know that the officials were casting their vote to give Oregon the ball. Coaches wouldn't just blindly vote for their team because they'd quickly get buried under suspensions, and if the officials are doing their job, it won't be of any use to them, because they'll be outvoted 2-1 anyway.

Pac-10 Cop-out

2006-09-18T19:27:00.000-05:00

The Pac-10 confirmed what everyone already knew with their review of the onsides kick play in the OU v. UO game: the ball was illegally touched and should have been awarded to Oklahoma. Also, they confirmed what everyone with at least half a brain saw in the replay, Oklahoma recovered the onsides kick anyway! So, now that it's been confirmed I'll stop ranting about that point. It's settled.

However, a one-game suspension? One game? That's ridiculous. One game can determine whether or not a college football team gets to play for the national championship (not necessarily in this case). Officials need to have more at stake for getting calls right than one game. If replay wasn't in effect and the officials had blown the call, then I'd be fine with th assigned penalty: one game. But, fortunately, that isn't the case. According to Pac-10 Commish Hansen:

Officiating on the field is much more difficult than it appears from the stands, and certainly when watching repeated replays ... Plays occur at a high rate of speed. Decisions on the field must be made instantaneously. The training and experience of officials at this level enable them to work at a high degree of accuracy. Unfortunately, at the critical moment of this game errors were made.

Sure, I'll give them that. I don't know how difficult it appears to be from the stands, or how difficult it actually is, but I'll believe the Pac-10 Commish. But, no one really cares if they get it right on the field. Sure, it would be preferable if every call was correct, but replay is in place to correct the errors that are made on the field, if they can be done in a reasonable manner. Reversing the call on the onsides kick definitely qualifies. Thus, I am more concerned with the punishment of the replay and lead game officials than any of the other officials who may not have played a major role in the incident.

Big 12: Weekends biggest loser

2006-09-18T12:09:00.000-05:00

According to ESPN, the Big 12 was the biggest loser over the weekend "Thanks mostly to an 0-4 record against the Pac-10 on Saturday." Brad Edwards has a point, it wasn't a good weekend for Big 12 teams. And, I'm not going to carry the flag for the Big 12 as the nation's elite conference. However, a closer analysis of results shows that the weekend shouldn't have been unexpected.

The four Big 12 v. Pac-10 matchups were:
#19 Nebraska v. #4 USC
#15 Oklahoma v. #18 Oregon
#22 Arizona State v. Colorado
Baylor v. Washington State

The results aren't unexpected. The Big 12 (left) and Pac-10 hierarchies are as follows (based on rankings for top 25 teams going into the weekend):
Texas/USC
Oklahoma/Oregon
Nebraska/California
Texas Tech/Arizona State
It looks like Colorado is near the bottom of the lowly Big 12 North, and Baylor probably won't be favored in any Big 12 South game this year. So, Arizona State taking care of Colorado, big deal. If WSU went into Boulder and beat the Bufs, I'd give the Pac-10 a little credit for that one. Baylor v. Washington State was a close game in Pullman. If it was played in Waco, the outcome quite possibly would have been reversed. But, do people really care how the 9th or 10th placed team in a conference does? That leaves the marqee matchups, the best Pac-10 team at home against the 3rd or 4th best team in the Big 12. If Nebraska had pulled it out, it might have been the big-time shocker of the year. If the 'Horns had visited USC and been beat, that would have been a bigger knock against the Big 12. If you don't know how I feel about the OU v. UO game, read the previous posts. Officiating like that makes me sick. Oklahoma went into Eugene, where visitors aren't supposed to win, and had the game won until the officials decided Oregon should get the ball on the onsides kick even though they touched it illegally and didn't end up with it at the end of the play. The ball wasn't wrestled away from the Duck, he lost it and it squirted out of the pile where it was picked up by OU reserve RB Allen Patrick. So, overall, the Big 12 v. Pac-10 weekend went much as people would have predicted. How does that make the Big 12 a big loser, exactly?

In other Big 12 action, Big 12 North middleweight KU lost to Toledo on Friday in overtime. I think Toledo was favored in that game. The Jayhawks fought into OT on the road and eventually lost. Again, not a great result, but not a disaster either. Iowa State traveled to Iowa City to take on the #16 Iowa Hawkeyes. I watched that game. It was a close game. Iowa State led at half, the game was tied after three quarters, and the margin was only one TD until late. The result, again, was probably what most people would have picked. The other top 25 battle involving a Big 12 team was #24 Texas Tech losing at #20 TCU 12-3 in a battle of field goals. All I know about this game is the final score. I was surprised TTU only managed 3 points, but the Red Raiders were on the road against a higher, albeit just slightly, ranked opponent. It would have been nice for the Big 12 if TTU won, but they didn't.

On the other side of the ledger, Kansas State handled Marshall 23-7 in Manhattan. #8 UT dismantled Rice, 52-7. Oklahoma State drubbed an undermanned FAU 48-8. Texas A&M survived a late goal-line situation against Army to win 28-24 and Missouri went to Albuquerque and took care of New Mexico 27-17.

So, in review, the BIg 12 went 5-7. Texas, Texas A&M, Missouri, Kansas State, and Oklahoma State all won games that they probably should have won. The Big 12 was a big loser in the OU v. UO game because the Pac-10 officials screwed up the game. So, if we give that win to the Big 12 (which should happen ... the Pac-10 commish should find egregious error by the officials and nullify everything that happened after the onsides kick, giving Oklahoma a much-deserved 33-27 win ... I'm not holding my breath though). So, the Big 12 should have been .500 for the weekend. Texas Tech, Kansas, and Baylor lost games that were probably predicted to be pretty close. CU did better than expected against ASU. Iowa State played ok in a rivalry game on the road against a higher-ranked opponent. And, the Cornhuskers were the Trojans sacrifice to the football gods this weekend, not unexpected at all. It was a mediocre weekend for the Big 12 if you analyze the matchups and results.

Do the voters watch the games?

2006-09-17T15:36:00.000-05:00

In a follow-up to the OU v. UO story, what were the AP voters thinking? Oregon moved up from #18 to #13 and Oklahoma drops from #15 to #17. It was obvious that the only reason the Ducks won was because the refs, somehow, blew the illegal touch call on the onsides kick. Oklahoma went to Eugene and beat Oregon, only to get cheated out of a hard-fought victory. OU drops in the polls. What? Oregon jumps them. What? The voters should pay attention to what is actually going on and vote accordingly, not just look at scores. Put a little thought into it, it helps decide the national champion!

Fire the Refs!

2006-09-16T19:37:00.000-05:00

It's as simple as that. Bob Stoops should try to get the Pac-10 officiating crew (especially the ones in the booth) fired. With just over a minute left and the Oregon Ducks trailing by 6, they did an onsides kick. OU WR Malcolm Kelly moved just inside the 45 yard line, the marker where the ball had to pass before an Oregon player could legally touch the ball. Kelly was less than 10 yards from the 35. Kelly wasn't the first player to touch the ball. An Oregon Duck hit the ball and redirected it, so Kelly couldn't catch it. Thus, obviously, the Oregon player touched the ball before it travelled 10 yards. So, there should have been a penalty for an illegal touch and it should have been OU ball at the 44, where the ball was illegally touched. The analysts and everyone watching the game could see that the play should be overturned. They reviewed the play upstairs. How the hell did they not overturn it? I still can't fathom that. To add insult to injury, they screwed up a pass interference and review. OU DE C.J. Ah You tipped a Dennis Dixon pass. Therefore, any contact made by an OU defender on the UO receiver is okay. Unfortunately, the fact that the ball was wobbling like a Duck after it hit Ah You's hand wasn't "indisputable video evidence" to overturn the call, which should have been an incomplete pass anyway ... the play on the ball by the defender didn't warrant pass interference. The refs blew the game. They weren't the only reason OU lost, but they were the reason UO won and it's very unfortunate.

For Pete's Sake!

2006-09-15T22:35:00.000-05:00

Pete Carroll may finally get caught with his hand in the cookie jar, courtesy of the indiscretions of Heisman Trophy winning RB Reggie Bush and his family. Unfortunately for Carroll, he's been the anti-Bob Stoops recently. Bob Stoops took the bull by the horns in dismissing starting QB Rhett Bomar (and possibly costing his Oklahoma Sooner a chance at the national championship) and starting OL J.D. Quinn. Carroll has shrugged off assault and battery charges, positive tests for steroids, and the Bush allegations. He said something preposterous about hoping that future players learn from the previous mistakes of current and former Trojans.

I'll admit, I'm smarter than the average USC Trojan football player (I don't know any of them, but I'm willing to subject myself to testing if someone wants to test me on my claim). So, there are certain things I know that some of them might not. An example of this is that finite difference approximations using a weighted Euler in time are second order accurate only if equal weight is given to the current and future times. Otherwise, it's first order accurate. But, I bet even the slowest of the Trojans can answer this question correctly: Is it okay to assault women, physically and/or sexually? The answer, obviously, is a resounding "NO!"

I don't know which is more stupid, the USC football players assaulting women or Pete Carroll hoping that future players will learn something from current players getting in trouble for it. I understand people will argue that charges were dropped and this or that. It is unlikely charges would have been brought against Sanchez if something didn't happen, and it's a shame that he, and other Trojans, are getting away with these types of acts because they are college athletes. The only thing worse is that Pete Carroll is choosing victories over shaping quality humans.

Minnesota Twins: Jay's AL World Series "Lock"

2006-09-15T14:17:00.000-05:00

Those of you familiar with ESPN's "Around the Horn" will understand the title of the post. For those out there who aren't regular watchers, the Twins were picked as a lock to represent the AL in this year's World Series by one of the panelists. This prediction is undeniably bold (the Yankees would be the obvious pick), but also irrefutably absurd because it is based on a faulty premise, namely that Johan Santana can carry the Twins, almost single-handedly, to the World Series, and ultimately, to the MLB Championship.

The fact that the Twins win almost every game that Santana starts was the foundation of the argument. Santana is now 18-5, with his last loss coming July 9th at Texas. So, he hasn't lost in a little over two months. That span covers 12 starts; Santana has recorded 9 wins and 3 ND's, but the Twins have won all twelve games. Thus, the idea that the Twins are a lock when Santana starts was spawned.

So, the reasoning went, in a 5-game series, Santana would throw twice, and the Twins would only have to win one of the other three games. Seems possible. Then, in a 7-game series, Santana could throw games 1, 4, and 7. That's three of the four wins the Twins would need to advance to the World Series! Surely, the Twins could scavenge one win in the four games not pitched by Santana. And, by the same reasoning, the Twins would breeze through the NL challenger with wins by Santana in three of the 7 games, right?

Wait just a second, Santana is going to pitch games 1 & 4 of the division series and 1, 4 and 7 of the championship series? With Franciso Liriano healthy, I'd say the Twins would have a great shot at winning the entire thing, but relying on Santana to win every game is tough, especially when he will be continually brought back on short rest because the staff is ravaged with injuries. Santana is winning games pitching every fifth day, with some easy starts against weak line-ups thrown in. Should you really count on Santana beating the Yankees three times in seven games when he has to face, essentially, an all-star lineup of Damon, Jeter, Abreu, A-Rod, Giambi, Sheffield, Matsui, Posada and Cano? The Yankees are patient and work the count. Plus, there isn't any part of that line-up that a pitcher can ease up and get cheap outs.

With a healty Francisco Liriano (and a healthy Brad Radke), the Twins would have a quality 4-man rotation (with whoever is going to be the #2 as the #4 under the optimal scenario). They could start things off with Santana and Liriano in the hope of going up 2-0 early. Then, they could throw Radke in game 3, hoping to finish off the first round. If there was a game 4, they could bring Santana back or save him for a game 5, if necessary. If the Twins only had to use Santana and Liriano each once during the first round, they'd be in prime position to throw them games 1 and 2 of the championship series. Hypothetically, they could wait to bring the duo back until games 6 and 7, but more likely they'd throw them in games 5 and 6. If they were ready, they could try to close it out in games 4 and 5. I could see a similar thing happening in the World Series, depending on how the AL championship series went and when they could come back in the World Series.

If the Twins win the AL, Johan Santana will probably have a big left hand in it. However, it's not likely and it's definitely not a lock. The Twins might not even make the playoffs, although it seems likely that they will, and I'd put their chances of getting to the World Series at 1/8, if I had to set the line.

Lost in the Top 5

2006-09-15T00:08:00.000-05:00

As we approach the best Saturday of the early college football season (with 7 matchups between top 25 teams), #5 West Virginia demolished Maryland and it's troubling. After three weeks, the Mountaineers have racked up three impressive wins against unimpressive opponents, and it doesn't get much better. As one sportscenter anchor pointed out, Steve Slaton ran into the leading in the rushing race in the 1st quarter ... it's Thursday, the first quarter of his game was one more quarter than almost everyone else has played in (although Slaton has received a lot of bench time in the previous blowouts). What is Rich Rodriguez doing scheduling Marshall, Eastern Washington, Maryland, East Carolina and Mississippi State as their 5 game non-conference schedule? He's depriving fans of seeing quality football matchups, apparently.

When you play in a conference that isn't all that strong (only two top 25 teams - WVU and Louisville (#12)), you have to do more. Schedule ACC and SEC schools, but hit the top tier, not MS State! Maryland is traditionally competitive and a rivalry game, so that's fine, but why schedule EWU and ECU? Why not Texas Tech, Oregon, Virginia Tech, or Florida? If your conference schedule includes Auburn, LSU, and Florida, then maybe you don't need to take on FSU and Oklahoma to bolster your strength of schedule. That isn't the case with West Virginia. Beating Louisville and a bunch of mediocre teams shouldn't get WVU into the NCAA title game, even if no other team goes undefeated. It would be enough to get them into an 8-team playoff, and will probably be enough to get them into the BCS title game unless two other major conference teams (or ND) go undefeated, but that shouldn't be the case.

The SEC features 5 teams that as good or better than Louisville: Auburn, LSU, Florida, Tennessee and Georgia. The ACC has Florida State, Miami, Virginia Tech, Boston College, Clemson and Georgia Tech. The Big 12 is still fairly strong on top with Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Texas Tech and Texas A&M. The Pac-10 has USC at the top with Cal, Oregon, and Arizona State on the 2nd tier. The Big 10 (or 11) has Ohio State, Michigan, Iowa and Penn State.

Even if you argue that the Big East is close to the level of other major conferences, WVU still falls short. The SEC is probably the best conference in college football, so I'm going to give SEC schools a pass. Ohio State played Texas. Michigan, Penn State, USC and Georgia Tech all have Notre Dame on the schedule. Oklahoma plays Oregon, who also visited Fresno State. Florida State plays Florida. Miami plays Louisville. Nebraska visits USC. Texas Tech plays TCU. Cal visited Tennessee. The Mountaineers don't even come close to this list. Eastern Washington!

Steve Slaton is a quality back, but it looked like he was running against a HS JV girls basketball team! On one TD run by Slaton, #3 on Maryland backed away from Slaton as he got into the end zone rather than stick his nose in and knock him out of bounds. On a couple big runs, Slaton wasn't touched. The blocking was good, and Slaton is good, but not THAT good. The Maryland D was just awful and had no idea what hit them until the game was already out-of-hand, and maybe after that ... but I wasn't watching at that point. On WVU's last TD of the 1st half (their 5th), the return man fumbled the ball, picked it back up, then wasn't touched on his jaunt to the end zone. The return wasn't Reggie Bush-like with a number of defenders being juked out of their jocks. Rather, Darius Reynaud merely ran straightforward, made a little cut to go around a blocker, then headed back upfield. He wasn't touched. He didn't run through arm tackles or fake anyone out, he just ran from one end of the field to the other. Maybe they wanted to get a 100-yard dash time on him for future reference? Unfortunately, we'll have to wait for a bowl game to see what Rich Rodriguez can do against a high-quality defense ... maybe the whole college football system should be revisited.

Referees in Review

2006-09-11T23:44:00.000-05:00

I know it is the first weekend of the football season, but every game counts in the NFL. You only get 16, and an extra loss can keep you out of the playoffs and an extra win might just cost you Adrian Peterson or Brady Quinn in the upcoming draft. So, the refs need to be at their best. Unfortunately, they weren't. In addition to the atrocious officiating I cited on opening night in the Steelers victory over the Dolphins, here are a few other things I noticed:

1. The unnecessary roughness penalty on Washington Redskin S Sean Taylor. Sean Taylor came across and made a legitimate hit to the shoulder of a WR along the sideline to prevent the receiver from making a play on a tipped ball. He didn't spear him in the head or do anything that warranted a penalty. But, he got 15 yards anyway.

2. Randy Moss received 15 yards for taunting when he tossed the ball to Charger K Nate Kaeding after he was forced out-of-bounds. Unnecessary, yes, but taunting? He didn't hand the ball to either of the guys he juked to pick up the first down on a simple swing pass into the flat. The flag was unnecessary.

3. Speaking of taunting, a 49er WR received a 15 yard penalty in the game against the Cardinals for pointing at a DB after the DB threw him down after they were already out-of-bounds. The WR wasn't taunting, he was merely acting like every other NFL WR who points at the defensive player if he thinks the player deserves a penalty. He was trying to help the ref out. Instead, he got nailed with the yellow flag.

4. And, in my personal favorite, Donovin Darius pulled a Rodney Harrison and hit Terrell Owens well after the play was over. Darius was 5 yards away from Owens when he hit the ground. Owens rolled, Darius took another step then dove and put his shoulder right in Owens' back. I don't think it hurt Owens, but that isn't the point. There is no need to hit someone when they are down. If you want to hit TO, tackle him when he's piling up YAC. Dallas S Roy Williams likes to hit people, but I saw him make a conscious effort to avoid hitting a ball carrier who was already on the ground, even though he could have got a shot in and not been penalized. I feel strongly that Darius wanted to hit TO and he should have been penalized for it.

The list could go on and on, but I don't feel like piling on the officials too much this early in the season. Maybe I'll keep better notes next week and have a longer list.

Jacked Up!

2006-09-11T23:36:00.000-05:00

How could the hit on Trent Green not make Tom Jackson's "Jacked Up" segment? It was a great hit. Robert Geathers hit him with his shoulder (at least as far as I could tell), not his helmet. It also looked like Geathers was blocked into Green. The fact of the matter is that the incident is unfortunate, but Trent Green started his slide too late and didn't protect himself. I'm wondering if that isn't the kind of hit that could end Green's career. Two of the great QB's of my childhood, Troy Aikman and Steve Young, had their careers ended by concussions; it seems likely that if Green and the Chiefs aren't careful, Green could face the same fate. The problem might be that the Chiefs think they are good enough to make the playoffs, but not with Damon Huard under center. I'm hoping that the league doesn't punish Geathers and that the Chiefs and Green don't let the early season game outcomes dictate when Green comes back.

Monday Night Snoozer

2006-09-11T23:23:00.000-05:00

I'll admit, the MNF game between the Raiders and Chargers isn't over yet, but so far it's been pretty bad. I'm not sure which side has been more annoying, the Raiders with their inability to keep the Charger rush off QB Aaron Brooks or the Chargers due to their passive play calling. Early in the game, LaDainian Tomlinson was gashing the Raider defense. In fact, he accumulated more than 100 yards running in the first half. Without the benefit of good field position, and without much fear of the Raiders mounting a comeback, the Chargers have just been pounding LT and it usually isn't that good an idea to run every play if the defense thinks you are going to run every play. LT is averaging a little over 2 yards per carry on his first 9 carries in the 2nd half because they've run on 14 of their last 15 plays. QB Phillip Rivers has made good throws. He's made good decisions. He has weapons on the outside, and out of the backfield with Tomlinson. Open up the offense and put the Raiders away. Maybe you don't need to throw today to win the game, but do you really want Rivers to only throw 10 passes in his first start? The Chargers just ran Michael Turner on 3rd & 8 near the end of the 3rd quarter from their own 20. You have to love Marty ball!

The Raiders have not been able to sustain drives all night because of penalties and sacks allowed. They've had success with short swing passes to Randy Moss, but little else. Almost every time Aaron Brooks drops back deep, he gets sacked or flushed from the pocket ... or at least that is what it seems like. There is another sack for Merriman with 50 seconds left in the 3rd ... the 6th Charger sack tonight. The Raiders haven't had the ball enough for Brooks to be sacked 6 times. Luis Castillo just racked up the 7th sack on the next play. Run a screen! Run a draw! Do something to deter the rush. Run a QB draw. Roll Brooks (who is a great athlete for a QB) out. Or, I guess you could have him take a 5 step drop and get sacked again ... good call!

Throw it at 'em!

2006-09-08T07:17:00.000-05:00

Heath Miller did not make it into the end zone on his long TD reception. The ref right next to the play looked confused and needed help on the call. Nick Saban threw his red challenge flag onto the field, only to have the referees ignore him and allow the Steelers to kick the extra point, thus negating any possible challenge by Miami.

The problem is not that the TD stood. In all likelihood, the Steelers would have been given the ball at the 1 or 2 and pounded it into the end zone shortly thereafter. I'm not sure I would have used my challenge on that play, even if I knew it would be reversed (that leads to another problem with the challenge system, that have a limited number even if you are always right). There might be plays later in the game that would be more important, i.e. a questionable fumble or interception, 3rd down catch, or spot on a 3rd or 4th down conversion attempt.

The problem is that the replay system is in place for the coaches to challenge questionable officiating calls. If a coach wants to challenge a reviewable play, whether it is smart or not, should be able to challenge as long as he gets his red flag on the field before the snap of the ball to start the next play. Saban did that. The officials have to see the flag and review the play. And, the idea that the flag throw is not reviewable is ridiculous. The officials are allowed to screw up calls and then ignore challenges ... great system!

Willie's First First Down

2006-09-07T21:37:00.000-05:00

The NFL season started tonight, with the Thursday opener between the Dolphins and Steelers. I'm going to give the refs a pass tonight, although I will mention that the pass interference call when Charlie Batch overthrew Cedric Wilson that led to the TD to make it 14-7 was absolutely ridiculous. Since when did hand-fighting on an uncatchable ball result in PI?

Today, I'm going to address Willie Parker and his inability to just go back to the huddle. The Dolphins did a good job containing him for most of the first half. Then, he caught a little dump off, out ran one defensive lineman to the corner and cut back inside another and picked up a first down. Rather than head for the huddle, he got up and did a little celebration. A subsequent run went for a first down and he did another little celebration. Maybe he learned it from everyone's workman WR Hines Ward, who does mocking celebrations in the end zone and also toots his own horn after routine catches.

I have two questions: 1) why do the Steelers players feel they need to celebrate like this? and 2) why does the league allow it if they don't allow entertaining end zone celebrations? The Steelers are annoying; TO is entertaining. I'm confused.

Give the West a rest

2006-08-31T09:37:00.000-05:00

I happened upon ESPN Radio on the Deuce this morning while trying to enjoy my breakfast, and guess what? They were ragging on the National League's West Division again. Although the tide has turned a bit since this post, and the NL East now has more wins than the NL West, the real culprit dragging down the National League is the Central.

The Dodgers are in a virtual tie with St. Louis for the second best record in the NL, and the Padres have a better record than Cincinnati. San Francisco and Houston have identical records, Arizona's is better than Milwaukee's, and Colorado's is far better than both Chicago's and Pittsburgh's. So if anybody's making the playoffs in undeserved fashion, it's the Cardinals, right?

Except the Cardinals are only 32-32 against their Central division foes, worse on average than most of the rest of the NL (Philadelphia is also at .500, Washington is 16-17, and Colorado is 14-22). St. Louis has stayed afloat in the Central by beating up (19-6) on the NL West. Go figure.

It may be about time to haul out the annual rant against interleague play and the unbalanced schedule, two too-often-praised Bud Selig brainchildren. These two intrusions into pure baseball both introduce inconsistencies in "strength of schedule" for the various teams.

A big part of the problem is the realignment that put Milwaukee in the National League and created one six-team division (namely, the woeful NL Central) and one four-team division (the AL West) so that each league would have an even number of teams. The result of this stupidity is that AL teams each play 18 interleague games, but most NL teams play 15. That in itself is okay, since comparisons between AL and NL records never count for anything. The problem is the "most". The exceptions this year are Philly, Florida, Washington, and Houston, who played 18 apiece. None of these teams is over .500 in those 18 games (Florida is 9-9). In the whole National League, only San Francisco (8-7) and Colorado (11-4) were over .500. So basically the Phillies and Astros were handed three extra games that they were likely to lose. I'm sure they're thanking Selig for that as they make their run at the wild card.

If there were 15 teams in each league, there would have to be at least one interleague series happening all the time, but that would be okay, because a total of 252 interleague games are played. And the imbalance would disappear.

The unbalanced schedule is only deplorable because of that other recent addition, the wild card. (There's also the home field advantage issue, but that at least doesn't change who makes the playoffs.) Cincinnati and San Diego (the current front-runners) will be measured by their overall records, even though they are achieved against very different opponents. Cincy is 38-30 against their own division, and 8-14 against the West. The Padres are 28-30 against the West, and 17-9 against the Central. If we were to (naively, I admit) average their winning percentages against the three divisions to create a "balanced" schedule (throwing out interleague play, where they are close anyway), the Reds would have a .480 record, while the Padres would be at .536. Instead the Padres have a piddling 1.5 game lead.

Willy make it?

2006-08-25T16:37:00.000-05:00

Willy Taveras of the Houston Astros has hit safely in twenty-seven straight games. He's the latest to threaten a thirty-game hitting streak. All current streaks can be found at Baseball Musings. Unless you've been cruising around the world in an unpowered sailboat, you already know that Chase Utley put together a thirty-five game streak earlier this season, and Jimmy Rollins, his Phillies teammate, extended his streak to thirty-eight in the first two games of the season.

What you may not know about hitting streaks of this caliber is just how rare they are in Major League Baseball. Stretching all the way back to 1876, only forty-one such streaks have occurred. Two players—Ty Cobb and George Sisler—own two apiece. No one else has done it more than once. In the chart below, you can see another curiosity: there were no 30-game hitting streaks between 1950 and 1969. That's an eighteen-year drought! If anyone wants to try to explain this, I'm listening. While we're happily looking at charts, here's the histogram of hitting streak lengths. So, just how likely is Taveras to join this club? Of those who have reached 30 games, more than two-thirds (68.3%) have reached 31. And of those, three-quarters have made 32. Here are the percentages:

Games	% Moving On
30	68
31	75
32	100
33	81
34	82
35	64

If you're hitting around .400, which many of these guys are during such a streak, and you get four at bats in a game, you have about an 87% chance of continuing your streak on any given night, assuming approximate independence among at bats. But Taveras is only hitting .339 during his streak, so he's right at 80% for four at bats. Three more games at 80% each is just about even odds.

Bush-Whacked!

2006-08-22T16:43:00.000-05:00

From what I hear, the Madden player rankings are out and Reggie Bush edged out Mario Williams again. The former NC State star can't catch a break!

I don't know that I've ever seen Mario Williams play, so I'm not going to sing his praises. But, he must be talented if the Texans took him #1 overall. And, I don't have a problem with criticism of Williams or praise of Bush. However, evaluate them on a level playing field.

Offensive and defensive players can contribute without putting up big numbers. Elite cornerbacks usually don't have a lot of interceptions because they don't get challenged as much as CB's who are thought less of by opposing offenses. If a defensive end gets doubled and triple teamed all game and doesn't get a sack, but the guy on the other side who sees one-on-one blocking the entire game gets three sacks, who had the better game? If the defense pays so much attention to Randy Moss that the other receiver and running back are able to have big games, are you going to criticize Moss if he only catches a few balls?

Reggie Bush was still receiving tons of praise for his 4 carries for 7 yards and 2 receptions for 14 yards performance against the Cowboys Monday night. Those aren't good numbers. Bush's 9 yard run (his other three were for -2 yards) was okay, but not worthy of heaps of praise. He made one solid cut and then stumbled forward for a few more yards. Plus, Bush was credited with being a decoy (CB Newman bit on a play-action fake) on a nice completion from Drew Brees to Joe Horn. Would the same thing have happened on a fake to Deuce McAllister? It's definitely possible, Deuce is a pretty good back.

Give Williams a break ... it's the pre-season and he doesn't have the talent around him that Bush does (Brees, Deuce, Horn). He may struggle this year, he may play well and struggle to accumulate stats, or he may light up the stat sheet. I'm pretty sure I know what ESPN will say about Bush, though.

Who's MVP of this tired rivalry?

2006-08-22T09:17:00.000-05:00

Michael Wilbon and a Kornheiser substitute (Le Batard) "debated" the AL MVP last night on Pardon the Interruption. The question was "Jeter or Ortiz?" I don't suppose it's fair to hold PTI to a higher standard than the rest of sports media, but they're going to have to suffer my discontent this time. Jeter or Ortiz? Why does it always have to be Yankees vs. Red Sox?

It seems like every time I turn on a ball game, it's the Yankees and the Red Sox. ESPN and Fox both cater to "Red Sox nation" and the teeming hordes of whatever you call Yankees "fans" every time they get a chance. Well, I, for one, am tired of it. This rivalry was cool two years ago. Now it's like a bad joke that you've already heard one time too many.

The Yankees and Red Sox are not the best teams in the American League anymore. Nor do they play in the best division. In fact, both the Central and the West have more wins on average than the East. (In case you're wondering, the best division in the NL by this measure is . . . surprise! . . . the West.)

Let's drop these losers. The White Sox, not the Red Sox, are the defending World Series champions. Did you forget last year? And the Tigers, the lowly Detroit Tigers, have the best record in baseball, not the damn Yankees! I want to see this rivalry play out. Who cares if the Yankees swept the Red Sox? That just corroborates what we already knew—when you average it all out, payroll wins. Wasn't it more interesting when the (White) Sox swept the Tigers, closing the gap instead of widening it?

Joe Mauer leads the league in hitting, not Derek Jeter. Why are we even considering this guy? Because he's the only one we've seen play? It's time to slough this media-imposed tunnel vision and consider a wider purview on the American League. Let's look past the triple crown categories and find the player who is really most valuable. There's a good chance he's playing in the Central Division.

No sneaking Tiger, this one

2006-08-21T12:55:00.000-05:00

Gene Wojciechowski says Tiger Woods is the greatest individual athlete ever, and points, among other things, to his 12/12 record in Majors when he has or shares the lead after three days. That's all great. But what about when he doesn't lead after three days? He's 0 for life!

Wojciechowski compares Tiger to Michael Jordan. What if MJ and the Bulls had only ever won NBA Finals games that they led after three quarters? Sure, it would be a great accomplishment just to win every such game. (Jordan and company played far more than twelve, though, so even if they were as good, they'd be far less likely to be undefeated.) But only those games? That probably doesn't equate to six championships. Maybe it does. Somebody should check.

There are some straightforward conclusions to draw here. Tiger Woods is obviously the best prepared golfer that we have yet seen. He's among the best prepared of all athletes. Woods is to golf as Michael Jackson was to music. His father cultivated his skills practically from birth. Who else can say that?

It comes as no surprise that he is capable of dominating the field. And when he dominates the field, he wins majors. 12/12. But when he hasn't had his A game, or when someone else has enjoyed three days of good luck, he doesn't. Tiger can't be the greatest athlete ever until he can win those tournaments that he doesn't dominate. After all, those are far more common.

Then again, I know next to nothing about golf.

Rant and rave!

2006-08-09T00:21:00.000-05:00

I know PTI is just T.K. and Michael Wilbon bantering back and forth. But, Wilbon's bashing of Terrell Owens is out of control. He is so pro-McNabb and anti-Owens that no matter what Owens does, Wilbon is going to blow it out of proportion. What I found to be especially loathsome was Wilbon defending Tom Brady sticking up for WR Deion Branch. McNabb didn't help TO get a new contract after he came back from an injury that would have ended most players' seasons to play, and play great, in the Super Bowl. Branch has a contract, just as Owens did. Branch wanted a better deal, just like Owens did. Why praise Brady for going against management to get his go-to guy a little more money if you praised McNabb for not supporting Owens in his holdout? It seems like a double standard to me.

Back on the Apple

2006-08-07T23:08:00.000-05:00

I'll try to hit a number of topics, so, if you don't like one, just skip ahead to the next paragraph.

I'm not sure which is worse: a) the excuses given by Floyd Landis and his camp or b) the jump to condemn Landis of cheating. I'm not a chemist (I did have the highest score in my college chemistry I and II classes though), but it seems odd to me that Landis would only test positive once for synthetic testosterone. I wouldn't think Landis would decide one day, hundreds of miles into the tour, that he was going to start cheating. Maybe he did. Maybe he didn't realize that it probably wouldn't help him. Maybe he thought he was done being tested. Or, maybe he's telling the truth and he has no idea why his urine would test positive. Is there any chance the people at the lab doing the tests have something against Floyd Landis?

Moving on to Norman, OK, where Rhett Bomar and his "job" at a local car dealership may have pissed the season away for the Sooners. Bob Stoops was 100% correct kicking Bomar off his squad. In his two years in Norman, one as a redshirt and one as the starting QB, Bomar was twice cited for underage drinking. Then, his unearned income came to light. Three strikes and you're out. Bomar didn't learn that he wasn't above the law ... I would think that being cited for drinking in Norman would have prevented most people from putting themselves in a situation to be caught drinking at a Hornets game in OKC. Not Bomar. Stoops isn't Bomar's babysitter. He isn't Bomar's dad. Stoops is the head coach of a national powerhouse college football team. He is also a husband and father. It isn't Stoops' job to know where all his players work during the summer. The players know what they can and can't do ... Bomar got caught trying to cheat the system. What is Stoops going to say to the boosters the next time OU losses to Texas? "Sorry, I was too busy checking up with players at their summer jobs and walking them to class to devote time to recruiting, film study and all my other football-related duties." Yeah, that's going to fly. And "No!", Stoops shouldn't have just suspended Bomar. This is the best thing for the school, the program, and Bomar. Can you imagine the reception Bomar would get if he returned next year if OU fans believe his transgressions cost them a national title this year and then he didn't have a fantastic season (which would be likely if he's suspended all this year)? It wouldn't be peaches 'n cream.

Coach K has USA Basketball on the right track. The United States still has the best basketball talent (and players) on the planet. Will Coach K's squad win the upcoming World Championships? Maybe, maybe not. But, the emphasis on playing good defense and sharing the ball is the right strategy when you have guys like Dwayne Wade, LeBron James, Carmelo Anthony, Joe Johnson, Shane Battier, Bruce Bowen, Chris Paul, etc. I wouldn't want to have to try to score against athletes like that. It is important that the players are dedicated to playing good defense, on and off the ball, and let their defense fuel an unstoppable transition game. The USA team should be able to pressure the ball, get out in passing lanes, be in good position chasing shooters off screens, and challenge and block shots. It will come down to focus and dedication ... I guess we'll see if Coach K can instill those qualities in his team before the important games start. Looks promising so far.

Just play

2006-07-12T23:23:00.000-05:00

I thought about trying to come up with something eloquent about the greatness of sports in their purest form. However, I'm just going to be blunt. Marco Materazzi is an ass and should be suspended from international play for a long time. Yeah, I called him an ass. He can come head butt me in the chest if he deems it necessary. Sure, Zinedine Zidane probably shouldn't have head butted Materazzi in the chest and I'm not going to try too hard to defend him. I'm not sure exactly what he was thinking. Maybe he wasn't really thinking (would you consciously decide to head butt someone in the chest?). Maybe he thought he could get away with it. However, Materazzi is the worst kind of athlete. He's the kind of guy who will do whatever it takes to try to get under the skin of an opponent. That isn't what sports should be about!

What prevailed in the World Cup was the "if you can't beat 'em, get 'em to get red carded" philosophy. From Materazzi continually insulting Zidane and speaking bad about the females in his family to the Portugal players' antics in the game against England to get Wayne Rooney kicked out to all the diving and writhing and carrying on. It's ridiculous. At some point, you're just going to say "enough is enough!" I've been there. It's a natural human reaction to holding, grabbing, pinching, insults, etc.

Marco Materazzi isn't alone in this category. Reggie Evans grabbed at Chris Kaman's private area. Bruce Bowen has been accused of questionable antics in gaining his status as a star defender in the NBA. NBA players flop to draw offensive fouls and flail to draw fouls on defenders. David Eckstein, Craig Biggio and others lean into inside pitches to get free passes to first when they should be making an attempt to get out of the way of the ball. I'm sure there are football players who use questionable tactics to get under the skin of opponents, too, although none come to mind off the top of my head. One major difference is that there are players all over a soccer field, spread across a large area with limited officials. Thus, it's easy to get away with stuff and bait an opponent into retaliating ... and everyone knows that officials see the 2nd punch (or retaliating action) much more often than the 1st.

I'm sick of players acting like this. Usually, it's not the good players who do it because they don't have to. It isn't how sports should be and leagues need to start looking at the cause and effect, instead of just the effect. Fine, punish Zidane, but don't let Materazzi and people of his ilk skate unscathed.

All-Star Game Solution

2006-07-12T16:20:00.000-05:00

The Sporting News was onto something when they created a 25 man All-Star roster comprising starters at every position, utility bench players and a full bullpen - rather than just having four closers. While I disagree with some of their choices, I'm coupling their All-Star selection idea with a call for a longer All-Star break to allow players to more fully recuperate during the mid-season break.

What have I come up with? I'm glad you asked ... a 7-game series to decide home field advantage in the World Series. You may be thinking "you're going to make the All-Stars play 7 games?" No, that would be something Bud Selig would come up with. I'll give a couple different options. In option A, three All-Star teams are assembled (by an impartial panel created by MLB) for each league, an A, a B, and a C squad. The A squad has the best players at each position from a given league, along with the best bench players. The B squad has the 2nd tier and the C squad has the third tier. The relief pitchers would be selected similarly, with the top closer, set-up guy, two long relievers and a specialist from each side going with squad A, the 2nd best group going with squad B, and the 3rd best group going with squad C. Seven different starting pitchers would be selected, one for each game. The A squads will play the first 3 games, the B squads will play the next two, and the C squads will play the last two. If the AL squad wins 6 of the 7, then the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, and 7th World Series games would be in the AL park, with the NL hosting only one game, the 4th. Also, the winner of the majority of the games in the previous year's All-Star series gets to choose whether or not to have the DH used in the set the next year. Option B is similar, but the three All-Star teams would come from each of the divisions. So, there would be squads representing the AL West, Central and East and the NL West, Central and East. Under this scenario, you could either have the West always play West, Central always play Central, East always play East, rotate, or randomize it. Also, you could be systematic or random in assigning which coupling plays three games and which two only play two. I guess a third option would be to allow each of the leagues to compile the best teams ... but I shy away from that because I wouldn't want a league tanking some games to try to win others. So, for instance, the AL sending their third best team up against the NL's best so that they can send the best AL team up against the 2nd best NL team and the 2nd best AL team up against the 3rd best NL team.

How does this help the players? Currently, the break is 3 days, Monday - Wednesday. If you play in the All-Star game, you travel to the place, play on Tuesday, then travel back. Under my format of one game per day, even if you had to play the first three games, you'd get Thursday-Sunday off. If you played the middle two, you'd get Monday-Wednesday and Saturday-Sunday off. And, if you played the last two, you'd get Monday-Friday off ... that's an entire work week!

One of my concerns with the All-Star game format is that there is a lot at stake and it's not a real game situation. Brad Penny was throwing 97-99 mph last night. He never throws that hard in real games because he has to pace himself. So, the batters in the All-Star game are at a distinct disadvantage because they never get two AB's against the same guy and it's almost like facing an elite closer every inning. Sure, you get some pitchers like Kenny Rogers and Tom Glavine who don't benefit much from muscling up fastballs and trying to throw them past guys. But, what do you expect hitters to do against Halladay, Liriano, Santana, Papelbon, Jenks, Rivera, etc.? Plus, the batters in the All-Star game are used to getting 4 AB's a night, not one or two.

So, there you have it ... my solution to the All-Star game.

All-Star conspiracy?

All-Star conspiracy?

2006-07-12T14:48:00.000-05:00

The National League has not won any of the last ten Major League Baseball All-Star Games. It has lost nine times, and one abomination ended in a tie. The most recent loss came last night when Trevor Hoffman blew a 2-1 lead and a save after allowing a single and two extra-base hits.

A digression: the commentators touted Hoffman's great career record in save situations when he came in. He proceeded to blow the save. They proceeded to tout Mariano Rivera's similarly impressive career numbers when he appeared as a result. Don't they learn? Maybe save situations are different when they come against stacked line-ups.

Now back to the real point. The All-Star Game was recently (in baseball history terms) made meaningful when the commissioner's office decided that the winning league would have home field advantage in the World Series. Remember the "This time it counts" campaign? The American League has once again secured that privilege after Michael Young's two-out triple last night.

The thing that got me thinking is that the fans get to choose the starting line-ups (modulo injury, etc.) of the two sides. What if American League fans vastly outnumbered National League fans? Or what if they voted more often? Couldn't they vote for sub-optimal players on the NL side to increase the chances that the AL would win the World Series advantage?

I'm not suggesting that anything like this has ever happened. I'm just suggesting that maybe this policy isn't very good. One way to fix it would be to drop the home-field consequence. Another would be to take All-Star voting out of the hands of the fans. That's my vote, since they often collectively make such stupid decisions.

One counter-argument is that fans vote for who they want to see, even if those players aren't necessarily having the best seasons. But I don't think that's true. I think a lot of voters just don't pay that much attention to what they're doing. They vote for who they've heard of, or who they think is good based on past seasons.

So long as the outcome of the game affects the World Series, the leagues should decide their own players. They would control their own destinies. If things are going right, then this should result in pretty much the same outcome as fan voting. But it would steal a little ammo from the conspiracy theorists.

Straight from the couch

2006-07-10T16:21:00.000-05:00

Today on ESPN's Around the Horn, the first topic was "Zidane to blame for loss?" I'll rundown this topic, and the rest of the topics on the show for anyone who doesn't watch because they can't stand Jay Mariotti (I'm with you). You can't pin the loss on Zidane. Henry and Ribery were already out of the game. Henry is incredible with the ball and losing him was a big blow. France didn't have a lot of people who could create goals, and he, along with Zidane, were obviously the two best. Then, once Zidane was red carded and France was a man down, it would have been a major upset for them to score and win before PK's. However, France's only goal was on a PK by Zidane very early in the game anyway. The only two goals Italy allowed in the entire tournament were an own goal vs. USA and the PK by Zidane (on an awful foul call, but one that was made up for by a no call on an actual foul in the box in the 2nd half ... apparently, two wrongs do make a right). So, what I'm getting at is that even with Zidane for the duration of OT, playing 11 vs. 11, the chances of France getting another goal were slim ... especially with Henry already being subbed out.

Second, although Jay Mariotti seems to think not having Zidane for PK's was an enormous blow to the French side, I disagree. Sure, Zidane probably would have taken the 1st kick for the French side. You can even assume that he nails it. However, don't you think the guy France sent up 2nd would have gone 3rd? Fabien Barthez didn't come close to stopping any of the Italy attempts. The Italy keeper didn't prevent any French kicks from going in either ... he just got lucky that one hit the cross bar and bounced out. If Zidane would have been allowed to kick all the PK's for France, or if Italy had missed one and the last French person missed, you could peg Zidane for a lot of the blame. But, given the rules, Zidane and four (at least) other French players needed to make kicks, and that probably wouldn't have happened.

One last thing, rumors are that the Italian defender who received the head butt both gave Zidane a titty-twister and called him a terrorist. The titty-twister story comes from Woody Paige, so I'm not sure if it's true, although the defender did have ahold of Zidane on the play and had ample opportunity. Remember when Chris Kaman had his private parts attacked by Reggie Evans? Kaman didn't just let it go, and I doubt Evans yelled something racist at Kaman. Kaman shoved Evans and probably would have been red carded in a soccer match. I don't know if Zidane was called a terrorist or if he wasn't, but FIFA, given all their posturing about anti-racism before the World Cup, should definitely be investigating this matter. If I recall correctly, racism by players was supposed to result in forfeiting the match, which would mean that France would be World Cup Champions. I hope this issue isn't swept under the rug ... I just find it hard to believe that a seasoned vet like Zidane would lose his cool without a fair amount of provocation.

Topic number two is baseball at the MLB break ... and Michael Smith is calling the Yankees the most impressive team so far. Unfortunately, he failed to recognize Mike Mussina and Randy Johnson as the 1-2 punch at the top of the NYY rotation, instead given us Wang as the number 2 guy. Woody Paige just called Justin Verlander "Veelander." I'm not sure what the point of this topic is. It's easy to pick the Tigers and not look at other teams. What about the Mets? Who thought Tom Glavine would pitch at an elite level or that Wright, Beltran and Reyes would be this good? The San Diego Padres are leading the West. I don't like the selection of the Yankees because they are loaded, even with the injuries they've had. Sure, they lost Hideki Matsui and Gary Sheffield, but they still run Damon, Jeter, Rodriguez, Giambi, Posada out there every day. Randy Johnson hasn't thrown real well, but he's been out there. Mussina has been healthy. They've had some unfortunate injuries, but they're only two games up on the Blue Jays, who have been without A.J. Burnett most of the year.

The third topic is LeBron and whether or not he'll win a title in Cleveland. Mariotti's argument was that no Cleveland team has won anything lately. Nice, Jay. LBJ is the most talented player in the NBA and may already be the league's best player. The two teams that were ahead of them in the Eastern Conference, when it was all said and done, were the Pistons and Heat. The Pistons lost a key cog in Ben Wallace. The Pistons have good offensive talent, they don't need another go-to offensive player, so the loss of Wallace's energy at the defensive end and on the boards will result in the Cavs jumping over them. The Heat might have a vastly different roster next season and Shaq is getting old. Dwayne Wade is a very good player, but I'd take King James given the choice between the two. The Nets and Bulls will be in the mix, the Bucks are an improving team, and the Raptors seem like they are turning things around, but it's hard to argue against LeBron and the Cavs having a shot at getting to, and winning, the NBA Finals in the near future.

Moving on, we wind up talking about golf and who the better pick is to win the British Open, Tiger or Phil. Paige picked neither, which doesn't even make sense given the question. It's the British Open, I'll side with Adande and Jay (reluctantly) and take Tiger as the better pick to win it.

Federer and Nadal is the next topic and whether or not it is a legit rivalry. If I have my numbers right, Nadal is 5-0 against Federer on clay, they are 1-1 on hard court, and Federer won yesterday on grass, in their first meeting on that surface. Nadal is vastly improving on grass and isn't just a one surface pony. I don't like his capris or calling for a towel every other point, but it's definitely a rivalry at this point because both of them are competitive on pretty much every surface, although neither has broken through on the other's best surface. They met in the finals of the last two majors, with each of them winning. If that isn't a rivalry, then I don't know what is. OU v. Texas football was still a rivalry even though OU won 5 in a row.

Should Danica Patrick jump to NASCAR? I'm with Michael Smith ... definitely! I don't know if Patrick is, or isn't, a good driver. I don't know what the difference is between driving Indy and Stock cars, but she should at least take a shot if it's a better job. She hasn't won any IRL races, she might as well give the more popular circuit a shot.

I'm skipping the Showdown topics because they were lacking ... Who was the 19-inning game the toughest on? Like today's episode, my post is going out with a wimper, not a bang. Oh well, maybe tomorrow will bring us at least one of the Dallas writers and no Mariotti.

Anticlimax at the World Cup

2006-07-09T16:22:00.000-05:00

In case you haven't heard, Italy has beaten France 5-3 on penalty kicks to win the World Cup, after playing to a 1-1 tie. Both goals were scored in the first twenty minutes, and the last hundred were riddled with sloppy play.

It's one thing to make your way through the tournament on shootout penalty kicks, though neither of these teams had to. But can we all agree that this is just not the right way to decide the final?

Zinedine Zidane stole the show with his overtime head butt square in the chest of Marco Materazzi, sending him to the turf on his rear. The French captain was subsequently awarded with a red card.

I can't even begin to explain this event. I suspect it is the result of much that we will never know, and so I find the many immediate reactions wanting in depth. It may have been a "vicious" play, but why a head to the chest? I await even an inkling of explanation.

Jason Varitek ... All-Star? Really? No.

2006-07-07T22:13:00.000-05:00

I don't know what it's like to be voted into the All-Star game as a starter by the fans. So, perhaps it is unrealistic for me to think Jason Varitek should skip out on the game because of his lack of production this year. But, given that Varitek is hitting .244 (last among AL C's who qualify on the stats at espn.com) and is only ahead of two AL C's (Toby Hall and Jose Molina) with more than 100 AB's. The AL is loaded at the catcher position, with the list headed by Twins catcher Joe Mauer (who has a .391 batting average and more RBI's and runs than Varitek), A.J. Pierzynski (.326), Victor Martinez (.307, 11 HR's, 56 RBI's), Ivan Rodriguez (.306), and Ramon Hernandez (.274, 15, 59) who leads AL catchers in HR and RBI's. Throw in Kenji Johjima (.294, 10, 41) and Jorge Posada (.292, 11, 45) and you realize that the only "qualified" AL catcher who has been worse offensively this year than Varitek is Oakland Athletic Jason Kendall. Not only does Varitek not deserve to start the All-Star game, he doesn't deserve to represent the AL.

I've said for years that fans voting for the starters is a horrible idea. The problem isn't really that the fans get to decide the players that start. The problem is that the players they vote in automatically make the team. Go ahead, let the fans pick the starters, but make them come from the players who deserve to make the squad. If you lead the fan voting, you will start as long as you are selected for the team based on merit. This year, Jason Varitek wouldn't qualify, so the next person in line in fan voting at catcher would get the start. That is a way to keep the fans involved but keep them from making idiot decisions that keep deserving players (Francisco Liriano) off the squad. Liriano was outdone for the final spot on the AL team by the "punch A.J." campaign that resulted in a seventh White Sox player making the trip to Pittsburgh. A.J. is deserving, but Liriano has been almost untouchable on his way to a 9-1 record with a 1.99 ERA. The problem is that A.J. shouldn't have been on the last chance ballot (there shouldn't be a last chance ballot, but that's another argument entirely) because he should have had Varitek's spot on the roster!

The managers in the game can control how much everyone plays. The best players should get the most time in the game, not the players the fans vote for as the starters. Is it fair to Joe Mauer that he plays for the Twins? How many Twins games have been televised on ESPN this year? This isn't a major shot at ESPN, they show games that get good ratings. However, MLB needs to recognize what is happening and realize that there are enough stars who are having really good seasons (Pujols, Thome, Ortiz, Ichiro, Berkman, Konerko, A-Rod, Manny, Dunn) that you don't need all the "fan favorites," whatever that means. Add in Vernon Wells, Troy Glaus, Jose Reyes, Edgar Renteria, Scott Rolen, David Wright, Miguel Cabrera, etc. ... you don't need Jason Varitek when you can play Mauer, Pierzynski, Rodriguez, Hernandez, etc. Plus, there are guys like Gary Matthews Jr. who are having career years and should have a chance to play in the game ... it might be their only shot at a spot in the mid-summer classic.

And, while I'm on the subject of the All-Star game, baseball needs to implement a couple changes so they can make sure everyone gets to play, especially the position players. The biggest change is that players can re-enter the game after being removed, although you would have to sit out at least 3 innings before you were eligible to be re-inserted. Given free reign, managers could, hypothetically, send the same batter up every AB. If he gets on base, you pinch run for him with someone and then substitute him for the next batter. If he gets out, just sub him out and sub him back in. I would also allow pitchers to re-enter the game, which might prevent scenarios like Mike Mussina not pitching in the All-Star game at Camden Yards when he was the only Orioles representative. That was almost as bad a situation as Bud Selig calling the game a tie ... there's no tieing in baseball!

Slash this talk

2006-07-06T23:06:00.000-05:00

An article in this week's Sporting News addresses the trend in the NFL of drafting college QB's and having them play different positions in the NFL. I have not finished the entire article, so it may get better. However, I'm in disagreement with the author on the tone of the piece. The reason teams are looking at players like Reggie McNeal (Texas A&M) at positions other than QB is the same reason Texas A&M pegged him as their stud QB ... McNeal is a freak! He's an incredible athlete and you want to get the ball in his hands. That's why Matt Jones (U of Arkansas and Jacksonville Jaguars) was a QB in college. That's why Antwaan Randle El (Indiana, Pittsburgh, Washington) was a college QB. Brad Smith, Seneca Wallace, Woody Dantzler, etc.

There have been really good athletes who were also really good QB's ... I'll throw Steve Young out as an example. Perhaps, Michael Vick might be able to develop into a really good QB, although I don't think he's there yet. Does Daunte Culpepper qualify? I think Donovan McNabb would qualify if he kept himself in shape because he played basketball at Syracuse. So, the NFL has a place for athletes at the QB position. But, being a terrific athlete is less of an advantage in the NFL than it is in college. The emphasis is on being able to handle the demands of quarterbacking in the NFL ... making good reads and getting the ball into the hands of the playmakers.

College coaches have figured out that top notch athletes are very valuable at QB because they pose a dual threat. The defenders aren't as good, overall, as the guys who play on Sundays. Does anyone remember how amazing Michael Vick was playing against college defenses? Vince Young torched the USC Trojans in the national championship game in January. Does anyone think he'll be doing the same thing for Tennessee next season? College coaches are putting the ball in the hands of their best athletes if they can play QB, rather than putting their best athletes at RB and WR and having a traditional QB. So, Reggie McNeal and Matt Jones played QB in college, despite their shortcomings as QB's. They could have played WR, too, but they probably wouldn't have had the same impact on their teams.

The NFL people are just doing the same thing college coaches have been doing for years ... they are taking great athletes playing QB on one level and transitioning them to different slots at the next level. It's possible that they'll catch on to the current college trend of having great athletes at QB and they'll find ways to take advantage of athleticism within the context of the pro game. The result would be more players in the mold of Michael Vick. The players who can't play QB at the next level don't ... just as a lot of HS QB's move to different positions at college. But, as the game evolves, it seems that there are more opportunities for athletes to succeed at the QB position.

The point is that teams aren't going after athletes who were college QB's because of the success of Randle El. The Seahawks had Seneca Wallace on the team last year. Woody Dantzler was drafted by the Cowboys previously. Matt Jones was on the Jags last year. Kordell Stewart was a "slash." The NFL teams are looking to get the best athletes. The trend in college to put athletes at QB results in tremendous athletes having to transition to new positions at the NFL level. Teams aren't going to draft a college QB who isn't a great athlete just so they can run "gadget" (or trick) plays with him lined up as a WR!

Paul Thompson started last season as the starting QB for the University of Oklahoma. However, after being replaced by redshirt freshman Rhett Bomar, Thompson began playing WR. If you can't cut it at QB but have tools to be used someplace else, or are worth more to your team at a different position, you'll find yourself on the field someplace other than under center. Thompson was still the backup QB, but it was a waste of talent having him on the bench waiting for Bomar to stumble up or get injured.

Hey FIFA!

2006-07-05T23:41:00.000-05:00

I am neither a soccer fan nor a soccer aficionado. I have not played in an organized soccer league since elementary school. However, I have some ideas for FIFA. Stick with me. At times, it is hard to see the forest through the trees, so an outside perspective can shed some light on how things could be, rather than how they have always been. An example is beanballs in baseball. Sure, an eye for an eye is how things have been done in the past and is considered "old school," but it's also barbaric and dangerous. Throw inside to get people out. Don't throw up and in with fastballs. If you get hit ... take your base and take it like a man. If you think the pitcher is throwing at you on purpose, charge the mound. Go one-on-one, but only as a last resort.

Now, getting back to soccer:

1. Watching the Italy v. Germany game, I was not really rooting for one side or the other, I just wanted one side to score. Heck, if both teams scored, that would be fine too. I just did not want the game to be decided in penalty kicks after 120 minutes of scoreless "action." If a team wants to win a game, they should have to score a real goal, not win a PK shootout. You shouldn't be able to piss away two hours. You play to win the game ... that should involve trying to score while simultaneously trying to keep the other team from scoring. This would be similar to the rule that the 5th set of a tennis match (in majors) will not be decided by a tie break. If you are up 2 sets to 1 and the 4th set is tied 6-6, you have a chance to finish out the match with a tiebreak. But, if it's 2-2 (sets), 6-6 (games), you just have to keep playing. A doubles match at Wimbledon on Wednesday went all the way to 23-21 in the 5th set, a 5th set that lasted over 3 hours.

2. Stop the whining. The first rule change would allow delay of game warnings to be given to players who pick up the ball when possession belongs to the other team. If you want to grab the ball and toss it to the other team to get play going more quickly, fine. But, don't stall in order to try to prevent the other team from taking advantage of their free kick or throw-in. The first time you do something out-of-line, you'll get a warning. Subsequent schenanigans will result in yellow cards and/or red cards if you keep going. If you are looking for a similar thing in a mainstream American sport, think delay of game in basketball. If you grab the ball out of the net or step over the line when a team is trying to inbound the ball, you get a warning. The second time, you get a technical foul.

3. If you get fouled in the box, you take the penalty kick! Henry (France) got fouled (questionably) by a Portugal player today. The result was a penalty kick for France. Zidane took the penalty kick. Why doesn't the fouled player have to take the PK? The Heat don't get to let Wade shoot FT's for Shaq. Hockey players who are fouled have to take the penalty shot themselves. My change would make it like any other sport ... if you are fouled, you take the shot! How does this not make sense?

4. I don't mind penalty kicks being awarded for fouls in the box. However, I don't think all fouls in the box should be treated as equal. If there is a lot of congestion and the offensive player is fouled (marginally), should he get a PK? What about a player who is taken down from behind just outside of the box with no one in front of him? Shouldn't he get a PK? What I'm getting at is that calls like in the Italy v. Australia game and in the France v. Portugal game shouldn't decide the games. My remedy ... three levels of fouls in the box. For incidental contact that leads to the defense gaining an advantage, give a yellow card for a foul. For plays like in the Italy v. Australia and France v. Portugal that led to PK's, give red cards ... but the player who is removed from the game isn't suspended for the next game. He is just lost for that game. For unquestionable calls that obviously give the defense an advantage, give them a penalty kick. American sports similarity would be fouls in hockey, some lead to penalty shots while some just result in a player getting a couple minutes in the "sin bin."

5. Don't reward the whining, writhing, complaining, acting, flopping, etc. Give more yellow cards for trying to deceive officials and definitely do not reward the acting and caring on. Reward the players who play until there is a whistle, not the ones who roll around on the ground faking injuries until the official recognizes them. The officials need to lead the charge and FIFA needs to direct the officials to take this stance. How many legitimate injuries have there been in this year's World Cup? Not that many. How many times have players rolled around on the ground like their legs have been broken, only to be on their feet running a minute later? It's ridiculous. It's stupid. It's spilling over into the NBA. Have some integrity and pride. Don't cheat your way to victories, beat the other team straight up. If you can't, go home and practice and beat them next time!

Bulls? Pistons? It's a no-brainer!

2006-07-04T09:43:00.000-05:00

Ben Wallace is going to leave the title-contending Detroit Pistons to add defense and rebounding to the youthful Chicago Bulls. In Detroit, Wallace was a great defender and rebounder surrounded by four solid offensive players: Chauncey Billups, Richard Hamilton, Tayshaun Prince, and Rasheed Wallace. All four of those guys can shoot the ball from 3-pt range. Hamilton is a great shooter off screens. Billups, Prince, and Wallace can all take advantage of mismatches in the post. Antonio McDyess is a solid offensive threat off the bench. Ben Wallace can not shoot. He can't shoot jumpers, turnarounds, FT's, 3's; you name it, Wallace will brick it. He isn't a good post-up player. He's not a formidable offensive option. That is perfect when you are surrounded by offensive weapons.

If Wallace is moving to the Bulls to play the same role he held with the Pistons, then take the extra money and move to the "Windy City." However, rumors are swirling that Wallace wants to be a bigger part of the offense. If that is why he is leaving, good luck. The Bulls might not have a go to low post scorer. But, that doesn't mean they should look for Wallace to fill that role. If they wanted someone to fill that void, they should have drafted LaMarcus Aldridge and kept him, rather than dealing him for Tyrus Thomas. The Bulls should take a step up this coming year with the development of their young players and the addition of Wallace ... assuming Scott Skiles hasn't sold his soul to get the 'fro into Chicago. Wallace should defend, rebound, and pick up easy baskets off dribble penetration, transition, and offensive boards. If Wallace thinks he's Shaq, he really has lost his mind.

Wishing for un-"flop"-able officials

2006-07-01T14:00:00.000-05:00

If there's a theme to this blog, it's that the fairness of sports is threatened by human intervention. Officiating of all sorts has the potential to intervene in the natural flow of play and taint the outcome. But officials are not the only ones. Sometimes, especially in baseball, the fans change the game. And sometimes, it's the players themselves.

We haven't talked about the World Cup here on There's a Catch. But we've been watching it. In this morning's (in the United States) match between England and Portugal, England's young striker Wayne Rooney was sent off in the sixty-second minute after stepping on the groin of a Portuguese player who had fallen to the ground next to him. After the game, the ABC analysts (Alexi Lalas, Julie Foudy, and Eric Wynalda), debated the red card that left England short a player for the last hour of the game.

Regardless of why the referee fished the red card from his pocket, I think there can be no doubt that Rooney deserved the fate he suffered. He made an idiotic play, and it simply cannot be acceptable to attack another player's person. English fans may blame the ref for their beloved team's exit from the World Cup, but only by allowing themselves to be deluded by passion.

Soccer has another kind of player manipulation, though, which it shares with basketball. "Flopping" seems the most popular name for it, though "acting" might be better. Basketball suffers from poor enforcement of the rules about offensive fouls, or "charging". Players have come to believe, probably not in error, that the only way to "draw a charge" is to firmly plant their feet and fall on their backsides.

(Another, more insidious, form of flopping sometimes occurs. In the 2005 NBA playoffs, Paul Pierce shoved Jamaal Tinsley after Tinsley had slapped him upside the head a couple times. Tinsley hit the floor without any effort to break his fall with a backwards step—a practice no doubt perfected through years of "drawing charges"—and Pierce was hit with a second technical foul as a result. You may remember this play because of the bizarre rule that was then invoked to replace Pierce for his free throws. Justice in this case would probably have seen Tinsley removed from the league for an unforgivable lack of sportsmanship, but alas!)

Soccer has created a similar problem. Players seem to think they won't get the calls they think they deserve without exaggerating their injuries—falling to the ground, rolling around, writhing, etc. The referee isn't always fooled—yesterday, for example, one gave a yellow card to an Argentine player who tried to draw a foul in the penalty box late against Germany. But often he is deceived into either inventing a foul or increasing its severity.

In France's recent victory over Spain, Thierry Henry manufactured a foul late in the second half. This led to a free kick that Zinedine Zidane punched into the box, leading to a goal that put his side up 2-1 and won them their date with Brazil. The Cup as a whole is no doubt riddled with such injustices.

Forget about it in the morning

2006-06-29T09:39:00.001-05:00

The NBA draft happened last night and the best thing for fans to do is skip all the grade reports that will, inevitably, come out praising the Chicago Bulls for obtaining Tyrus Thomas, Viktor Khryapa (who the Blazers were extremely high on just a couple years ago), and Thabo Sefolosha and bashing the NY Knicks for reaching for Renaldo Balkman at #20 and adding Mardy Collins to an already crowded backcourt at #29. I know, there is a demand for analysis now, but how many people thought Dwayne Wade was going to blossom into a mega-star while Carmelo Anthony has levelled out a bit just below all-star level? However, I don't want to read any reviews 3, 5, or 10 years down the road either. It is all just speculation. Sure, you can point to statistics compiled over the years, but would Wade have flourished in Detroit (who took Darko), Denver (Carmelo) or Toronto (Bosh)? The most important thing for teams to do is to try to find guys who fit with their team and have a chance to contribute when they need them. In that regard, I think the Knicks may have made a good move taking Balkman because he is a high-energy, athletic wing who will defend ... everyone knows a team with Stephon Marbury, Steve Francis, Jamal Crawford, and Jalen Rose does not need anyone to handle the ball (Marcus Williams was still available) and needs someone to play defense. Sure, you can look back and analyze how well picks worked (or didn't work), but speculation on what would have happened if the Rockets had grabbed J.J. Redick at #8 or the Bobcats had taken Gay at #3 is just that, speculation. Therefore, don't hold your breath for a post-draft analysis on There's a Catch, at least not one that addresses specific players and/or teams.

Two Left Heels?

2006-06-26T21:13:00.000-05:00

University of North Carolina 2nd baseman Ryan Steed committed a throwing error in a 2-2 game with two outs in the bottom of the 8th against the Oregon State Beavers. The throwing error allowed the go ahead run to score. While Steed made a poor throw, he isn't totally at fault. It looked like a routine play and it should have been, so the UNC first baseman treated it as such. The first baseman was playing deep and took his time getting to the bag, expecting a throw right to him. Unfortunately for the Tar Heels, the throw wasn't perfect. It wasn't awful either. It was on the OF side of the bag, so the first baseman had to reach against his motion to try to catch the ball ... and it didn't work well. If the first baseman had hustled to the bag and set up and then stretched in the correct direction for the ball, he would have made the catch, prevented the unearned run, and saved his 2nd baseman. Too bad he lollygagged and combined with his teammate to give the Beavers the national championship.

What happened?

2006-06-23T00:02:00.000-05:00

The NBA Finals ended two nights ago. I got to work yesterday and my brother informed me that he was surprised I hadn't posted anything about game 6. Even now, a couple days removed, I don't have anything major to say. However, I have a number of issues to address so I'll get started.

1. The NBA and the Mavericks were both right about Jerry Stackhouse. He had to be suspended because Udonis Haslem got a game for throwing his mouthpiece in the area of the feet of a ref, James Posey got a game for running over a Bull (I think Kirk Hinrich), Raja Bell got a game for taking Kobe Bryant down by grabbing him around the upper torso, etc. So, precedent determined that Stackhouse should be suspended, his foul on Shaquille O'neal was flagrant and excessive and he didn't make a play on the ball. However, personally, I don't think any of those acts warrants a suspension, so that is where the Mavericks were right and David Stern dropped the ball.

2. The officials need to figure out what they are going to call and make it consistent. During the finals, the refs decided to call 3-seconds in the key. This call affected the Heat because Shaq was the dominant low-post player in the series. I think Alonzo Mourning may have been whistled for the infraction as well. However, I don't remember any carrying calls. My problem is this: certain rules affect different players and different teams more than others. If Shaq is allowed to camp under the basket, he's almost unstoppable. If you allow Josh Howard to palm the ball, he becomes much more effective. Thus, you need to enforce all the rules similarly, if you are going to call 3-in-the-key, you need to call travelling, palming, etc. The refs seem to have pet calls that they like to focus on and it's stupid.

3. The Heat were really good when they didn't turn the ball over. The problem they had was that they went through stretches where they didn't value possessions. Gary Payton was too busy yapping at an official yesterday to pay attention to where the ball was. He didn't have a clue that the ball was being passed to him ... it hit him ... he was surprised ... the Mavs got the ball. The entire series, it seemed like when the Heat buckled down and played hard, they were the better team. When the Heat lost interest or weren't focused, the Mavs were able to take advantage.

4. My recently retired high school basketball coach had, among his many pet phrases, "KYP! Know your personnel!" Late in game 6, Dirk Nowitzki used a screen by Erick Dampier, then tried to feed Dampier as he was rolling to the basket. The problem was, Dampier wasn't in a position he was comfortable receiving the ball. I'm not going to criticize Dirk too much, but he has to know that the risk-reward ratio of giving the ball to Dampier in that position isn't very favorable. Dampier couldn't handle the pass and the result was a costly turnover. That was an obvious KYP. However, you also have to know your opponents. Does anyone remember when Wade was whistled for a foul because he ran into Devin Harris while Jason Terry was knocking down a three from the corner? Personally, I thought the foul call was atrocious - it should have either been a no-call or a blocking foul on Harris, you can't expect Wade to stop, or change directions, on a dime when someone jumps out in front of him (especially considering Wade wouldn't have been able to challenge Terry's shot). But, the reason Terry was open in the corner was because three Miami Heat defenders, including Wade, flocked to DeSagana Diop (or is it DeSagna Diop ... it's about half and half when I googled it) when he received the ball about 12 feet from the basket. If Dirk got the ball in that position, for all means, come running and get the ball out of his hands. Diop? Let him shoot. Let him put the ball on the floor and cut him off if he drives. Don't come running from the other side of the court and leave Jason Terry wide open for a three-pointer!

5. Congratulations Gary Payton and Alonzo Mourning! Congratulations Michael Doleac! I heard Charles Barkley say he was happy for some of the Heat who won their first championship late in their careers. Good for them. I won a lot of games in high school, including two state championships. But, as fun as winning those titles was, they weren't the crowning achievements of my HS career. Why? I was a role player as a freshman and sophomore on really good teams. My junior year, we beat the defending state champions from the state of Washington and my senior year we made it to the semi-finals at state, beating the number 2 seed in the quarterfinals. Payton may be able to claim he's an NBA Champion, but this one won't be as sweet as it would have been if his Seattle Supersonics had beaten MJ and the Bulls. Mourning was a fantastic player earlier in his career. But, it's not the same as a back-up center as it would have been if he'd been able to win a championship as the centerpiece of a team earlier in his career. At least these players helped the Heat win their first title. It's better that way than jumping to a power (like Payton and Karl Malone did when they went to the Lakers) and piggy-backing their way to a title ... that's why I hate the Yankees. Sports shouldn't be based on "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." The correct way to look at it is "if you want to be the best, you have to beat the best."

6. I'll finish this off by giving the Heat one piece of advice before next year: dump Antoine Walker. Walker doesn't fit with the Heat. Walker isn't a good defender. Wade should be, but isn't really. Shaq isn't a dominant defender at this stage in his career. Jason Williams isn't a good defender either. Posey and Haslem played terrific defense against the Mavs and both those guys need to be on the floor. Walker doesn't have the make-up to be a role player and that is all he should be on the Heat. He shoots too many 3's, doesn't finish well at the rim, and throws up way too many crappy shots looking for fouls. He's not athletic and you don't need a "point-forward" to monopolize the ball when you have Williams (why else is Williams on the floor if it isn't to be a playmaker?) and Wade on the perimeter and Shaq in the post creating a lot of the offense by making plays for himself and others. Posey shoots the open three very well and the Heat need another wing player who can knock down the three consistently and play solid defense. That man is not Antoine Walker.

Just a bit outside

2006-06-22T21:36:00.000-05:00

Miguel Cabrera just hit an intentional ball into center field to plate the go-ahead run against the Orioles in the top of the tenth inning. Todd Williams was trying to issue Cabrera an IBB with a runner on second and first base open. To his dismay, he lobbed his first pitch a little too close to the plate. Cabrera calmly reached out from his stance and slapped it over second base. Something tells me Williams will be a little more careful next time. But for now, I suspect, he's the most embarrassed player in the league. This is the funniest baseball play I've seen in a long time.

Read more at ESPN.

Defending Phil (kind of)

2006-06-19T08:11:00.000-05:00

Phil Mickelson made a major mistake on the 18th hole of the U.S. Open, costing him a chance at the "Mickelslam" when the British Open rolls around. But, his major mistake was hitting driver off the tee box, not trying to run a low cut up on the green after his tee shot went WAY1 left. How many birdies were there on 18 yesterday? There were 20 birdies over the four days and I think only 2 yesterday. There were 227 pars, 160 bogeys, 24 double bogeys, and 6 other (meaning triple bogey or worse, because there weren't any aces (double eagles) or eagles).

What I'm getting at is that if Mickelson had gone the "safe route" and pitched out into the fairway, chances are that he would have made bogey and been tied with Geoff Ogilvy. Why? Essentially, hitting a tee shot into the trees/gallery/deep rough and then knocking the ball back to the fairway does in two shots what should be done in one shot (assuming the one shot is a solid drive). Of everyone who played 18 during the week, of all the people who hit the ball in the fairway2, at most 20 made birdie. So, the chances of making par hitting your third from the fairway after taking the "safe" way out would have, in all likelihood, doomed Phil to, at best, a playoff. Or, he could have pulled a Monty (see 2 below) and lost it outright bailing out too.

So, Mickelson's best chance at winning on Sunday was to play the shot he played on his 2nd, given the horrible drive. I find it hard to believe that Mickelson is too arrogant or stupid to try a shot that wasn't reasonable. I think he just didn't execute correctly (Shaq doesn't shoot 2-12 from the FT line because free throws are difficult or because he can't make the shot, when he misses, it's a failure to execute properly), just like he didn't execute his drive properly. The interesting thing is that the commentators had remarked previously that Mickelson usually comes through in tight situations. The rationale given is that when he has a narrow target he focuses better and is able to execute the shot just like he is planning. It didn't work out for him on 18 on Sunday, but I'm pretty sure he played a similar type of shot just a few holes earlier and pulled off the low cut around the trees. I think he ended up running that ball up onto the front of the green. If he had obtained a similar result on 18, he probably would have ended up in about the same position as Ogilvy had for his third, after Ogilvy's shot rolled off the false front. Ogilvy made par, allowing him to escape Winged Foot with a 5-over for the tournament. Given Phil's short game, he probably would have ended up doing the same (making 4, that is) and he would have ended up 1 shot ahead of Ogilvy at 4-over. He'd be the U.S. Open Champion.

Comparisons to Frenchman Jean Van de Velde will be made, but that isn't really fair. The average score on 18 for the week was 4.5. Mickelson needed a four to win the tournament. Van de Velde needed a 6 on a par 4 to win the British Open. He ended up carding a 7 and ending up in a 3-way tie and didn't win that playoff. If a 5 would have won the tournament for Mickelson, I doubt he would have used driver and I'm pretty sure he wouldn't have gone for the green in two given his predicament off the tee. But, he wasn't allowed the luxury. Van de Velde had a meltdown. Mickelson didn't execute well, but what do I care, I wasn't pulling for him3 anyway.

1 Was anyone else disgusted that Mickelson had a chance to go for the green after hitting his tee shot off the tent left of the gallery (for reference, the gallery was left of the rough that was left of the fairway on 18)? What do you have to do to hit the ball out-of-bounds at the U.S. Open? At best, hitting a ball that far off-center, Mickelson should have had a lie that made it difficult to get the ball back out to the fairway, he shouldn't have even had the opportunity to go for the green in two. At some point, a shot needs to be bad enough to warrant a penalty. Structures, like the one Mickelson hit, should be far enough away from the fairway that they rarely come into play, and when they do, they should be treated under a special provision: if you hit the tent that is so far to the left that even a 30 handicapper would rarely venture into that territory, you just have to rehit your tee shot and you're hitting 3 (so, it would be like hitting it in the water, or out-of-bounds ... go figure!).

2 Colin Montgomerie hit his tee shot on 18 on Sunday into a great position on the right side of the fairway. However, he came up short and right with his 2nd shot and ended up making a double bogey 6 on the hole.

3 The biggest problem I have with Mickelson is having to look at him when I watch golf. The man has breasts! This isn't the LPGA! As Ozzie Guillen said (I'm paraphrasing because I don't have the quote - in which I believe he was speaking, to some extent at least, about closer Bobby Jenks) "If you're heavy and good, you're strong, but if you're heavy and bad, you're fat." Mickelson is given a pass on his conditioning because he has a lot of skill. I don't know Mickelson, he may actually be in relatively good shape. But, it's hard to imagine that being in better shape would hurt his golf game. Is it too much to ask professional athletes to at least pretend to be in shape?

Keep the balls out of the galleries

2006-06-16T12:36:00.000-05:00

We're well into the second round of the U.S. Open at Winged Foot and Phil Mickelson just pulled his opening tee shot way to the right. Well, actually, he just hit his second shot and recently pulled his tee shot and is not taking his shot for birdie. Anyway, as has been well-documented, the rough at Winged Foot has been grown to 5-8 inches to penalize errant shots. Mickelson's ball wasn't in the fairway or the 1st (intermediate) cut that is 6 feet wide on either side of the fairway. It wasn't in the next 20 feet of the 1st cut of primary rough, which is a meager 3.5 inches. It should have been in the deep stuff and he should have been hacking at it with his only goal being to get it back in the short grass. However, because his shot was so far away from the fairway, it landed in grass that had been trampled by the gallery. The result: Mickelson had a clean lie from about 150 yards and was able to knock the ball up within a few feet of the front of the green. The idea behind the graduated rough system was to have an increasingly bad penalty for an increasingly bad shot.

I'm not taking a shot at Mickelson, he just happened to be the person I saw benefit from this system. Mickelson just pulled his 2nd tee shot to the right, not as bad as on #1. However, he didn't get it to the gallery, so he's in the deep stuff. Ok, let's get back on topic. There are also grand stands behind the greens on some of the holes. Tiger Woods hit a ball into them yesterday. He had to play his next shot from a designated drop area just in front of them. The USGA should have drop areas for wayward tee shots that end up in the galleries. The players should have to drop their balls into the deep rough, rather than benefit by being able to play off areas of trampled grass. I can't be the first person to think of this.

One alternative would be to get rid of galleries altogether, but I doubt that is going to happen. All the tv viewers would be upset too, we wouldn't get to hear people yell "Get in the hole" on tee shots. What would we do without such brilliant commentary ... oh wait, we get similar stuff from the "professionals."

Suspend Ozzie

2006-06-15T12:09:00.000-05:00

Ozzie Guillen was out of line for yelling at rookie pitcher Sean Tracey after Tracey failed to hit Hank Blalock in retaliation for A.J. Pierzynski being hit twice earlier in the game. Why should Tracey get ejected and take a suspension for hitting Blalock? The White Sox were down 6-0, en route to an 8-0 loss. Guillen is full of shit when he claims he didn't want Tracey in the game to face Blalock. Obviously, he wanted the rookie to hit Blalock. You don't worry about situations when you are down 6-0 late in the game. When you are getting your butt handed to you, you take your lumps, use your second-tier relievers and try to get through the game. If Guillen didn't want the rookie in that situation, and it was his fault for having him out there to face Blalock, he would have congratulated him after he got Blalock out. He definitely wouldn't have berated him in the dugout after he removed him from the game, or demoted him after the game. Usually, getting players out is a good thing!

If Guillen is going to punish guys for not following stupid directions, the White Sox players will either get fed up with Guillen very quickly and/or do what they are told. Baseball needs to take a hard look at this. The next time a White Sox pitcher retaliates, it's hard to blame them. I wouldn't want to be demoted. So, the pitcher should be held accountable, but Guillen should be seen as the ringleader. Thus, the hammer should be dropped on him by the commish's office. Suspend Guillen, let him know that this sort of behavior will not be tolerated. It's possible that Padilla just happened to hit Pierzynski twice on accident. Do the White Sox need to be retaliating? If it was a close game, would Ozzie have wanted Tracey to throw at Blalock? It's akin to a hockey team throwing their goons out on the ice in the 3rd period of a lopsided loss to try to inflict damage on the other team. Is anyone in support of that?

The Wright kind of deceit

2006-06-14T21:58:00.000-05:00

The announcers on the ESPN broadcast of the Mets v. Phillies game were applauding Mets 3B David Wright by trying to trick Aaron Rowand into slowing down before he got to 3rd base after tagging at 2nd on a fly ball. Quite frequently, infielders will put their hands up to signal to the baserunner that there isn't going to be a throw or there has been a foul ball or something else has happened so the baserunner doesn't need to go balls out into the base. It is a sportsmanlike gesture. However, using the same hand signals to try to trick baserunners is deceitful, bush-league baseball and it shouldn't be lauded or applauded. Now, Rowand will either have to trust no opposing IF's, learn which ones to trust, or face the possibility of being made a fool of.

Do I need to remind David Wright and the announcers that sports aren't about hidden ball tricks, flops to draw charges, and dives to get penalties in soccer? Sports are about competition and determining who is the better player/team. Enough with the scenanigans ... just play. Be respectful or your peers or don't, but don't resort to underhandedness to try to gain an advantage.

Josh!

2006-06-14T16:41:00.000-05:00

Last night, Josh Howard accumulated 21 points in the first three quarters against the Heat. He failed to score in the 4th quarter and the Mavericks failed to win the game despite being up by thirteen points at one point in the last period. So, let me recap: a) Josh Howard scored 21 points and b) the Mavericks lost the game.

Wait one minute! The Mavericks were undefeated this year when Howard scored at least 20 points. They won 100% of the games when he reached the 20-point mark. So, what does this all mean? Not much, just like it didn't really mean anything that they hadn't lost this year when Howard scored at least 20 points. Now, the Mavericks are undefeated in games Howard scores at least 22 points! As my brother is always telling me, the hardest events to predict are the ones that haven't happened yet. Dallas was bound to lose a game when Howard scored at least 20, it just happened to be game 3 of the NBA Finals.

NBA Finals: Game 1 Musings

2006-06-09T07:38:00.000-05:00

The Heat let game 1 get away. I'm not going to tell you why they lost, or what they need to do in game 2 to send the series back to South Beach tied at 1-1. It seems fairly obvious that they need to take care of the ball a little better and go through C Shaquille O'neal early in the possessions. Rather, I'm going to take a look at a few things I noticed during the game.

SG Dwayne Wade is incredible! He's quick and explodes to the rim and his block on Mavs F Dirk Nowitzki at the beginning of the game helped the Heat take a big lead early. However, he cost his team on a number of occasions by acting like an NBA player, rather than acting like a basketball player. Wade doesn't hustle back on defense, especially when he turns the ball over or misses a shot and thinks he's been wronged. Maybe he was fouled and has a valid point to argue, maybe he wasn't and doesn't. Either way, the Mavericks are too good at pushing the ball - and the Heat aren't good enough at transition defense - to have Wade dwell on the previous play. Pat Riley, early in the game, was motioning for Wade to get back on defense after a mistake and needs to sit Wade down and get it in his young star's head that Wade needs to wait for a break in the action to work on officials.

Shaq should try not to miss his first 8 attempts from the foul line the next time they roll the ball out (interesting note: he missed at least one more, but a Maverick was called for a lane violation so Shaq got another chance). But, Shaq's 1-9 from the FT line wasn't as bad as it might seem. At least Shaq was missing both free throws with regularity; Dwayne Wade kept missing the first one and making the second one, limiting the Heat to one point on a number of possessions. I didn't keep tabs on the plays after Shaq's misses, but I know that on one occasion the Heat got an offensive rebound and, subsequently, Antoine Walker hit a three-pointer. Thus, it was actually beneficial for the Heat for Shaq to miss the FT's. If he had made the first one and missed the second, then Walker had hit and 3 and been fouled, that would have been the best scenario. But, getting three points on a possession is, obviously, better than getting two points (unless the Heat want to lose so they have to see David Stern give Mark Cuban the NBA Championship trophy). FT shooting can be important, I'm not saying that it isn't important to make FT's, but misses can be opportunities for offensive rebounds and additional shots at the basket. The Heat scored at least 4 points off of Shaq's 9 FT attempts, and possibly more. I think that is the more meaningful stat than just reporting that he was 1-9.

It's definitely a good thing that Jason Terry didn't listen to that lady on ESPNEWS ... he shot 13-18 for 32 points in game one. He scored 20 of the Mavs 46 in the first half and tied the Heat (12 points) in the 4th quarter, when the Mavs ran away for the win.

Is it just me or is Antoine Walker lacking the athleticism it takes to be a quality contributor in the NBA (or, at least on the Heat)? He had Dirk 1-on-1 in the open court and was able to get Nowitzki turned around, but he couldn't finish the play. Udonis Haslem got a bogus foul call on what should have been a jump ball going for the rebound, but that was just one of the many questionable calls, going both ways, during the game. Walker isn't the NBA's best long-distance shooter, although it seems like he thinks he's pretty good. It seems like Walker is a much better shooter when he's wide open than when he has a hand in his face. That leads to the question, why does he shoot when the defender is right on him? With Shaq in the post, you shouldn't have to settle for highly-contested 3's ... you should get open 3's. Walker also clears out with his off arm on drives (and gets called for it) because he lacks the athleticism to go strong to the basket against good shot blockers. Why isn't James Posey playing more? Posey shoots the 3 at a higher percentage (or at least he did during the season) and is a better defender. Plus, he doesn't thrive on controlling the ball. Walker isn't given the freedom to create for teammates because the offense runs through Wade and O'neal, so why is he on the court? Oh, it's for those funky runners he throws up, obviously.

Stupid Things "The Professionals" Say

2006-06-01T10:57:00.000-05:00

05.31.06 - A lady on ESPNEWS reported that Jason Terry, despite shooting 10-28 in the two games the Mavericks have lost to the Suns, intends to continue to be agressive. She insinuates that Terry is in a slump. However, the two Mavs losses have occurred in games one and four ... they won games two and three. Terry was close to 50% in the last four games (he played)against the Spurs and had a good game (9-20) in game three against the Suns. In game two, he shot just 6-15 from the field, but got to the FT line and made 6 of 7 from the charity stripe. Perhaps, if Terry knew which games the Mavs were going to lose, he wouldn't shoot so much. But, considering he doesn't know the outcome before the games even start, it's probably best that he continues to play the same way he has been playing.

Jason Terry has been an important piece of the Mavs run. However, he isn't a guy who shoots an exceptionally high percentage. His career FG% is 44.0% and he shot 47.0% from the field this regular season. Couple that with the fact that the intensity, and defensive effort, increases in the playoffs, and it's not surprising that he's shooting 42.2% from the field for the playoffs. He shot 41.9% in the first round, against the Grizzlies. He was a little better against the Spurs, 43.8%, and has been a bit worse against the Suns, 39.7%. Terry scores in the high teens, so regardless of his struggles in games 1 and 4 against the Suns, he's going to keep shooting and will probably continue to make about 40-45% of his shots. Only once in the playoffs (14 games), has Terry made more than 50% of his shots in a game; he was 8-15 in game 3 against the Spurs.

Too many All-Stars?

2006-05-30T16:58:00.000-05:00

When the NBA All-Star game was rolling around earlier this year, there was considerable debate over just how many Detroit Pistons should make the East squad. It turned out that the only starter left off was SF Tayshaun Prince. G's Chauncey Billups and Richard Hamilton were accompanied by PF Rasheed Wallace and C Ben Wallace. The Pistons seemed headed for their third consecutive NBA finals and their 2nd NBA Championship in three years. The bolts got a little loose in the 2nd half of the season, but everyone just attributed that to the Pistons being bored. Everyone assumed that they'd turn it back on when the playoffs rolled around.

In the first round with Milwaukee, they discarded the Bucks in 5 games. However, they were blown out in the game they lost and almost lost at least one other game. The Cleveland Cavaliers, riding only LeBron James, took the Pistons to seven games, at one point leading the series 3-2. Now, the Miami Heat have the Pistons cornered 3-1 in the Eastern Conference Finals. After pointing the finger at new coach Flip Saunders as a reason their offense was improved during the regular season, the players are now throwing him under the bus for their defensive ineptitude during the last couple series. The Pistons need to look in the mirror quick and realize what made them successful. Or, they can continue reading this post as a little refresher.

When I was growing up, we got the Denver tv stations because my town didn't have local ABC, CBS, and NBC stations. So, I saw Chauncey Billups win state titles in HS on tv. Chauncey was a Colorado basketball legend and starred at the University of Colorado, not exactly a bball powerhouse. But, when he got to the NBA, he bounced around a little bit ... Boston ... Toronto ... Denver ... Minnesota ... then, finally, Detroit. He went through 4 franchises in his first four years in the league. Billups is a good player, but when the Pistons beat the Lakers to win the NBA title, he wasn't a star. He was a good player who ran the team, distributed the ball, scored, and hit big shots.

Richard Hamilton started his career with the Wizards, but they let him go. Hamilton is a good mid-range shooter. His shooting percentage from 3-pt. range went up considerably this year, but he's still not a marquee guy from deep. Hamilton doesn't handle the ball exceptionally well and isn't a shut down defender. He's a good scorer. Tayshaun Prince is a solid SF, but definitely not a go-to stud. He's long and athletic (to things Hamilton really isn't), shoots a very high percentage from 3, has a solid post up game, and is a good defender. Both Hamilton and Prince benefit in their shooting percentage from having such good players around them.

Rasheed Wallace was jettisoned from Portland to Atlanta (not a place any basketball player - besides Joe Johnson - wants to go) before being moved to Detroit the year the Pistons won the title. Wallace is a great talent, but he's a basketcase and isn't someone a team can rely on game in and game out. The other Wallace, Ben, has become a high-quality interior player by focusing on defense and rebounding. However, recently, he's tried to expand his offensive game. He can't shoot, doesn't really have any moves, and is a liability at the charity stripe ... as is evident from the "Hack-a-Ben" strategy Pat Riley has gone to a few times in the Pistons-Heat series. Ben Wallace is a star, if he is a star, because he defends and rebounds and that is where his focus should be.

My point is that Chauncey Billups, Richard Hamilton, Tayshaun Prince, Rasheed Wallace and Ben Wallace are good players, but none of them, by themselves, is an elite star in the NBA. The Pistons don't have a LeBron James or a Dwayne Wade, or a Tim Duncan or Dirk Nowitzki. But, they don't have a weak link, really, either. They have complimentary pieces that Joe Dumars did a terrific job in assembling. Unfortunately, the Pistons have forgotten that they beat the "more talented" Lakers because they outworked them, just as the Heat are doing to the Pistons in this series. If you compare talent, the Pistons are right up there with the Heat, although many people would argue that Wade and Shaq are the two best players in the series. I'd take Billups over any PG on the Heat, Wade over Hamilton, Prince over Posey (by a little, although they are similar players), R. Wallace over Udonis Haslem (if Wallace is focused) and Shaq over B. Wallace (although it's close). So, the Pistons have talent. But, they don't have enough talent not to work like they did when they were the underdogs. They need to stop blaming Flip Saunders and realize that if they want to be a dynasty, they need to get back to doing what they do best. Ben Wallace needs to defend and rebound and not worry about getting touches on the offensive end. Rasheed Wallace needs to dig in and abuse Haslem on the block, not float outside the arc. Billups needs to create for his teammates and himself and all three perimeter players need to make shots. Plus, they need to defend. It won't be easy, but you can't let Wade shoot almost 70% from the field. If you can beat Kobe, a younger Shaq, and Phil Jackson, you should be able to at least give Wade, Shaq and Riley a series.

Boneheaded Baserunners

2006-05-30T11:47:00.000-05:00

Recently, I was watching Cardinals closer Jason Isringhausen stuggle through another late-game situation (Saturday, May 27th), only to be bailed out when catcher Yadier Molina picked San Diego Padre Brian Giles off 1st. There were runners on 1st and 2nd, so Giles wasn't going anywhere, and he got caught too far off 1st and Molina picked him off for the last out of the game. Honestly, I don't know what to say because it was such a stupid play. Perhaps, Giles didn't think Molina would try to pick him off, or maybe he wasn't thinking about it and he wanted to have a large secondary lead in case he needed to score on a ball in the gap. Either way, Giles was the go-ahead run ... his run is only important if the tying run (Mike Cameron, on second) score first. If Giles got thrown out at the plate trying to score on a Josh Bard (the batter in the incident) double, fine. The game will be headed to extra innings tied. But, Giles dropped the ball and cost his team the game. Plus, it was a horrible end to the game as a viewer. It's too bad Albert Pujols didn't drop the ball.

Even more curious, in my opinion, was the inability of Johnny Damon to advance from 2nd to 3rd on a flyout to right field in a game recently. On the same play, someone slower (I think Miguel Cairo) scored from 3rd. There are 90 feet between successive bases. That's 90 between home and 1st, 1st and 2nd, 2nd and 3rd, 3rd and home. So, presumably, it should take less time for Damon to get from 2nd to 3rd than for Cairo to race from 3rd to home. Thinking about it now, the right fielder probably had a shorter throw to 3rd than to home, but not so much different that it didn't make sense for Damon not to advance - other than that Damon is a self-professed "idiot". Roy agreed to look at where a right fielder would have to be to have a longer throw to 3rd than to home, so hopefully we will see the result of such an analysis soon. But, thinking about it now, 3rd and home are 90 feet apart, as we've already established. The right field line and the left field line are orthogonal. Thus, if you catch the ball on the RF line, it's a shorter throw to home than to 3rd. The magic point occurs when you are 45 feet from the RF line. Then, you have the same distance to each of the two stations ... that's 45 feet on an imaginary line perpendicular to the RF line ... or parallel to the LF line. Does that make sense? I can do a diagram if someone would like. My wife understands, so you should too!

If there had been one out already when the fly ball was hit, I would be ok with Damon staying at 2nd. However, the bases were loaded with no one out. So, if Damon had advanced, he would have been at 3rd with one out. It's common knowledge that you don't make the 1st or 3rd out at 3rd, but you try to get there with 1 out. There are a lot of ways to score from 3rd with one out, including the sacrifice fly, which is the play that scored Cairo. As it turned out, Alex Rodriguez grounded into a double play, which he could have done just as easily with runners on 1st and 3rd with one out. However, he may have been looking to just hit a fly ball with a runner on 3rd and one out, rather than looking for a base hit ... so, the Yankees may have given up a run, or even a big inning by not having Damon advance on the sacrifice fly. In that regard, I'm in favor of Damon not advancing. I hope he continues to make similarly boneheaded plays in the future, because the Yankees are one of my most hated teams. I just thought I'd bring attention to it because it isn't an intelligent play, no matter how you look at it. Keep up the good work Johnny!

Is Bonds hitting in the wrong park?

2006-05-28T19:21:00.000-05:00

AT&T Park, the home field of the San Francisco Giants, may be among the worst places for hitting home runs. According to my analysis of the 2000 to 2005 seasons, only the San Diego Padres' PETCO Park rates worse. How many more home runs might Barry Bonds have hit playing his home games somewhere else?

A while back, Evan asked about home run ball parks. The burning question there was, do the Rangers and Reds play in better homer parks than the Rockies? I think the answer is no.

I looked at AB/HR for both pitchers and batters both at home and on the road over the last six seasons, using data from Retrosheet. (For teams that have changed home parks, only the seasons in their current park are included.) I computed the ratio of road AB/HR to home AB/HR. A value larger than one means it takes more at bats to hit a home run on the road, while a value less than one means it takes fewer. So the team with the highest ratio seems to have the best homer ball park.

AB/HR Road vs. Home Ratio

Team	Batting	Pitching	Total
Colorado Rockies	1.46	1.23	1.34
Chicago White Sox	1.46	1.16	1.31
Philadelphia Phillies	1.23	1.15	1.19
Cincinnati Reds	1.17	1.17	1.17
Texas Rangers	1.31	1.02	1.16
Houston Astros	1.18	1.09	1.14
Milwaukee Brewers	1.08	1.13	1.11
New York Yankees	1.17	1.02	1.10
Toronto Blue Jays	1.16	1.03	1.10
Arizona Diamondbacks	1.09	1.09	1.09
Chicago Cubs	1.08	1.01	1.05
Los Angeles Dodgers	1.08	1.01	1.04
Baltimore Orioles	1.05	1.01	1.03
Oakland Athletics	1.13	0.91	1.02
Atlanta Braves	1.01	0.95	0.98
Kansas City Royals	0.96	0.98	0.98
St. Louis Cardinals	1.01	0.91	0.96
Anaheim Angels	1.05	0.87	0.96
Cleveland Indians	0.98	0.93	0.95
Tampa Bay Devil Rays	0.91	0.91	0.92
Seattle Mariners	0.97	0.84	0.90
Minnesota Twins	0.90	0.88	0.89
Boston Red Sox	0.89	0.88	0.88
Pittsburgh Pirates	0.90	0.85	0.88
New York Mets	0.92	0.83	0.87
Florida Marlins	0.93	0.78	0.85
Washington Nationals	0.72	0.88	0.81
Detroit Tigers	0.84	0.73	0.78
San Francisco Giants	0.85	0.69	0.77
San Diego Padres	0.76	0.71	0.74

Here's a visualization of the Batting vs. Pitching ratios, which demonstrates a pretty strong correlation between them. (Note that this includes a few extra data points, which are the old parks of the teams that have moved.)The fact that the batting ratio is usually above the line means that hitters are affected more by going on the road than pitchers.

The data suggest that the Rockies and White Sox have the best parks for hitting home runs in, while the Padres and Giants have the worst.

Unfortunately, this analysis is not without its problems. The unbalanced schedule presents one, because the road statistics are strongly influenced by the division. Also, while several teams have nearly identical ratios for batting and pitching, others are not so close, including San Francisco. The Giants pitchers seem to enjoy the biggest home field advantage of any team, but their batting is fourth from the bottom, at about 0.85. This type of anomaly may have to do with differences in difficulty for lefty and righty batters. A more thorough analysis would account for both of these factors. Any suggestions?

Still, I think this is a clear improvement over simple counting of home runs in various ball parks over the same period.

Hack a (insert your favorite bad foul shooter here)

2006-05-27T21:49:00.000-05:00

For the sake of basketball, the Pistons and Heat should make a pact. They should agree to either: a) just have a foul shooting contest between Shaquille O'Neal and Ben Wallace to decide the series or b) agree that both teams won't intentionally send either Shaq or Ben to the line, at least not obviously – if either player is making a move and you don't want him to get an easy lay-up, foul him, but don't grab him out by the 3-pt line. Hack-a-Shaq and Hack-a-Ben is effective, if you block out, but it's not fun to watch and it's, essentially, a wash if both teams do it. At one point, Shaq and Ben sat down so they wouldn't be fouled ... that's not basketball.

Just make a mercy rule

2006-05-26T17:55:00.000-05:00

The Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference is implementing a new rule to curb blowouts. Now, coaches of teams that win by more than 50 points will be suspended for the next game. This rule is ludicrous. What happens if you insert your third-string guys when you're up 30 and they keep racking up points? If you happen to be up by more than 50 late in a game, are you supposed to tell the kids to just let the other team score? That would be even more embarrassing to the losing team than losing by 55, 60, or even 90 points. Obviously, it's not necessary to "pile on", but what if it just happens that a team gets blown out. Sometimes it happens. The University of Oklahoma beat Texas A&M 77-0 a few years ago. OU was really good and A&M was a little bit down, but OU wasn't 77 points better ... things just spiralled out of control for the Aggies. Should Bob Stoops have punted on 1st down every time the Sooners got the ball in the 2nd half? No one is forcing high schoolers to play footballl (or at least they shouldn't be). High school athletics are competitive. At some point, you have to take the training wheels off and let kids ride or crash!

My first experience with adults trying to shield children from winning and losing in sports was when I heard about my cousin's tee-ball league in Bellevue, WA. They didn't keep score. As Herm Edwards said, "You play to win the game!" Instead of just playing for fun, all the kids kept score themselves. They still knew if they played bad, played well, lost, won, etc. If a kid grounds out 3 times and they get slaughtered, does it really matter if no one was keeping an official score? I don't think so. Parents might feel better about it, though.

Now, officials in Connecticut are making absurd rules that aren't necessary. The world doesn't need more rules, especially bad ones that are reactions to something (New London winning 4 games last year by more than 50, including one 90-0) that has happened recently. Even more ludicrous is the rationale for not having a "mercy rule": they don't want to cut into playing time for back-ups. Let the coaches manage their own teams. If players, coaches, parents and fans aren't happy about getting blown out, find a better coach, prepare better, work harder, etc. Or, find a new sport to play. Not everyone is good at football (insert just about anything here). The sooner kids learn to deal with both success and failure, the better off they'll be. And, if coaches don't have to worry about stupid rules, they'll be able to focus on coaching the kids and helping them improve ... doing what they are supposed to be doing!

10 GAMES!

2006-05-26T17:49:00.000-05:00

MLB dropped the ball on this one. Michael Barrett received a 10-game suspension for punching A.J. Pierzynski. Ten games is less than 1/16th of the season. It's about 6% of the season. It's less than getting a 1 game suspension in football. Barrett will be out less than two weeks. Barrett was totally wrong and took a cheap shot at A.J. It's a good thing Barrett didn't spit on him, then he might have been out longer!

Go for broke

2006-05-26T09:28:00.000-05:00

Last night's NBA playoff action between the Miami Heat and the Detroit Pistons very nearly went to hell for the Pistons in the final two minutes. This may be in part due to (dare I say it?) officiating. Not only were some questionable fouls called after blocked shots by first Chauncey Billups (of Gary Payton) and then Rasheed Wallace (of Antoine Walker), but the refs also let Payton and James Posey ride Billups all over the court whenever Detroit wanted to in-bound the ball to him. Dick Bavetta even jumped out of the way as Posey sent Billups out of bounds on one such play, only to ignore Tayshaun Prince's plea for a time-out and call a five-second violation a moment later.

But that's not the point. The point is, the Heat almost did the right thing, and almost pulled off an improbable victory that almost gave them a commanding lead in the series, in which they're now headed home for two games. Almost, but not quite.

Remember many years ago when Reggie Miller single-handedly pulled out a last-second victory against the Knicks by pushing one of them (John Starks, maybe?) out of the way on an in-bound pass (after Miller had made one three) and then retreating beyond the line to make another three-pointer? It should have been called a foul, yes. But it wasn't.

Some time ago, in a source I doubt I could find, I read an opinion about football that, I realized yesterday, has managed to stick with me. Basically, it said that football coaches are too conservative. Big surprise there. More specifically, it said that when trailing late in the game, football coaches should pull out all the stops. Go for it on fourth down. Try for the big play. Run a flea-flicker (or a "gadget" play, if you're the Steelers).

Why? Because you're probably going to lose anyway. Sure, fourth down is a big gamble. But not getting it doesn't hurt you that much, because there's already not much time left, and you're already behind, so punting is probably going to lead to a loss as well. (You have a better chance of converting a fourth down than of recovering an onside kick, and the difference in yardage if you fail is about the same.) You're not going to win every game this way. There's nothing you can do about that. But you might win a few games that you would lose by playing it safe. And that could be the difference, for example, between making the playoffs and not.

Back to basketball: I think the same approach applies. Don't listen to the guys on the sidelines who keep telling you to go for the two and then foul. That's a low-variance solution that will almost always result in you scoring about the same number of points as the other guys, and thus you losing, because they already have more. The more free throws you let them shoot, the more likely it is they'll hit about 75% of them (unless it's Shaq or Ben Wallace you're fouling). And thus, the more likely that time will run out without you closing the gap.

Instead, take a tip from Reggie Miller. Take a tip from UCLA (vs. Gonzaga). (Hmmm, maybe there's a connection?) On offense, shoot the three-pointers! On defense, take the ball away! Three-point shots are lower percentage, yes, but they're higher variance. If you make them, you're golden. And experience tells me that if you just take the ball away and act like nothing is wrong, the officials might not know what to do. Sure, you're still going to lose most of the time. But in the playoffs, one game could make all the difference.

Closing thoughts

2006-05-26T08:03:00.000-05:00

Any Braves fans out there wishing your closer was still John Smoltz? At the end of last Friday's telecast, after Atlanta closer Chris Reitsma blew the Braves' hard-earned one-run lead in the bottom of the ninth inning against the Arizona Diamondbacks, as his team was trudging, dejected, back to the dug-out, one commentator, perhaps Skip Caray, announced that it was Atlanta's eleventh blown save of the year. Ouch! At first I was astonished. But when I considered it a bit, I understood that this didn't mean Reitsma, or any other closer, had blown eleven saves. Rather, it was a statistic aggregated over the entire Braves bullpen. At that point, I realized that I had no idea what it meant.

I think I know what it "means". Eleven times in their first forty-two games, one Braves pitcher relinquished a lead that another had built. But, what does it mean? The biggest problem with statistics in sports is their presentation without context or implication. Statistics as a discipline is not just about counting things and occasionally dividing to get an expectation. It's also about comparisons and correlations.

The knowledge that already eleven times in forty-two games, the Braves have let go of their leads must invoke pangs of anguish in any fan. But, you can't expect every lead, however small, to transform directly into a win. The other team's going to score some runs. Maybe other teams blow leads even more often. It's possible that Braves fans should feel fortunate. But because the people with the numbers only give us little glimpses of them, we just don't know.

That's not what this post is really about, though. What I really want to know is, why can't the Braves have their cake and eat it, too? More concretely, why can't John Smoltz be a starter, and a closer, too? I'm not asking for him to close his own games. That would require moving him into right field during the seventh and eighth innings, or something. I'm not even talking about the games before and after his starts, when he can probably use the rest. But there are two other games in there when he could probably throw an inning without ill effects. (And they're not going to have 1-3 run leads in all of those games.) He's throwing on the side anyway, right? Why not put it to good use?

In fact, there are a number of starters around baseball who seem to have stuff the quality of a premier closer—guys like Oswalt, Schmidt, Beckett, Santana, etc. (please, suggest your favorite)—as well as some who have been closers at other times—Derek Lowe, for example. The Red Sox don't seem to need help in the ninth inning these days, so Beckett can safely stay out of the bullpen for now, but the Astros . . . .

How low can they go?

2006-05-25T19:00:00.000-05:00

What's more amazing: a) the Tigers have won 13 of 14 or b) the Royals have lost 13 in a row? Personally, I have my money on the Tigers winning 13 of 14 being the bigger surprise. Even more amazing than the Royals losing 13 in a row, is that they have already won 10 games this year, including three in a row against the Indians before to notch their 8th, 9th, and 10th wins. They are now 10-35 ... that means that before this latest skid, they were 10-22; that's not too shabby. At one point, the Royals were 2-2, just prior to an 11-game losing streak. They also rolled off 6 losses in a row to fall from 5-14 to 5-20. So, we are less than two months into the season, and the Royals have already rattled off two double-digit losing streaks. I'm not interested in the total number of losses they accumulate, I'm more interested in the number of times they can string together 10+ losses in a row. I'll try to keep you posted.

games 5-15, total streak 11 games -> 2-13 record
games 33-35, total streak 13games -> 10-35 record

A League of His Own

2006-05-24T14:26:00.000-05:00

I'll admit it: in the past, I've been critical of NBA Commissioner David Stern. I was wrong. David Stern has done a lot of great things for the NBA. He's implemented a much-needed dress code and curbed outrageous rookie salaries. Does anyone remember when Glenn "Big Dog" Robinson came out of Purdue and was demanding $100 million in his first contract? Stern has a high schooler-free draft coming up later this summer and a developmental league to cushion the falls of players who, mistakenly, jump to the league too soon. During Stern's tenure (1984-present), the NBA has gone from a league dominated by domestic stars to one filled with international players, including 2-time MVP Nash (Canada), Yao (China), Dirk (Germany), Pau (Spain), and Manu (Argentina). Those guys are so big you recognize them just by one name. Add in Tony Parker, Boris Diaw, Andrew Bogut, Darko, Peja , AK47, Nocioni, Diop, Deng, etc., and you realize that the league is being enhanced by all the talent the world has to offer. At the same time, a new crop of U.S. stars (led by LBJ, Carmelo, Wade, Chris Bosh, Chris Paul, etc.) is taking the league by storm.

David Stern needs to continue to build the league that in the mid-90's was losing its grip on the American public to the NHL. I remember a Sports Illustrated cover with the headline NHL hot, NBA not ... or at least something to that effect. Since then, the NBA has reclaimed its place as #2 (behind the NFL) while the NHL has fallen so far that it has probably been passed by NASCAR. Donald Sterling, another DS, may have allowed Elgin Baylor and Mike Dunleavy to turn around the woeful Clippers franchise. However, there are still laughing-stocks nestled around the nation ... just look at the mecca of U.S. basketball, NYC! The Knicks are atrocious and tied down with the wrong coach, a bad GM, and the absurd pairing of Steve Francis and Stephon Marbury in the back court.* Along with a pair of shoot-first PG's, they have Jalen Rose and Jamal Crawford, a couple of ball-hogging SG's. They also have Jerome James and Eddy Curry clogging up the middle, and I mean that literally and figuratively. The Knicks gave way too much money (and what turned into the #2 draft pick in this year's draft) for a couple guys who played really well in their contract years but have struggled with staying motivated and staying in shape the rest of the time. What did management think would happen when they locked them up to multi-year, guaranteed-money, deals?

David Stern was wrong to make suggestions to Knicks management. The Knicks have had enough time to make changes. They've been saddled with bad contracts, and rather than bite the bullet and wait out their punishment, they've tried to dig their way out of the hole by trading one bad contract for another and adding more expensive pieces that don't fit anywhere in the puzzle that is winning in the NBA. It's time for David Stern to step in! David Stern doesn't need to be making suggestions, he needs to be making calls. He didn't suggest that Allen Iverson clean up his attire, he made a rule that forced AI to dress up, along with all of his peers. Stern should take a similar stance with the Knicks and the Hawks (who have quite the stable of wing players but not much else). The Hawks left Chris Paul on the board last year and took Marvin Williams. They let Boris Diaw go to the Suns in the Joe Johnson deal. Interesting moves ... I've seen enough of them, it's time for Stern to take charge.

In fact, there are a lot of teams that could use some help. The Seattle Sonics were a solid team in 2004-2005, but the losses of Vladimir Radmonovic, Jerome James and Coach Nate MacMillan resulted in the Sonics missing the playoffs this year. The Lakers traded Shaq, missed the playoffs in 04-05 and lost in the first round this year. The Kings fired Rick Adelman, the Warriors hired Mike Montgomery and haven't been able to make the playoffs, despite a starting five of Baron Davis, Jason Richardson, Mike Dunleavy, Troy Murphy and Adonal Foyle (a solid defensive center). The Minnesota Timberwolves blew up the bench (letting Flip Saunders go to Detroit) and roster around Kevin Garnett, the Jazz can't find guards to go with AK47, Carlos Boozer and Mehmet Okur (although they'd be better off if Kirilenko and Boozer can stay healthy), and the Nuggets gave Kenyon Martin a max deal! Where does Kenyon Martin fit on a team with Carmelo, Nene (Brazil) and Marcus Camby? The correct answer is on the bench, if Nene is healthy. However, despite the front court studs, they can't find a decent SG. The problem with the NBA is that some teams have too many guards, some not enough, some players (Tim Thomas with the Bulls) don't fit with their current team and would be better off playing for another team (like the Phoenix Suns). Basketball isn't necessarily about having the best talent, it's about having pieces that fit together. Sure, you need good players, but Starbury, Stevie Franchise, Jamal Crawford, Jalen Rose, and Eddy Curry are all talented. How'd the Knicks do?

Stern can't just improve the Knicks and Hawks without a little cooperation from other teams. So, in the best interest of the league, Stern should be given full reign ... the NBA is his playground. Owners would be relieved of their duties and given shares in the new NBA Corporation based on the estimated worth of their teams. Teams like the Phoenix Suns, who have been constructed well — with players who have complimentary skill sets and a coach who's system takes advantage of their abilities — will probably remain unchanged. Stern would give Kevin Garnett the chance to be a star in a major market, such as New York City, or on a championship contender, possibly being paired with King James in Cleveland. Kobe won't be burdened with another star and Lamar Odom will be moved elsewhere so he can actually touch the ball every once in a while. By systematically putting teams together that make sense (like the Detroit Pistons), the overall product will improve. Erick Dampier won't be on the Mavericks because Dallas doesn't want an offensive weapon in the post. Diop will man the middle for the Mavericks and provide defense and rebounding.

LeBron James wouldn't have a post-up center (Zydrunas Ilgauskas) clogging up the lane. He also wouldn't have Larry Hughes as a running mate. Hughes is a good player, but he doesn't shoot the three well (28% on the season) and is best with the ball in his hands. LBJ should have teammates who can hit open perimeter shots, defend, and run the floor. In David Stern's NBA, the Cavs starting five would be Raja Bell (49% from 3-pt range), LeBron, Tayshaun Prince (48% from 3-pt range), Kevin Garnett and LaMarcus Aldridge. James would be the primary ballhandler on a team filled with athletic players who can defend and shoot from the perimeter.

Additionally, Stern and his management team will be in charge of hiring, firing, contract negotiations, discipline, etc. To paraphrase the commish, if players don't like it, they can get out and do something else for a living. Players will be rewarded financially based on personal and team performance, as well as attendance, jersey sales, and other marketing-related endeavors. In the interest of good basketball and employee satisfaction, it's important that players and coaches are put in positions where they can succeed. That isn't happening, on a large-scale, currently. It's time for a change. It's time for David Stern's powers to be increased, for the betterment of the league financially and on the court.

*I just googled the NY Knicks and clicked on the link to the Knicks page on nba.com and a 2006-2007 NY Knicks tickets pop-up came up. Who were the Knicks featured? David Lee, Nate Robinson, and Channing Frye. The NY Knicks are marketing Lee, Robinson and Frye.

Offensive Foul?

2006-05-23T20:00:00.000-05:00

Early in game 1 of the Eastern Conference Finals between the Heat and the Pistons, the announcers made a comment about the game being a game for men because the refs were letting the players play. Why, then, was Dwayne Wade going to the bench less than halfway through the 2nd quarter with 3 personal fouls? Apparently, because they didn't want to call two blocking fouls on Lindsay Hunter on the same Miami offensive possession. On the first play, Wade was driving to the basket and Hunter, essentially, ran into him. Wade didn't push him down. Wade's elbow/forearm made contact with Hunter, but that just happened to be where they met. Actually, Wade did push a little bit, but it wouldn't be enough to knock over a 5 year-old, much less an NBA player. It was obviously a block. Then, Hunter committed a block on the next move by Wade as well. Wade wasn't moving into Hunter, Hunter was sliding in front of Wade and didn't have the position to take a charge. If Hunter is going to commit fouls, call fouls on him or don't call anything if it's close. The refs shouldn't be baited into calling an offensive foul on the visiting team's best player because the fans boo'ed the previous call and the defender is trying to bait them. I'm just hoping the refs don't ruin this series. Well, that's not all, I hope David Stern doesn't blindly defend their hideous calls as well.

Where do they find these guys?

2006-05-20T19:03:00.000-05:00

Does anyone else find Tim Kurkjian's commentary lacking? I was going to let his stats on Albert Pujols slide until I heard him talking about the White Sox - Cubs incident today. But, let's start with the Pujols piece. Kurkjian tries to validate Pujols' greatness by stating that his achievements in six categories are unprecedented (I think it was six, although it might be seven). The problem is, four of the categories are batting average, hits, extra base hits and total bases. I think the other two (or three) are runs scored, RBI's and home runs (maybe not home runs). If you get a lot of AB's and hit for a high average, you are going to get a lot of hits. And, power hitters who hit for a high average are going to get a lot of extra base hits, between the HR's and the doubles, but that one isn't tied as closely to other categories. However, if you get a lot of hits and extra base hits, you are going to have a lot of total bases. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out. Runs batted in and runs scored are linked, at least to some extent, to the performance of your teammates. Pujols isn't exceptionally fast and doesn't steal a ton of bases. He's been aided by a star-studded lineup. Now, I agree that Pujols is a really good young player. If he continues to improve and stay healthy, he'll probably challenge Hank Aaron or Barry Bonds (or A-Rod) for the all-time HR mark down the road and might win as many MVP's as the aforementioned Bonds. He's either 1A or 1B (the other being Rodriguez) in the game today. No one needs a list of obscure, highly-related stats as evidence of Pujol's productivity. What about on-base percentage, on-base + slugging percentage, average with runners in scoring position, etc?

Moving on to Michael Barrett clocking A.J. Pierzynski, Kurkjian said Barrett was 99.9% at fault (and deserved a suspension of 5-10 games), but that Pierzynski was culpable as well because he was moving toward Barrett. Originally, I didn't know why Pierzynski was headed toward the Cubs' dugout. It turns out that he was going to retrieve his helmet. In the replay, you can see that he is going to get his helmet, and trying to avoid Barrett without taking an absurdly indirect route. Pierzynski has every right to go get his helmet. Barrett isn't the king of the field and he's 100% at fault. He started the brawl. He grabbed Pierzynski around the waist, he yelled at him, and he took a swing at him. Kurkjian thinks 5-10 games? Are you kidding me? Russ Springer got 4 for throwing at Barry Bonds. Barrett deserves at least 20 games, if not 30, 40, or 50. A player once got 30 games for hitting his own manager (according to an ESPN list I saw) and another player got 30 games for pushing an umpire. I know umpires are sacred in the eyes of MLB brass, but punching a player on the other team without provocation should not be tolerated. Kurkjian's suggested suspension length amounts to nothing more than a slap on the wrist, and insinuating that Pierzynski was at fault at all is equally as egregious ... and, no, I'm not the president of the A.J. Pierzynski fan club or anything like that.

Does anyone out there actually enjoy Kurkjian's commentary? I'd be interested to hear.

Springer, NBA Scheduling, and Jim Rome on to something

2006-05-18T23:54:00.000-05:00

I was watching the Astros v. Giants the other day to check on Barry Bonds for a couple reasons: a) he's on my fantasy team and I could really benefit from him stealing a few bases (or getting a couple hits, that's more realistic) and b) if he passes Babe Ruth, they'll stop talking about him quite so much, I think that would be good for everyone. I quickly realized that Bonds wouldn't be getting an AB against Russ Springer. His first pitch was a slider that started right at Bonds' butt and moved even farther away from the plate. Then, after running the count to 3-1 on inside pitches — with the only strike coming on a foul ball off the knob of Bonds' bat that almost hit him — Springer finished Bonds off by coming up and in, hitting Barry in the shoulder.

Springer either a) has really bad control, b) wanted to get thrown out, so wanted to be warned before hitting Bonds, or c) wanted to draw the ordeal out as long as he could. He obviously wasn't trying to get Bonds out and didn't want Bonds to swing the bat. If that's the case, hit him in the butt and get the thing over with ... but please clue us in to what is so bad about Barry Bonds. You don't come up and in on multiple occasions in the same plate appearance when you've already thrown a ball behind the batter. Springer should be suspended ... it's a joke if he isn't. Oh wait, Bud Selig is still commish ... it's a joke either way.

(I just saw "the punch" and it definitely wasn't suspension worthy ... that was ridiculous ... Finley and Ginobli jumped on him! What constitutes a punch?)

Moving on, what is the deal with the NBA playoff scheduling? Why are the Suns and Clippers playing game seven on Monday? Why aren't all the series every other day? I think they should play every day that isn't a travel day, but if you're going to draw it out, every other day is long enough. The Heat are already done. The other two series could end tomorrow. There might not be any games Saturday or Sunday. That is ridiculous, although I doubt both the Cavs and Mavs will win tomorrow. Earlier in the second round, there were no games a week ago. The Heat, Nets, Suns and Clippers played Wednesday and Friday, with the other four teams having Wednesday-Friday off. Who is in charge of these things?

I'm running out of computer battery, but I have to praise Jim Rome for defending Barry Bonds, in a round about way. He actually went after Albert Pujols and his defense of Bonds. He also called out the league and the testing program, in a way, by remarking that masking agents and substances that aren't tested for still allow players to use performance enhancers if they want, and Rome believes they do. Really? I agree. Bonds probably wasn't clean a few years back, might not be clean now, but he's never failed a league drug test, to the best of my knowledge. No one really knows how many players are "cheating" or "taking advantage of the system" and the league doesn't know ... that's the point. Going after Bonds may be a good publicity stunt, but it isn't going to help fix anything except the public perception of the league. I don't know what the solution to the problem is. I'm tempted to say that if it's coming down to whether or not your chemist can stay ahead of the league's chemist, wouldn't it be fair to allow players to use steriods, at least then you wouldn't have to worry about some players having access to better masking agents and more advanced drugs than other players. In an ideal world, players wouldn't sacrifice their health for stardom. Maybe, if the amount of money at stake wasn't so outrageous, players would think twice before injecting themselves, but probably not. Chalk this one up to human nature, I guess. And, until MLB gets a testing policy that is infallible, the playing field won't be level. People will be "cheating," some will be caught, some won't. That's fair. But, that's life, I guess.

Ultimate Fighter ... and a punch from Jason Terry?

2006-05-18T23:35:00.000-05:00

Tonight's episode of The Ultimate Fighter on Spike is just one of the numerous examples of what is wrong when officials and judges have too much power. The two round fight between Tait and Josh ended in a split decision (it would have gone to a third, and deciding, round if it was tied after two). Tait won 20-18 (meaning he won both rounds) on one scorecard, but Josh won 20-18 on the other two cards, so he won the fight. Josh was the better fighter standing up, but Tait almost submitted him more than once when the fight went to the ground. It should have gone to a third round, but that isn't really the problem. The problem is that there is no consistency. If all three judges scored the fight 20-18 for Josh, then fine. But there is something wrong with one fighter winning both rounds in one judge's eyes and another judge seeing it completely opposite. Tait summed it up when we was interviewed just prior to leaving, saying "in a decision, nobody wins that fight, it's an opinion."

What are judges scoring? What decides who wins a round? In a boxing match, is it who lands more punches, who causes more damage, who has better looking boots? In ultimate fighting, is it who lands more shots, who is the aggressor, who's on top more on the ground? It doesn't seem like the judges agree with each other, and they definitely aren't on the same page as the fighters or commentators. It seems like everyone would be better off if they knew what they were trying to accomplish (other than ending the fight before it goes to the judges). [See What are we raving about?]

Jason Terry was suspended for game six against the Spurs. Way to go David Stern and the NBA execs. Jason Terry is an important cog in the Mavericks attack. The Mavs might be able to close out the defending champs in game six, but they should be trying to do it with Jason Terry. I haven't seen any replays and wasn't in a room with a DVR last night, so I couldn't rewind in real-time. What I did see was Michael Finley jumping on Jason Terry when Terry obviously had possession while his team was calling time out. The Mavericks should have been awarded the ball without the jump ball at center court. Finley fouled Terry. Maybe Terry should have been shooting free throws. Why do officials allow players to foul others jumping on them to cause jump balls? I don't understand it ... I think it's just something they do because that's the way they do it, which isn't really a good reason to do anything.

Last Thoughts (for now)

2006-05-17T09:40:00.000-05:00

I'd already turned off my laptop last night when Shaun Livingston was called for stepping out-of-bounds with just over 40 seconds left in double OT. So, I had both hands free to use the pause and rewind live TV feature associated with my new Dish package. I looked at the play 3 times and I'm pretty sure he was in-bounds. How do you miss that call at that point in the game? The ref had a good angle, he just blew the call, unless my slow motion replay deceived me (it was about 1 AM, my time, when the play took place).

Ok, I can only spend so much time on one bad call, so I move on to a good play, though the result wasn't what he was hoping for, by Sam Cassell to launch a three-pointer down five as time was running down — I think there were about 20 seconds left. Announcers always say that when you are down 5, you don't need to shoot a 3. You can get a 2, then get a three the next time. The problem is, if you have to foul (rather than forcing a turnover), you may be back down 5 with even less time on the clock. I think the Suns learned from their debacle against the Lakers and probably wouldn't turn it over easily up late. Cassell would have been wrong to take a two-point shot because they needed to close the gap, and that isn't something you are going to do if you are getting 2's and then sending Nash, Barbosa, and Bell to the line. If Shaq was the primary ballhandler for a team, take the easy two (if you can get it) and then foul him as soon as he touches it. You can't afford to do that with the Suns. Their best bet was for Cassell (or someone else) to hit the three, bringing them within two. Then, if you don't get the steal, foul quickly and take your lumps. Repeat the sequence and you're down three after two made FT's ... hopefully, there would be enough time to get a good look. Maybe, they'd even have a time out ... they could advance the ball! (if this seems totally random, or even a little random, read the previous post)

Random Thoughts

2006-05-16T23:43:00.000-05:00

This will be a little disjointed, but try to stick with me. With 8.7 seconds left in the 3rd quarter of game 5 of the Clipper v. Suns series, a foul was called on Tim Thomas. Why? Sam Cassell pump faked, Tim Thomas went for it and jumped up in the air. Then, Cassell launched himself into Thomas and flailed his arms like he was shooting. It was as much an offensive foul as a defensive foul. Tim Thomas wasn't going to land on Cassell. Cassell moved into the location where Thomas was going to land. Cassell wasn't making an honest attempt to shoot the ball. An eight year-old doesn't jump that far in when preparing to shoot a long jumper, so I'm sure Cassell wasn't attempting to make the shot. I understand referees make that call routinely. However, that doesn't mean they should. As a defender, you don't have to be stationary to get an offensive foul called on an offensive player who initiates contact. Personally, I think Cassell should have received an offensive foul or no call should have been made. If you get a guy in the air and he lands on you, that's one thing. There are enough fouls in basketball games without players making cheap plays like that which are, essentially, attempts to cheat the system and get free trips to the foul line.

Also, what is with the love affair with offensive fouls. I'm all for good defense, but Sam Cassell stepped in to take a charge just as Raja Bell was leaving the floor on a runner. They collided ... Cassell hit the deck ... Bell missed the ugly runner and got an offensive foul. I think the only reason Bell was called for an offensive foul was the distance he travelled in the air before making contact with Cassell (I don't mean to pick on Cassell, he just happens to be a main figure in these examples). However, once Bell leaves the floor, Cassell can't slide in, and usually the tie goes to the offensive player. It seems like that has changed in the playoffs this year, and I'm not sure why. It seems like the more you can do, within reason, to help the offense and the flow of the game, the better the product will be (or at least seem).

Moving over to the diamond, why wasn't Bernie Williams suspended for throwing his helmet at (or in the direction of) an umpire? Delmon Young, a Tampa Bay Devil Rays AAA prospect, was handed a 50-game suspension after a bat he tossed hit an umpire in the chest. In the NBA playoffs, Udonis Haslem (Miami Heat PF) received a one game suspension for tossing his mouthpiece in the vicinity of the feet of an official. Haslem claims he wasn't throwing it at the ref. Young doesn't claim to have had any malicious intentions in his incident. It looked to me like Williams looked back before flipping his helmet, so I would suspect that he knew it would be headed for the umpire. A mouthpiece gets you one game in the NBA, a bat making contact gets you 50 in AAA, I'd think a helmet in MLB would be worth 5-10 games. Think about it, what was Bernie Williams doing tossing his helmet back toward the plate/infield. He was walking back to the dugout and should have taken the bat (which he left in the batter's box) and helmet back with him. If you want to toss your equipment to the dugout and have someone bring your hat and glove out to you, that's fine. It's a generally accepted practice. The bat boy will grab your stuff. But, what Bernie Williams did was an obvious attempt to show up the umpire and he should be punished.

Back to the hardwood (kind of), the Knicks and Larry Brown should cut their losses and part ways mutually. The Knicks don't seem to want Brown. I don't think Brown really wants to coach Stephon Marbury and Co. anymore. Why should the Knicks give Brown $25 million to get out of his contract? That's stupid. It seems like the only thing that can keep Brown at the helm of the Knicks is the 4 years and $40 million left on his contract. The Knicks shouldn't have given Brown $50 million, but Brown shouldn't have taken it either. He didn't appear able to give it his all and now he wants out (at least that's what I'm hearing) to take a different job (Golden State and Sacremento are rumored). Doesn't Brown make enough money coaching that he doesn't need to collect money from the teams he's no longer coaching?

The Clippers just tied the game on a 3 by Cassell and Brand set a block (not a screen) on the defender (Barbosa, I think). It was obviously a foul on Brand. Come on, I'd think professional basketball players would understand how to set a legal screen! I guess maybe I'm asking too much. And, I have no idea why Brand didn't get a flagrant foul. Marion took off from the circle and Brand hit him hard from behind (didn't come close to the ball). Sometimes, you just have to let guys dunk the ball. There have been some cheap flagrant fouls called ... and this one wasn't called. Ridiculous. I guess the eight-second violation on the Clippers is justice.

Doug Flutie was recently on PTI and he talked about micro-management of football by coaches, specifically coaches being able to talk to QB's because there are communication devices in the helmets. Well, I see the same thing in NBA games. Why are teams given so many time outs? Teams hoard them like a fat kid with a box of Snickers bars and then use them every possession at the end of the game. Practice some plays in practice and then call them. Every once in a while, call a time out and design a play in a crucial situation. It's excruciating to watch these games that are drawn out because you spend more time watching commercials during breaks than watching basketball. The league should look into limits on the number of time outs they can take to the final couple minutes of a half. But, they should have competent refs doing playoff games too ... and that, obviously, isn't happening, despite all the crap coming out of David Stern's mouth about the refs only missing 5% of the calls.

Speaking of time outs, why do you get to advance the ball? I guess it gives you a better chance to score quickly, thus making late-game heroics more likely. It seems like a hokie, contrived rule to me, and it should be removed from the books. If the Suns had a time out left at the end of OT, they could have advanced the ball after the Clippers turned it over after they advanced it. Beam me down the court, ref!

Why was Steve Nash the MVP? I know the argument, they finished near the top of the West without Amare Stoudemire. That is true. The Suns also had a bunch of players who had career years. Ok. But, you have to look at the players who had career years and understand why they had career years. Maybe it was Nash, maybe it was more minutes, more shots, maturation, etc. The Suns have a lot of young players around Nash: Boris Diaw, Leandro Barbosa, James Jones. Raja Bell (who just hit a three to tie the game ... I thought the Clippers had this one won) has a bigger role. Shawn Marion is a good player. Eddie House can fill it up as a backup PG. Nash deserves a lot of credit for the success the Suns have enjoyed the last couple years. However, I don't think his play merits back-to-back MVP awards. I think I would have voted for LeBron James, if I had a vote. Larry Hughes missed a lot of time, and I think the Suns are set up better to compliment Nash than the Cavs are to compliment James.

Stop the game! Dwayne Wade was on the court for two possessions a couple games back after catching an elbow in the face courtesy of Vince Carter. Shawn Marion just went to the floor with an ankle injury suffered when he came down on Shaun Livingston's foot after a dunk. Marion made the basket. There wasn't an obvious advantage for the Clippers, other than the 5 on 4 with Marion injured. The refs should stop the games. If it's a fast break, let it go until the next basket. Otherwise, stop it, get it fixed, then resume. If someone fakes it, give them a T and nip it in the butt.

Thanks for reading, I'm going to enjoy the last couple minutes of double OT ... or cringe every time D'Antoni or Dunleavy call time out.

No longer King

2006-05-10T00:01:00.000-05:00

Why did the Kings let Rick Adelman go? Often, players get tired of coaches. However, Adelman has led the franchise through a change from Jason Williams, Chris Webber and Vlade Divac to Mike Bibby, Bonzi Wells, and Ron Artest. The Kings played the defending champions tough in the first round, losing to the Spurs in six games. They have a solid, if not spectacular, rotation headed by Bibby, Wells, Artest, Shareef Abdur-Rahim and Brad Miller. All five of those players have been all-stars or almost all-stars during their careers. The team was among the best after acquiring Artest midway through the season.

I understand that change is the status quo when it comes to NBA coaching jobs. Larry Brown left Detroit to coach the New York Knicks. Flip Saunders was let go by Minnesota and ended up in Detroit. Good move for Flip, bad move for Larry. George Karl has bounced from Seattle to Milwaukee to Denver. Phil Jackson was in LA, was gone, and is now back. Nate McMillan left a playoff team in Seattle to take the Portland job. That didn't really work out for either team. Coaches aren't exempt from criticism or blame, but if things are going well, why rock the boat? Give Adelman an entire season with the group he led up against the Spurs. Geoff Petrie should be working on improving the roster, not looking for a new coach. If the Kings don't move up into the top echelon of teams in the west next year, then you can make a move. I hope the new coach makes the Kings as fun to watch as Adelman did.

An Eye for an Eye

2006-05-03T17:15:00.000-05:00

eclipses the Suns.

Ron Artest retaliated, rather gently, with a forearm to Manu Ginobli's noggin in game 1 of the Spurs v. Kings series and was suspended. Yesterday, Raja Bell took Kobe down, admittedly with more force than he should have given the current, suspension-happy, climate. However, Bell's foul of Bryant was no worse than some of the elbows Kobe has hit Bell with during the series. Raja Bell was responsible for the incident yesterday, which resulted in a one game suspension being issued today. Kobe Bryant is also to blame and the league either a) fails to recognize that fact or b) is ignoring it, just like they did when they penalized Ron Artest and not Manu Ginobli.

There has been some physical play in the playoffs this year. But, it's bound to happen when you see the same team over and over again. That is just the way it is. The problem is the league is overreacting. They overreacted to the Artest incident (possibly because of Artest's history) and have been hamstrung by it ever since. Dana Jacobsen reasoned, on Cold Pizza this morning, that because Artest got one game, Bell has to get one game. Well, Bell isn't Artest. I don't think it should matter who does what, but it does ... the league cares, at least usually. Each incident is different, despite similarities, so blanket application of rules does not make sense.

Physical play will continue and the referees need to continue to give flagrant and technical fouls for actions that are out-of-line. The league doesn't need to intervene after the fact and automatically suspend guys. What the league should do is look at the entire body of work that leads up to an act before deciding what to do. Artest didn't hurt Ginobli, Bell didn't hurt Bryant, Posey didn't hurt Hinrich. None of these incidents were Kermit Washington - Rudy T. I think Artest and Bell were both within the limits of acceptable action and the league office is shaping the playoffs ... decreasing the friction the Lakers and Spurs are facing in the first round. Maybe the league is trying to create buzz with Spurs v. Mavs and Lakers v. Clippers, battles of LA and TX.

One final note: Reggie Evans should receive a very harsh suspension. If I were handing out suspensions, Evans would get 20 games to start next season and 5 games the next time his team reached the playoffs. Players shouldn't have to worry about having their private parts attacked during games and the league needs to take a stand. Bell and Artest were sending messages in the open. Evans tried to hurt Kaman without the refs seeing. If Kaman had not shoved Evans (which he was penalized for) and brought attention to the event, Evans might have gotten away with it. I know I didn't notice what happened at full speed. I'd compare this to a hitter corking his bat or a pitcher scuffing the ball in baseball, actions that are done deceitfully. Plus, add in the bodily harm that can be done when you are grabbing and pulling at someone's privates and you realize the league should take a stern position, pardon the pun. So far? Nothing! Maybe they're busy debating whether or not tights violate the on-court dress code.

Continuation: don't want to be fouled, don't keep going

2006-04-29T09:27:00.000-05:00

I'm not going to tackle the issue of the ridiculous continuation allowed in the NBA, which seems to be seeping into college basketball. I'm not going to get into the suspensions for physical play in the NBA playoffs, either, even though suspending Artest and Posey was the wrong decision. Last night, Raja Bell received a personal foul on a drive by Kobe Bryant. He also received a technical foul for knocking the ball out of Kobe's hands (or, possibly, fouling him again across the wrist) as Kobe continued to the basket and jumped in the air to shoot.

Bill Walton said something to the effect that when the whistle blows, the defense can't hit the offensive player because they don't want defensive guys taking free shots. I think Bill Walton is an idiot and shouldn't be on television. I'm sure many of you (if there are any readers) agree with me. If excessive contact occurs, call a technical. But, the play doesn't end when the whistle blows. This is NBA basketball, not football, where an offensive player can get an "and one" seconds after being fouled. If the offensive player can finish the play then the defense should be allowed to continue as well.

It's not Reggie's fault! Yeah right.

2006-04-27T16:15:00.000-05:00

The dynamic PTI duo, on Monday, let Reggie Bush off the hook of any wrongdoing in the whole house situation. Wilbon led the charge saying that if Bush didn't know about it, and it was between his parents and the agent, he shouldn't be punished. However, improper benefits are improper benefits. The rule may be stupid, but it's the rule.

Big-time college athletes, for the most part, are taken care of during their stay on college campuses. Sure, they could be a little better off, but that's a whole different subject for a different day. Parents and families, they are left in the same place these athletes came from, for better or worse. What is the first thing a lot of pro athletes do? They take care of their families by buying houses and cars. Obviously, they take care of themselves too. So, if you can make things better for your parents earlier, why not do that? The athletes have those desires. It's against the rules though. Reggie Bush's parents, if they were involved in shady dealings, aren't getting something for nothing. They are receiving benefits in anticipation of directing Reggie Bush in a certain fashion when he becomes a professional.

Houses, cars, tractors (remember Blue Chips?), money, etc., parents need to know not to accept these sorts of things. I think, if rumors are true, taking the Heisman from Bush and awarding it to Vince Young would set a good precedent and make parents think twice next time ... at least you'd hope they'd think twice. Wait a year for your big house that you kid is getting for you! It's just too bad USC didn't win the Rose Bowl, it would have been nice to see the National Championship revoked!

There's a Catch

There's a Catch is moving!

McNabb for Bucs MVP

Gambler into Foreign Substances?

Big East Revisited ... Again

Randolph uses right bullets but misses elusive Cards

Sylvester and Tweety

Related:

The dirty details

Related:

If one is good, three are definitely better!

The New Orleans Saints: Brees, Bush and Payton

Go North young man!

Flavor of the Week

A Wee Bit Bitter?

Too many plays for replay?

Butterfly Effect

It won't have happened until it happens!

Throw it to me!

Pitch to Pujols?

Ball, don't bawl over the ball

College QB Rating Update

ALCS

Heisman race: mid-season update

What the **** is going on?

Psychological jujitsu and pitching rotations

Related:

Free with every column: stupidity!

Related:

McNabb for MVP!!!

I'd Like to Apologize

What are the chances?

Related:

NFL suspends Haynesworth for 5 games

Parity or Mediocrity?

The Return of "The Greatest Show on Turf"

Send him home!

For Pete's Sake!

Thoughts on Reggie

Beef Up Replay

Shots at OU

Seattle in the Fall? Definitely.

It's an emergency, someone get me the precedent!

TK Chimes In

Big East Revisited

End of Game Solution

Pac-10 Cop-out

Big 12: Weekends biggest loser

Do the voters watch the games?

Fire the Refs!

For Pete's Sake!

Minnesota Twins: Jay's AL World Series "Lock"

Lost in the Top 5

Referees in Review

Jacked Up!

Monday Night Snoozer

Throw it at 'em!

Willie's First First Down

Give the West a rest

Willy make it?

Bush-Whacked!

Who's MVP of this tired rivalry?

No sneaking Tiger, this one

Rant and rave!

Back on the Apple

Just play

Related:

All-Star Game Solution

Related:

All-Star conspiracy?

Straight from the couch

Anticlimax at the World Cup

Other World Cup posts:

Jason Varitek ... All-Star? Really? No.

Slash this talk

Hey FIFA!

Bulls? Pistons? It's a no-brainer!

Wishing for un-"flop"-able officials

Forget about it in the morning

Two Left Heels?