Amidst the many strained pro-Rice arguments, I had not actually heard the one shot down by Tracy Ringolsby in the Rocky Mountain News.
Amid the debate over Jim Rice's Hall of Fame candidacy came a missive from a New England fan who wanted it known that "Jim Rice's offensive stats for his first 10 years in the Majors were better than Babe Ruth's."
[Right off the bat there are a few reasons why this is a stupid pro-Rice HoF argument:
First, why the arbitrary "first 10 years" cut-off? Why not just say "Jim Rice had a better fifth season than Babe Ruth," or "Jim Rice was more productive in the 1980s than Babe Ruth was?" Ruth played 22 seasons. Rice 16. At age 36 (Rice's final season), his OPS+ was 70. At age 36, Ruth's OPS+ was 218.
Second, in Ruth's first five seasons, he had a total of 678 ABs. Rice, on the other hand, had 2,533 ABs (including 677 ABs in 1978). You know what Ruth was doing in those first five years instead? Throwing 1,057 innings (over 211 per year, and with respective ERA+ of 68, 114, 158, 128 and 121).
Third, even with that whole "being a full-time pitcher" thing, as a part-time hitter, Ruth still hung OPS+ of 50 (in only 10 ABs), 189, 121, 164 and 194 in those first five seasons; while Rice put up OPS+ of 89, 127, 120, 147 and 157.
You know what? I'm not even going to go through the rest of the article. Ringolsby agrees that the argument is stupid, but the rationale is solely that the eras were different (as opposed to, you know, that Ruth was a *lot* better than Rice).]
Friday, January 16, 2009
Bill Plaschke is on the money (seriously).
I would not consider myself a USC fan, but I must say that I have a hard time not liking Pete Carroll. He is undeniably good at his job. He seems to create and foster a fun environment for his players. He even hangs out with gang members in the middle of the night in South LA in attempt to improve their lives.
Which is why I found his reaction to the decision of Mark Sanchez to turn pro most peculiar. Bill Plaschke agrees.
Sanchez, the Trojans' starting quarterback who will finish his classwork in May with one year of remaining football eligibility, formally declared that he was leaving school to join the NFL. Carroll, his coach, publicly treated him like a traitor.
[Here's the thing I never quite understand about college sports (most notably college football): Quite often, as with Sanchez, the player isn't actually leaving school "early." The "red-shirt" nomenclature of college football underscores Plaschke's point that there is a "gap between college football and college education." Sanchez is *done* with his college education.]
Carroll was so visibly frustrated, he wouldn't even sit next to Sanchez during the Heritage Hall news conference, then later refused to sit while answering questions.... Said Carroll: "Mark is going against the grain in this decision, we know that, he knows that."
[Against what grain? If Sanchez (as projected by Mel Kiper, Jr. last night on ESPN) is a potential top 3 pick in the upcoming draft, how do you not encourage him to seize that opportunity? That is life-altering money. Weird scene all-around.]
Which is why I found his reaction to the decision of Mark Sanchez to turn pro most peculiar. Bill Plaschke agrees.
Sanchez, the Trojans' starting quarterback who will finish his classwork in May with one year of remaining football eligibility, formally declared that he was leaving school to join the NFL. Carroll, his coach, publicly treated him like a traitor.
[Here's the thing I never quite understand about college sports (most notably college football): Quite often, as with Sanchez, the player isn't actually leaving school "early." The "red-shirt" nomenclature of college football underscores Plaschke's point that there is a "gap between college football and college education." Sanchez is *done* with his college education.]
Carroll was so visibly frustrated, he wouldn't even sit next to Sanchez during the Heritage Hall news conference, then later refused to sit while answering questions.... Said Carroll: "Mark is going against the grain in this decision, we know that, he knows that."
[Against what grain? If Sanchez (as projected by Mel Kiper, Jr. last night on ESPN) is a potential top 3 pick in the upcoming draft, how do you not encourage him to seize that opportunity? That is life-altering money. Weird scene all-around.]
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Jason Whitlock: Vol. 8
I will give Whitlock credit for sticking by his guy McNabb a few months ago when most other writers were calling for his head. But, let's take it easy a bit, Mr. Whitlock.
Somehow I think football fans will remember McNabb for leading the Eagles to five NFC championship games in 10 years more than they'll remember a regular-season tie at Cincinnati.
[Agreed. Or at least fans *should* remember him more for that.]
He's not Tom Brady (or even Peyton Manning). But McNabb is a winner, the third-best quarterback of his era. (I don't include Brett Favre in McNabb's era.)
[Huh? Ignoring the substance of his list, why doesn't he include Favre in McNabb's era? Does this make sense to anyone??]
I place McNabb slightly ahead of Kurt Warner because Warner spent the middle five seasons of his 11-year career looking like an Arena League flash-in-the-pan.
[I think he means the middle *three* seasons-- Warner was MVP in 2001.]
If Warner and the Cardinals win on Sunday, McNabb will fall to No. 4 on my list behind Captain Kurt.
[Makes sense. Warner is currently behind McNabb because of five (allegedly) poor seasons. But if his team beats McNabb's team in ONE GAME, then Warner will jump McNabb on the list. QED.]
But if McNabb gets the Birds past Arizona and wins the Super Bowl, then you might hear me arguing that McNabb is Peyton Manning's equal.
[Sorry. I know Whitlock argues that McNabb never had the same level of supporting cast as Peyton, which is likely true (not nearly enough, however, to make up for the MASSIVE statistical difference between the two). But if we are going to compare value, why not start with something simple that brings inherent value to your team: actually playing in games. In his eleven year career, Peyton has averaged 16 games per (regular) season-- that's EVERY game. In his ten year career, McNabb has averaged just over 13 games per season. Put another way, McNabb has missed, on average, nearly 20% of his team's regular season games throughout his career.]
One more unrelated point from Whitlock in his column:
I have the perfect solution for Carolina's Jake Delhomme problem: Nate Davis.
[Fumbles >> Interceptions. Apparently.]
Somehow I think football fans will remember McNabb for leading the Eagles to five NFC championship games in 10 years more than they'll remember a regular-season tie at Cincinnati.
[Agreed. Or at least fans *should* remember him more for that.]
He's not Tom Brady (or even Peyton Manning). But McNabb is a winner, the third-best quarterback of his era. (I don't include Brett Favre in McNabb's era.)
[Huh? Ignoring the substance of his list, why doesn't he include Favre in McNabb's era? Does this make sense to anyone??]
I place McNabb slightly ahead of Kurt Warner because Warner spent the middle five seasons of his 11-year career looking like an Arena League flash-in-the-pan.
[I think he means the middle *three* seasons-- Warner was MVP in 2001.]
If Warner and the Cardinals win on Sunday, McNabb will fall to No. 4 on my list behind Captain Kurt.
[Makes sense. Warner is currently behind McNabb because of five (allegedly) poor seasons. But if his team beats McNabb's team in ONE GAME, then Warner will jump McNabb on the list. QED.]
But if McNabb gets the Birds past Arizona and wins the Super Bowl, then you might hear me arguing that McNabb is Peyton Manning's equal.
[Sorry. I know Whitlock argues that McNabb never had the same level of supporting cast as Peyton, which is likely true (not nearly enough, however, to make up for the MASSIVE statistical difference between the two). But if we are going to compare value, why not start with something simple that brings inherent value to your team: actually playing in games. In his eleven year career, Peyton has averaged 16 games per (regular) season-- that's EVERY game. In his ten year career, McNabb has averaged just over 13 games per season. Put another way, McNabb has missed, on average, nearly 20% of his team's regular season games throughout his career.]
One more unrelated point from Whitlock in his column:
I have the perfect solution for Carolina's Jake Delhomme problem: Nate Davis.
[Fumbles >> Interceptions. Apparently.]
Some classic Pettitte-Love
Wallace Matthews of Newsday thinks that Andy Pettitte would be perfect for the Mets.
The Yankees can find nearly a half-billion dollars to pay three players who, as brilliant as they've performed elsewhere, have yet to do a thing for this franchise. And yet they can't scrape up a nickel more than $10 million for Andy Pettitte, who played an instrumental role in bringing them four world championships?
[A few things:
(1) BrilliantLY.
(2) When did "what have you done for me lately" give way to "what did you do for me a decade ago?" Also, Pettitte's post-season prowess is often overstated. In 35 career-postseason starts (31 of which were made as a Yankee): 218.1 IP, 3.96 ERA, 1.35 WHIP, 5.73 K/9, 2.32 K:BB. Decent (especially the nearly 6.1 IP per start), but we're not talking about Schilling or Smoltz post-season career numbers here by any stretch.
(3) Other than providing bulk innings, Pettitte was pretty bad last season, and objectively awful in the second half (79 IP, 5.35 ERA, 1.52 WHIP after the AS break). $10 million? No thanks.]
Pettitte has just as much right to be insulted over the Yankees' contract offer as the Yankees have the right to insult him.
[Where is it written that a player's salary has to go *up* with each new contract, regardless of his performance?]
Last time I checked, the Mets were still shopping for a starting pitcher, and one glance at their roster reminds you of how badly they need one.
[Preferably a *good* starting pitcher, I would assume.]
And best of all, Pettitte doesn't cost you all that much, in money or years. One year at $12 million to $14 million, maybe with an option, probably gets it done, and that's perfect.
[True on the one-year potential. But $12-14MM is still waaaay above market for Pettitte, right?]
The Yankees can find nearly a half-billion dollars to pay three players who, as brilliant as they've performed elsewhere, have yet to do a thing for this franchise. And yet they can't scrape up a nickel more than $10 million for Andy Pettitte, who played an instrumental role in bringing them four world championships?
[A few things:
(1) BrilliantLY.
(2) When did "what have you done for me lately" give way to "what did you do for me a decade ago?" Also, Pettitte's post-season prowess is often overstated. In 35 career-postseason starts (31 of which were made as a Yankee): 218.1 IP, 3.96 ERA, 1.35 WHIP, 5.73 K/9, 2.32 K:BB. Decent (especially the nearly 6.1 IP per start), but we're not talking about Schilling or Smoltz post-season career numbers here by any stretch.
(3) Other than providing bulk innings, Pettitte was pretty bad last season, and objectively awful in the second half (79 IP, 5.35 ERA, 1.52 WHIP after the AS break). $10 million? No thanks.]
Pettitte has just as much right to be insulted over the Yankees' contract offer as the Yankees have the right to insult him.
[Where is it written that a player's salary has to go *up* with each new contract, regardless of his performance?]
Last time I checked, the Mets were still shopping for a starting pitcher, and one glance at their roster reminds you of how badly they need one.
[Preferably a *good* starting pitcher, I would assume.]
And best of all, Pettitte doesn't cost you all that much, in money or years. One year at $12 million to $14 million, maybe with an option, probably gets it done, and that's perfect.
[True on the one-year potential. But $12-14MM is still waaaay above market for Pettitte, right?]
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
One more MLB HoF thought
As previously (albeit infrequently) stated, we here at The Theorem like to point out quality reads from the world of sports. Here is a particularly attention-holding piece from Keith Law regarding Tim Raines' HoF candidacy as well as the composition of the HoF voting body.
And just for fun, compare Law's sophisticated research-based take to the ...... umm,.... different approach taken by Dan Shaughnessy regarding Jim Rice.
More recently, as he snared more votes, there was a backlash among new-age, basement-dwelling number crunchers who found flaws in Rice's résumé (always borderline by Cooperstown's lofty standards).... But the older writers had the benefit of being eyewitnesses. They watched Rice hit and saw the nightly fear in the visitors dugout at Fenway.
[Well-played.]
And just for fun, compare Law's sophisticated research-based take to the ...... umm,.... different approach taken by Dan Shaughnessy regarding Jim Rice.
More recently, as he snared more votes, there was a backlash among new-age, basement-dwelling number crunchers who found flaws in Rice's résumé (always borderline by Cooperstown's lofty standards).... But the older writers had the benefit of being eyewitnesses. They watched Rice hit and saw the nightly fear in the visitors dugout at Fenway.
[Well-played.]
Peter King (and others) only read the East Coast police logs
Hey, remember when seemingly the entire sports media united to drag Plaxico Burress over the coals? Actually, it's still happening (in the wake of the Giants' loss on Sunday). Plaxico's situation was serious, and certainly some level of outrage from the media was appropriate.
A little consistency, however, does not appear to be in the "Cards." (Nice)
Monday's Peter King column is a good example.
In Pete's "Awards Section," (solid) he hands out the following praise:
Larry Fitzgerald, WR, Arizona. He's becoming a gentlemanly Randy Moss, right down to wearing the gloves on his facemask when the game's been decided.
[A "gentlemanly Randy Moss?" Really? Pete is certainly not alone, but with the recent protection order filed against Fitzgerald, I'm not sure that "gentlemanly" is completely accurate.
And remember when a protection order was similarly filed against the actual Randy Moss last year during the NFL playoffs? The order was eventually dropped, and so may be the eventual outcome of Ftizgerald's current predicament. But, nonetheless, to call Fitzgerald a "gentlemanly Randy Moss?" In light of the reaction to the Plaxico situation, the lack of coverage with respect to Fitzgerald's story seems arbitrary and weak.]
A little consistency, however, does not appear to be in the "Cards." (Nice)
Monday's Peter King column is a good example.
In Pete's "Awards Section," (solid) he hands out the following praise:
Larry Fitzgerald, WR, Arizona. He's becoming a gentlemanly Randy Moss, right down to wearing the gloves on his facemask when the game's been decided.
[A "gentlemanly Randy Moss?" Really? Pete is certainly not alone, but with the recent protection order filed against Fitzgerald, I'm not sure that "gentlemanly" is completely accurate.
And remember when a protection order was similarly filed against the actual Randy Moss last year during the NFL playoffs? The order was eventually dropped, and so may be the eventual outcome of Ftizgerald's current predicament. But, nonetheless, to call Fitzgerald a "gentlemanly Randy Moss?" In light of the reaction to the Plaxico situation, the lack of coverage with respect to Fitzgerald's story seems arbitrary and weak.]
Rickey Henderson for all the Wrong Reasons
Rickey Henderson was awesome at baseball. I totally saw him play the Twins in 1991 before I retreated to my Mom's basement and stopped watching games because it's more fun to do equations and play with spreadsheets...and he was so good that it was almost enough to keep me from learning Excel and just hanging at the ballpark all day. Almost.
Despite failing at that, he belongs in the Hall of Fame.
It’s just that he doesn’t belong in the Hall of Fame for the reason that Jayson Stark thinks he does:
Unless my calculator's busted, those numbers are telling me that 28 voters cast ballots that did not include the name of Rickey Henderson.
That is pretty shocking. Who are these people?
But at least it's great news for Corky Simpson, the retired writer from Tucson, Ariz., who has been getting hammered by much of North America for admitting in a column that he didn't vote for Henderson because he's "not a Rickey guy."
Question answered.
OK, so of the other 27 voters who couldn't find Rickey's box to check, two of those ballots were blank steroid protests.
Principle is principle, I guess.
But that still leaves 25 voters with other agendas…Seriously, by what standard is this man NOT a Hall of Famer?
You mean besides the “are you a Rickey guy” standard?
He scored more runs than any player in the history of baseball.
Do we even need to list ANY other qualifications?
Yes.
Jayson, here’s the thing: because baseball is a team game, the only way to ensure that a batter is going to score a run is to hit a home run. If you don’t hit a home run, you will not score unless your teammates do something, like get a hit, that will advance you to home. If you need to brush up, this is all in the rules.
Henderson hit 297 home runs, which is very impressive for the player nicknamed the Man of Steal, but still means that his teammates played a big role in this runs scored bull jive.
There are a myriad of things that Rickey Henderson did independent of his teammates that make his case for the Hall of Fame, things like steal more bases than anyone else ever, clock in with a .401 OBP and a 127 OPS+, etc and so on…so why are you focused on a meaningless statistic that shows little about Henderson’s actual ability?
It’s reasoning like that that makes it okay for Bert Blyleven not to be in the Hall of Fame yet.
Despite failing at that, he belongs in the Hall of Fame.
It’s just that he doesn’t belong in the Hall of Fame for the reason that Jayson Stark thinks he does:
Unless my calculator's busted, those numbers are telling me that 28 voters cast ballots that did not include the name of Rickey Henderson.
That is pretty shocking. Who are these people?
But at least it's great news for Corky Simpson, the retired writer from Tucson, Ariz., who has been getting hammered by much of North America for admitting in a column that he didn't vote for Henderson because he's "not a Rickey guy."
Question answered.
OK, so of the other 27 voters who couldn't find Rickey's box to check, two of those ballots were blank steroid protests.
Principle is principle, I guess.
But that still leaves 25 voters with other agendas…Seriously, by what standard is this man NOT a Hall of Famer?
You mean besides the “are you a Rickey guy” standard?
He scored more runs than any player in the history of baseball.
Do we even need to list ANY other qualifications?
Yes.
Jayson, here’s the thing: because baseball is a team game, the only way to ensure that a batter is going to score a run is to hit a home run. If you don’t hit a home run, you will not score unless your teammates do something, like get a hit, that will advance you to home. If you need to brush up, this is all in the rules.
Henderson hit 297 home runs, which is very impressive for the player nicknamed the Man of Steal, but still means that his teammates played a big role in this runs scored bull jive.
There are a myriad of things that Rickey Henderson did independent of his teammates that make his case for the Hall of Fame, things like steal more bases than anyone else ever, clock in with a .401 OBP and a 127 OPS+, etc and so on…so why are you focused on a meaningless statistic that shows little about Henderson’s actual ability?
It’s reasoning like that that makes it okay for Bert Blyleven not to be in the Hall of Fame yet.
Monday, January 12, 2009
Back to the BCS
More BCS madness, this time courtesy of Rick Reilly:
Some gifts people give are pointless: Styling mousse to Dick Vitale. An all-you-can-eat card to Kate Moss. The BCS Championship given to Oklahoma or Florida.
One these things is not like the others, one of these things just isn’t the same…
Dick Vitale doesn’t want styling mousse. Though unfunny, I get the joke that Reilly is making about the very thin Kate Moss not wanting an all-you-can-eat card, whatever that is. Oklahoma and Florida though both very much want(ed) the BCS “national championship.”
Logic fail.
It means nothing because the BCS has no credibility.
Rick Reilly, however, has all the credibility. He’s practically made of credibility. In fact, when he writes his columns, he sits in a little cave on a mountain of credibility, a sportswriter Swami whose turban, incidentally, is woven out of credibility.
Florida? Oklahoma? Who cares? Utah is the national champion.
Because Rick Reilly gets to decide these things.
The End. Roll credits.
And when he makes a decision, goddamn it, it’s final.
Argue with this, please. I beg you.
No need to beg.
Find me anybody else that went undefeated. Thirteen-and-zero.
This is probably the best argument in Utah’s favor…except that the nature of college football means that not all teams can play each other, making an obvious indicator like record less useful than it is in, say, baseball. Also, the vagaries of strength of schedule play a factor, meaning that games like those Utah played against Michigan and Wyoming are more like scrimmages than actual competitive contests. Finally, because there is no playoff, the current system relies on voters going with their gut.
Reilly is going with his gut on this one, decrying a system based on going on the gut of so-called experts because his gut disagrees.
Airtight case, this one.
Beat four ranked teams.
You know who else beat four ranked teams this year?
Florida. They defeated #5 Oklahoma, #6 Alabama, #10 Georgia, and #23 Florida State.
USC. They utterly destroyed #8 Penn State, #9 Oregon, #11 Ohio State, and #25 California.
Texas. They beat #5 Oklahoma, #11 Ohio State, #16 Missouri, and #18 Oklahoma State.
In fact, one team even beat five ranked opponents.
Oklahoma. The Sooners rang up victories against #7 TCU, #12 Texas Tech, #16 Missouri, #17 Cincinnati and #18 Oklahoma State.
Other than that, good point.
Went to the Deep South and seal-clubbed Alabama in the Sugar Bowl.
What Rick actually meant was: went to a neutral site where the fans were split evenly between the two teams and seal-clubbed Alabama in the Sugar Bowl.
The same Alabama that was ranked No. 1 for five weeks.
As anyone who watched the Tide this season knows, the Utes put the hurt on a team with real quality.
The same Alabama that went undefeated in the regular season.
We get it, Alabama was a good football team.
The same Alabama that Florida beat in order to get INTO the BCS Championship game in the first place.
Florida > Alabama. Utah > Alabama. Though there is an argument, if we consider only these two results and finely weight on the relative margins of victory, that this could equal Utah > Florida, a sensible person clearly can’t consider only those two games.
In fact, a sensible person would likely have to do some pretty sophisticated mathematics, maybe even involving the Perron-Frobenius Theorem, to correctly weigh the relative strength of the teams that have an argument for the national title based on the results of the games that they played this season.
All the games. Not just two.
And not just for Utah and Florida either, but for everybody in Division 1 (especially teams like USC and Texas who negotiated a demanding schedule with some success). After all, the point is to determine the best team in the country. Let’s leave no stone unturned.
Or, instead of trying to use statistics to find out the true relative ability of the Division 1 football teams, you could just say that 13-0 Utah is the best because they lost no games and beat Alabama.
That way does take less math.
Some gifts people give are pointless: Styling mousse to Dick Vitale. An all-you-can-eat card to Kate Moss. The BCS Championship given to Oklahoma or Florida.
One these things is not like the others, one of these things just isn’t the same…
Dick Vitale doesn’t want styling mousse. Though unfunny, I get the joke that Reilly is making about the very thin Kate Moss not wanting an all-you-can-eat card, whatever that is. Oklahoma and Florida though both very much want(ed) the BCS “national championship.”
Logic fail.
It means nothing because the BCS has no credibility.
Rick Reilly, however, has all the credibility. He’s practically made of credibility. In fact, when he writes his columns, he sits in a little cave on a mountain of credibility, a sportswriter Swami whose turban, incidentally, is woven out of credibility.
Florida? Oklahoma? Who cares? Utah is the national champion.
Because Rick Reilly gets to decide these things.
The End. Roll credits.
And when he makes a decision, goddamn it, it’s final.
Argue with this, please. I beg you.
No need to beg.
Find me anybody else that went undefeated. Thirteen-and-zero.
This is probably the best argument in Utah’s favor…except that the nature of college football means that not all teams can play each other, making an obvious indicator like record less useful than it is in, say, baseball. Also, the vagaries of strength of schedule play a factor, meaning that games like those Utah played against Michigan and Wyoming are more like scrimmages than actual competitive contests. Finally, because there is no playoff, the current system relies on voters going with their gut.
Reilly is going with his gut on this one, decrying a system based on going on the gut of so-called experts because his gut disagrees.
Airtight case, this one.
Beat four ranked teams.
You know who else beat four ranked teams this year?
Florida. They defeated #5 Oklahoma, #6 Alabama, #10 Georgia, and #23 Florida State.
USC. They utterly destroyed #8 Penn State, #9 Oregon, #11 Ohio State, and #25 California.
Texas. They beat #5 Oklahoma, #11 Ohio State, #16 Missouri, and #18 Oklahoma State.
In fact, one team even beat five ranked opponents.
Oklahoma. The Sooners rang up victories against #7 TCU, #12 Texas Tech, #16 Missouri, #17 Cincinnati and #18 Oklahoma State.
Other than that, good point.
Went to the Deep South and seal-clubbed Alabama in the Sugar Bowl.
What Rick actually meant was: went to a neutral site where the fans were split evenly between the two teams and seal-clubbed Alabama in the Sugar Bowl.
The same Alabama that was ranked No. 1 for five weeks.
As anyone who watched the Tide this season knows, the Utes put the hurt on a team with real quality.
The same Alabama that went undefeated in the regular season.
We get it, Alabama was a good football team.
The same Alabama that Florida beat in order to get INTO the BCS Championship game in the first place.
Florida > Alabama. Utah > Alabama. Though there is an argument, if we consider only these two results and finely weight on the relative margins of victory, that this could equal Utah > Florida, a sensible person clearly can’t consider only those two games.
In fact, a sensible person would likely have to do some pretty sophisticated mathematics, maybe even involving the Perron-Frobenius Theorem, to correctly weigh the relative strength of the teams that have an argument for the national title based on the results of the games that they played this season.
All the games. Not just two.
And not just for Utah and Florida either, but for everybody in Division 1 (especially teams like USC and Texas who negotiated a demanding schedule with some success). After all, the point is to determine the best team in the country. Let’s leave no stone unturned.
Or, instead of trying to use statistics to find out the true relative ability of the Division 1 football teams, you could just say that 13-0 Utah is the best because they lost no games and beat Alabama.
That way does take less math.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
