Sorry for the overdramatic title, but it felt necessary for such a daunting post.
In this venture "Under the Cap," I decided I would take a crack at re-aligning college football.
I started with all the teams currently in so-called power conferences because that would be the only way for a solid re-alignment to hold.
Since six 12-team conferences would seem to be the most logical scenario, this left me with seven spots to hand out to teams outside the six BCS conferences.
Four teams earned their spots in the new conferences via last year's rankings: Boise St., BYU, Utah, and TCU.
One team, Notre Dame, earned its spot based on history.
Two teams, Nevada and Fresno St., earned their spots based on geography and mild success in recent years.
The system isn't perfect, as Central Michigan and Navy may be better candidates for the new re-alignment, but they aren't national title contenders, so I don't really care.
That said, here are my conferences:
NORTHERN CONFERENCE
West Division- Washington, Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Boise St., Nevada
Central Division- BYU, Utah, Minnesota, Nebraska, Iowa State, Iowa
Last year's title game would have most likely been Boise St. and Iowa, which would have made a good one, in my opinion.
WESTERN CONFERENCE
Pacific Division- USC, UCLA, Stanford, Cal, Fresno St., Arizona St.
Plains Division- Colorado, Kansas St., Kansas, Baylor, Arizona, Texas Tech
Even adding a few Big 12 teams to the mix couldn't make a Texas Tech-USC matchup all that juicy for a title game.
MIDWEST CONFERENCE
West Division- Illinois, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Missouri, Indiana, Notre Dame
East Division- Ohio St., Michigan, Michigan St., Cincinnati, Purdue, West Virginia
Ohio St.-Wisconsin would just be what the Big Ten title game should've been anyway, but who doesn't think Cincy would've taken down the Buckeyes?
SUPER SOUTH CONFERENCE
West Division- Oklahoma, Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma St., TCU, Arkansas
East Division- LSU, Mississippi St., Ole Miss, Auburn, Alabama, FSU
Yeah, so I don't need to hype up this conference any more than the above names already did. Just realize that last year's national title game would've been this conference's championship game, sponsored by a company who paid a ludicrous amount of money to have their name in someone else's logo.
SOUTHEAST CONFERENCE
North Division- Vanderbilt, Tennessee, UNC, Duke, NC State, Clemson
South Division- Florida, Miami, South Florida, Georgia Tech, Georgia, South Carolina
I don't want to talk about the most likely result of the 2009 championship game between Clemson and Florida. Let's just say Clemson got off easy playing Tech in the ACC.
EASTERN CONFERENCE
North Division- Boston College, Syracuse, Connecticut, Rutgers, Penn State, Pittsburgh
South Division- Maryland, Wake Forest, Virginia, Virginia Tech, Louisville, Kentucky
This wouldn't be the toughest conference every year, but Virginia Tech and Penn State would put on an incredible game, I think.
There would be plenty more to sort out, such as how to arrange the national championship tournament. I, of course, would support a six-team bracket with two first-round byes.
Yes, that would mean that only one team per conference would make the playoffs, but the good news is that all those other athletic directors would get their teams in those meaningless pocket-lining bowl games we all love.
I'll not go into the potential playoff games from last year since the conferences would completely change for the most part.
In this way, every conference game would matter because simply winning your conference would give a team a shot at the national championship.
Thus, teams would be more likely to schedule big-time non-conference games because, for a team like Clemson, losses to Oklahoma and Alabama would leave the Tigers more prepared to make a run at the conference title than blowout wins over Louisiana-Monroe and Temple.
Plus, a win in one of those big games might make the difference in a first-round bye and a trip to someone else's turf for the first round of the national playoffs.
When the NCAA wakes up and realizes what they're missing, have them contact me.
Friday, May 14, 2010
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Coaching Strategery
So I was almost a coach one time.
That's a long story that I won't share if you don't know it already, but the point is that almost being a coach gave me a bit of an itch to do so.
I would've had the opportunity to coach almost any sport I wanted to, but I was most excited about basketball.
Part of that is because I have a more comprehensive knowledge of basketball than other sports, but it's also because there's so much room for creativity and unique problem-solving.
No ineligible receivers, lots of possessions, no shut-down pitching performances that completely ruin any offensive game plan.
Short of the NBA, organized basketball often comes down your one team's execution of the coach's strategy overcoming the other team's execution of their coach's plan.
Thus, I have spent some time thinking over what I would do if I ever get a chance to coach on the hardwood, and I came up with several thoughts.
1. Players should be conditioned as though they will play the entire game.
After watching the Hawks keep themselves in Game 2 of their series with the Magic by playing more of their starters while Orlando did a hockey-style line change in the second quarter, I had a thought.
What if a coach played the players who were playing the best ball all game, except for a couple of minutes throughout to give other players some playing time?
Even then, there's no reason to have less than three starters on the floor at any given time, unless players are struggling, hurt, or in foul trouble.
Why take out a hot shooter just because it's his turn to rotate off the floor?
To me, that's a sign of what many, including me, call "overcoaching."
If your team has been conditioned to have the energy and stamina to play the entire game, they will perform as such without needing to sit for the second or third quarters.
They'll also be ready for my next idea.
2. My defense would be a full-court zone press.
This portion of my plan has experienced the most changes in the last year or so.
The Missouri Tigers are the main inspiration for me here, as their "40 minutes of hell," which was inspired by NC State teams of old, is one of the most intimidating defenses in college basketball.
Initially, I thought man defense would be the best form of pressure, but that leaves no valid safety valves.
If the point guard gets beat in a stretched-out man press, no one can pick up his man without leaving their own assignment very open.
Thus, I have devised a zone plan very similar to the Cover 2 defense in football.
The point guard, shooting guard, and power forward would divide the backcourt into thirds to contest any inbounds pass.
If the passer is forced to remain stationary after a change of possession, the power forward would get in his face.
If the passer can run the baseline after a made basket, the "four" would drop back a few steps to simply contest any pass that comes towards the middle of the floor.
Any pass to the sides would result in a trap.
The small forward would play around mid court, mainly attempting to intercept long passes, with the center playing deep as the last line of defense.
Perhaps the most important part of this plan is that, when the ball moves past one of the defenders, he will then either help trap or run back to his half-court zone position depending on the scenario.
There are lots of pros and cons to the half-court zone, but I read an article about Jim Boeheim that convinced me towards the pro side with two quick facts.
The zone puts your big bodies closest to the basket for rebounding, and zone teams don't have to game plan for opponents' offenses as much as opposing offenses have to plan for them.
Which brings up my next point...
3. Offense should be as unpredictable as possible.
When I played JV Basketball, we spent an asinine amount of time learning motion plays against man defense and cutting plays against zone defense.
Most of my team mates never really "got" those plays and we lost a lot of games for what I perceive to be two reasons.
First of all, if you know exactly where you're going to go and where the passes are going to go, so will the defense by half time.
Second, it does a player no good to know that he is supposed to set a screen if he doesn't know what the screen is meant to achieve.
In my opinion, set plays work really well if a team runs them to complete perfection and hits the resulting shots at a high percentage.
Let's face it, though, most normal high school kids won't do that enough to win games, and they won't be as developed as they could be.
Instead, I would run what is known as a "blacktop" style offense that uses fundamentals like cutting, screens, and dribble-drive penetration to create shots against any defense.
I think that if you teach young players WHY the screen is set on and off the ball, they can learn to set them in unpredictable yet effective ways to create shots for team mates.
Also, they will learn how to use a screen to make their own shots easier.
The same is true for cuts and the dribble-drive; players that understand the techniques and the purpose for the techniques will make set plays unnecessary.
Furthermore, knowing my set plays without such an understanding of the actual concepts used will be useless if they try to play in college or they transfer to another school.
There are other smaller concepts and more conventional wisdom type ideals that I would also utilize, like "rebounding and defense never go cold," but these are my main unique ideas.
Feel free to critique me or agree with me, but, most importantly, help me out.
If anyone needs a coach, give them my number.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Underestimated Value
In every sport, there are big-money positions.
These are the guys on each team that get the most attention, the biggest contracts, and the shortest jail time for crimes committed (cough... Ben Roethlisberger... cough).
I'm just kidding about that last part, sort of, because Mike Vick went to jail.
I don't have to tell you which positions these are.
We all know starting pitchers, point guards, centers (basketball), running backs, and quarterbacks are the studs of the team in almost every case.
In the case of pro sports, anyway, aren't all the other guys great at what they do, too?
To take it one step further, I would say that, of the Big Three sports that all red-blooded American males care about, there is a position in each that is very rarely talked about that should be talked about more.
I would say that these players are the piece of the puzzle that take a team from good to great.
For baseball, I choose the second baseman.
Every team looks for a power-hitting first baseman, a speedy or high-average shortstop, power or speed from each outfielder, and a Hispanic or bland white name at second that most haven't heard of (see Alberto Callaspo).
From a philosophical standpoint, one of the best run-saving plays is the double play, which almost always involves the second baseman. Furthermore, since the two-bag involves fewer tough defensive plays than, say, the shortstop, it would make sense that you might go for a bigger bat at that position.
Take the two World Series teams from last year. The Phillies have Chase Utley, who is a perennial MVP candidate and already has six home runs this year. Meanwhile, the Yankees have Robinson Cano, who has eight dingers.
Not that these guys are klutzes on defense, but their teams have the two most potent lineups in the bigs and also have big sticks at second.
I rest my all-too-weak case.
For the hardwood, the power forward is key.
In my mind, the "four" as it is known in contemporary circles defines a team.
If your PF is a longer, more sluggish body like Pau Gasol, you become a half-court force like the Lakers. On the flip side, if your power forward is a high-flying, shorter player like Josh Smith of the Hawks, your team becomes a matchup nightmare.
If you've never played against a team where every player seems to be the same, middle-of-the-road size, it's not exactly easy to figure out where your best defensive matchup is. When such a team takes off on a fast break, every defender seems to find someone bigger or faster than him.
Similarly, the power forward must be a versatile defender. If the Cavaliers play the Hawks in the conference finals, 6'9" Antawn Jamison will be guarding similarly-built Josh Smith, although their playing styles differ greatly. This will come after Jamison has just guarded 6'11" Kevin Garnett and his back-to-the-basket post stylings. If the Magic are the Cavs' conference finals opponents, Jamison will guard Rashard Lewis, who is 6'10" but shoots five or six threes a game.
I don't need to bring Gasol and Lamar Odom into the conversation to drive home the point that every power forward is different, do I?
Thus, if you can find the power forward who can be his own man and guard all those other possibilities at a somewhat competitive level, you will be successful.
For football, many forget the importance of a real slot receiver.
Sure, the tiny fliers are important, but ask the Washington Redskins how well your passing game works when your quarterback has no options between a lumbering tight end and Santana Moss.
Even if your slot man is smaller, like Wes Welker, the great teams have a man that will turn inward an run those "nasty" routes across the middle of the field like Anquan Boldin.
This gives the quarterback a safety valve that he can see over the linebackers and that will most likely get some yards after the catch.
Also, it forces the defense to think on a third-and-three situation, "They probably ought to run the ball, and if they pass to the tight end we'll stop him for a short gain, but THAT guy might break of a thirty-five yard gain on a four-yard throw."
I'm sure there are positions like this for other sports, but I have little knowledge of those sports.
Therefore, I will select Left Wing for Hockey, Middle Fullback for Soccer, and the guy with the most feathers for team ice dancing.
No explanations for those last three.
Just a bonus, free of charge.
These are the guys on each team that get the most attention, the biggest contracts, and the shortest jail time for crimes committed (cough... Ben Roethlisberger... cough).
I'm just kidding about that last part, sort of, because Mike Vick went to jail.
I don't have to tell you which positions these are.
We all know starting pitchers, point guards, centers (basketball), running backs, and quarterbacks are the studs of the team in almost every case.
In the case of pro sports, anyway, aren't all the other guys great at what they do, too?
To take it one step further, I would say that, of the Big Three sports that all red-blooded American males care about, there is a position in each that is very rarely talked about that should be talked about more.
I would say that these players are the piece of the puzzle that take a team from good to great.
For baseball, I choose the second baseman.
Every team looks for a power-hitting first baseman, a speedy or high-average shortstop, power or speed from each outfielder, and a Hispanic or bland white name at second that most haven't heard of (see Alberto Callaspo).
From a philosophical standpoint, one of the best run-saving plays is the double play, which almost always involves the second baseman. Furthermore, since the two-bag involves fewer tough defensive plays than, say, the shortstop, it would make sense that you might go for a bigger bat at that position.
Take the two World Series teams from last year. The Phillies have Chase Utley, who is a perennial MVP candidate and already has six home runs this year. Meanwhile, the Yankees have Robinson Cano, who has eight dingers.
Not that these guys are klutzes on defense, but their teams have the two most potent lineups in the bigs and also have big sticks at second.
I rest my all-too-weak case.
For the hardwood, the power forward is key.
In my mind, the "four" as it is known in contemporary circles defines a team.
If your PF is a longer, more sluggish body like Pau Gasol, you become a half-court force like the Lakers. On the flip side, if your power forward is a high-flying, shorter player like Josh Smith of the Hawks, your team becomes a matchup nightmare.
If you've never played against a team where every player seems to be the same, middle-of-the-road size, it's not exactly easy to figure out where your best defensive matchup is. When such a team takes off on a fast break, every defender seems to find someone bigger or faster than him.
Similarly, the power forward must be a versatile defender. If the Cavaliers play the Hawks in the conference finals, 6'9" Antawn Jamison will be guarding similarly-built Josh Smith, although their playing styles differ greatly. This will come after Jamison has just guarded 6'11" Kevin Garnett and his back-to-the-basket post stylings. If the Magic are the Cavs' conference finals opponents, Jamison will guard Rashard Lewis, who is 6'10" but shoots five or six threes a game.
I don't need to bring Gasol and Lamar Odom into the conversation to drive home the point that every power forward is different, do I?
Thus, if you can find the power forward who can be his own man and guard all those other possibilities at a somewhat competitive level, you will be successful.
For football, many forget the importance of a real slot receiver.
Sure, the tiny fliers are important, but ask the Washington Redskins how well your passing game works when your quarterback has no options between a lumbering tight end and Santana Moss.
Even if your slot man is smaller, like Wes Welker, the great teams have a man that will turn inward an run those "nasty" routes across the middle of the field like Anquan Boldin.
This gives the quarterback a safety valve that he can see over the linebackers and that will most likely get some yards after the catch.
Also, it forces the defense to think on a third-and-three situation, "They probably ought to run the ball, and if they pass to the tight end we'll stop him for a short gain, but THAT guy might break of a thirty-five yard gain on a four-yard throw."
I'm sure there are positions like this for other sports, but I have little knowledge of those sports.
Therefore, I will select Left Wing for Hockey, Middle Fullback for Soccer, and the guy with the most feathers for team ice dancing.
No explanations for those last three.
Just a bonus, free of charge.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Look-Out Team 2010
Three years or so ago, I selected what I called the Look-Out Team for Major League Baseball about two or three weeks into the season.
This team, for lack of a more eloquent explanation, was comprised of one player at each position that I think you should look out for in your fantasy leagues, all-star votes, and general baseball fandom.
In this year's edition, I will try to select an obvious and not-so-obvious player for each position just to make things more interesting.
Let's start with the pitcher...
ROY HALLADAY has 4 wins, 28 strikeouts, and a .82 ERA. He looked absolutely brutal against the Braves this week, and he has been everything the Phillies were hoping for. MIKE PELFREY of the Mets has been a lesser-known stud, winning all three of his starts and collecting a save, which is unusual. He's also collected 16 strikeouts and a .86 ERA.
At catcher, JORGE POSADA would always be an obvious choice. He is currently batting .348 with three homers and nine RBI. My dark horse is MIGUEL OLIVO of the Rockies, who is hitting .303 with three home runs and five RBI. The big thing, though, is the fact that he's splitting time, starting only nine games to Posada's 13, and he's already caught seven potential base-stealers to lead the league in that stat.
My choice at first base is MIGUEL CABRERA. Detroit's slugger has been really impressive this year, hitting around .360 with four homers and 19 RBI. Meanwhile he's hit seven doubles and only struck out six time. JOEY VOTTO has been sneakily good for Cincy, accumulating three homers and nine RBI while batting .321.
Second base is an interesting position. I'll give CHASE UTLEY my main nod because his batting average is a not-too-shabby .339 with six home runs and 14 RBI. It's hard to ignore MARTIN PRADO'S .410 batting average in his first year as a full-time player, and only one error in these first few weeks is also impressive.
At third base, ALEX RODRIGUEZ will always be a player to watch, and his .315, 10 RBI performance so far this year with 11 walks drawn and only eight strikeouts makes 2010 no different. Furthermore, A-Rod has yet to commit an error in 46 chances. Much lesser-known CASEY MCGEHEE of the Brewers is batting .368 with four home runs and 14 RBI, and his one error in 32 chances is nothing to shake a stick at. As a side note, who just walks around shaking sticks at facts and/or people?
RAFAEL FURCAL has flirted with superstardom in recent years, hindered only by injuries. This year, the Dodgers' shortstop is off to another good start, batting .324 with six RBI and only six strikeouts. The speed demon has also stolen seven bases. In other news, ALEX GONZALEZ is trying to remind everyone there is actually still a Canadian MLB team by hitting five dingers with thirteen RBI and eight doubles. Also, he's been a part of 17 double plays.
Left field is a one-horse race because of RYAN BRAUN'S performance this year. Brauny is not a real superstar like A-Rod or even Furcal, yet he is hitting over .400 with five homers, 20 RBI, and four stolen bases. Because that is the top or near the top of the pile for left fielders in all four stats, I'm going to give him the outright Look-Out spot.
In centerfield, VERNON WELLS is representing well as the only Blue Jay I'd heard of before this column, with a .349 average behind seven home runs and 13 RBI. Meanwhile, ANDRUW JONES is back from the proverbial dead with five home runs already this season, and he's even stolen three bases. That said, he plays for the White Sox, whom I've predicted to win the AL Wild Card. They're currently dead last in their division, but I just wanted to remind everyone.
NELSON CRUZ is running away with the right field race, hitting seven home runs with 17 RBI and a .321 average. He's also stolen five bases. Right field is also a heavily defensive position, and MAGGLIO ORDONEZ has four assists thus far to go with four home runs and 10 RBI. I guess Ordonez is more well known, so that makes my formatting a bit sloppy here. Oh well... dock my pay if you want.
Let it be known that I hate the designated hitter. It takes part of the strategy out of the game and allows AL teams to lure premier hitters that are incomplete players to their rosters. That said, I will not pick a Look-Out DH representative. Take that, American League!
This team, for lack of a more eloquent explanation, was comprised of one player at each position that I think you should look out for in your fantasy leagues, all-star votes, and general baseball fandom.
In this year's edition, I will try to select an obvious and not-so-obvious player for each position just to make things more interesting.
Let's start with the pitcher...
ROY HALLADAY has 4 wins, 28 strikeouts, and a .82 ERA. He looked absolutely brutal against the Braves this week, and he has been everything the Phillies were hoping for. MIKE PELFREY of the Mets has been a lesser-known stud, winning all three of his starts and collecting a save, which is unusual. He's also collected 16 strikeouts and a .86 ERA.
At catcher, JORGE POSADA would always be an obvious choice. He is currently batting .348 with three homers and nine RBI. My dark horse is MIGUEL OLIVO of the Rockies, who is hitting .303 with three home runs and five RBI. The big thing, though, is the fact that he's splitting time, starting only nine games to Posada's 13, and he's already caught seven potential base-stealers to lead the league in that stat.
My choice at first base is MIGUEL CABRERA. Detroit's slugger has been really impressive this year, hitting around .360 with four homers and 19 RBI. Meanwhile he's hit seven doubles and only struck out six time. JOEY VOTTO has been sneakily good for Cincy, accumulating three homers and nine RBI while batting .321.
Second base is an interesting position. I'll give CHASE UTLEY my main nod because his batting average is a not-too-shabby .339 with six home runs and 14 RBI. It's hard to ignore MARTIN PRADO'S .410 batting average in his first year as a full-time player, and only one error in these first few weeks is also impressive.
At third base, ALEX RODRIGUEZ will always be a player to watch, and his .315, 10 RBI performance so far this year with 11 walks drawn and only eight strikeouts makes 2010 no different. Furthermore, A-Rod has yet to commit an error in 46 chances. Much lesser-known CASEY MCGEHEE of the Brewers is batting .368 with four home runs and 14 RBI, and his one error in 32 chances is nothing to shake a stick at. As a side note, who just walks around shaking sticks at facts and/or people?
RAFAEL FURCAL has flirted with superstardom in recent years, hindered only by injuries. This year, the Dodgers' shortstop is off to another good start, batting .324 with six RBI and only six strikeouts. The speed demon has also stolen seven bases. In other news, ALEX GONZALEZ is trying to remind everyone there is actually still a Canadian MLB team by hitting five dingers with thirteen RBI and eight doubles. Also, he's been a part of 17 double plays.
Left field is a one-horse race because of RYAN BRAUN'S performance this year. Brauny is not a real superstar like A-Rod or even Furcal, yet he is hitting over .400 with five homers, 20 RBI, and four stolen bases. Because that is the top or near the top of the pile for left fielders in all four stats, I'm going to give him the outright Look-Out spot.
In centerfield, VERNON WELLS is representing well as the only Blue Jay I'd heard of before this column, with a .349 average behind seven home runs and 13 RBI. Meanwhile, ANDRUW JONES is back from the proverbial dead with five home runs already this season, and he's even stolen three bases. That said, he plays for the White Sox, whom I've predicted to win the AL Wild Card. They're currently dead last in their division, but I just wanted to remind everyone.
NELSON CRUZ is running away with the right field race, hitting seven home runs with 17 RBI and a .321 average. He's also stolen five bases. Right field is also a heavily defensive position, and MAGGLIO ORDONEZ has four assists thus far to go with four home runs and 10 RBI. I guess Ordonez is more well known, so that makes my formatting a bit sloppy here. Oh well... dock my pay if you want.
Let it be known that I hate the designated hitter. It takes part of the strategy out of the game and allows AL teams to lure premier hitters that are incomplete players to their rosters. That said, I will not pick a Look-Out DH representative. Take that, American League!
Friday, April 16, 2010
Three Dead Ends
I'll just be honest and tell you that, "I got nothin'."
For a while, my posts were all opinion, using witty banter and some generalizations that I see in the world of sports to drive home something I just felt to be the truth.
Lately, I've been trying to be more statistics- and research- based with my writing, and I feel like I've come up with some of my better posts.
Tonight, I had no such luck.
Here are the three false trails that I followed:
1: Mike Woodson is a far better coach than local media gives him credit for.
While I still think this is true, I just couldn't find the numbers to really prove it beyond pure win totals.
His teams have never improved by less than four games from the previous year's record, but, other than that, the stats were just too fuzzy.
Mike Bibby remained the same player statistically after joining the Hawks, Josh Smith was an 18-year-old rookie the year before Woodson came (making his improvement natural), and Joe Johnson saw small improvement that could be explained by his transition to a bigger role in Atlanta's game plan.
So, BONK, that won't work...
2: Kevin Durant doesn't get to the free throw line THAT much.
Actually, yeah he does.
He attempted 99 more field goals than Kobe Bryant this year, and he took 254 more free throws than the Dobermamba. (yeah I'm keeping that nickname around)
Even if you divide that number in half to account for the idea that many free throws come in pairs, it's 127 more trips to the line compared to only 99 more shots from the field.
To oversimplify it, that's 28 fouls that Kobe just doesn't get.
I even thought that a higher percentage of Kobe's shots are from the outside, so maybe he doesn't play in traffic as much.
WRONG.
Durant took 50 more threes than Kobe this year, and Kobe got called for 16 more fouls himself than the Durantula did.
So Phil Jackson may be right, and that's a... BONK... next?
3: Who's the REAL MVP of the NBA?
Yeah, I did an advanced combination of field goal percentage, free throw percentage, percentage of player points to team points per game, same for rebounds, and same for assists.
Then, I thought, "Team results ought to come into play somehow..."
Thus, I factored in playoff seeding and distance out of the playoffs for the twelve players I was analyzing.
When those numbers came out too normal, I tried to account for team improvement from last year's finishes.
You know what I found out?
Lebron James should be the league MVP, followed by Steve Nash, Kobe Bryant, Dirk Nowitzki, and Dwight Howard.
That sounds oddly like what the votes will most likely be.
Oh yeah, D-Wade was sixth and Kevin Durant's assist numbers really killed him.
So I did about thirty minutes worth of math to find out that I didn't need to do thirty minutes of math to decide who should be the NBA MVP.
What lesson did I learn, kids?
You CAN write a blog post about how you had nothing about which to write a blog post!
For a while, my posts were all opinion, using witty banter and some generalizations that I see in the world of sports to drive home something I just felt to be the truth.
Lately, I've been trying to be more statistics- and research- based with my writing, and I feel like I've come up with some of my better posts.
Tonight, I had no such luck.
Here are the three false trails that I followed:
1: Mike Woodson is a far better coach than local media gives him credit for.
While I still think this is true, I just couldn't find the numbers to really prove it beyond pure win totals.
His teams have never improved by less than four games from the previous year's record, but, other than that, the stats were just too fuzzy.
Mike Bibby remained the same player statistically after joining the Hawks, Josh Smith was an 18-year-old rookie the year before Woodson came (making his improvement natural), and Joe Johnson saw small improvement that could be explained by his transition to a bigger role in Atlanta's game plan.
So, BONK, that won't work...
2: Kevin Durant doesn't get to the free throw line THAT much.
Actually, yeah he does.
He attempted 99 more field goals than Kobe Bryant this year, and he took 254 more free throws than the Dobermamba. (yeah I'm keeping that nickname around)
Even if you divide that number in half to account for the idea that many free throws come in pairs, it's 127 more trips to the line compared to only 99 more shots from the field.
To oversimplify it, that's 28 fouls that Kobe just doesn't get.
I even thought that a higher percentage of Kobe's shots are from the outside, so maybe he doesn't play in traffic as much.
WRONG.
Durant took 50 more threes than Kobe this year, and Kobe got called for 16 more fouls himself than the Durantula did.
So Phil Jackson may be right, and that's a... BONK... next?
3: Who's the REAL MVP of the NBA?
Yeah, I did an advanced combination of field goal percentage, free throw percentage, percentage of player points to team points per game, same for rebounds, and same for assists.
Then, I thought, "Team results ought to come into play somehow..."
Thus, I factored in playoff seeding and distance out of the playoffs for the twelve players I was analyzing.
When those numbers came out too normal, I tried to account for team improvement from last year's finishes.
You know what I found out?
Lebron James should be the league MVP, followed by Steve Nash, Kobe Bryant, Dirk Nowitzki, and Dwight Howard.
That sounds oddly like what the votes will most likely be.
Oh yeah, D-Wade was sixth and Kevin Durant's assist numbers really killed him.
So I did about thirty minutes worth of math to find out that I didn't need to do thirty minutes of math to decide who should be the NBA MVP.
What lesson did I learn, kids?
You CAN write a blog post about how you had nothing about which to write a blog post!
Friday, April 9, 2010
The Perfect Post-Season
After consulting with "Sir Boogie," I've decided that it's time the world knows what the most ideal professional post-season would look like.
College sports are exempt from this speculation, since there are so many teams playing in so many conferences made up of various levels of talent. You can guess how I feel about the BCS, though.
Anyway, here are the rules for a post-season tournament and how it should be populated.:
1. Six teams are the ideal number, per conference, that should be admitted into the playoffs.
Over half of the NBA makes the playoffs after a lengthy regular season. After an even lengthier regular season, only eight major league teams play in October. I think this makes six, the number the NFL has chosen, the best route to go. If this were the case, fewer sub-.500 basketball squads would get thumped out of the first round and more late-season baseball games would actually matter. Six teams would also require that...
2. First round byes are a good idea.
In every league, and every season, at least one of the division champions stands above the rest. Again, the NFL got this one right. Aside from the fact that there's no real way to group a twelve-team bracket without a round of byes, this would make the later-season games matter for the top teams in each league or conference as well. This would add a round to the MLB playoffs, but that would just mean that the season should end about two weeks earlier. Let's just face it, though... 162 games is just ridiculous. Sure, that would change the frame of reference for statistics, but I think a few banned substances have already done that. Get rid of some interleague play and add two teams to each side of the bracket. Oh yeah, you have to win your division to get a bye, but other than that...
3. Division has no impact on seeding.
This would serve as a replacement for the NBA's already impressive "Top Four" rule, which wouldn't work with my rule #2. If the Phillies are the second-best team in the East, but they have the second- or third-best record in the National League, they'll be the third seed in the playoffs, hosting the number six team in the first round. I'll allow that division winners can be seeded no lower than fourth to keep the spirit of the "Top Four" rule alive. No more of baseball's "no interdivision play in the first round" junk either. Whoever your seed dictates is who you play.
3b. Brackets are solid, i.e. the first seed plays the winner of the 4-5 game, and the second seed plays the winner of the 3-6 game.
4. Seven-Game series are encouraged, and the 2-2-1-1-1 format should be required.
In case you haven't caught on, I hate the Major League playoff format. Too many teams play too many meaningless games, and then the eight teams that are left play in an odd setup in the post-season. The five-game series favors only specific teams, and not always the best teams. Two good pitchers can buy a wild-card team a 2-0 lead with two home games in which they can steal a short series from the best team that doesn't play in their division. Even in the seven-game MLB series, one win in the higher-seeded team's park is all that's needed to win with the 2-3-2 home field format. Again, the NBA has the right idea. The road team should have to win at least twice on the road, or it's not really a home-facility advantage, is it?
5. All seeding, qualification, home-facility, and tie-breaking procedures should involve on-field results.
NO, BUD SELIG, THE ALL-STAR GAME DOESN'T COUNT. Also, I don't ever want strength of schedule to come into play because it is a fake statistic made up by the BCS and Satan when college football sold its collective soul in the late 1990's. This is one area where major league baseball got tie-breakers right, although not completely. The following tie-breaker order should be used for any type of tie:
--->Head-to-head results
--->Record against all teams qualified, or tied, for playoff spots.
--->If within division, division record
--->If not or if still tied, conference record
--->Play a game.
If at any point a team is removed from the tie, start the process over until the tie is resolved. The NFL would protest to playing a whole game and risking injuries to break a tie, but I really don't care. Their tie-breaking procedures are as awful as the rest of their system is awesome. That said, it would be allowable for only half or a quarter to be played to break a football tie. It's important that the steps remain in the above order because I think the most effective way to break a tie is through head-to-head results.
Now that all my rules have been laid out, I will use the current NBA standings to show you what the 2010 NBA Playoffs SHOULD look like if the season were to end right now, current games obviously excluded from records.
East
3 Atlanta hosts 6 Miami (winner faces 2 Orlando), 4 Boston hosts 5 Milwaukee (winner faces 1 Cleveland)
West
3 Dallas hosts 6 Portland (winner faces 2 Denver), 4 Phoenix hosts 5 Utah (winner faces 1 LA Lakers)
Even better, we can go back to last season and find out what the REAL playoffs should've looked like for baseball.
NL
3 Colorado hosts 6 Florida (winner faces 2 Philadelphia), 4 Colorado hosts 5 St. Louis (winner faces 1 LA Dodgers)
AL
3 Boston hosts 6 Detroit (winner faces 2 LA Angels), 4 Minnesota hosts 5 Texas (winner faces 1 NY Yankees)
Now this might not make that big of a difference to you, but consider the number seven teams from each league last year.
Atlanta went into their season-ending four-game series with the Nationals out of contention, but, under this system, they would've only finished one game out of the post-season even after getting swept by those Nationals.
I think they might've played that series differently had my rules been in place.
Also, Seattle would've been only a half-game out of sixth place, instead of 12 games out of their division race and 11 out of the wild card.
Thus their season-ending series with Texas would have been big instead of a glorified AAA series.
More teams with more vested interest in late-season games, that's my mission... Vote Jeremy Timmerman, Commissioner of Sports 2010.
College sports are exempt from this speculation, since there are so many teams playing in so many conferences made up of various levels of talent. You can guess how I feel about the BCS, though.
Anyway, here are the rules for a post-season tournament and how it should be populated.:
1. Six teams are the ideal number, per conference, that should be admitted into the playoffs.
Over half of the NBA makes the playoffs after a lengthy regular season. After an even lengthier regular season, only eight major league teams play in October. I think this makes six, the number the NFL has chosen, the best route to go. If this were the case, fewer sub-.500 basketball squads would get thumped out of the first round and more late-season baseball games would actually matter. Six teams would also require that...
2. First round byes are a good idea.
In every league, and every season, at least one of the division champions stands above the rest. Again, the NFL got this one right. Aside from the fact that there's no real way to group a twelve-team bracket without a round of byes, this would make the later-season games matter for the top teams in each league or conference as well. This would add a round to the MLB playoffs, but that would just mean that the season should end about two weeks earlier. Let's just face it, though... 162 games is just ridiculous. Sure, that would change the frame of reference for statistics, but I think a few banned substances have already done that. Get rid of some interleague play and add two teams to each side of the bracket. Oh yeah, you have to win your division to get a bye, but other than that...
3. Division has no impact on seeding.
This would serve as a replacement for the NBA's already impressive "Top Four" rule, which wouldn't work with my rule #2. If the Phillies are the second-best team in the East, but they have the second- or third-best record in the National League, they'll be the third seed in the playoffs, hosting the number six team in the first round. I'll allow that division winners can be seeded no lower than fourth to keep the spirit of the "Top Four" rule alive. No more of baseball's "no interdivision play in the first round" junk either. Whoever your seed dictates is who you play.
3b. Brackets are solid, i.e. the first seed plays the winner of the 4-5 game, and the second seed plays the winner of the 3-6 game.
4. Seven-Game series are encouraged, and the 2-2-1-1-1 format should be required.
In case you haven't caught on, I hate the Major League playoff format. Too many teams play too many meaningless games, and then the eight teams that are left play in an odd setup in the post-season. The five-game series favors only specific teams, and not always the best teams. Two good pitchers can buy a wild-card team a 2-0 lead with two home games in which they can steal a short series from the best team that doesn't play in their division. Even in the seven-game MLB series, one win in the higher-seeded team's park is all that's needed to win with the 2-3-2 home field format. Again, the NBA has the right idea. The road team should have to win at least twice on the road, or it's not really a home-facility advantage, is it?
5. All seeding, qualification, home-facility, and tie-breaking procedures should involve on-field results.
NO, BUD SELIG, THE ALL-STAR GAME DOESN'T COUNT. Also, I don't ever want strength of schedule to come into play because it is a fake statistic made up by the BCS and Satan when college football sold its collective soul in the late 1990's. This is one area where major league baseball got tie-breakers right, although not completely. The following tie-breaker order should be used for any type of tie:
--->Head-to-head results
--->Record against all teams qualified, or tied, for playoff spots.
--->If within division, division record
--->If not or if still tied, conference record
--->Play a game.
If at any point a team is removed from the tie, start the process over until the tie is resolved. The NFL would protest to playing a whole game and risking injuries to break a tie, but I really don't care. Their tie-breaking procedures are as awful as the rest of their system is awesome. That said, it would be allowable for only half or a quarter to be played to break a football tie. It's important that the steps remain in the above order because I think the most effective way to break a tie is through head-to-head results.
Now that all my rules have been laid out, I will use the current NBA standings to show you what the 2010 NBA Playoffs SHOULD look like if the season were to end right now, current games obviously excluded from records.
East
3 Atlanta hosts 6 Miami (winner faces 2 Orlando), 4 Boston hosts 5 Milwaukee (winner faces 1 Cleveland)
West
3 Dallas hosts 6 Portland (winner faces 2 Denver), 4 Phoenix hosts 5 Utah (winner faces 1 LA Lakers)
Even better, we can go back to last season and find out what the REAL playoffs should've looked like for baseball.
NL
3 Colorado hosts 6 Florida (winner faces 2 Philadelphia), 4 Colorado hosts 5 St. Louis (winner faces 1 LA Dodgers)
AL
3 Boston hosts 6 Detroit (winner faces 2 LA Angels), 4 Minnesota hosts 5 Texas (winner faces 1 NY Yankees)
Now this might not make that big of a difference to you, but consider the number seven teams from each league last year.
Atlanta went into their season-ending four-game series with the Nationals out of contention, but, under this system, they would've only finished one game out of the post-season even after getting swept by those Nationals.
I think they might've played that series differently had my rules been in place.
Also, Seattle would've been only a half-game out of sixth place, instead of 12 games out of their division race and 11 out of the wild card.
Thus their season-ending series with Texas would have been big instead of a glorified AAA series.
More teams with more vested interest in late-season games, that's my mission... Vote Jeremy Timmerman, Commissioner of Sports 2010.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Explanation, please?
I at least pretend to understand the reasoning behind most rules in sports.
That said, there are a few that just don't make sense to me.
Furthermore, there are other rules that create a "punk move" potential that I just don't like.
As a side bar, I will define "punk move" as any play, game decision, or physical movement that would make me want to punch the person doing so in the head.
Not that I WOULD punch them in the head, but that I would want to.
So I decided to list my top five aggravating rules of sport for you with a detailed description of my dilemma, since you obviously care about my opinions on sports rules.
#5- College Football Pass Interference
The rule is the same as the professional game, but it's the penalty that I don't get. In the pro game, the penalty is a spot foul, with the offense getting the ball wherever the penalty occurred. In college, it's a fifteen-yard penalty, which hurts the defense...unless the penalty took place fifty yards downfield. This is the first appearance of the "punk move"- the intentional pass interference because a defensive back knows he's been beat.
#4- "Intentional" Foul in All Levels of Basketball
Basically, the Referee's Convention needs to either re-think this call, or eliminate it. If everyone in the arena knows you're going to foul in the last minute when you're losing by four, you tell the ref you're going to do so, and then you run up and hug the ballcarrier, that's an intentional foul. Yet it's not called as such, and this prolongs and even changes the game. Not that fouling is a bad strategy, but the fact that the same foul is called differently depending on what the clock says is just weird to me. If the defender clearly INTENDED to FOUL the guy with the ball, that makes the call clearly an INTENTIONAL FOUL. Note that "intentional" is the adjective form of the verb "intend," which is what makes the connection between the bold words in the above sentence. That's a little grammar lesson for the kids at home.
#3- Taking a Charge in Basketball
So I agree that the rule needs to be in place that, if a ball handler is out of control and runs over or strikes a defender, the foul should be on the ball handler. That said, intentionally taking a charge any distance from the basket is a "punk move" in my book. Many will argue that this shows an incredible amount of patience and timing, but I will argue back that so does running over a poodle with a golf cart. Neither is actually a gutsy move. The gutsy play is to find a way to block the shot, steal the ball, or just plain defend the ball handler. I especially hate to see the "help defender" slide over and take the charge because it's usually a 6'8" or taller post player wincing and flopping like a sissy while a 6'2" guard gets called for a foul for running into a brick wall. Here's a shorter synopsis... swat the shot or get out of the way!
That said, there are a few that just don't make sense to me.
Furthermore, there are other rules that create a "punk move" potential that I just don't like.
As a side bar, I will define "punk move" as any play, game decision, or physical movement that would make me want to punch the person doing so in the head.
Not that I WOULD punch them in the head, but that I would want to.
So I decided to list my top five aggravating rules of sport for you with a detailed description of my dilemma, since you obviously care about my opinions on sports rules.
#5- College Football Pass Interference
The rule is the same as the professional game, but it's the penalty that I don't get. In the pro game, the penalty is a spot foul, with the offense getting the ball wherever the penalty occurred. In college, it's a fifteen-yard penalty, which hurts the defense...unless the penalty took place fifty yards downfield. This is the first appearance of the "punk move"- the intentional pass interference because a defensive back knows he's been beat.
#4- "Intentional" Foul in All Levels of Basketball
Basically, the Referee's Convention needs to either re-think this call, or eliminate it. If everyone in the arena knows you're going to foul in the last minute when you're losing by four, you tell the ref you're going to do so, and then you run up and hug the ballcarrier, that's an intentional foul. Yet it's not called as such, and this prolongs and even changes the game. Not that fouling is a bad strategy, but the fact that the same foul is called differently depending on what the clock says is just weird to me. If the defender clearly INTENDED to FOUL the guy with the ball, that makes the call clearly an INTENTIONAL FOUL. Note that "intentional" is the adjective form of the verb "intend," which is what makes the connection between the bold words in the above sentence. That's a little grammar lesson for the kids at home.
#3- Taking a Charge in Basketball
So I agree that the rule needs to be in place that, if a ball handler is out of control and runs over or strikes a defender, the foul should be on the ball handler. That said, intentionally taking a charge any distance from the basket is a "punk move" in my book. Many will argue that this shows an incredible amount of patience and timing, but I will argue back that so does running over a poodle with a golf cart. Neither is actually a gutsy move. The gutsy play is to find a way to block the shot, steal the ball, or just plain defend the ball handler. I especially hate to see the "help defender" slide over and take the charge because it's usually a 6'8" or taller post player wincing and flopping like a sissy while a 6'2" guard gets called for a foul for running into a brick wall. Here's a shorter synopsis... swat the shot or get out of the way!
#2 Holding... On the Offense... 10-yard Penalty from the spot of the foul... Replay the Down?
I like things to be logical. In the game of football, a false start occurs before the play begins, so it's a ten yard penalty from the line of scrimmage and you play that down again, because the down never happened. That makes sense. A holding penalty costs the offense ten yards from the spot of the foul because the play HAD to happen for the offensive player to commit the penalty, but the down is replayed. Huh? Granted, if the situation is right, the defense can just decline the penalty and take the result of the play instead, but this is odd. Wouldn't it make more sense if it was either a ten-yard penalty from the line of scrimmage with a replay of the down or a penalty from the spot and you move on to the next down? I'll use an example: My partner in crime Craig "Boogey" Foster carries the ball 15 yards down field, but I hold a defender at the 12-yard mark. Which makes the least sense as a result of a PENALTY: 1st and 20, 2nd and 8, or 1st and 8? You could argue which of the first two options is the best, but the third is the worst to me, and that's what is currently in use. What's even worse is that, under the current system, a statistician has to give the ball carrier two yards and what could result in five carries in a four-down series. Odd, just odd.
#1 The Dropped Strike, Run to First Rule in Baseball
If you claim this rule makes sense to you, you are a dirtier liar than they guys who say 96 teams in the NCAA tournament is a good idea. Under NO circumstances should a pitcher have to get four outs in an inning simply because the catcher spaced out or the breaking ball was that nasty. That would be like saying that a fly-out didn't count if the shortstop dropped the lob-in from the outfielder. Yet, for some reason, no one has thought to take this rule off the books. If you're dumb enough to swing at a pitch so far out of the strike zone that the catcher can't reach it and it rolls all the way to the back stop, there shouldn't be a reward for that. Guys already on base should be able to advance, but the batter should go sit down in the corner and think about what he just did.
So that's it. That's the list.
Feel free to disagree with me, write your own list, or just tell me how dumb my opinions on these rules really are.
My e-mail is jtimm684@gmail.com, or you can just comment on this post.
Whatever you do, tell your friends about this blog because I'm about to start writing with more regularity, and I hope there are some brilliant posts to come.
Until then, keep your "punk moves" to a minimum.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Do you feel a slight Draft?
The title of this post is cheesy, I admit, but I wanted to rant for a few minutes about what I perceive to be the problems with the NFL and NBA drafts.
I won't address the MLB Draft because, well, it's REALLY complicated to me.
I also won't address the NHL Draft because... wait... is there an NHL draft? I mean, I'm sure there is, but it gets less coverage than my fantasy football league draft. I bet it's on Versus...
Anyway, I got to thinking the other day about how huge draft coverage has become and even the way teams draft players now.
Then I read a column by ESPN.com's Bill Simmons about the effects of the NCAA basketball tourney on draft status and my mind went to racing.
My first statement is that dividing NFL Draft coverage into three days is a huge risk.
Basically, ESPN better hope Tim Tebow doesn't get drafted in the first round.
If he does, and there's a clean break between rounds one and two, no one will watch the second day of coverage.
Under the old format, a casual sports addict like me might keep watching the draft to see how early Pat White got taken in the second round.
I'm certainly not going to devote a whole second night's effort to finding out if Terrance Cody will be a Lion or a Bear (oh my!... sorry).
Tebow or McCoy may draw a TV crowd if one or both fall into the second night, but that's about it.
Second, I could not possibly care less what a guy does at his pro day.
Maybe I just don't know what I'm talking about, and surely that's got to be it, but I'm not impressed with how Sam Bradford throws under zero pressure in a t-shirt and shorts when he and Bob Stoops decided it was time for everybody to see Sam throw.
I actually heard a talking head say on the radio, and apparently ESPN agrees, that Bradford had "erased all doubts" about his physical toughness with his chiseled physique at Sammy Day.
SERIOUSLY?
Did the following conversation really happen?
Scout A: "Jeez, look at the guns on Bradford!"
Scout B: "And those pecs! I totally just forgot he got hurt on normal hits the last two times he touched the field in live action."
Scout A: "Me too. Surely all that extra weight in muscle will make his shoulder less susceptible to injury."
Scout B: "I know right? In fact, I think I would take him with the first overall pick simply because of how meaty he looks, and, ooohh.... that's the prettiest undefended 65-yard pass I've seen since JaMarcus Russell's pro day. Man, we're good at this!"
In regards to how I would draft for particularly these two sports, I would look for three things: talent, wins, and durability.
Bradford has the first two, unquestionably. He threw for fifty touchdowns in his 2008-2009 season in which he won the Heisman trophy, and he won 23 games and two Big 12 titles as a starter.
Durability-wise, he's shaky.
Not that he's always been that way, but when was the last time you saw Sam Bradford in a game where he didn't get hurt?
January 8, 2009, against Florida in the National Title Game.
That's over a year ago, folks.
My third ranting point is in regards to the NBA Draft, mainly.
Call me old-fashioned, but... (you actually did it, right? Good.) ... I wouldn't draft a "one-and-done" guy like John Wall unless he was available in the second round.
I wouldn't draft him then if I didn't need a guard.
I don't care how talented he is, and I don't care about how good he supposedly is in clutch situations.
First of all, I want to see how well he plays when over half of the guys guarding him have played against him before.
In one NBA season, Wall will play against everyone twice a year, conference foes three times, and division opponents four times.
When or if he gets to the playoffs, Wall might have to face off against the same point gaurd that he already faced at least three times for seven more games.
He's played Tennessee three times, and the other teams in his division plus Mississippi State and Alabama twice. Other than that, he's feasting off of point guards that have never played against him before.
By the way, Wall's scoring looks like this against Tennessee in three games: 24, 19 (lost), 14.
Against Miss. St.: 18, 17.
Against Alabama: 22, 23 (he actually got better).
Against Vanderbilt: 13, 13.
Against Georgia: 17, 24.
Against Florida: 19, 11.
Against South Carolina: 19 (lost), 12 .
Thus, of the seven teams that played against him more than once, only two teams failed to hold him to fewer points.
The most disturbing part is the fact that he scored fewer points the next time he, as a star who was held to under twenty points in a loss, played a team that beat "his" Wildcats.
That brings me to my next point about the "one-and-done" athletes.
They leave too much to be accomplished in many cases.
Sure, Wall and the 'Cats won an SEC title and got a top seed in the Big Dance, but he didn't lead his team to a national championship, or even a Final Four for that matter.
If I'm an NBA general manager or coach, what makes me think Wall will be any more committed to winning a title?
I would feel much better about drafting a guy who came back to college to beat the guys who beat him last year and win the titles that have yet to be won.
I want a guy who got ticked off that he went three years without sniffing the Final Four and came back to cut down some nets.
That's the guy that might stay in New Jersey or Sacramento or Philadelphia just to say he brought a title to that town.
There... I think I'm done draft ranting... just in time for an "oh by the way" related to my last post.
Duke's tournament record against team's ranked in the ESPN.com RPI top twenty at the end of the season is now 3-0, having defeated #18 Cal, #16 Purdue, and #8 Baylor.
Each of the other top seeds lost to the first RPI Top 20 they faced, which in Kentucky's case was their fourth game.
Duke is so lucky they got an easy bracket.
I won't address the MLB Draft because, well, it's REALLY complicated to me.
I also won't address the NHL Draft because... wait... is there an NHL draft? I mean, I'm sure there is, but it gets less coverage than my fantasy football league draft. I bet it's on Versus...
Anyway, I got to thinking the other day about how huge draft coverage has become and even the way teams draft players now.
Then I read a column by ESPN.com's Bill Simmons about the effects of the NCAA basketball tourney on draft status and my mind went to racing.
My first statement is that dividing NFL Draft coverage into three days is a huge risk.
Basically, ESPN better hope Tim Tebow doesn't get drafted in the first round.
If he does, and there's a clean break between rounds one and two, no one will watch the second day of coverage.
Under the old format, a casual sports addict like me might keep watching the draft to see how early Pat White got taken in the second round.
I'm certainly not going to devote a whole second night's effort to finding out if Terrance Cody will be a Lion or a Bear (oh my!... sorry).
Tebow or McCoy may draw a TV crowd if one or both fall into the second night, but that's about it.
Second, I could not possibly care less what a guy does at his pro day.
Maybe I just don't know what I'm talking about, and surely that's got to be it, but I'm not impressed with how Sam Bradford throws under zero pressure in a t-shirt and shorts when he and Bob Stoops decided it was time for everybody to see Sam throw.
I actually heard a talking head say on the radio, and apparently ESPN agrees, that Bradford had "erased all doubts" about his physical toughness with his chiseled physique at Sammy Day.
SERIOUSLY?
Did the following conversation really happen?
Scout A: "Jeez, look at the guns on Bradford!"
Scout B: "And those pecs! I totally just forgot he got hurt on normal hits the last two times he touched the field in live action."
Scout A: "Me too. Surely all that extra weight in muscle will make his shoulder less susceptible to injury."
Scout B: "I know right? In fact, I think I would take him with the first overall pick simply because of how meaty he looks, and, ooohh.... that's the prettiest undefended 65-yard pass I've seen since JaMarcus Russell's pro day. Man, we're good at this!"
In regards to how I would draft for particularly these two sports, I would look for three things: talent, wins, and durability.
Bradford has the first two, unquestionably. He threw for fifty touchdowns in his 2008-2009 season in which he won the Heisman trophy, and he won 23 games and two Big 12 titles as a starter.
Durability-wise, he's shaky.
Not that he's always been that way, but when was the last time you saw Sam Bradford in a game where he didn't get hurt?
January 8, 2009, against Florida in the National Title Game.
That's over a year ago, folks.
My third ranting point is in regards to the NBA Draft, mainly.
Call me old-fashioned, but... (you actually did it, right? Good.) ... I wouldn't draft a "one-and-done" guy like John Wall unless he was available in the second round.
I wouldn't draft him then if I didn't need a guard.
I don't care how talented he is, and I don't care about how good he supposedly is in clutch situations.
First of all, I want to see how well he plays when over half of the guys guarding him have played against him before.
In one NBA season, Wall will play against everyone twice a year, conference foes three times, and division opponents four times.
When or if he gets to the playoffs, Wall might have to face off against the same point gaurd that he already faced at least three times for seven more games.
He's played Tennessee three times, and the other teams in his division plus Mississippi State and Alabama twice. Other than that, he's feasting off of point guards that have never played against him before.
By the way, Wall's scoring looks like this against Tennessee in three games: 24, 19 (lost), 14.
Against Miss. St.: 18, 17.
Against Alabama: 22, 23 (he actually got better).
Against Vanderbilt: 13, 13.
Against Georgia: 17, 24.
Against Florida: 19, 11.
Against South Carolina: 19 (lost), 12 .
Thus, of the seven teams that played against him more than once, only two teams failed to hold him to fewer points.
The most disturbing part is the fact that he scored fewer points the next time he, as a star who was held to under twenty points in a loss, played a team that beat "his" Wildcats.
That brings me to my next point about the "one-and-done" athletes.
They leave too much to be accomplished in many cases.
Sure, Wall and the 'Cats won an SEC title and got a top seed in the Big Dance, but he didn't lead his team to a national championship, or even a Final Four for that matter.
If I'm an NBA general manager or coach, what makes me think Wall will be any more committed to winning a title?
I would feel much better about drafting a guy who came back to college to beat the guys who beat him last year and win the titles that have yet to be won.
I want a guy who got ticked off that he went three years without sniffing the Final Four and came back to cut down some nets.
That's the guy that might stay in New Jersey or Sacramento or Philadelphia just to say he brought a title to that town.
There... I think I'm done draft ranting... just in time for an "oh by the way" related to my last post.
Duke's tournament record against team's ranked in the ESPN.com RPI top twenty at the end of the season is now 3-0, having defeated #18 Cal, #16 Purdue, and #8 Baylor.
Each of the other top seeds lost to the first RPI Top 20 they faced, which in Kentucky's case was their fourth game.
Duke is so lucky they got an easy bracket.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Which Road?
So I'm a Duke fan.
Also being a part-time sports writer and sports media junkie, I know that a lot of so-called experts feel like the Blue Devils got the easiest road to the Final Four and there's some sort of conspiracy involved.
Thus, I did a little research to ease their troubled minds.
Since the tournament is currently in the middle of the Sweet 16 round, I decided to take the average RPI from ESPN.com for each number one seed's first three opponents.
This posed two obstacles.
First of all, Kansas lost in the second round, so I just used Michigan State as their third opponent since that's who they would have played.
Second of all, I decided to use the average RPI of the two play-in teams for Duke's first round opponent.
(Editor's note: This touch did not make a difference. Let it be known that I've always thought the overall top seed should play the play-in winner.)
After all that math, I discovered the following standings, with the easiest road being number 1:
1. Duke avg. 68
2. Kentucky avg. 66.7
3. Kansas avg. 65.3
4. Syracuse avg. 54.7
So, there's some merit to the thought that Duke has a slightly easier road... at first glance.
I did some more math later, but just using this first set of rankings, I decided to throw out the opening round.
Why?
Because no number one has EVER lost in the first round, so those games don't matter and the 16-seeds are often lower conference champions that have to be included despite horrendous RPI's.
If you take the average of the second- and third-round opponents, the standings go as follows:
1. Kentucky avg. 41.5
2. Syracuse avg. 23.5
3. Kansas avg. 22.5
4. Duke avg. 17
So in the games where number one's are realistically susceptible to upset (see Kansas and Syracuse), Duke has had the toughest road.
Also, if you combine the two standings, Kansas' overall number one seed has earned them the most difficult road to the final four that included an upset trap with the ESPN RPI #17 Northern Iowa lurking as the number nine in their corner of the dance.
I then took my research another level to see which bracket's top seeds were the toughest, averaging seeds two through four in the regions.
This is what I got:
1. Kansas avg. 19
2. Syracuse avg. 14.7
3. Duke avg. 11.7
4. Kentucky avg. 11
After all this "assesserizing" of the bracket, I have come to one conclusion: whether you look at who they did play or who they were supposed to play, the top seeds had pretty equal roads to the Final Four.
Duke had the easiest first round opponent, but Kentucky's next two opponents were the weakest, while Kansas would've theoretically had the easiest venture in the Sweet and Elite rounds.
The only glaring injustice I discovered was that Northern Iowa was way too good to be a nine seed, but Kansas already showed us that.
The next most surprising seed was that California, the number eight seed Duke played in the second round and defeated by 15 points, was ranked 18th.
That's just one spot behind Northern Iowa, and makes Duke's second round opponent a tougher draw than any eight or nine seed other than UNI.
I thought they had a cupcake bracket?
Please give any "journalist" who feels this way my number or e-mail address. ;)
Also being a part-time sports writer and sports media junkie, I know that a lot of so-called experts feel like the Blue Devils got the easiest road to the Final Four and there's some sort of conspiracy involved.
Thus, I did a little research to ease their troubled minds.
Since the tournament is currently in the middle of the Sweet 16 round, I decided to take the average RPI from ESPN.com for each number one seed's first three opponents.
This posed two obstacles.
First of all, Kansas lost in the second round, so I just used Michigan State as their third opponent since that's who they would have played.
Second of all, I decided to use the average RPI of the two play-in teams for Duke's first round opponent.
(Editor's note: This touch did not make a difference. Let it be known that I've always thought the overall top seed should play the play-in winner.)
After all that math, I discovered the following standings, with the easiest road being number 1:
1. Duke avg. 68
2. Kentucky avg. 66.7
3. Kansas avg. 65.3
4. Syracuse avg. 54.7
So, there's some merit to the thought that Duke has a slightly easier road... at first glance.
I did some more math later, but just using this first set of rankings, I decided to throw out the opening round.
Why?
Because no number one has EVER lost in the first round, so those games don't matter and the 16-seeds are often lower conference champions that have to be included despite horrendous RPI's.
If you take the average of the second- and third-round opponents, the standings go as follows:
1. Kentucky avg. 41.5
2. Syracuse avg. 23.5
3. Kansas avg. 22.5
4. Duke avg. 17
So in the games where number one's are realistically susceptible to upset (see Kansas and Syracuse), Duke has had the toughest road.
Also, if you combine the two standings, Kansas' overall number one seed has earned them the most difficult road to the final four that included an upset trap with the ESPN RPI #17 Northern Iowa lurking as the number nine in their corner of the dance.
I then took my research another level to see which bracket's top seeds were the toughest, averaging seeds two through four in the regions.
This is what I got:
1. Kansas avg. 19
2. Syracuse avg. 14.7
3. Duke avg. 11.7
4. Kentucky avg. 11
After all this "assesserizing" of the bracket, I have come to one conclusion: whether you look at who they did play or who they were supposed to play, the top seeds had pretty equal roads to the Final Four.
Duke had the easiest first round opponent, but Kentucky's next two opponents were the weakest, while Kansas would've theoretically had the easiest venture in the Sweet and Elite rounds.
The only glaring injustice I discovered was that Northern Iowa was way too good to be a nine seed, but Kansas already showed us that.
The next most surprising seed was that California, the number eight seed Duke played in the second round and defeated by 15 points, was ranked 18th.
That's just one spot behind Northern Iowa, and makes Duke's second round opponent a tougher draw than any eight or nine seed other than UNI.
I thought they had a cupcake bracket?
Please give any "journalist" who feels this way my number or e-mail address. ;)
Friday, March 19, 2010
Beware of 96!
Listen, I've been hearing some crazy stuff out there, and I just want you to know the truth because, hey, you're good people.
If anyone has tried to tell you something off-the-wall, like 96 teams in the NCAA tournament is a good idea, they're dirty liars.
No good would come of this.
Eight or sixteen teams in a college football tournament, now that's an excellent choice, but that's not what's on the table.
We're talking about adding 31 teams to a tournament that didn't need to add it's 65th team.
Don't get me wrong, I normally think more of a good thing is generally still a good thing, but this is not one of those times.
There are three possibilities for this scenario and only one of them is remotely good.
That scenario involves the proper 31 additional teams being invited, with an introductory round full of games like the one I'm watching right now between Michigan State and New Mexico State.
Underdogs hanging with and defeating the favorites could be even more abundant, as the opening round would consist mainly of middle teams from the big conferences facing champions and second teams from the mid-majors.
I think that's more of a utopian option.
The next possibility is that the tournament would allow more teams like Arkansas-Pine Bluff into the field.
Not a single Golden Lion scored in double digits against Duke Friday night, and there are plenty more teams like them in the NIT and the CBI just waiting on a tournament expansion.
What's also waiting in those lower tournaments are my third, and most likely scenario: more teams from the "power conferences."
As an ACC man, I'd love to say that everyone except UNC deserved a shot at the Big Dance this year, but that would be a lie as well.
Seth Greenberg can get his bald head as fired up as he wants, but Virginia Tech did nothing to show the committee they wanted in the field.
Yet, with the proposed expansion, the Hokies would most certainly have made it.
Furthermore, a completely undeserving Tar Heel team could've jumped all the way up to a one-seed in the NIT, and that would be a true injustice.
If anyone has tried to tell you something off-the-wall, like 96 teams in the NCAA tournament is a good idea, they're dirty liars.
No good would come of this.
Eight or sixteen teams in a college football tournament, now that's an excellent choice, but that's not what's on the table.
We're talking about adding 31 teams to a tournament that didn't need to add it's 65th team.
Don't get me wrong, I normally think more of a good thing is generally still a good thing, but this is not one of those times.
There are three possibilities for this scenario and only one of them is remotely good.
That scenario involves the proper 31 additional teams being invited, with an introductory round full of games like the one I'm watching right now between Michigan State and New Mexico State.
Underdogs hanging with and defeating the favorites could be even more abundant, as the opening round would consist mainly of middle teams from the big conferences facing champions and second teams from the mid-majors.
I think that's more of a utopian option.
The next possibility is that the tournament would allow more teams like Arkansas-Pine Bluff into the field.
Not a single Golden Lion scored in double digits against Duke Friday night, and there are plenty more teams like them in the NIT and the CBI just waiting on a tournament expansion.
What's also waiting in those lower tournaments are my third, and most likely scenario: more teams from the "power conferences."
As an ACC man, I'd love to say that everyone except UNC deserved a shot at the Big Dance this year, but that would be a lie as well.
Seth Greenberg can get his bald head as fired up as he wants, but Virginia Tech did nothing to show the committee they wanted in the field.
Yet, with the proposed expansion, the Hokies would most certainly have made it.
Furthermore, a completely undeserving Tar Heel team could've jumped all the way up to a one-seed in the NIT, and that would be a true injustice.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
MLB Predictions
As Spring Training begins, many of America's top sports writers, bottom sports writers, and even the okay sports writers will begin to assess the talent present in Major League camps.
Then, one of the most inaccurate forms of journalism is formed: the predictive column.
Last year's efforts yielded such brilliant ideas as the Mets being a far-too-popular choice to win the National League.
I've never done one of these, but, this year, you will be the first to read my candid prognostication regarding the big leaguers.
The more I think about it, I've never made public my thought on eventual champions of any kind prior to the regular season.
Thus, you should feel lucky.
Or at least you'll know who not to pick.
Anyway, I'm basing my educated guesses on three main categories: pitching, hitting, and bench. The closer will count towards pitching, with the rest of the bullpen counting towards bench.
Why, you might ask?
Because I'm just making this up as I go.
AL East
Anyone who doesn't think the Yankees are the best team in this division is kidding themselves. I loathe the pinstripes as much as the next guy, but the champs reloaded nicely. The only area where I see a weakness is the bench, but, barring big injuries, that shouldn't keep them from winning the division. Meanwhile, Tampa Bay has the hitting to keep the Sox out of the postseason. In other news, I think I found three Blue Jays I'd heard of.
Projected finish: NY, TB, BOS, BAL, TOR.
AL Central
This divistion should be one of the most tightly contested races from start to finish. The addition of Johnny Damon gives Detroit the slight hitting edge, while the recent injury to Joe Nathan may be the straw that breaks the Twins' backs. Minnesota will need a big move to climb back into this division either now or by the trade deadline in July. Cleveland's roster is surprisingly mediocre, while the Royals could be this year's '08 Rays. Notice I'm not predicting it, though.
Projected finish: DET, CHI, MIN, KC, CLE
AL West
The easy no-look pick in this division is always the Angels, and they will be fairly strong this year. With a couple of moves now or later, they could steal back their own lunch money. That said, Cliff Lee and Chone Figgins make the Mariners an early favorite to take the division crown and try to get Mr. Griffey a pennant. The Rangers' lineup is impressive with Vlad and Josh Hamilton, but their pitching is a liability as usual.
Projected finish: SEA, LA, TEX, OAK
Playoffs
The Yankees sweep the White Sox and Seattle overpowers Detroit in a short series. Then, the Yanks take Seattle in six games in the Championship Series. I don't like it, but a return trip to the World Series seems inevitable for Joey G and the boys.
NL East
This could be the year that we finally get the three-team brawl between the Braves, Mets, and Phillies that some have been predicting for a few years. As for starting rotations, the Braves and Phillies have the edge, even with Javy Vasquez donning the stripes this year. Furthermore the Braves and Mets are two of the deepest teams in the league as far as reserves and bullpen go. Meanwhile, the Phillies hitting lineup is as formidable as you'll find. I can only predict this division based on how I hope it will finish. As a side note, aren't the Marlins about due to lease another World Championship sometime soon?
Projected finish: ATL, PHI, NY, WAS, FLA
NL Central
Then, one of the most inaccurate forms of journalism is formed: the predictive column.
Last year's efforts yielded such brilliant ideas as the Mets being a far-too-popular choice to win the National League.
I've never done one of these, but, this year, you will be the first to read my candid prognostication regarding the big leaguers.
The more I think about it, I've never made public my thought on eventual champions of any kind prior to the regular season.
Thus, you should feel lucky.
Or at least you'll know who not to pick.
Anyway, I'm basing my educated guesses on three main categories: pitching, hitting, and bench. The closer will count towards pitching, with the rest of the bullpen counting towards bench.
Why, you might ask?
Because I'm just making this up as I go.
AL East
Anyone who doesn't think the Yankees are the best team in this division is kidding themselves. I loathe the pinstripes as much as the next guy, but the champs reloaded nicely. The only area where I see a weakness is the bench, but, barring big injuries, that shouldn't keep them from winning the division. Meanwhile, Tampa Bay has the hitting to keep the Sox out of the postseason. In other news, I think I found three Blue Jays I'd heard of.
Projected finish: NY, TB, BOS, BAL, TOR.
AL Central
This divistion should be one of the most tightly contested races from start to finish. The addition of Johnny Damon gives Detroit the slight hitting edge, while the recent injury to Joe Nathan may be the straw that breaks the Twins' backs. Minnesota will need a big move to climb back into this division either now or by the trade deadline in July. Cleveland's roster is surprisingly mediocre, while the Royals could be this year's '08 Rays. Notice I'm not predicting it, though.
Projected finish: DET, CHI, MIN, KC, CLE
AL West
The easy no-look pick in this division is always the Angels, and they will be fairly strong this year. With a couple of moves now or later, they could steal back their own lunch money. That said, Cliff Lee and Chone Figgins make the Mariners an early favorite to take the division crown and try to get Mr. Griffey a pennant. The Rangers' lineup is impressive with Vlad and Josh Hamilton, but their pitching is a liability as usual.
Projected finish: SEA, LA, TEX, OAK
Playoffs
The Yankees sweep the White Sox and Seattle overpowers Detroit in a short series. Then, the Yanks take Seattle in six games in the Championship Series. I don't like it, but a return trip to the World Series seems inevitable for Joey G and the boys.
NL East
This could be the year that we finally get the three-team brawl between the Braves, Mets, and Phillies that some have been predicting for a few years. As for starting rotations, the Braves and Phillies have the edge, even with Javy Vasquez donning the stripes this year. Furthermore the Braves and Mets are two of the deepest teams in the league as far as reserves and bullpen go. Meanwhile, the Phillies hitting lineup is as formidable as you'll find. I can only predict this division based on how I hope it will finish. As a side note, aren't the Marlins about due to lease another World Championship sometime soon?
Projected finish: ATL, PHI, NY, WAS, FLA
NL Central
Unless something changes, this stands to be a boring division again. The Cardinals have the sweet hitting tandem of Pujols and Holliday to go with a solid starting rotation, but not much beyond that. The Cubs are fairly deep and have a good rotation as well. The other teams in this division will dabble in mediocrity for most of the year, barring some unforeseen moves by the Astros or Brewers.
Projected finish: STL, CHI, MIL, HOU, CIN, PIT
NL West
This will be a highly contested division top-to-bottom. That said, any prediction I make has the potential to be completely wrong here. Given the proven talent in the Dodgers' starting lineup and rotation, it's hard to pick against them, but the Giants and D-Backs aren't far behind. As far as depth goes these three teams have a lot of quality talent doing bench work for them. If Arizona's rotation pitches up to potential, what they lack in offensive firepower could be overcome. Still the Giants pose the biggest overall threat to Manny and friends.
Projected finish: LA, SF, ARZ, COL, SD
Playoffs
Atlanta and the Cardinals put up a classic five gamer, but the Braves' overall better pitching and stronger lineup makes the difference. Meanwhile, the Phillies go out West and take down the Dodgers. Then the Braves ride a stronger rotation past the Phillies in six games.
World Series
So yeah, I'm a homer. I picked the Braves to face the evil Yankees in the World Series. I'll go one step further and say the Braves beat the Yankees... in seven games... on a walk-off... by Chipper... in Atlanta. That's right, I'm saying the National League is going to win the All-Star Game for once because that's what this time of the year is about, hope in a team that you haven't seen play a real game yet. So whoever your team is, here's to them playing up to the potential of their talent. Unless your team is Toronto, at which point you should realize that they're really going to be terrible this year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)