Remember in Monday's Peter King post when I had the following fake-exchange with Pete:
Tony Romo's presence, I'm convinced, helped the Dallas defense in Washington last night, too.
[Have you ever seen one of those "Footprints in the Sand" posters? Well did you know that, originally, those posters had nothing to do with Jesus at all? No, in fact, it's been Tony Romo carrying you this whole time....]
I bet that all of you thought I was just being sarcastic, right? Nope! Wrong! Turns out that I was right.
The Dallas Morning News reported on Wednesday that the Cowboys quarterback took a homeless man to the movies recently.
[YES! I love it when my jokes come in the form of soothsaying!]
The man, who goes by Doc, was outside a theater in in Dallas when a man came up and offered to pay his way to see a movie. Planning on passing out fliers for a consignment store across the street, Doc declined. But then he realized that he had just turned down Romo.
[I am pretty sure that "Doc" is Aramaic for "Moses," and that offering to pay for someone's ticket at the cinemas is the modern-day equivalent of setting a bush on fire ($10.50!! You can buy a new bush for that!).]
He ran across the street, asked for the day off and ran back to the theater. Romo and Doc ended up sitting together watching the movie "Role Model."
[Dudes who hand out fliers on street corners get vacation days?? And how do you think that conversation went? Here's my guess:
Doc/Moses: Hey, Boss, can I have the day off so that I can go to the movies with Tony Romo!?! Pleeeeease!?!
Boss: (laughing..... still laughing....) (Two and a half minutes later) You're fired.]
Romo reportedly also changed the tire of a couple on the way home the night of the season opener and showed up to a high school pep rally with actor Will Smith earlier this week.
[You're next, lepers!]
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Stay classy, San Diego!
As has been mentioned before, I am a fan of enumerated lists. So how excited was I when I read Nick Canepa's piece today in the Union-Tribune out of San Diego??
Nick has ten things he wants to change about sports. (Spoiler alert: Actually, no. I don't even want to spoil it for you.) Let's hit the highlights:
3. Sit on ESPN.
The cable network controls our games and now has been awarded the BCS bowl package. Some 16 million U.S. homes have no access to ESPN. I realize this will be a boon for sports bars, but what would our founding fathers think?
[16 million homes don't have basic cable?? Let's assume that is true. How many of those people (who have gone this long without basic cable) do you think really give a crap about a Utah-Pittsburgh Orange Bowl matchup?? I semi- made that up, but you get the idea. Plus, yeah, let's punish ESPN for being good at running ESPN.]
4. Curb the blogging.
In so many cases, bloggers who have no idea what they're talking about cast a huge influence on what's going on around us. It isn't journalism. It often isn't factual. It's throwing manure against the wall to see what sticks.
[Couldn't agree more. I know this guy Nils who has a blog, and he is a HUGE douche. Maybe if he were a real journalist, he could write factual journalistic pieces about why blogging is stupid.]
5. Eliminate the Olympic Games.
They have become a petri dish for scandal..... It's stupid.
[Journalism award, please!]
10. Find another Tiger Woods – in any sport.
One day, Tiger will fade. We need another one. Forget bailouts. Is it merely a coincidence that the world's economy has collapsed since Woods had knee surgery?
[Ummm, yes?]
Nick has ten things he wants to change about sports. (Spoiler alert: Actually, no. I don't even want to spoil it for you.) Let's hit the highlights:
3. Sit on ESPN.
The cable network controls our games and now has been awarded the BCS bowl package. Some 16 million U.S. homes have no access to ESPN. I realize this will be a boon for sports bars, but what would our founding fathers think?
[16 million homes don't have basic cable?? Let's assume that is true. How many of those people (who have gone this long without basic cable) do you think really give a crap about a Utah-Pittsburgh Orange Bowl matchup?? I semi- made that up, but you get the idea. Plus, yeah, let's punish ESPN for being good at running ESPN.]
4. Curb the blogging.
In so many cases, bloggers who have no idea what they're talking about cast a huge influence on what's going on around us. It isn't journalism. It often isn't factual. It's throwing manure against the wall to see what sticks.
[Couldn't agree more. I know this guy Nils who has a blog, and he is a HUGE douche. Maybe if he were a real journalist, he could write factual journalistic pieces about why blogging is stupid.]
5. Eliminate the Olympic Games.
They have become a petri dish for scandal..... It's stupid.
[Journalism award, please!]
10. Find another Tiger Woods – in any sport.
One day, Tiger will fade. We need another one. Forget bailouts. Is it merely a coincidence that the world's economy has collapsed since Woods had knee surgery?
[Ummm, yes?]
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Cue Nils' Man-Crush Anthem!
Just wanted to lob this one in the direction of Nils: Rob Neyer explains why Joe Mauer should have been AL MVP instead of Dustin Pedroia.
And "impossibly handsome sideburns" wasn't even part of his analysis!
Other than the thought of Nils high-fiving himself over the Mauer-love, this story is relatively uninteresting. The AL MVP was a total wash this year. Lots of pretty good candidates, but no one that really gets me excited. The more interesting part is looking to see which random dudes picked up MVP votes from the BBWAA.
My favorite was Jason Bartlett receiving a 5th-place vote (!!).
He missed 34 games, had an OPS+ of 82 (100 is league-AVERAGE), and he hit three fewer home runs this year than.... Carlos Zambrano.
Why not just totally mail it in and throw a vote Pavano's way?
And "impossibly handsome sideburns" wasn't even part of his analysis!
Other than the thought of Nils high-fiving himself over the Mauer-love, this story is relatively uninteresting. The AL MVP was a total wash this year. Lots of pretty good candidates, but no one that really gets me excited. The more interesting part is looking to see which random dudes picked up MVP votes from the BBWAA.
My favorite was Jason Bartlett receiving a 5th-place vote (!!).
He missed 34 games, had an OPS+ of 82 (100 is league-AVERAGE), and he hit three fewer home runs this year than.... Carlos Zambrano.
Why not just totally mail it in and throw a vote Pavano's way?
The BBWAA Can't Win
I was assuming that we here at The Theorem wouldn't have to devote a post to the NL MVP selection due to the fact that the BBWAA actually got it right. But, as I sometimes do, I forgot that crazy people reside on both sides of every fence. Let's hop one with Phil Sheridan of the Philadelphia Inquirer, shall we?
Ryan Howard was the most valuable player in the National League in 2008.
[To steal a phrase from Colbert, I think we can now diagnose Phil as "factose intolerant."]
Pujols was not an embarrassing selection, not with his excellent numbers....
[I know, right?]
[The BBWAA should] do what it should have done long ago: get out of the business of voting on baseball's postseason awards.... That won't happen because the association is as incapable of being embarrassed....
[Incapable? Remember when they gave Terry Pendleton the NL MVP over Bonds in 1991?]
It is ethically indefensible for the journalists who cover baseball to vote for official awards that have an impact on players' financial rewards.
[Am I missing something? Where's the conflict of interest? The journalists are not a part of either side of that compensation equation.]
Their best argument goes something like this: If not us, then who? Who is better qualified to get it right than the (mostly) men who cover the game every day?
[Stinging rejoinder in 3... 2... 1...]
That argument is completely beside the point, of course.
[Nailed it! The casual-and-baseless-dismissive-hand-wave counter-argument. Flawlessly executed. Phil Sheridan = Clarence Darrow.]
If the MVP is the player with the best all-round statistical season...
[(also known as objective value)]
...a computer could figure that out.
[And this is bad? Didn't you just spend the first half of this article explaining why PEOPLE suck at selecting these award winners? What's left?]
But Howard got hot in September, hitting 11 home runs and driving in 32 runs to carry the Phillies into the playoffs. That's the very definition of valuable.
[...for SEPTEMBER. I have to check, but I'm pretty sure there are a few games played prior to that month. (buffering..... buffering.....) Yep, there are. Actually, as it turns out, most teams play LOTS of games before September. Weird.
Also, just to throw this out there, Pujols OPS'd 1.129 with 8 HRs and 27 RBIs in September. Also kinda good.]
The association seamheads love to throw around stats - OPS, VORP, ASPCA - to make a case for Pujols. That's all great. Yes, he struck out less and hit for a higher average. But Howard won actual baseball games in an honest-Abe pennant race. He had 11 more home runs than Pujols, scored five more runs than Pujols, and drove in 30 more runs than Pujols.
[Welcome to the Sheridan Family Farm! All the cherry-picking you could ever dream of! This is another solid logical tactic: Identify all of the evidence that cuts against your argument, and say that it's stupid. Then find a few points that support your claim and italicize them. QED.]
Notice there are no decimal points involved there, only whole numbers that made a difference in real baseball games.
[Decimal points are for pansies (I'm looking at you, Avogadro!). Everyone knows it. Using division to create some kind of averaged-value measurement of a player's performance over a 162 game-season??? This isn't Russia. Is this Russia? This isn't Russia.]
That takes care of the logic.
[Irony!]
Ryan Howard was the most valuable player in the National League in 2008.
[To steal a phrase from Colbert, I think we can now diagnose Phil as "factose intolerant."]
Pujols was not an embarrassing selection, not with his excellent numbers....
[I know, right?]
[The BBWAA should] do what it should have done long ago: get out of the business of voting on baseball's postseason awards.... That won't happen because the association is as incapable of being embarrassed....
[Incapable? Remember when they gave Terry Pendleton the NL MVP over Bonds in 1991?]
It is ethically indefensible for the journalists who cover baseball to vote for official awards that have an impact on players' financial rewards.
[Am I missing something? Where's the conflict of interest? The journalists are not a part of either side of that compensation equation.]
Their best argument goes something like this: If not us, then who? Who is better qualified to get it right than the (mostly) men who cover the game every day?
[Stinging rejoinder in 3... 2... 1...]
That argument is completely beside the point, of course.
[Nailed it! The casual-and-baseless-dismissive-hand-wave counter-argument. Flawlessly executed. Phil Sheridan = Clarence Darrow.]
If the MVP is the player with the best all-round statistical season...
[(also known as objective value)]
...a computer could figure that out.
[And this is bad? Didn't you just spend the first half of this article explaining why PEOPLE suck at selecting these award winners? What's left?]
But Howard got hot in September, hitting 11 home runs and driving in 32 runs to carry the Phillies into the playoffs. That's the very definition of valuable.
[...for SEPTEMBER. I have to check, but I'm pretty sure there are a few games played prior to that month. (buffering..... buffering.....) Yep, there are. Actually, as it turns out, most teams play LOTS of games before September. Weird.
Also, just to throw this out there, Pujols OPS'd 1.129 with 8 HRs and 27 RBIs in September. Also kinda good.]
The association seamheads love to throw around stats - OPS, VORP, ASPCA - to make a case for Pujols. That's all great. Yes, he struck out less and hit for a higher average. But Howard won actual baseball games in an honest-Abe pennant race. He had 11 more home runs than Pujols, scored five more runs than Pujols, and drove in 30 more runs than Pujols.
[Welcome to the Sheridan Family Farm! All the cherry-picking you could ever dream of! This is another solid logical tactic: Identify all of the evidence that cuts against your argument, and say that it's stupid. Then find a few points that support your claim and italicize them. QED.]
Notice there are no decimal points involved there, only whole numbers that made a difference in real baseball games.
[Decimal points are for pansies (I'm looking at you, Avogadro!). Everyone knows it. Using division to create some kind of averaged-value measurement of a player's performance over a 162 game-season??? This isn't Russia. Is this Russia? This isn't Russia.]
That takes care of the logic.
[Irony!]
Touche, Salesman.
Nils, you just stood up to me. Congratulations. That was the test.
P.S. "somaybeyouarerightafterallNils" is not a word. I checked.
P.S. "somaybeyouarerightafterallNils" is not a word. I checked.
Monday, November 17, 2008
An Open Letter to Archie Leach
Dear Archie –
While I usually think that you are a level-headed chap with impeccable style and mainly reasonable opinions, you have forced me to go through you recent post line by line simply because your stance is so egregiously incorrect. I did not want to do this. You made me. You turned me into this guy! You did it!
Are you happy now?
(Sob)
The argument is that talent is a more valuable independent attribute than is experience, not that super-elite talent maintained over a long period of time is a more valuable attribute than really good talent maintained over a respectable period of time.
This was never an argument, my friend. Talent is always more important that experience, as I noted ever so persuasively with my Livan Hernandez example.
My line of reasoning was that, with talent held equal (or as equal as it is possible to determine based on the numbers) experience acts as a key tiebreaker when making the determination of better. Of course, I mean better in terms of “better in the immediate situation” because, quite obviously, experience is something that is not static.
This is the first of what I assume will be many NILS FAILs.
Only if FAILs stands for “Facts Are In Line somaybeyouarerightafterallNils.” Then it is another of my FAILs.
Using Rivera as your "experience" poster-boy is only marginally sensible because he has been pitching for such a long time.
Pitching for a long time = Experienced Pitcher
This is more than marginally sensible = Painfully Obvious
However, you are overlooking the rather obvious point that Rivera is one of the most talented pitchers of all-time.
Actually, I care that Rivera is one of the most talented pitchers of all time. It shows his ability, which matters, and that he has experience. Which I think is important.
You see, I compared the Fantastically Awesome Mr Rivera’s recent numbers to those of Mr Joe Nathan, an AL closer whose effectiveness (measured by hard stats) is comparable to Rivera’s over the past couple of seasons, though his profile, because he plays for Minnesota, is considerably lower. Based on the numbers, I posited that they were equally talented insofar as it is possible to make that call in general and, more importantly, possible to make that call between the experienced Mr Rivera, who has proven his excellence over time, and Mr Nathan, who has not had the longevity of the former.
I needed to have a comparison like this, a comparison between someone with experience and someone (relatively) without it in order to make the analogy that illustrates my argument. Some call it logic. I call it awesome.
Point in case, of all pitchers (in the history of baseball) with a minimum of 1000 IP, 3000 PA and 100 decisions for their career, guess who has the highest ERA+??
Rivera! With an ERA+ of 199 (!!). And just to hammer this point home, the next best ERA+ is 154.
Tell me how this negates the argument that experience is an important tiebreaker when determining the better player (at this point in time) when considering players of equal talent? You can’t? That’s so weird. Oh well.
Check. And. Mate.
Not. And. Really.
While I usually think that you are a level-headed chap with impeccable style and mainly reasonable opinions, you have forced me to go through you recent post line by line simply because your stance is so egregiously incorrect. I did not want to do this. You made me. You turned me into this guy! You did it!
Are you happy now?
(Sob)
The argument is that talent is a more valuable independent attribute than is experience, not that super-elite talent maintained over a long period of time is a more valuable attribute than really good talent maintained over a respectable period of time.
This was never an argument, my friend. Talent is always more important that experience, as I noted ever so persuasively with my Livan Hernandez example.
My line of reasoning was that, with talent held equal (or as equal as it is possible to determine based on the numbers) experience acts as a key tiebreaker when making the determination of better. Of course, I mean better in terms of “better in the immediate situation” because, quite obviously, experience is something that is not static.
This is the first of what I assume will be many NILS FAILs.
Only if FAILs stands for “Facts Are In Line somaybeyouarerightafterallNils.” Then it is another of my FAILs.
Using Rivera as your "experience" poster-boy is only marginally sensible because he has been pitching for such a long time.
Pitching for a long time = Experienced Pitcher
This is more than marginally sensible = Painfully Obvious
However, you are overlooking the rather obvious point that Rivera is one of the most talented pitchers of all-time.
Actually, I care that Rivera is one of the most talented pitchers of all time. It shows his ability, which matters, and that he has experience. Which I think is important.
You see, I compared the Fantastically Awesome Mr Rivera’s recent numbers to those of Mr Joe Nathan, an AL closer whose effectiveness (measured by hard stats) is comparable to Rivera’s over the past couple of seasons, though his profile, because he plays for Minnesota, is considerably lower. Based on the numbers, I posited that they were equally talented insofar as it is possible to make that call in general and, more importantly, possible to make that call between the experienced Mr Rivera, who has proven his excellence over time, and Mr Nathan, who has not had the longevity of the former.
I needed to have a comparison like this, a comparison between someone with experience and someone (relatively) without it in order to make the analogy that illustrates my argument. Some call it logic. I call it awesome.
Point in case, of all pitchers (in the history of baseball) with a minimum of 1000 IP, 3000 PA and 100 decisions for their career, guess who has the highest ERA+??
Rivera! With an ERA+ of 199 (!!). And just to hammer this point home, the next best ERA+ is 154.
Tell me how this negates the argument that experience is an important tiebreaker when determining the better player (at this point in time) when considering players of equal talent? You can’t? That’s so weird. Oh well.
Check. And. Mate.
Not. And. Really.
Peter King Gets Paid For This: Vol. 5
I am kind of busy, and still trying to pick up the pieces after betting my entire 401(k) on the Steelers to cover yesterday (seriously, since when did the NFL hire Tim Donaghy?), but Pete had a few gems today per usual.
No, I don't believe the final play in the Steelers-Chargers game is scandalous.... The problem is the Steelers were very heavy betting favorites in this game. One Vegas bookie said last night that $100 million was bet on this game alone, with $66 million of that bet on the Steelers. The Steelers were four-point favorites. Instead of winning 17-10 or 18-10, the Steelers won 11-10. Thus they didn't cover, much to the angst of gamblers around the United States.
[I am actually going to give a tip o' the hat to Pete here for making this his lead item. I was pretty amazed that this wasn't bigger news on the TV post-game shows yesterday. Anyone who had the Steelers covering in their totally-legal picks pool (like me)... I know, deep breathes. After that final play, I promptly took a nap out of sheer rage.]
Tony Romo's a hero.
[Aaaaaaaaand we're back.]
Marion Barber's the truth. Barber, down the stretch in Washington, continually found the burst and the stamina to make it to the first-down marker and bleed the clock further; he had 83 rushing-receiving yards in the fourth quarter against a defense that knew he was coming.
[Valid point. Barber was a beast last night.]
Romo? His hand hurt, and he wasn't perfect. But he saved the Dallas' season. The numbers don't matter. His leadership and presence do.
[I will give SOME credence to this notion of "leadership and presence" being important in this instance, largely because QB is a crucial position and because TO would have actually boycotted the game if Brad Johnson was under center again. But to say that numbers don't matter?? Hey, Pete, remember when you cited Barber's 83 fourth-quarter rushing-receiving yards to prove that he had a big impact on the game? Yeah, those were good times. The bottom-line is that if Romo's numbers (198 yards and 2 INTs) were better, the 'Boys would have won that game going away.]
If I were him, I'd take a DVD of this game, put it away and take it out one day next spring while throwing the ball into the couch at home (which he actually does when he doesn't have anyone to throw with). It's the kind of game you want to remember for the rest of your life.
[?????? Like I said, I am busy today, so let's just move on before I'm forced to take another nap.]
By the way, the Elias Sports Bureau confirms that an 11-0 team has never faced an 0-11 team in NFL history. That's what Tennessee and Detroit are headed for on Thanksgiving Day.
[This is an analog to the talent vs. experience debate. A "tradition" in and of itself possesses little value. Just doing something over and over again because that's what people have ALWAYS done is idiotic. You know what a cool tradition would be? For me to NOT have to watch the Lions play every Thanksgiving.]
Tony Romo's presence, I'm convinced, helped the Dallas defense in Washington last night, too.
[Have you ever seen one of those "Footprints in the Sand" posters? Well did you know that, originally, those posters had nothing to do with Jesus at all? No, in fact, it's been Tony Romo carrying you this whole time....]
And let's not forget Terrence Newman's return from a groin injury.
[Oh, yeah, that probably helped their defense too.]
The numbers don't matter. They never matter in classic Favre games. The Jets needed a classic Favre game to slay the Patriots in Foxboro, and they got something better...
[I bet it's something that's totally NOT numbers....]
-- a classic, no-mistake game, 26-of-33 (79 percent) with two TDs and no picks.
[It's nap time.]
NILS FAIL
Nils,
The argument is that talent is a more valuable independent attribute than is experience, not that super-elite talent maintained over a long period of time is a more valuable attribute than really good talent maintained over a respectable period of time.
This is the first of what I assume will be many NILS FAILs.
Using Rivera as your "experience" poster-boy is only marginally sensible because he has been pitching for such a long time. However, you are overlooking the rather obvious point that Rivera is one of the most talented pitchers of all-time.
Point in case, of all pitchers (in the history of baseball) with a minimum of 1000 IP, 3000 PA and 100 decisions for their career, guess who has the highest ERA+??
Rivera! With an ERA+ of 199 (!!). And just to hammer this point home, the next best ERA+ is 154.
Check. And. Mate.
The argument is that talent is a more valuable independent attribute than is experience, not that super-elite talent maintained over a long period of time is a more valuable attribute than really good talent maintained over a respectable period of time.
This is the first of what I assume will be many NILS FAILs.
Using Rivera as your "experience" poster-boy is only marginally sensible because he has been pitching for such a long time. However, you are overlooking the rather obvious point that Rivera is one of the most talented pitchers of all-time.
Point in case, of all pitchers (in the history of baseball) with a minimum of 1000 IP, 3000 PA and 100 decisions for their career, guess who has the highest ERA+??
Rivera! With an ERA+ of 199 (!!). And just to hammer this point home, the next best ERA+ is 154.
Check. And. Mate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
