In the grandest tradition of the republican cause, the Houston Rockets destroyed "King" James and his Cavaliers on Thursday. Despite the pre-game predictions of Kenny Smith and Charles Barkley, Shane Battier and Ron Artest were able to hold Lebron James to a mere 21 points on 21 attempts, 1 rebound, and (for the first time in his brief career) no assists. It was the first time he was held to a single rebound since 2007.
ESPN has a good analysis of how Shane and Artest stopped the best player in the NBA. Put simply, they allowed LeBron to take as many jump shots as he wanted, yielding everything outside of the paint. This makes sense, mathematically. James shoots something like 75% around the rim, making him an efficient scorer once he gets inside. But, as has been documented so many times, he lacks a great outside shot, even though he seems to believe that he's Kobe Bryant.
The danger, of course, is that you're also yielding three-point territory. But James' outside shot is inconsistent enough to take that risk, and you can adjust if he's able to score outside on that night.
To me, the game demonstrated the major flaw in the Cavaliers' design: while the Cavaliers have a group of solid role-players who can play great defense, they don't have any other real scoring threats, while their offense emphasizes Lebron's offense. There's nothing wrong with that, but, when faced with a Rockets team that can pack the lane and defends well on the perimeter, the Cavs had no answer. The Cavaliers, to be the unstoppable force so many beleive that they can be, need another offensive threat down low. Maybe Varajao will develop that sort of offensive game in the future, but I doubt it.
The only thing I don't like about the analysis given by ESPN is that it seems to miss a critical part of defending superstars. When LeBron was on the floor, the Cavs were -13. A similar stat was given for the Lakers when both Kobe and Shane are on the floor in that Michael Lewis article from a few weeks back.
Lebron, no matter what, is going to get his points. The Cavs' offense is run through him, and nobody is going to tell him to stop taking shots. But, when faced with the sort of defense he encountered on Thursday, he becomes less efficient and less aware, making his whole team worse. The same thing happens when any star player is ineffective. We see it when Yao has a bad night or when McGrady is injured. The things that they do that make their role-players better cease to happen, and so the whole team is worse.
On another note, listen to the TNT pre-game show from Thursday. The idiotic "analysis" from Smith and Barkley astounds me. Barkley says that great players can't possibly be stopped. Smith claims that "good offense always beats great defense" (which is why the Phoenix Suns have won the last three NBA Championships) . The best part, however, is when both claim that the Rockets "packed it in" when they traded Rafer "What the fuck are you doing" Alston. Excuse me while I go laugh my ass off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Texans traded Rosenfels to the Vikings for a 4th round pick. It's a good move, but I'm sorry to see the author of the most glorious moment in Texans history leave.
They also hired Bruce Matthews as an assistant offensive coach. Some are saying this means they might draft his nephews, but I doubt it. Clay Matthews is seen as a late 1st round or early 2nd round pick, and will probably be a great LB, but I don't think the Texans will trade down (or up) to get him, nor is there any connection between hiring the guy's uncle and drafting him.
Dunta is reportedly pissed about being franchised. Demeco doesn't like what the front office is doing with his contract negotiations. I sympathize but think they both need to get over themselves.
The Astros won their first Spring Training game, lost the next two. Chris Johnson is exciting a lot of people, and (as much as I'd like to buy into that) I have my doubts about his hitting ability. He's got a lot of power, (reportedly) a good glove, and has garnered a lot of support, but I don't see how a guy hitting .275 in AA and walking about 4% of the time has much chance. Maybe that's just me being pessimistic, though. We'll see how he does in AAA this year. Stranger things have happened. But it looks to me like Chris Johnson is a mediocre prospect who's getting a lot of attention because he plays in the upper divisions of a depeleted farm system. He was rated a three-star prospect and received some nice comments from BPro, but the criticisms against him - free swinger - aren't easy ones to overcome. Again, we'll see what happens.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Jazz Fans sure are stupid.
Inspired by this post over at SBN's Jazz site (and by the fact that I'm a horribly lame individual who doesn't find Mardi Gras all that fucking interesting after the third or fourth time), I decided to compare the best point guards in the league. I chose the two best PGs in the Western Conference (and the two who started this conversation), Deron Williams and Chris Paul, and the two best in the East, Jameer Nelson and Devin Harris. So let's take a look, shall we?
Let's start with the basics:
Paul has a massive advantage in assists, steals, and rebounds. Nelson is hurting for a lot of stats, but that's mostly because of his injury. Devin Harris has a slight advantage in scoring over Paul, however. Paul has also turned the ball over more than any other PG. But that's obviously not telling us much, right? We need to look at per-game stats.
Pretty much the same thing. Except that suddenly Williams' turnovers are the worst in the group. And he's the worst rebounder. Still, he's second-best in assists, even if he doesn't generate many turnovers himself. But Paul and the other guards play more minutes than Williams, so we need to normalize for that.
The assist gap between Paul and Williams closes, but the turnover gap widens. Harris' lead in points increases. But any good student of the game knows that it's not per-minute stats that matter, but per-possession stats. Maybe Williams looks better than Paul there.
Oh shit. That didn't help Williams' case at all. In fact, it looks like Chris Paul is obviously the best PG in the league. Look at the massive lead he has in Wins, PER, Assists, steals, rebounding (an underrated part of his game). And Williams is turning the ball over a lot. And, when we look at PER and Wins, it looks like (even with Nelson's injury), Williams might be the worst of the group. Let's look at why that might be.
Paul is the best field goal shooter, but Nelson leads in free throws and threes. Harris isn't quite the shooter that Williams is.
True shooting takes everything into account - threes, field goals, and free throws. Nelson is the best shooter of the four, followed by Paul.
Offensive and Defensive Ratings give us the number of points scored and allowed in 100 possessions. Personally, I'm surprised by how close Paul and Nelson are. But why are Harris and Williams so close together, given Harris' much poorer scoring? The answer lies in free throw attempts. Per game, Harris goes to the line about four more times than Williams. Despite his poorer accuracy, Harris gets enough foul calls to make up the difference.
There is absolutely no contest in who is the best point guard in the game. Chris Paul is head-and-shoulders above everyone else in the game. He was the best player in virtually every single category. Only Nelson did anything better than him. He should have won the MVP last year, and he has a good case this year.
The contest is between Harris, Nelson, and Williams for second place. And, looking at these numbers, I think that Nelson makes a good case for the title of 2nd best PG in the NBA. It's a shame that he's out with a labrum tear. But Harris might even come out ahead of Williams, which surprised me. It's important to remember how useful getting to the foul line is. Not only is it the most efficient method of scoring (doesn't take any time off the clock), it also generates more free-throw attempts after the opposing team gets in the penalty, and it can quickly remove opponents from the game.
The funniest part of the linked SLCD thread above was this: Jazz fans wanted to say that Chris Paul was worse because he was smaller. Never mind that Paul is the superior defender and scorer, somehow three inches meant that Williams was the better player. That's not the way it works. But let's take a look at our group's vital statistics. Maybe that will show something Deron Williams is best at:
Shit. Chris Paul is only 6 feet tall, and he's the lightest player in the group. But Williams is tied for tallest, and he has a big advantage over everyone in weight. Good for him.
That last statistic is one of my own design: BQ. Blackness Quotient. It's a measure, similar to IQ, that measures a player's blackness in comparison to other prominent NBA players. 100 is neither Black nor White, lying roughly at the average. Some examples of different scores:
35: Brian Scalabrine - let me break it down for you: so very, very white.
50: Shane Battier - extremely white, but he gets points for being multi-racial.
75: Dirk Nowitzki - pretty white, but he gets points for foreigness.
90: Brent Barry - a white guy, but he also won the dunk contest, the high-point of the (according to Michael Wilbon) "black superbowl."
100: Tim Duncan - black guy, white game.
110: Tracy McGrady - black guy with a black game, but he's also very white-person-friendly. Gives hugs to big Asians.
125: Kevin Garnett - black guy who made all those references to shooting people.
150: Rasheed Wallace - it's the beard
165: Ron Artest - he's got a very white game, but he also terrifies people. Also a (moderately skilled) rapper.
190: Allen Iverson - drove many a Philly fan to start watching Duke.
Deron Williams has a big advantage in BQ, while Chris Paul, with his smiling, endorsement-ready mannerisms, is roughly as black as T-Mac. Hooray for Williams! He finally won something!
Let's start with the basics:
Paul has a massive advantage in assists, steals, and rebounds. Nelson is hurting for a lot of stats, but that's mostly because of his injury. Devin Harris has a slight advantage in scoring over Paul, however. Paul has also turned the ball over more than any other PG. But that's obviously not telling us much, right? We need to look at per-game stats.
Pretty much the same thing. Except that suddenly Williams' turnovers are the worst in the group. And he's the worst rebounder. Still, he's second-best in assists, even if he doesn't generate many turnovers himself. But Paul and the other guards play more minutes than Williams, so we need to normalize for that.
The assist gap between Paul and Williams closes, but the turnover gap widens. Harris' lead in points increases. But any good student of the game knows that it's not per-minute stats that matter, but per-possession stats. Maybe Williams looks better than Paul there.
Oh shit. That didn't help Williams' case at all. In fact, it looks like Chris Paul is obviously the best PG in the league. Look at the massive lead he has in Wins, PER, Assists, steals, rebounding (an underrated part of his game). And Williams is turning the ball over a lot. And, when we look at PER and Wins, it looks like (even with Nelson's injury), Williams might be the worst of the group. Let's look at why that might be.
Paul is the best field goal shooter, but Nelson leads in free throws and threes. Harris isn't quite the shooter that Williams is.
True shooting takes everything into account - threes, field goals, and free throws. Nelson is the best shooter of the four, followed by Paul.
Offensive and Defensive Ratings give us the number of points scored and allowed in 100 possessions. Personally, I'm surprised by how close Paul and Nelson are. But why are Harris and Williams so close together, given Harris' much poorer scoring? The answer lies in free throw attempts. Per game, Harris goes to the line about four more times than Williams. Despite his poorer accuracy, Harris gets enough foul calls to make up the difference.There is absolutely no contest in who is the best point guard in the game. Chris Paul is head-and-shoulders above everyone else in the game. He was the best player in virtually every single category. Only Nelson did anything better than him. He should have won the MVP last year, and he has a good case this year.
The contest is between Harris, Nelson, and Williams for second place. And, looking at these numbers, I think that Nelson makes a good case for the title of 2nd best PG in the NBA. It's a shame that he's out with a labrum tear. But Harris might even come out ahead of Williams, which surprised me. It's important to remember how useful getting to the foul line is. Not only is it the most efficient method of scoring (doesn't take any time off the clock), it also generates more free-throw attempts after the opposing team gets in the penalty, and it can quickly remove opponents from the game.
The funniest part of the linked SLCD thread above was this: Jazz fans wanted to say that Chris Paul was worse because he was smaller. Never mind that Paul is the superior defender and scorer, somehow three inches meant that Williams was the better player. That's not the way it works. But let's take a look at our group's vital statistics. Maybe that will show something Deron Williams is best at:
Shit. Chris Paul is only 6 feet tall, and he's the lightest player in the group. But Williams is tied for tallest, and he has a big advantage over everyone in weight. Good for him.That last statistic is one of my own design: BQ. Blackness Quotient. It's a measure, similar to IQ, that measures a player's blackness in comparison to other prominent NBA players. 100 is neither Black nor White, lying roughly at the average. Some examples of different scores:
35: Brian Scalabrine - let me break it down for you: so very, very white.
50: Shane Battier - extremely white, but he gets points for being multi-racial.
75: Dirk Nowitzki - pretty white, but he gets points for foreigness.
90: Brent Barry - a white guy, but he also won the dunk contest, the high-point of the (according to Michael Wilbon) "black superbowl."
100: Tim Duncan - black guy, white game.
110: Tracy McGrady - black guy with a black game, but he's also very white-person-friendly. Gives hugs to big Asians.
125: Kevin Garnett - black guy who made all those references to shooting people.
150: Rasheed Wallace - it's the beard
165: Ron Artest - he's got a very white game, but he also terrifies people. Also a (moderately skilled) rapper.
190: Allen Iverson - drove many a Philly fan to start watching Duke.
Deron Williams has a big advantage in BQ, while Chris Paul, with his smiling, endorsement-ready mannerisms, is roughly as black as T-Mac. Hooray for Williams! He finally won something!
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Shock the world
I had some half-written post about one of Jerome Solomon's recent columns comparing the T-Mac-Yao tandem with Kobe-Shaq, but I've grown disinterested with it. Suffice it to say that, while Yao is not quite the player Shaq was at 28, he is at roughly the same level Shaq was at 26. Yao has developed into the best center in the Western Conference, as well as the best-rounded center in the league. He is dominant, possibly as dominant as Shaq was in his early Laker years. Up until this season, when Kobe suddenly decided to start pssing and defending well and T-Mac's knee finally gave out, it could be argued that McGrady was better than his rival. Despite the lack of postseason success, Yao and McGrady formed one of the best guard/center combinations in NBA history.
No, what interests me right now are the comments of several other pundits in the Houston and national media. While BDL had correctly evaluated the Lowry/Alston deal as a good one for the Rockets, it also seems that some of its contributers feel this was a surrender signal from Daryl Morey and that, combined with the loss of McGrady, the Rockets are out of contention for the West and may even slip out of the playoffs.
Bullshit.
The Rockets have proven that they can win without McGrady. Moreover, they proved they could win against good teams (Boston, Denver) without McGrady. I like McGrady, I love his game, and I think that the Rockets are a worse team without (the healthy version of) him. But he is not irreplacable. Von Wafer is not as good as the injured McGrady, but he fits within the offense and understands his role. Artest is starting to do the same. At the end of the day, this puts added pressure on Yao, but it also means he becomes even more of a focus on the offensive side. And even Rafer-lovers must admit that Skip is definitely not the lynch-pin of this Houston team.
I'm going to be honest: I get a real 1994 Olajuwon vibe from Yao. That year, Hakeem was surrounded with good roleplayers and a quality team, but he was the only legitimate superstar on that team. And he carried the Rockets to a championship.
And I get a real 1995 Rockets vibe from the media - they've been written off in favor of the Lakers, Spurs, and Nuggets, but the only team I think they are noticeably worse than in that group are the Lakers.
Lowry was a great defensive addition to the backcourt. Making a decision about McGrady means a lot for the team's chemistry. And, despite what a few uninformed writers think, I really believe that the Rockets still have a good chance of winning it all this year.
No, what interests me right now are the comments of several other pundits in the Houston and national media. While BDL had correctly evaluated the Lowry/Alston deal as a good one for the Rockets, it also seems that some of its contributers feel this was a surrender signal from Daryl Morey and that, combined with the loss of McGrady, the Rockets are out of contention for the West and may even slip out of the playoffs.
Bullshit.
The Rockets have proven that they can win without McGrady. Moreover, they proved they could win against good teams (Boston, Denver) without McGrady. I like McGrady, I love his game, and I think that the Rockets are a worse team without (the healthy version of) him. But he is not irreplacable. Von Wafer is not as good as the injured McGrady, but he fits within the offense and understands his role. Artest is starting to do the same. At the end of the day, this puts added pressure on Yao, but it also means he becomes even more of a focus on the offensive side. And even Rafer-lovers must admit that Skip is definitely not the lynch-pin of this Houston team.
I'm going to be honest: I get a real 1994 Olajuwon vibe from Yao. That year, Hakeem was surrounded with good roleplayers and a quality team, but he was the only legitimate superstar on that team. And he carried the Rockets to a championship.
And I get a real 1995 Rockets vibe from the media - they've been written off in favor of the Lakers, Spurs, and Nuggets, but the only team I think they are noticeably worse than in that group are the Lakers.
Lowry was a great defensive addition to the backcourt. Making a decision about McGrady means a lot for the team's chemistry. And, despite what a few uninformed writers think, I really believe that the Rockets still have a good chance of winning it all this year.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Daryl Morey is a Golden God (pt 2)
The idiots at ClutchFans don't seem to understand how fantastic of a move this is. Daryl Morey has dropped several million dollars in payroll. He has gained a young point guard with a lot of potential. He found a point guard who is roughly the equal of Rafer, offensively, and probably better than him defensively. And he did so by just giving away Rafer. That's incredible. Daryl Morey continues to play the other NBA GMs for chumps. And Houston's idiotic fans don't even fucking realize it. So welcome to Houston, Kyle Lowry. Don't fuck it up.
More fun with photoshop (I was going for a Chinese propaganda look; not sure how it comes off. I like how the first one turned out better than the second).
"Long live the Rockets! Long live Yao's fans!" (I intended for that second bit to translate as "Long Live Yao Ming," but my roommate informs me that it translates as "Yao's fans" instead. Still makes sense.)
"Yao is the people's hammer; Yao will lead us to greatness"
More fun with photoshop (I was going for a Chinese propaganda look; not sure how it comes off. I like how the first one turned out better than the second).
"Long live the Rockets! Long live Yao's fans!" (I intended for that second bit to translate as "Long Live Yao Ming," but my roommate informs me that it translates as "Yao's fans" instead. Still makes sense.)
"Yao is the people's hammer; Yao will lead us to greatness"
Monday, February 16, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Hmmm....It's almost as if reason and statistical analysis is better than faux-moralistic grandstanding and nonsense!
Who knew?
Of course, this reasonable argument would never be expressed in the mainstream sports media. That would make too much fucking sense.
Sometimes, I think Plato was right - the philosophers should rule. Just replace "philosophers" with "philosophers and economists." The ideal and the pragmatic, meeting as one. It's only coincidence that both are my areas of study, I promise.
Of course, this reasonable argument would never be expressed in the mainstream sports media. That would make too much fucking sense.
Sometimes, I think Plato was right - the philosophers should rule. Just replace "philosophers" with "philosophers and economists." The ideal and the pragmatic, meeting as one. It's only coincidence that both are my areas of study, I promise.
Shit!
So Tejada got all teary-eyed yesterday. And, judging from internet reactions, people seem to have forgiven him. And I agree with that - he shouldn't have lied, and there are consequences for doing so.
However, very few in the media have pointed out what utter horsehit these charges amount to. Tejada was not charged with lying about taking steroids. He lied about knowing teammates who had taken steroids. So Adam Piatt tells him during spring training one year that he had used steroids, Tejada tells investigators years later that he doesn't know of anyone else using steroids (it's something of a ridiculous lie; both the Giambis were on steroids, as were several others in the Oakland clubhouse; I'm sure Tejada knew; on the other hand, Tejada doesn't seem too bright, so you never know), the investigators find out that Piatt had sold Tejada drugs later.
This seems, to me, to be an extraordinarily chickenshit charge. I'm so glad that the government has decided to devote its time, money, and personnel to investigating and prosecuting this bullshit. Sure, finding suppliers of illegal (well, mostly illegal) substances is important, but this seemed to be so overblown by the government and media.
In any case, I'm glad Tejada won't be going to jail.
In even shittier news, McGrady might be seriously injured. And he might need microfracture surgery. And that might end his career. Holy fuck, that's not good.
However, very few in the media have pointed out what utter horsehit these charges amount to. Tejada was not charged with lying about taking steroids. He lied about knowing teammates who had taken steroids. So Adam Piatt tells him during spring training one year that he had used steroids, Tejada tells investigators years later that he doesn't know of anyone else using steroids (it's something of a ridiculous lie; both the Giambis were on steroids, as were several others in the Oakland clubhouse; I'm sure Tejada knew; on the other hand, Tejada doesn't seem too bright, so you never know), the investigators find out that Piatt had sold Tejada drugs later.
This seems, to me, to be an extraordinarily chickenshit charge. I'm so glad that the government has decided to devote its time, money, and personnel to investigating and prosecuting this bullshit. Sure, finding suppliers of illegal (well, mostly illegal) substances is important, but this seemed to be so overblown by the government and media.
In any case, I'm glad Tejada won't be going to jail.
In even shittier news, McGrady might be seriously injured. And he might need microfracture surgery. And that might end his career. Holy fuck, that's not good.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Steroids
Gotta say, the news that Alex Rodriguez used steroids is some of the least surprising "surprising news" I've heard. Personally, I don't give a shit. I have yet to hear a convincing reason why augmenting the body through steroids is any different from augmenting the body otherwise. I think it's exactly the same, and - as such - it should be allowed. Nevertheless, the media is having a field day over this, despite their facilitation of the entire era.
I wish I could find Ken Caminiti's interview from about a year before his death. I remember one of his basic points was that, when the difference between being cut and having a job, or between getting $2 million in arbitration and getting $5 million is a few home runs a year, you're going to do whatever you can to make sure you have a job or get that extra money. When ownership is demanding more homers, your manager needs you to play every day, reporters grant you more exposure which gets you more money, and (this is the important part) all turn a blind eye to it, steroid use makes sense. Ownership, management, and the media all played a major part in this.
In the past few days, both Oswalt and Berkman have made very clear statements against steroid users. Now, as I've said, I don't think there would be anything wrong* with them taking steroids/HGH.
* I think we need to distinguish between the wrongness of cheating and the wrongness of breaking the rules. I think that steroids probably didn't help much, or (if they did) they did so in the same way as any other physical training or augmentation. Thus, steroid users certainly broke the rules, but they didn't really gain an advantage over their competitors. They broke the rules, but they didn't really cheat. (And, yes, I copied this paranthetical format from Joe Posnanski)
I would be legitimately surprised if it turned out that either the Puma or Wizard were steroid users. Very, very surprised. So what about other players? I think that the vast majority of steroid users were, in all likelihood, scrubs trying to get whatever advantage they could, but some other stars obviously were using, as well. Just a few:
I Would Be Entirely Surprised if They Were Not Using Steroids:
Albert Pujols (this isn't simply Astros homerism. That guy is on the 'roids. I'm sure of it. Just like I'm sure he's several years older than he claims)
Carlos Zambrano
Not a Big Surprise (A-Rod fits this category)
Mike Piazza
Ken Griffey Jr (a lot of people think he's definitely clean, and I'd like to believe that, but I find it doubtful)
Jeff Bagwell (same as the above. It would suck if he were on steroids, but I wouldn't be shocked. Slightly surprised, but not shocked)
Chipper Jones
Jeff Kent
Totally Surprised:
Frank Thomas
Biggio (this would blow me away)
Schilling (fat bastard makes too much noise)
Oswalt
Berkman
EDIT:
Joe Posnanski, as it turns out, has written a very good piece on the A-Rod/Steroids story. Check it out. However, it quickly diverges into talking about the Serena Roberts vs. Alex Rodriguez thing.
Every article I've read on the subject inevitably comes down on Roberts' side in this, and that's probably a product of journalists seeking to protect their own. That's unfortunate, because Roberts is a hack.
She continued to hammer on the fake Duke rape allegations years ago. She seems to simply have it in for Rodriguez. She broke this story, which was a revelation of confidential information. She has, by breaking this story, probably helped commit a federal crime. As far as I'm concerned, she's an awful journalist and an awful person.
But journalists have a strange view of themselves. They think (wrongly) that they have a special "journalistic privilege" to not reveal sources. They seem to believe that reporting anything - no matter how private that information should be, or how wrongly it was obtained - is their duty and right.
So, inevitably, everyone from Posnanski to Justice is going to defend Roberts' actions. That's wrong.
I wish I could find Ken Caminiti's interview from about a year before his death. I remember one of his basic points was that, when the difference between being cut and having a job, or between getting $2 million in arbitration and getting $5 million is a few home runs a year, you're going to do whatever you can to make sure you have a job or get that extra money. When ownership is demanding more homers, your manager needs you to play every day, reporters grant you more exposure which gets you more money, and (this is the important part) all turn a blind eye to it, steroid use makes sense. Ownership, management, and the media all played a major part in this.
In the past few days, both Oswalt and Berkman have made very clear statements against steroid users. Now, as I've said, I don't think there would be anything wrong* with them taking steroids/HGH.
* I think we need to distinguish between the wrongness of cheating and the wrongness of breaking the rules. I think that steroids probably didn't help much, or (if they did) they did so in the same way as any other physical training or augmentation. Thus, steroid users certainly broke the rules, but they didn't really gain an advantage over their competitors. They broke the rules, but they didn't really cheat. (And, yes, I copied this paranthetical format from Joe Posnanski)
I would be legitimately surprised if it turned out that either the Puma or Wizard were steroid users. Very, very surprised. So what about other players? I think that the vast majority of steroid users were, in all likelihood, scrubs trying to get whatever advantage they could, but some other stars obviously were using, as well. Just a few:
I Would Be Entirely Surprised if They Were Not Using Steroids:
Albert Pujols (this isn't simply Astros homerism. That guy is on the 'roids. I'm sure of it. Just like I'm sure he's several years older than he claims)
Carlos Zambrano
Not a Big Surprise (A-Rod fits this category)
Mike Piazza
Ken Griffey Jr (a lot of people think he's definitely clean, and I'd like to believe that, but I find it doubtful)
Jeff Bagwell (same as the above. It would suck if he were on steroids, but I wouldn't be shocked. Slightly surprised, but not shocked)
Chipper Jones
Jeff Kent
Totally Surprised:
Frank Thomas
Biggio (this would blow me away)
Schilling (fat bastard makes too much noise)
Oswalt
Berkman
EDIT:
Joe Posnanski, as it turns out, has written a very good piece on the A-Rod/Steroids story. Check it out. However, it quickly diverges into talking about the Serena Roberts vs. Alex Rodriguez thing.
Every article I've read on the subject inevitably comes down on Roberts' side in this, and that's probably a product of journalists seeking to protect their own. That's unfortunate, because Roberts is a hack.
She continued to hammer on the fake Duke rape allegations years ago. She seems to simply have it in for Rodriguez. She broke this story, which was a revelation of confidential information. She has, by breaking this story, probably helped commit a federal crime. As far as I'm concerned, she's an awful journalist and an awful person.
But journalists have a strange view of themselves. They think (wrongly) that they have a special "journalistic privilege" to not reveal sources. They seem to believe that reporting anything - no matter how private that information should be, or how wrongly it was obtained - is their duty and right.
So, inevitably, everyone from Posnanski to Justice is going to defend Roberts' actions. That's wrong.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Remarkable
It intrigues me that, whenever Bud has attempted to fuck over the city of Houston, karma somehow gets to him (I'll consider the massive opportunity cost associated with moving the Oilers from Houston to Possum Hollar a karmic response, too). When he attempted to move the team to Jacksonville (which led the city to give into Bud's demands and tear down the Dome's scoreboard for more seating), Bud's son died in an apparent suicide (My mom tells a story about that one. While the vast majority of her family was from Humble, my great-grandparents bought some land out in Waller back in the 50s. According to mom, the farm in Waller was located near a ranch Bud Adams owned. It was there that his son killed himself).
And now, after the NFL announced that the Sister-Fuckers will play two games next year in the Oilers colors, Bud's wife passes away.
Now, the obvious problem with believing that this is the universe getting back at Bud is twofold: First, you have to believe that it cares about football (it probably does, though). Second, you have to believe that the universe is asshole-ish enough to visit punishment upon Bud's family, rather than Bud himself.
Still, rest in peace, Ms. Adams and Bud III. You had nothing to do with Bud's crap. And the injustice of seeing a sports team move is nothing compared to the injustice of seeing one's loved ones die. So, if you're reading this Bud, my condolences (and go fuck yourself.)
And now, after the NFL announced that the Sister-Fuckers will play two games next year in the Oilers colors, Bud's wife passes away.
Now, the obvious problem with believing that this is the universe getting back at Bud is twofold: First, you have to believe that it cares about football (it probably does, though). Second, you have to believe that the universe is asshole-ish enough to visit punishment upon Bud's family, rather than Bud himself.
Still, rest in peace, Ms. Adams and Bud III. You had nothing to do with Bud's crap. And the injustice of seeing a sports team move is nothing compared to the injustice of seeing one's loved ones die. So, if you're reading this Bud, my condolences (and go fuck yourself.)
What the hell is this shit?
That Star Trek trailer looks awful. I mean, I loved DS9, and I think the franchise should generally move in that direction, but the new movie just seems like it will two hours of shit blowing up. They've totally fucked up the whole Star Trek premise. And this whole "25 year-old Kirk" thing just doesn't work. The only major characters in the original series who should be even close to that age are Chekov, Uhura, and Sulu. Everyone else is in their mid-30s to 40s. Young McCoy doesn't make any fucking sense. God, they've probably totally fucked that movie up. JJ Abrams was NOT the way to take that franchise out of its current malaise.
Oh, and there was some football game last night, right? Yeah, and it was pretty fucking awesome, too. I was rooting for the Cardinals, and I really believed that they could pull off the upset, but I began to have my doubts when they were down 20-7. But they fought back and let their fans down the right way - not with a boring beatdown for three hours on national television (2002 Texans), but with a spectacular, heartbreaking loss in the closing moments of the game (2008 Texans).
The comparisons between the Cardinals and Texans will invariably be drawn, and this isn't entirely accurate. Yes, the Texans have the ability to make the playoffs next year, and they might even go deep into them, but they have to face a significantly tougher division and conference. Just to make the playoffs, the Texans will have to take on a renewed AFC South. Jacksonville will have a lot of its offensive line back, the Colts will have a healthy Manning for the whole season, and the sister-fuckers might get Haynesworth back (doubtful, but entirely possible). The division will be exceedingly difficult.
Then, should they make the playoffs, they will have to go through the Colts, Patriots, Steelers, and probably Chargers (they'll have Merriman back, so there's that), as well as the other WC team (Ravens?).
To even have a fighting chance, the Texans' defense has to improve significantly in the coming months. The Cardinals' defense turned it on in the playoffs, but they certainly didn't get it done last night. Still, the Texans have one major advantage over the Cardinals: the running game.
But the comparison seems to make sense because they're both historically awful teams whom nobody expects to ever do anything, and they're both equipped with prolific passing attacks and one of the best recievers in football (Johnson is better than Fitzgerald, dumbasses).
But make no mistake: if the Texans ever get to the Cardinals' posisition, they will have been much more heavily tested, and they will be in a much better posistion.
Oh, and there was some football game last night, right? Yeah, and it was pretty fucking awesome, too. I was rooting for the Cardinals, and I really believed that they could pull off the upset, but I began to have my doubts when they were down 20-7. But they fought back and let their fans down the right way - not with a boring beatdown for three hours on national television (2002 Texans), but with a spectacular, heartbreaking loss in the closing moments of the game (2008 Texans).
The comparisons between the Cardinals and Texans will invariably be drawn, and this isn't entirely accurate. Yes, the Texans have the ability to make the playoffs next year, and they might even go deep into them, but they have to face a significantly tougher division and conference. Just to make the playoffs, the Texans will have to take on a renewed AFC South. Jacksonville will have a lot of its offensive line back, the Colts will have a healthy Manning for the whole season, and the sister-fuckers might get Haynesworth back (doubtful, but entirely possible). The division will be exceedingly difficult.
Then, should they make the playoffs, they will have to go through the Colts, Patriots, Steelers, and probably Chargers (they'll have Merriman back, so there's that), as well as the other WC team (Ravens?).
To even have a fighting chance, the Texans' defense has to improve significantly in the coming months. The Cardinals' defense turned it on in the playoffs, but they certainly didn't get it done last night. Still, the Texans have one major advantage over the Cardinals: the running game.
But the comparison seems to make sense because they're both historically awful teams whom nobody expects to ever do anything, and they're both equipped with prolific passing attacks and one of the best recievers in football (Johnson is better than Fitzgerald, dumbasses).
But make no mistake: if the Texans ever get to the Cardinals' posisition, they will have been much more heavily tested, and they will be in a much better posistion.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Modernism and Sac Bunts
The Marlins have put up a bunch of renderings of their proposed ballpark on their website. I gotta say, it looks pretty cool. I like the modernist feel to it (oddly enough, it reminds me of Dodger stadium in LA, so it - ironically - has something of a "retro" look). Honestly, I think the Astros should have gone with something more like this. I can't stand the train theme at MMP (yeah, I know. Union Station used to stand there. But trains just don't go with Astros).
I'm watching the Cavaliers-Pistons game, and JVG was talking about some comment from Rick Barry concerning Lebron James. Mark Jackson said, "You don't tell Albert Pujols to sac bunt," and Van Gundy responds with something like, "I wish LaRussa had told him to sac bunt against the Astros." Yeah, me too. I miss Van Gundy and his defense.
I'm watching the Cavaliers-Pistons game, and JVG was talking about some comment from Rick Barry concerning Lebron James. Mark Jackson said, "You don't tell Albert Pujols to sac bunt," and Van Gundy responds with something like, "I wish LaRussa had told him to sac bunt against the Astros." Yeah, me too. I miss Van Gundy and his defense.
Roll Wave, Kill Whitey
So, Thurday I was watching SportsCenter, and what do I see? Yes, my friends, the mighty Green Wave got a mention on national television, as the Yankee fucks in Bristol recapped Chris Simms' game-winning layup against Rice. Not only that, the play (and the resulting "incident" between the Rice coach and Dickerson) was mentioned on Deadspin. Holy shit! The Tulane basketball program is really moving on up now. They scored a few minor victories on the recruiting front this year, the media (both traditional and non-) gives them a mention, and now visiting professor James Carville (he teaches some political science course this semester; and he and his wife give a lot of money to the school) shows up at home games and gives the refs hell. Awesome.
Actually, Conference USA has suddenly made numerous appearances in the media, mostly because of Houston's Aubrey Coleman's face-kicking/tripping-over Arizona's Chase Budinger.
Now, the strangest part of this saga has been the racial angle that has cropped up. Seemingly every story written about this garners some pissed-off white man to scream about black "hate crimes" against whites.
I don't know whether or not Coleman did that intentionally. He might very well have simply attempted to step over Coleman and tripped. But that's irrelevant to this discussion. What's important is that this seems to have struck a very weird chord with white basketball fans.
I think, to many white basketball fans, the college game is a sort of refuge. While plenty of schools in plenty of conferences have, over the years, adopted the high-flying, athletic, "black" style of play (Houston under Guy Lewis was probably the most famous for this, and I'd say Memphis is a great example now, but even traditional ACC schools present this - Georgetown and Wake Forest being the best examples), fewer have kept to the old, less-athletic, "white" style of play. Duke is the prime example of this style. Programs like Duke provide a white alternative to the NBA, and I think plenty of closet racists choose college basketball for this reason.
So these people see a black guard on a historically black team kicking a white kid while he's down, and suddenly all the racist bullshit that these people brought with them comes out. Somehow, Coleman is a personification of every perceived injustice from "reverse-racism," affirmative-action, or black crime. Claims like "Coleman should be charged with a hate crime" are justified with "A white man would be charged with a hate crime." Think about that. That's not justice - it's injustice "justified" by the injustices of the past. This has become (for some very sick people) an opportunity to let out their rage against the black guy who stole their girlfriend or got that promotion over them. Coleman suddenly has become a symbol for the black race, while Budinger becomes a symbol for white men everywhere.
That's screwed up. If Coleman intentionally did that, he did it because he's an asshole, and not because he particular hates white people. Don't let this become anything beyond that.
I'm watching (like the rest of America) the Superbowl today. I hope the Cardinals win, of course (If you root for the favored team, and you don't really have a rooting interest, you're an asshole). Prediction: Cardinals 21-17.
Oh, Christ. Berman just mentioned Dire Straits (specifically "Industrial Disease" and the line "Two men say they're Jesus/One of them must be wrong"). WHY DO YOU RUIN THE THINGS I LOVE, YOU FUCK!
Actually, Conference USA has suddenly made numerous appearances in the media, mostly because of Houston's Aubrey Coleman's face-kicking/tripping-over Arizona's Chase Budinger.
Now, the strangest part of this saga has been the racial angle that has cropped up. Seemingly every story written about this garners some pissed-off white man to scream about black "hate crimes" against whites.
I don't know whether or not Coleman did that intentionally. He might very well have simply attempted to step over Coleman and tripped. But that's irrelevant to this discussion. What's important is that this seems to have struck a very weird chord with white basketball fans.
I think, to many white basketball fans, the college game is a sort of refuge. While plenty of schools in plenty of conferences have, over the years, adopted the high-flying, athletic, "black" style of play (Houston under Guy Lewis was probably the most famous for this, and I'd say Memphis is a great example now, but even traditional ACC schools present this - Georgetown and Wake Forest being the best examples), fewer have kept to the old, less-athletic, "white" style of play. Duke is the prime example of this style. Programs like Duke provide a white alternative to the NBA, and I think plenty of closet racists choose college basketball for this reason.
So these people see a black guard on a historically black team kicking a white kid while he's down, and suddenly all the racist bullshit that these people brought with them comes out. Somehow, Coleman is a personification of every perceived injustice from "reverse-racism," affirmative-action, or black crime. Claims like "Coleman should be charged with a hate crime" are justified with "A white man would be charged with a hate crime." Think about that. That's not justice - it's injustice "justified" by the injustices of the past. This has become (for some very sick people) an opportunity to let out their rage against the black guy who stole their girlfriend or got that promotion over them. Coleman suddenly has become a symbol for the black race, while Budinger becomes a symbol for white men everywhere.
That's screwed up. If Coleman intentionally did that, he did it because he's an asshole, and not because he particular hates white people. Don't let this become anything beyond that.
I'm watching (like the rest of America) the Superbowl today. I hope the Cardinals win, of course (If you root for the favored team, and you don't really have a rooting interest, you're an asshole). Prediction: Cardinals 21-17.
Oh, Christ. Berman just mentioned Dire Straits (specifically "Industrial Disease" and the line "Two men say they're Jesus/One of them must be wrong"). WHY DO YOU RUIN THE THINGS I LOVE, YOU FUCK!
Monday, January 26, 2009
On the Science of General Managing
I was talking to a friend during lunch, and the topic of baseball management came up (actually, this is a fairly common topic, so I wouldn't say it just "came up"). He said that, were he a GM, he would only sign pitchers to two or three year deals. This lead to a discussion on what the best strategy, generally, for a franchise would be.
So I've been thinking about this for the past few hours, and here's what I'd do.
1) If given the option to build a new stadium, or to renovate my current one, I would prefer a pitcher-favored design. The Astrodome was the perfect example of this. This does two things: first, it allows me to hire and develop pitchers who may not be very good in a more hitter-friendly environment, but whose fly-ball pitching excels in a pitcher-friendly park. This means that I can exploit something of a market inefficiency by favoring a special kind of (otherwise poor) pitcher. Second, it kills power numbers. I neutralize my power-hitting rivals' main advantage. Of course, this also hurts me. But that brings me to point two:
2) In the draft, as well as in free agency, I would favor non-power hitters. In general, I want hitters who get on base by walking and hitting singles and doubles. I want Tony Gwynn, Wade Boggs, and Craig Biggio types. My opponents might not hit very well in my park, but my hitters will. Power hitters are great (and I'm not saying one should neglect power hitting totally), but batting average and on-base-percentage is even better. The goal here is not speed (speed's great, but only a plus) but an ability to punch the ball into the outfield and get on base. It's a sadly dying breed of hitting, and I think there would certainly be a value in selecting for those players who can do that.
3) I would construct a defense-oriented team. There was an interesting article at THT a few weeks ago, and one of its claims (backed up by statistical analysis) was that the price for a marginal Run Saved is nearly half that of a marginal Run Scored.
Now, you might point out (as I did) that this doesn't make any sense because a run scored and a run saved do the same thing. But - and here's the extra-interesting part - a run scored is worth less than a run saved (this, of course, makes intuitive sense, but it's something that I've found many people don't realize).
So I think that a primary focus of the club should be defense. I'm not saying that I'd want eight Adam Everetts out there, but good defense would be a major goal. This would help to bail out my cheaper pitching staff.
Anyways, that's my view of good baseball organizational goals. They exploit major market inefficiences and create comparative advantages for the club, and I think any team would be wise to adopt such a position.
So I've been thinking about this for the past few hours, and here's what I'd do.
1) If given the option to build a new stadium, or to renovate my current one, I would prefer a pitcher-favored design. The Astrodome was the perfect example of this. This does two things: first, it allows me to hire and develop pitchers who may not be very good in a more hitter-friendly environment, but whose fly-ball pitching excels in a pitcher-friendly park. This means that I can exploit something of a market inefficiency by favoring a special kind of (otherwise poor) pitcher. Second, it kills power numbers. I neutralize my power-hitting rivals' main advantage. Of course, this also hurts me. But that brings me to point two:
2) In the draft, as well as in free agency, I would favor non-power hitters. In general, I want hitters who get on base by walking and hitting singles and doubles. I want Tony Gwynn, Wade Boggs, and Craig Biggio types. My opponents might not hit very well in my park, but my hitters will. Power hitters are great (and I'm not saying one should neglect power hitting totally), but batting average and on-base-percentage is even better. The goal here is not speed (speed's great, but only a plus) but an ability to punch the ball into the outfield and get on base. It's a sadly dying breed of hitting, and I think there would certainly be a value in selecting for those players who can do that.
3) I would construct a defense-oriented team. There was an interesting article at THT a few weeks ago, and one of its claims (backed up by statistical analysis) was that the price for a marginal Run Saved is nearly half that of a marginal Run Scored.
Now, you might point out (as I did) that this doesn't make any sense because a run scored and a run saved do the same thing. But - and here's the extra-interesting part - a run scored is worth less than a run saved (this, of course, makes intuitive sense, but it's something that I've found many people don't realize).
So I think that a primary focus of the club should be defense. I'm not saying that I'd want eight Adam Everetts out there, but good defense would be a major goal. This would help to bail out my cheaper pitching staff.
Anyways, that's my view of good baseball organizational goals. They exploit major market inefficiences and create comparative advantages for the club, and I think any team would be wise to adopt such a position.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
We've got a new president, everybody!
So the CBS commentators (why do we need commentators for the inauguration?) drew this parrallel between Obama/Biden and Kennedy/Johnson. I find the whole idea idiotic, myself. The only analogy one can draw there is between Obama and LBJ. I also liked how they talked about Johnson being a "political" choice (those of us in the South don't cotton to Yankees, you see), which is true, but it fails to point out that one of the many reasons Kennedy didn't want Johnson as VP was because of the Texan's rabid support for civil rights legislation. LBJ was awesome and Kennedy was a spoiled fuck.
Anyways, I can't really get into this whole Obama-hysteria that swept the American "left" over the past two years. Obama will probably be a good president, but that will depend upon his responses to the coming problems in the world (hopefully he can do it better than his recital of the oath of office).
Obama is going to be faced with an increasingly belligerant (and well-armed) Iran, numerous human-rights crises throughout Africa and the Middle East, and an imperialistic Russia willing to use its oil supplies to secure its interests in Europe. Ultimately, Obama must be judged (as all presidents should be judged) by his ability to spread America's causes (human rights, democracy, human welfare) overseas.
It strikes me as odd that Obama talks about how it is his goal to see the ideal of "all are created equal" accomplished. It seems to me that the left has, over the past few decades, totally abandoned this cause. The cause of universal human rights seems to be lost to both the American and international left. Human rights are advanced within the first-world, but the cause is abandoned whenever it impacts a pet cause. This was displayed fragrantly throughout the Iraq affair (human rights are great for prisoners in Guantanomo, but the Kurds and Shia in Iraq can go to hell).
Maybe it was the association with Bush that did Iraq's human rights cause in. Maybe an association with Obama will make liberal internationalism a renewed cause. But I doubt it.
I don't think Obama's talk of a "new political age" is true at all. The political rules ("Whatever the other side does is automatically wrong") that governed the past two-hundred years still hold.
I suppose that is what is most concerning about Obama's coming term. I worry that he talks about liberal causes, but that he's not willing to back it up with force. I worry that he'll abandon the Kurds to the Turks or the Afghanis to the religious fanatics. Still, I hope that he's willing to fight for those causes, rather than simply talk about it.
Anyways, I can't really get into this whole Obama-hysteria that swept the American "left" over the past two years. Obama will probably be a good president, but that will depend upon his responses to the coming problems in the world (hopefully he can do it better than his recital of the oath of office).
Obama is going to be faced with an increasingly belligerant (and well-armed) Iran, numerous human-rights crises throughout Africa and the Middle East, and an imperialistic Russia willing to use its oil supplies to secure its interests in Europe. Ultimately, Obama must be judged (as all presidents should be judged) by his ability to spread America's causes (human rights, democracy, human welfare) overseas.
It strikes me as odd that Obama talks about how it is his goal to see the ideal of "all are created equal" accomplished. It seems to me that the left has, over the past few decades, totally abandoned this cause. The cause of universal human rights seems to be lost to both the American and international left. Human rights are advanced within the first-world, but the cause is abandoned whenever it impacts a pet cause. This was displayed fragrantly throughout the Iraq affair (human rights are great for prisoners in Guantanomo, but the Kurds and Shia in Iraq can go to hell).
Maybe it was the association with Bush that did Iraq's human rights cause in. Maybe an association with Obama will make liberal internationalism a renewed cause. But I doubt it.
I don't think Obama's talk of a "new political age" is true at all. The political rules ("Whatever the other side does is automatically wrong") that governed the past two-hundred years still hold.
I suppose that is what is most concerning about Obama's coming term. I worry that he talks about liberal causes, but that he's not willing to back it up with force. I worry that he'll abandon the Kurds to the Turks or the Afghanis to the religious fanatics. Still, I hope that he's willing to fight for those causes, rather than simply talk about it.
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Eat shit, you inbred, moonshine-drinking, cousin-touching, franchise-stealing fucks.
Choke on a dick, Bud.
I'm rooting for the Chargers tomorrow. Two reasons: first, the Steelers and their asshole fans make me want to kill myself. Second, I really want an epic "Battle of the Shits" between San Diego and Arizona. I want an 8-8 team to win the fucking championship. Epic.
Fun with bullshit
So I'm leaving this afternoon for New Orleans. Good times.
Fanhouse has always been a source for hilarious commenters (not in the Deadspin sense - in the "Kids say the darndest things" sense), and it has gotten really great now that Mariotti has started "writing" for them (yeah, you left a "dying medium" for AOL. Great job there, Jay), so it's a great place to go if you have crippling self-esteem issues. Nothing cheers me up quite like a retard on the internet.
From the latest made-up crap on Andy Pettitte (we're not going to sign him, folks... Not for the money he wants. For that matter, I really doubt anybody but the Yankees can/will pay him the amount of money he wants.), we get "Rich LaCava":
How skewed must your worldview be if you think that, in order for someone to not qualify for "sucks" status, he has to be among the ten or so best players/plumbers/pandas of his generation?
Anyways, he has something of a point (stated in the most idiotic, asinine way possible). Andy Pettitte is an overrated pitcher. Now, I think that "overrated" tends to get tossed around quite a bit, and it's used generally as a way to say "sucks" without any evidence, but the man really is overvalued as a pitcher.
In the seasons during which he received Cy Young votes (1996, '97, 2000, '03, '05), only Pettitte's 2005 season is really "legendary" (and he only placed 5th that year! I've talked about this before, I think, but mostly about how Clemens had a good case for winning another CYA that season. Pettitte arguably had a better year in 2005 than either of his higher-placing teammates. Oswalt put up the highest ERA and WHIP of the Clemens-Pettitte-Oswalt tandem, but placed 4th in CY voting. Clemens, of course, led the league in ERA and was behind only Martinez in WHIP [though he was #1 in H/9IP], but he pitched 11 fewer innings that Andy. Anyways, the point is that, if you look at Pettitte's year, it was fucking fantastic). All his other seasons were either "merely" great (1997 was a great year: 155 ERA+) or pretty average-to-good.
But people place a large value on "wins," so Pettitte is rated fairly highly.
Pettitte will probably make the hall of fame, particularly if he pitches decently over the next few seasons, but it will mostly be on the strength of his championships, occasional greatness, and being a Yankee.
Still, it's total bullshit that a Yankees "fan" hates on the guy like that. He wants way too much money to be an average pitcher next year, but he'll get the job done. Fanhouse (with the exception of Texans blogger Stephaney Stradley) can go eat a dick.
Fanhouse has always been a source for hilarious commenters (not in the Deadspin sense - in the "Kids say the darndest things" sense), and it has gotten really great now that Mariotti has started "writing" for them (yeah, you left a "dying medium" for AOL. Great job there, Jay), so it's a great place to go if you have crippling self-esteem issues. Nothing cheers me up quite like a retard on the internet.
From the latest made-up crap on Andy Pettitte (we're not going to sign him, folks... Not for the money he wants. For that matter, I really doubt anybody but the Yankees can/will pay him the amount of money he wants.), we get "Rich LaCava":
As a big time Yankee fan, I say good riddance to Andy and don't let the locker room door hit you in the ass on the way out. You are a so so pitcher who has always had so so seasons on both the Yankees and Astros and probably will not even get into the Hall of Fame.Yeah! That bum! He probably won't even get into Cooperstown!
How skewed must your worldview be if you think that, in order for someone to not qualify for "sucks" status, he has to be among the ten or so best players/plumbers/pandas of his generation?
Anyways, he has something of a point (stated in the most idiotic, asinine way possible). Andy Pettitte is an overrated pitcher. Now, I think that "overrated" tends to get tossed around quite a bit, and it's used generally as a way to say "sucks" without any evidence, but the man really is overvalued as a pitcher.
In the seasons during which he received Cy Young votes (1996, '97, 2000, '03, '05), only Pettitte's 2005 season is really "legendary" (and he only placed 5th that year! I've talked about this before, I think, but mostly about how Clemens had a good case for winning another CYA that season. Pettitte arguably had a better year in 2005 than either of his higher-placing teammates. Oswalt put up the highest ERA and WHIP of the Clemens-Pettitte-Oswalt tandem, but placed 4th in CY voting. Clemens, of course, led the league in ERA and was behind only Martinez in WHIP [though he was #1 in H/9IP], but he pitched 11 fewer innings that Andy. Anyways, the point is that, if you look at Pettitte's year, it was fucking fantastic). All his other seasons were either "merely" great (1997 was a great year: 155 ERA+) or pretty average-to-good.
But people place a large value on "wins," so Pettitte is rated fairly highly.
Pettitte will probably make the hall of fame, particularly if he pitches decently over the next few seasons, but it will mostly be on the strength of his championships, occasional greatness, and being a Yankee.
Still, it's total bullshit that a Yankees "fan" hates on the guy like that. He wants way too much money to be an average pitcher next year, but he'll get the job done. Fanhouse (with the exception of Texans blogger Stephaney Stradley) can go eat a dick.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Somebody figures it out
Congratulations, Solomon, you are (once again) the Chronicle's resident non-retard. You're right about McGrady, Utah, and the Longhorns (USC, too).
Monday, January 5, 2009
Christ, people, get a grip...
It's amazing to me that so many Rockets fans have apparently lost all hold on reality after the Toronto loss. McGrady quits on one possession and he suddenly becomes the team cancer. Rafer says that they need T-Mac and Artest to get healthy and Adelman has lost all control of the team. A few days after the loss, "nothing management has done has worked." Jesus.
Get over it, y'all. The Rockets will be alright. Sometimes it's best not to take it "one game at a time," and to remember that it's a long season. T-Mac sucks right now. He won't a month from now.
Get over it, y'all. The Rockets will be alright. Sometimes it's best not to take it "one game at a time," and to remember that it's a long season. T-Mac sucks right now. He won't a month from now.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Comparative Advantage, Mike Leach, and Duane Brown
Duane Brown is getting better. He's becoming more and more adept at the Texans' offensive-line system, and that is becoming more and more evident in his play.
At the time of the draft, many thought Brown was a bit of a stretch for the Texans. But, as was noted by at least one writer at the time, Alex Gibbs values a different type of lineman than do other teams. He wants more athletic linemen - those best suited to his zone-blocking scheme - rather than larger, more powerful players. So valuing Brown more highly than other teams allowed the Texans to trade down.
Tom Kirkendall has criticized Mike Leach for not being quite as awesome as the media seem to think he is. I think he makes an excellent point - Leach really hasn't accomplished much, and it seems stupid to say that Leach's offensive system is the magic everyone believes it to be.
Perhaps there is a misunderstanding (amongst both the media and coaches) about what the spread offense can accomplish, as well as what it is designed to do.
I don't think that we can reasonably say the spread offense gives a substantial advantage over the best defenses in either the NCAA or NFL. Good defenses will do well against any offense, regardless of how many five receiver plays you bring out.
But what the spread offense does is level the playing field somewhat. It allows college recruiters to value speed and skill over size and power (particularly in running backs), while the even more unconventional spread option offenses of Rich Rodriguez and his ilk allows coaches to use glorified running backs under center. The top recruits are still going to go to schools like USC, OSU, UT, etc., but spread offenses allowed schools like Tulane to briefly compete.
The key was not that spread offenses offered a spectacular advantage on the field - they offered a spectacular advantage in recruiting, because one could select athletes who could run the "system," rather than the blue-chip recruits out of high school who were destined to go to one of the powerhouses.
Of course, now that spread offenses have been run by the largest schools in every conference (the SEC seems to be made up mostly of such offenses), there isn't such an advantage anymore. At least not for Tech.But look at how Tulsa and Rice dominated Conference USA this past year. Bob Toledo can't possibly hope to recruit the type of athletes he needs to run his standard, West-Coast offense and win (Matt Forte was a fluke created by LSU's recruiting priorities and family history). Those athletes are going to go elsewhere. Meanwhile, Rice, Tulsa, and Southern Miss will kick his ass again and again.
So this brings me back to Duane Brown. The Texans don't have to worry about recruiting. The NFL has the draft, so they get to select essentially whomever they want to play on their offensive line.
But the zone-blocking system (shared only by the Redskins, Panthers, Packers, and - of course - the Broncos) allows the Texans to select smaller linemen, exploiting the same type of market inefficiency that the spread offense was designed to exploit: find undersized but agile players and put them to work. That system turned the much-maligned Texans offensive line into a very good set of blockers, and made the tiny Steve Slaton into the league's leading rookie halfback.
This was what "Moneyball" supposedly did (and does). You look for players who can do something very well but who have been, for whatever reason, overlooked by other scouts and organizations. Billy Beane looked for players who could work the count. Mike Shanahan looked for running backs who could make a quick cut and get downfield.
The intersting thing to me is whether or not the spread offense would give any advantage in the NFL. As I said, I doubt it will be any better at picking apart defenses than the West-Coast or conventional offense. At the same time, however, I don't think (like so many pundits) that such a system would fall apart in the NFL from turnovers. Like any offensive system, it requires a quarterback that makes good decisions and can recognize what his coach and coordinator tells him to recognize from the defense.
So what if a team adopted the spread this offseason? I have no idea which teams would be best suited to such a system, but that's not really the point.
In the first round, they really should obey the same principles as everyone else: build your offensive and defensive lines first, then work outwards. The situation doesn't become interesting until about the third round, when you start to see guys like Pat White or Tebow present.
Now, I'm no NFL scout, so I have no idea if Tebow or White can really make decent NFL quarterbacks, even in a spread attack. But both are probably going to enter the draft as something other than QB (TE and WR, respectively). That means you can get them at a good price, and (provided they can work in the NFL) you have someone who can run the new system.
Maybe the same can apply to wide receivers. Tom Brady and the Patriots made use of much worse WRs than Welker and Moss for years, and I think the same types can be used in a full spread attack.
Again, the point isn't to destroy defenses - it can't do that. But the spread offense would confer the same type of advantage that it does for smaller NCAA programs: find guys nobody else wants and use them in your system.
Besides, if nothing else, the run-and-shoot was awesome back in the day. Shame nobody uses its succesor in the NFL.
At the time of the draft, many thought Brown was a bit of a stretch for the Texans. But, as was noted by at least one writer at the time, Alex Gibbs values a different type of lineman than do other teams. He wants more athletic linemen - those best suited to his zone-blocking scheme - rather than larger, more powerful players. So valuing Brown more highly than other teams allowed the Texans to trade down.
Tom Kirkendall has criticized Mike Leach for not being quite as awesome as the media seem to think he is. I think he makes an excellent point - Leach really hasn't accomplished much, and it seems stupid to say that Leach's offensive system is the magic everyone believes it to be.
Perhaps there is a misunderstanding (amongst both the media and coaches) about what the spread offense can accomplish, as well as what it is designed to do.
I don't think that we can reasonably say the spread offense gives a substantial advantage over the best defenses in either the NCAA or NFL. Good defenses will do well against any offense, regardless of how many five receiver plays you bring out.
But what the spread offense does is level the playing field somewhat. It allows college recruiters to value speed and skill over size and power (particularly in running backs), while the even more unconventional spread option offenses of Rich Rodriguez and his ilk allows coaches to use glorified running backs under center. The top recruits are still going to go to schools like USC, OSU, UT, etc., but spread offenses allowed schools like Tulane to briefly compete.
The key was not that spread offenses offered a spectacular advantage on the field - they offered a spectacular advantage in recruiting, because one could select athletes who could run the "system," rather than the blue-chip recruits out of high school who were destined to go to one of the powerhouses.
Of course, now that spread offenses have been run by the largest schools in every conference (the SEC seems to be made up mostly of such offenses), there isn't such an advantage anymore. At least not for Tech.But look at how Tulsa and Rice dominated Conference USA this past year. Bob Toledo can't possibly hope to recruit the type of athletes he needs to run his standard, West-Coast offense and win (Matt Forte was a fluke created by LSU's recruiting priorities and family history). Those athletes are going to go elsewhere. Meanwhile, Rice, Tulsa, and Southern Miss will kick his ass again and again.
So this brings me back to Duane Brown. The Texans don't have to worry about recruiting. The NFL has the draft, so they get to select essentially whomever they want to play on their offensive line.
But the zone-blocking system (shared only by the Redskins, Panthers, Packers, and - of course - the Broncos) allows the Texans to select smaller linemen, exploiting the same type of market inefficiency that the spread offense was designed to exploit: find undersized but agile players and put them to work. That system turned the much-maligned Texans offensive line into a very good set of blockers, and made the tiny Steve Slaton into the league's leading rookie halfback.
This was what "Moneyball" supposedly did (and does). You look for players who can do something very well but who have been, for whatever reason, overlooked by other scouts and organizations. Billy Beane looked for players who could work the count. Mike Shanahan looked for running backs who could make a quick cut and get downfield.
The intersting thing to me is whether or not the spread offense would give any advantage in the NFL. As I said, I doubt it will be any better at picking apart defenses than the West-Coast or conventional offense. At the same time, however, I don't think (like so many pundits) that such a system would fall apart in the NFL from turnovers. Like any offensive system, it requires a quarterback that makes good decisions and can recognize what his coach and coordinator tells him to recognize from the defense.
So what if a team adopted the spread this offseason? I have no idea which teams would be best suited to such a system, but that's not really the point.
In the first round, they really should obey the same principles as everyone else: build your offensive and defensive lines first, then work outwards. The situation doesn't become interesting until about the third round, when you start to see guys like Pat White or Tebow present.
Now, I'm no NFL scout, so I have no idea if Tebow or White can really make decent NFL quarterbacks, even in a spread attack. But both are probably going to enter the draft as something other than QB (TE and WR, respectively). That means you can get them at a good price, and (provided they can work in the NFL) you have someone who can run the new system.
Maybe the same can apply to wide receivers. Tom Brady and the Patriots made use of much worse WRs than Welker and Moss for years, and I think the same types can be used in a full spread attack.
Again, the point isn't to destroy defenses - it can't do that. But the spread offense would confer the same type of advantage that it does for smaller NCAA programs: find guys nobody else wants and use them in your system.
Besides, if nothing else, the run-and-shoot was awesome back in the day. Shame nobody uses its succesor in the NFL.
Don't point the finger
Okay, that's enough stewing over the issues. Let's get down to some (weak) analysis.
I hope that, when I get a real job, my entire tenure with an organization is not evaluated based upon one day's work. I hope that my coworkers, supervisors, and anybody who's looking can look at the body of work I've put together.
I think that (probably) T-Mac's superiors and teammates do that. Yao, Battier, Artest, and the rest all know that McGrady is one of the league's best. He's having a bad year, but he proved that he's a real competitor a long time ago. Morey and Adelman will look at all of his performances.
But Houston's shitty media isn't doing that. They are jumping on one bad night - and one particularly awful possession - and announcing that T-Mac is killing the Rockets.
Yeah, McGrady has had an awful season. There's no getting around that. But his failures this year have been brought on - largely, anyways - by poor health, not poor effort.
So we have the three amigos - Dick Justice, Jonathon Feigen (whom I can tolerate), and Fran Blinebury (whom I still believe is responsible for that tacky "T-Mac injury counter" featured prominently on the Chronicle's site) - all weighing in.
Blinebury is the most idiotic of the bunch, to tell the truth. He's had it in for T-Mac before, and this is the perfect opportunity to crucify the guy who carried the team last year. Let's fisk this shit:
I hope that, when I get a real job, my entire tenure with an organization is not evaluated based upon one day's work. I hope that my coworkers, supervisors, and anybody who's looking can look at the body of work I've put together.
I think that (probably) T-Mac's superiors and teammates do that. Yao, Battier, Artest, and the rest all know that McGrady is one of the league's best. He's having a bad year, but he proved that he's a real competitor a long time ago. Morey and Adelman will look at all of his performances.
But Houston's shitty media isn't doing that. They are jumping on one bad night - and one particularly awful possession - and announcing that T-Mac is killing the Rockets.
Yeah, McGrady has had an awful season. There's no getting around that. But his failures this year have been brought on - largely, anyways - by poor health, not poor effort.
So we have the three amigos - Dick Justice, Jonathon Feigen (whom I can tolerate), and Fran Blinebury (whom I still believe is responsible for that tacky "T-Mac injury counter" featured prominently on the Chronicle's site) - all weighing in.
Blinebury is the most idiotic of the bunch, to tell the truth. He's had it in for T-Mac before, and this is the perfect opportunity to crucify the guy who carried the team last year. Let's fisk this shit:
The official play-by-play sheet simply says: Jamario Moon slam dunk.
Anybody who was watching at the Air Canada Centre or on TV knows it was the precise moment that Tracy McGrady quit on the Rockets.
Well, it was certainly a moment in which T-Mac just let Moon through. But, at this point, you're just asserting that McGrady "quit" (on the season and the Rockets as a whole). I doubt Blinebury has that sort of insight into T-Mac's head.
Yao Ming knows it. You could read it all over his scowling face as he sat on the bench through the final embarrassing minutes of horrid game.
Yao looked like he always does. He was a little extra frustrated, but he sucked last night, too. So maybe he was just generally pissed.
Rick Adelman knows it. You could read it between the lines of his post-game comments when he said he would not talk about any individual performances.
Adelman was pissed about everything and everyone. To quote from his comments last night about offensive execution: "there wasn't any." I doubt Adelman thought T-Mac's performance was any more shitty than anyone else.
Ron Artest knows it. You could tell that a week ago when Artest dragged his sore and ballooning right ankle onto the court to gut out an overtime win against the Jazz when McGrady made himself a late scratch during the post parade.
Okay. Here's the thing: Rockets fans and writers don't know what they fucking want from Tracy. We want him to rest his knee, but then we get all pissed off when he actually does so. What Artest did was great, and I hope he can shake McGrady out of his funk, but maybe Blinebury should MAKE UP HIS FUCKING MIND about what he wants McGrady to do before criticizing his every action regarding injury.
One could hope that Dikembe Mutombo was back in Houston watching and will arrive in Atlanta with his leadership in the form of a big stick.
Truth be told, it wouldn't make a difference, wouldn't matter. It would only elicit a few more whimpering excuses from McGrady and more disappointment down the line.
Jesus, Blinebury, tell us how you really feel. Look, if you're dissapointed with T-Mac's stay in Houston, you haven't been paying attention. Remember last year? When Yao went out? When, in the final game of the Jazz series, he scored 40 points but still couldn't get the Rockets past the first round? Fuck you, Blinebury. This is like complaining about how Bagwell couldn't play in most of 2005. Only nobody would do that, because Bags is white.
As I said, he's in a shooting slump and he's battling injury. But y'all complain when he scratches himself from the lineup and complain when he doesn't. Get over it.
Oh, it was so much more than just 2-for-9 shooting and 4 points in 27 minutes. It was aimless shuffling around the court on offense and defense. It was standing five feet behind the 3-point line, feet rooted to one spot, and simply playing pitch and catch with the ball.
That was ONE FREAKING POSSESSION! Fucking Christ, what the fuck?
Just say this: He is an extraordinary talent - T-Mac - who is capable of taking your breath away. Yet as a competitor - Tiny Tim-mac - he can be blown away in a gentle breeze.
Ack! Utah! 40 points! McGrady over Shawn Bradley! Winning streak! Goddammit you fucks, pay attention! He's a competitor, and anyone who says differently isn't watching.
This is not the first time that McGrady has revealed himself, having bailed out on the Raptors as an up-and-coming phenom and quit - flat-out admitting publicly that he didn't try - on the Magic to get himself traded out of Orlando.
Yeah, Orlando sucked. I'd want to get out of that team, too. And what are you saying, that he wants out of Houston? Because this is probably his best chance to win anything, and he knows it.
If McGrady wants to rehab his sore left knee or run off to a retreat and get his chakras back in balance, let him. If he wants to return to the club somewhere down the road in a few weeks or few months and contribute a few - or a few dozen - big buckets in a playoff game, well, they'll be appreciated. But they won't be expected.
And if he did that, you'd bitch about that, too. Fuck you.
I don't have time to go through all of this shit. Justice's post is more of the same (including the ridiculous idea that Luther Head plays better when T-Mac is out; even if that's true, he still sucks). However, he comes off as downright reasonable at the end - this isn't the end of the world, and McGrady can still get healthy.
Feigen's column at least has this tidbit:
He said later that he grew frustrated that he did not get enough shots to get in a rhythm. He said the spacing was bad. He said there was poor execution.
I think that this is probably closer to the truth. McGrady, frustrated by the fact that EVERYONE on the team was getting owned, gave up. That's not excusable, but it's understandable. It would be an example of the "If y'all aren't going to do your jobs, I'm not going to do mine" attitude, which can motivate if used correctly.
One last thing: a response from Feigen's post.
I really wish they had blown it up and started over around Yao.The team is built around Yao already. T-Mac and Yao continue to have good chemistry, and no one else on the team is quite as good as McGrady at getting the ball to Yao in the post. Yao is the machine around which the Rockets are built; everything else is ancillary. Yao is the Rockets' most important possession - on the court, as well as in getting crucial deals in China. Everybody else is in place to either do things Yao can't do or to get the ball to him. T-Mac, when healthy, does both.
We'll see what happens in coming weeks. My bet: T-Mac gets better and comes back strong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
