Sports Central | Articles and Columns

« July 2012 | Main | September 2012 »

August 30, 2012

Haves and Have-Nots of HS Football

Even with college football just around the corner, I still need a fix all throughout the summer. I've written extensively about the CFL in bridging the gap, but still I was happy when high school football rolled around last week, with lots on national television with college football still a week away.

One matchup that caught my eye was Joliet Catholic vs. Providence Catholic on ESPNU. Joliet Catholic was a name that rang a bell for me, and that's because my former coworker Tom was a rabid fan of that, his alma mater. I remember him directing me to vote for Joliet Catholic on a radio poll for most popular Chicago area high school or something like that. I'm always happy to help friends stuff the ballot box in elections where I otherwise have no partiality.

So good, I thought, I actually have a reason not only to watch football, but to root for one of the teams. On Facebook, I congratulated Tom on his team's appearance on national television, and he responded, "This surely merits coverage from the Slant Pattern's star reporter." And here we are.

The night before, however, I got an even bigger surprise: Another high school football game, this featuring a high school from Akron, my home town, on FOX Sports Ohio … as well as FOX Sports Atlantic, and a number of other FOX Sports regional networks such as FOX Sports Southwest, where I would be able to watch in Dallas on tape delay.

I'm guessing this is the first time an Akron public high school has been featured in any sports on (sort of) national television. LeBron James is from Akron of course, and his high school games were on ESPN, but he went to a private school, St. Vincent-St. Mary.

The public schools of Akron are where I matriculated, and they are in a permanent state of economic woe. The seven public high schools in Akron compete in a conference called The City Series. Only three of those high schools have football fields, so all seven teams toggle their games between those three stadia, and the University of Akron's InfoCision Stadium. My high school, North, is not one of the ones with a stadium. That means all of our games, and it has been this way for decades, are either on a neutral field or on the road. All of our non-conference games are on the road.

In football, North was mediocre when I was a student, and is terrible now, with one win in the last two seasons. Needless to say, mine was not the school on quasi-national television. That would be Buchtel, the one school that despite being probably the one with the poorest student body, is consistently City Series Champions with occasional deep forays into the state playoffs (last time being in 2010, when they lost the state championship game).

I hasten to point out that Buchtel is pronounced BOOK-təl, not BUCK-təl, because every single announcer who mentions the school (happens more often than you think, because they send a lot of kids to FBS schools) mispronounces it, and it drives me nuts.

Buchtel is a school with a great deal of history, not just in football, but in the history of my city — the University of Akron was originally Buchtel College. As a winning football team, they are the only City Series school to be able to schedule prime opponents (that's probably lucky for the other schools) outside of the conference, and so it was for Buchtel, whose game on TV was against Massillon, a bit south of Akron, one of the most storied football schools in the country.

That's not regional bias when I say that. For starters, it was the first coaching stop of Paul Brown, who would go on to coach at Ohio State, the Cincinnati Bengals, and in between those stints become the namesake of the Cleveland Browns. Massillon's rivalry with Canton McKinley was named by Sports Illustrated as the number one high school rivalry in the country.

And here is where I get into the "Haves and Have-Nots" part of the article. Buchtel, who lost to Massillon 52-21, despite their successes in football, looked like a microcosm of the money problems of the Akron Public Schools. The band was only about a dozen strong, and had no uniforms — the team wore (mostly) matching t-shirts. It included a tuba player in a completely different uniform — a football uniform. This guy is apparently excused from halftime chalk talk so he can join his bandmates on the field.

Those football uniforms were also pretty basic, with white jerseys with the word "GRIFFS" (short for Griffins) ironed across the front, with plain silver helmets and pants. No stripes or accoutrements of any kind (to be fair, this may have been an aesthetic decision rather than an economic one, as in the past Buchtel has a wide variety of bitchin' mythology-based helmets, a couple of which you can see here if you scroll down a bit).

Following Buchtel's band's appearance, on came Massillon's band, which was probably 100-strong and had proper uniforms and proper cheerleaders and so forth. This is a luxury that Buchtel does not have, nor likely does my high school anymore, nor do likely most of the other five schools of the City Series.

I don't have some big point to make with all of this. I'm not jealous nor envious of schools like Massillon, or Joliet Catholic, who has the No. 3-ranked running back in the nation. But if you were fortunate enough to attend a school like Massillon or Joliet Catholic, spare a though for the kids going to schools without football stadia, air-conditioned classrooms, or more than a handful of extra-curricular activities or vocational options. If you are presented with a municipal vote to raise taxes for the benefit of public schools, please vote "yes." And Tom, if I ever find an online poll involving an Akron school, you owe me one.

Posted by Kevin Beane at 12:31 PM | Comments (1)

August 29, 2012

NFL Preseason Performance Rarely Translates

With only one week left in the NFL preseason schedule, many fans are either hoping that their team's success will carry over into the regular season, while others are hoping their team's poor showing is just the preseason kinks being worked out. However, a look at teams in recent years that either blew through or tanked the preseason shows that it's really a crap-shoot in determining if a team will be good or bad when the games start to count.

Since 2006, the season farthest back where records are available, 13 teams have won four games in the preseason, or went undefeated with a tie (Dallas went 3-0-1 in 2006). Out of those 13 teams, only five of them made the playoffs that same season. On the flip side, six of them finished the regular season with a losing record while two others ended at 8-8. This includes the 2008 Detroit Lions, who went 4-0 in the preseason and then 0-16 in the regular season.

Conversely, 15 teams have lost four preseason games, and all but three of them did not qualify for the playoffs that same year. In fact, none of those three even made it as far as their conference championship game. And of the dozen teams that didn't make the playoffs, half of them managed an 8-8 record or better. A couple of notable examples were New England and Indianapolis, who went 0-4 and 1-4 respectively in the preseason and then went 11-5 and 12-4 respectively in the regular season but missed the playoffs.

So for fans of Philadelphia and Seattle (this includes myself) who think the Super Bowl is the final stop this year just because they're 3-0 right now, I wouldn't be booking my flight to New York just yet. Even though a few teams that finished undefeated in the preseason went to the playoffs, none of them made it to the Super Bowl either. But fans of 0-3 Miami and Buffalo (and possibly the Jets, depending on what happens in tonight's game) shouldn't despair based on the fact that there have been a few instances recently of teams tanking the preseason and then making the postseason. But I'd avoid the plane ticket investment, too.

However, if you're planning on taking that trip to Vegas to put some money on the Super Bowl odds, you'll have a better chance of winning if you don't pick Philly, Seattle, Miami or Buffalo, based on history — and most betting propositions are based on history. And if history truly does repeat itself, then my money is on none of those teams taking home the Lombardi Trophy in February. That leaves 28 other teams to pick from. Good luck!

Posted by Adam Russell at 9:06 PM | Comments (0)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 24

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson finished second at Bristol and clinched a spot in the Chase For the Cup. He moved up two places to second in the Sprint Cup point standings, 11 behind Greg Biffle.

"What a dramatic race," Johnson said. "There was helmet-tossing, finger-wagging, and lots of trash talking. Obviously, Danica Patrick wasn't the only one to get her panties in a wad.

"And speaking of 'unmentionables,' I think it's clear that when speaking of potential 2012 Cup champions, no other names should enter the conversation except mine. I've got the car, the cool demeanor, and a crew chief who knows his way around, especially the rules."

2. Denny Hamlin — Hamlin passed Carl Edwards with 39 laps remaining and went on to win for the first time at Bristol. Hamlin's third win tied him with Jimmie Johnson, Tony Stewart, and Brad Keselowski, and all but clinched a spot in the Chase.

"I may be the only Joe Gibbs Racing driver to make the Chase For the Cup," Hamlin said. "And that's fine with me, because I'm perfectly happy to remain single.

"My third win all but guarantees me a spot in the Chase. Above all, I want to control my own destiny where the Chase is concerned. Contrary to what you may have heard, I do believe in 'berth control.'"

3. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt finished 12th in the Irwin Tools Night Race, joining a trio of his Hendrick Motorsports teammates in the top 12. With his finish, Earnhardt clinched a spot in the Chase For the Cup.

"That's right," Earnhardt said. "I've mathematically earned a spot in the Chase. That's a huge milestone, because, for once, the members of Junior Nation are happy to 'do the math.'"

4. Greg Biffle — Biffle finished 19th on a disappointing night for Roush Fenway Racing at Bristol, as Matt Kenseth tangled with Tony Stewart and Carl Edwards ran out of gas late. Despite the finish, Biffle punched his ticket to the Chase and continues to lead the points standings.

"What a throw by Tony Stewart," Biffle said. "Now I'm the only Roush Fenway driver not to fall victim to Stewart's 'mind' games. Matt obviously has been involved in his share of retaliatory incidents at Bristol. Sure, Tony Stewart needs anger management; Matt needs danger management."

5. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth and Tony Stewart wrecked while battling for the lead midway through Saturday night's race, sending both into the inside wall. As Kenseth passed Stewart on pit road, a disgruntled Stewart flung his helmet at the No. 17 Ford, nailing it squarely on the front bumper. Kenseth eventually finished 25th and fell two places in the point standings to fourth.

"I felt like Juan Montoya," Kenseth said, "because I was target-ed. Tony aims like a champ, but throws like a girl. Everyone's always said Tony likes to throw 'blame' around. This is an obvious example."

6. Tony Stewart — After a costly spin with Matt Kenseth damaged his No. 14 Chevrolet, Stewart retaliated by tossing his helmet at Kenseth's car on pit road. After eventually posting a 27th-place finish, Stewart vowed to wreck Kenseth for the rest of the year.

"If Kenseth gets in my way again," Stewart said, "heads will roll, again. I let my temper get the best of me. As you know, my temper is undefeated in matchups with 'me.'

"Kenseth's going to get what's coming to him. At least that's what Joe Gibbs tells me."

7. Brad Keselowski — Keselowski took a bump from behind on lap 263 that sent him into the outside wall, resulting in damage to the front-end alignment. He eventually finished 30th, 66 laps down. He fell two spots to seventh in the point standings and is 59 out of first.

"It's too bad Matt Kenseth wasn't driving a 'Dodge,'" Keselowski said. "Then maybe he could have avoided Tony Stewart's helmet. As it was, Kenseth is an ass(ault victim)."

8. Clint Bowyer — Bowyer remained solidly in the hunt for a Chase spot with a seventh at Bristol, his 14th top-10 finish of the year. Now sixth in the points standings, he trails Greg baffle by 55.

"Who knew Tony Stewart was such a good golfer?" Bowyer said. "His approach to '17' was perfect. I bet Tony wishes he would have tossed his HANS device at Kenseth, as well. Then, he could honestly say he showed 'restraint.'"

9. Kasey Kahne — Kahne finished ninth in the Irwin Tools Night Race, joining Hendrick teammates Jimmie Johnson and Jeff Gordon, who finished second and third, in the top 10. He currently holds the first wild card spot for the Chase For the Cup.

"We'd really like to get four Hendrick drivers in the Chase," Kahne said. "Mainly, to keep Jimmie Johnson 'company.'"

10. Martin Truex, Jr. — Truex lead 44 laps and finished 11th in the Irwin Tools Night Race. He moved up one spot to fifth in the Sprint Cup point standings and trails Greg Biffle by 52.

"Without a win this year," Truex said, "I'll be starting at the back of the Chase field. In other words, I'll be giving everyone a 'head start,' which is exactly what Tony Stewart gave a surprised Matt Kenseth."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 10:16 AM | Comments (0)

August 28, 2012

How to Use Football Stats: Punters

Most football fans don't pay much attention to punters. That's understandable. But among those who give any thought to the position, a majority simply assume that whoever has the highest punting average is the best. Even the league itself follows that model, making gross punting average the most prominent statistic at the position.

Unfortunately, gross average is an awful way to evaluate punters. Punting average doesn't account for hang time, directional kicking, or touchbacks. That means a 50-yard line drive that gets returned for a touchdown results in a better average than a 40-yard rainbow that draws a fair catch or immediate hit. A 50-yard bomb that lands in the end zone provides a better average than a 40-yarder downed inside the 10. I would even argue that gross punting average is a meaningless stat, completely useless except as a novelty.

Judging punters by where their kicks land, rather than where they end up after returns and touchbacks, is wildly misleading. In fact, punters on bad teams have better averages than punters on good teams.

Good teams, on average, are better at every position than bad teams. This is particularly true for specialists. A good punter is a luxury. General managers on bad teams don't look at their squads and say to themselves, "My goodness, we're terrible! Let's prioritize good punting, and maybe we'll finish 5-11 instead of 4-12." They look for a new quarterback, or offensive linemen, or cornerbacks. Good teams can afford to spend their money and draft picks on special teamers, and great GMs are the ones who get the little things right: the veteran guard who still has something left, the bargain linebacker, the overlooked punter or returner.

Since 2000, 55 teams have finished 12-4 or better, and 55 have finished 4-12 or worse. The great teams averaged 43.0 yards per punt, compared to 43.5 for the terrible teams. Thus, punters are unique, the only position in major professional sports in which the stat by which players are most often evaluated actually favors those who are worst at their jobs.

There are two main reasons punters on bad teams have better gross averages than those on good teams:

1) Clueless GMs on poorly-managed teams judge punters by gross average and don't recognize the importance of hang time or directional kicking.

2) If your offense stinks, you punt from your own territory most of the time, so you have the whole field to work with. Punters on bad teams can bomb away, as far as they can kick. Teams with more productive offense often punt from beyond midfield, so the punter has to shorten his kicks to keep them out of the end zone. There's no such thing as a 50-yard punt from the opponent's 45-yard line, and even a 45-yarder is a very poor play in that situation. A 35-yard punt looks bad in the stats, but it's a good play from the opponent's 45.

If your offense stinks, you'll punt from your own territory and get to use the whole field. If your team advances the ball, you have less room before you have to worry about the end zone.

So bad teams don't really have better punters than good teams. If you broke it down, you would find that even over small differences — say 9-7 teams rather than 8-8 — the better teams are better, on average, at every position. They have better quarterbacks, better running backs, better linebackers, better punters. Gross punting average not only says 8-8 teams are better than 9-7, it says 4-12 teams are better than 12-4. It's not merely a bad way to evaluate punters, it often yields the opposite of the truth.

Fortunately, we can account for factors like hang time and touchbacks by using net average rather than gross average. Net average looks at where the ball ended up, rather than where it landed, so it adjusts for return yardage and touchbacks. Problem solved? Well, let's be clear that net average represents a huge upgrade. Now you don't reward line-drive kickers, middle-of-the-end-zone bombers, and guys who think it's okay to punt to Devin Hester.

But net average isn't a great stat, either. Very good teams and very bad teams have comparable net averages, too, actually still a little better for the bad teams. So what are the problems with net average?

1. Punters on good teams frequently have to shorten up their kicks to stay out of the end zone. A 50-yard punt from midfield is not a good play, so a punter in that situation has a ceiling on his net average. Using net instead of gross stops rewarding touchbacks, but it still penalizes punters who have to work with a short field, and rewards those whose teams go three-and-out.

2. Good kickers and daring coaches help a punter's average. Why does the placekicker matter? Because if you have a great kicker, you try more field goals from 50 yards and beyond. A team that doesn't want to attempt a 54-yard field goal punts from the 36-yard line, which devastates a punter's averages, including net average. A 28-yard punt is a very good play in that situation, but it does horrifying things to one's average.

A team with a great placekicker might attempt a 60-yard field goal, which saves the punter from a short field. A conservative coach probably chooses to punt more often than to attempt the long field goal.

3. Bad weather has a significant impact on punters. This factor is sometimes overstated, but cold weather and strong wind can limit kicking range. It's not fair to expect a punter in Chicago to have the same numbers as one in San Diego. Of course, domed stadiums are even better than warm weather. And even better than domes: Denver.

4. Return yardage is affected by the coverage team. If those guys aren't any good, it hurts the punter's net. The coverage team is also responsible for downing punts that might roll into the end zone, and a punter needs blockers to give him time to kick. Those factors don't usually play very much role in a punter's stats, but they certainly aren't the same for everyone.

5. Not all yards are created equal. The most important yardage differences in football are those within 10 yards of the goal line. Pinning an opponent deep creates the possibility of a safety, and limits the offense's options, often earning an easy three-and-out. Skill in pinning opponents deep is arguably a good punter's most important attribute. Net average says a 40-yard punt from your own 20-yard line and a 40-yard punt from the opponent's 41-yard line are equally valuable plays, which obviously isn't true.

Because net average is an average, it doesn't account for big plays, like TD returns. Take two punters, Adam and Zeke, who each punt twice from their own 20. Adam's first kick has no hang time and gets returned for a touchdown. His second punt goes over the returner's head and bounces 20 yards downfield, finally rolling out of bounds at the other 20-yard line, a 60-yard punt. Both of Zeke's kicks get returned to his 40-yard line, a net of 20 yards per punt. Net average recognizes that Adam and Zeke have both had very bad days, but it regards them as equal. Adam's disastrous line drive returned for a TD only counts as a -20 net, since an average sees every yard as equally valuable.

So even net average isn't a great way to judge punters, because it's influenced by team factors: the quality of the blockers and coverage team, the field position of the offense, and even the quality of the placekicker and the philosophy of the coaching staff. Net average also doesn't account for weather conditions or quality of opposition, and it treats all yards as equal, with no recognition for punters who can hit the coffin corner and no aversion to those who give up big plays.

Every football player has the same fundamental goal: to help his team win. For punters, this is done by maximizing field position. Specifically, a good punter aims to create bad field position for opponents. He can do this several ways:

1) Maximizing gross punt yardage, by punting really far, so that the opponent's distance from the end zone is maximized.
2) Preventing returns by inducing fair catches or kicking the ball out of bounds.
3) Pinning opponents deep and avoiding touchbacks.
4) Avoiding blocks.
5) Contributing to turnovers by creating situations in which the returner is more likely to mishandle the punt.

The punter usually has minimal influence on the last two points, both of which are sufficiently rare that they are difficult to measure and subject to flukes, but the other three are common situations, all of which are easily measurable with common statistics. There are now statisticians doing advanced study of all NFL statistics, including punting, but even with the fairly basic numbers available at NFL.com, you can do a decent evaluation of punters.

My favorite stats for this are: net average (explained above), I-20:TB (ratio of punts downed inside the 20 [I-20] to touchbacks), return percentage (percentage of punts returned by the opponent), and short field percentage (how often the punter is close to the opponent's end zone).

I-10:TB is even better than I-20, but the league doesn't keep that statistic, so it takes a little extra work. Leaguewide, I-20:TB average is about 3.5 to 1, but in a given year, the best punters will be at least twice that. This stat indicates a punter's ability to pin opponents deep, while avoiding touchbacks that give the team critical space near its own end zone.

I actually reverse return percentage, using a stat I call not% — the percentage of punts that don't come back: fair catches, downed by the coverage team, or out of bounds. Basically, everything except returns and touchbacks. Effectively, not% measures how often the gross average and net average are the same — higher numbers are better.

League-wide, not% is only about 43%, since it accounts for touchbacks. However, a good punter can keep his not% over 50, meaning less than half his kicks come back from where they were landed. This stat measures a punter's ability to get the most out of his distance, kicking directionally or with excellent hang time, and minimizing the potential for big plays. It's especially important for punters on teams with below-average coverage units.

Short field percentage (SF%) is a basic calculation: (I-20 + TB) / punts. What percentage of the player's punts were touchbacks or downed inside the 20? This helps determine which punters were most often faced with a short field that limited their opportunities to kick for distance. Without considering this, you'll conclude that most of the best punters play for teams with bad offenses and weak-legged placekickers.

I'll run you through the basic selection process I use for choosing all-pro punters. I consider film study to be of limited use for this position, so I rely almost entirely on statistics. This is not exactly how I look at the position, but it's close, and it's straightforward:

1. Begin with every full-time punter in the NFL, usually just 30 or 31 because of injuries and benchings.
2. Cut the bottom quarter in net average.
3. Cut the bottom quarter in I-20:TB.
4. Look at the bottom quarter in not% and cut anyone who plays in a dome, a warm-weather stadium, or Denver.
5. Cut anyone who rates in the bottom half of both SF% and net average.

That should leave a group of about 10 punters. At this point, I'm considering a variety of factors. Is there someone who ranks near the bottom of the remaining group in three or more of these stats (net avg, I-20:TB, not%, SF%)? Someone who's near the middle but played in a dome? What about other stats, like fair catches, or return average and TDs? That generally gets me down to a group of 4-6. At this point, I calculate I-10:TB and consider additional factors.

The most important consideration when evaluating punters is the weakness of average, both gross and net. By way of example, consider the most celebrated punter of the last 30 years, Shane Lechler. He's a good punter, with a tremendously strong leg and historic averages. He is the all-time leader in punting average (47.6), has four of the top 10 seasons in history, and has led the NFL in gross average six times. That's great, but Lechler's game also includes weaknesses that largely cancel out his fantastic averages.

1. His net average is substantially lower than his gross average. If you were to take every punter in the league, and try to figure out whose gross punting average is least representative of the actual field position he gains, Shane Lechler would blow away the field. Since 2000, when he became Oakland's punter, the Raiders have a 9-yard difference between their gross average (47.5) and net average (38.6). Lechler's personal averages are 47.6 and 39.0, but the latter figure doesn't include blocks, which bring the difference to a full nine yards. No other team in the NFL has a gross-to-net difference of even eight yards (though the Texans are at 7.99). Lechler's gross average is the farthest from his net by a whole yard. Over the same 12 seasons, the Falcons' gross-to-net difference is just 4.3 yards, with a leaguewide average of 6.4.

The difference comes mostly from Lechler's unique propensity for punting the ball into the end zone, but he also seldom kicks out of bounds or forces fair catches.

2. Lechler is the worst punter in NFL history when it comes to the most important yards, near the opponent's goal line. He has led the NFL in touchbacks five times and has eight seasons of double-digit TBs. Over the course of his career, the rest of the AFC West has combined for just three seasons of double-digit TBs. Lechler averages 11.2 touchbacks per year. Everyone else is between 4-8; the next-worst team, Tampa Bay, averages 7.9 TB/yr.

14.3% of Lechler's punt become touchbacks. The next-worst rate over the last 12 seasons (the span of Lechler's career) is 10.6%, by the Titans. When it comes to bombing punts into the end zone, Lechler is all by himself. Per-season averages, 2000-11:

The NFL has recorded punter's touchbacks since 1991. Over that time, Shane Lechler has — by far — the worst ratio in history of punts down inside the 20 to touchbacks (2.25 to 1). Everyone else near the same level gets cut from the NFL after a year or two.

3. The Raiders have been terrible for most of Lechler's tenure. From 2000-11, the Raiders are 78-114 (.406), and Lechler's averages are in large part a product of how often he punts from his own territory. Oakland actually has the highest SF% in the NFL over these years (46.4%), but it's an illusion created by Lechler's ability to get touchbacks seemingly from anywhere on the field. The Raiders haven't been crossing midfield a whole lot in the last nine seasons; they rank 20th in scoring. Nor does the team ask Lechler to punt from close range: Raider placekicker Sebastian Janikowski has attempted more field goals of 50 yards or more (66) than any other kicker since 2000 (Jason Hanson is next, 53).

4. Lechler kicks mostly in favorable conditions. Oakland is not the easiest place in the NFL to be a punter, but it's certainly not the hardest. The average annual temperature in Oakland (59° F) is 11th-warmest of the 32 teams in the NFL, the stadium is not known for wind, and the Raiders also make annual trips to sunny San Diego and the thin air of Denver, which is every kicker's best friend.

5. Lechler allows a ton of returns. We know that punters don't just need to kick far, the ball needs to stay somewhere close to where it landed — long returns defeat the purpose of a deep punt. Lechler's not% is the worst of any contemporary punter, 34.5% (compared to a league average of 43.1%), and even omitting touchbacks, 60% of his punts are returned, 2nd-worst in the league since 2000 (the Lions top out at 61%; the league average is 52.6%). If you just go by live punts (no touchbacks, no out of bounds), 66% of Lechler's punts get returned. That's 32nd out of 32 teams.

Moreover, Lechler allows 11.2 yards per return, tied for the league-worst since 2000. That 11.2 return average is more than the lifetime averages of Joshua Cribbs (10.8), Dante Hall (10.5), and Eric Metcalf (9.8). Everyone who returns punts against Lechler becomes a superstar for the day. On average, Lechler yields 448 return yards per season, compared to a league average of 339 — over 100 more for Lechler.

I've heard Lechler fans defend him by claiming that the Raiders' special teams coverage unit isn't very good. That's probably true, but a good punter accounts for that with extra hang time (Lechler has the lowest fair catch percentage in the NFL) or by kicking away from the returner (8% of his punts go out of bounds, compared to a league average of 11%). I'm confident that Oakland's coverage teams have often been substandard during Lechler's tenure, but a talented punter can adjust for that, and Lechler continues to bomb 'em as deep as possible. That's the worst possible approach if your coverage unit is poor.

Essentially, Lechler's punts go too far and not high enough. Punt returners are, first and foremost, great open-field runners. These are guys who may not see much action as running backs or wide receivers or cornerbacks, but who can do amazing things when you put them in space. Really long kicks put returners in space. I'm not saying shorter kicks are better than longer kicks — all things being equal, they're obviously worse — but the last thing you want is to get an opposing returner in the open field. That's a recipe for long returns and enemy touchdowns. It sounds strange, but a 40-yard punt is often better than a 60-yard punt with equal hang time. If the coverage team has surrounded the return man before the ball gets there, he's obviously not going anywhere.

From 2000-11, Oakland ranks last, second to last, or tied for last in punt return yards allowed (5,379), punt return average allowed (11.2), fair catches (133), percentage of live punts returned (66%), percentage of punts where net yardage is worse than gross (65.5%), touchbacks (134), and inside-the-20 to touchback ratio (2.25 to 1). The most telling statistic, to me, actually combines two largely unrelated stats. As best I can tell, Lechler is the only regular punter in NFL history with more touchbacks (134) than fair catches (131). An average punter forces more than twice as many fair catches per season (16) as touchbacks (7). Lechler averages 11 of each.

Despite how it might seem, I'm not trying to bash Shane Lechler. He's wildly overrated, but he's not a bad punter. He's just as bad as a punter can realistically be and still lead the league in net average (which he has done four times). Lechler happens to be a perfect example of how most fans and journalists misinterpret punting stats, because he's great at the one thing they all look at (distance) and terrible at everything else (hang time, directional kicking, precision punting near the goal line), with built-in benefits playing for the Raiders (great placekicker and aggressive coaches, poor offense, nice weather).

Judging punters just by net average is like judging quarterbacks only by passer rating. There's a lot that's left out. Judging punters by gross average is like judging quarterbacks by rushing attempts. You can't get the whole picture from one stat. I realize that means analyzing punters takes more than three seconds, but being fair is more important than being fast.

I understand that most people don't care about punters and punting statistics. That's fine. But when people who don't know how to evaluate punters make bold proclamations or start talking about the Hall of Fame, that's irresponsible. It's shameful that every year a bunch of writers who are mostly concerned with getting quotes after the game select a Bay Area punter (Andy Lee or Lechler) with a good average and no finesse as All-Pro. It's misleading to fans who count on expert opinions, and it's unfair to smart punters like Brad Maynard and Michael Koenen, who don't get a ton of distance, but don't give up a lot of returns and mostly stay out of the end zone. But I guess it works out well for smart GMs.

Remember:

* Gross punting average is a meaningless stat, almost entirely unrelated to helping the team.
* Net punting average is heavily influenced by field position, weather, quality of the special teams blockers and coverage unit, strength of opposition, and coaching philosophy.
* Avoiding touchbacks and returns is great, but you've got to have the leg, too. Average does matter — but it's not all-important.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 12:40 PM | Comments (0)

What's With All This Perfection?

On August 15, 2012, Felix Hernandez threw MLB's 23rd perfect game. King Felix tossing a perfect game is not a huge surprise to most baseball fans. If I said, "Hey, somebody tossed a perfect game yesterday." And you said, "Who?" King Felix would be one of the first three or four names to come to your mind as possible pitchers who have the stuff to throw a perfect game (along with names like Justin Verlander, David Price, and Jered Weaver).

However, the recent history of the game shows us that perfect games aren't pitched only by the aces of the game. In the last decade, perfect games have been pitched by the following pitchers: Felix Hernandez (2012), Matt Cain (2012), Philip Humber (2012), Roy Halladay (2010), Dallas Braden (2010), Mark Buehrle (2009), and Randy Johnson (2004).

Nobody is surprised to see Hernandez, Halladay and Johnson on that list and very few are surprised by Cain and Buehrle. But who in the world would have guessed that Philip Humber and Dallas Braden could have possibly thrown shutouts much less perfect games?

The history of the game shows us a number of fantastic pitchers who have hurled perfect games including Hall of Famers Monte Ward, Cy Young, Addie Joss, Jim Bunning, Sandy Koufax, and Catfish Hunter. There are very few perfect game hurlers who never made an all-star team. Humber and Braden join Don Larsen (who threw his perfect game in Game 5 of the 1956 World Series) as the only pitchers to throw perfect games who never made an all-star team. (Noting that this excludes the five pitchers who threw perfect games before the All-Star Game was created.)

You've probably heard that Hernandez's perfect game is the third this year. Notice, it's also the sixth perfect game in the last four years. That's 26% of the perfect games in the past 137 years of baseball (starting in 1876) that have been thrown in the past four years, less than 3% of MLB's history. Furthermore, 12 of the 23 perfect games have been thrown in the past 25 years. That's 52.2% in 18.2% of the history sample history.

This has made numerous sports experts ask the obvious question: why is this happening? Why are perfect games increasing in exponential fashion? There are many theories as to why.

Some claim the pitching is simply getting better and/or the batting is getting worse. Well, let's take a look. Here are the league's batting averages over the past 10 years.

2012 – .255
2011 – .255
2010 – .257
2009 – .262
2008 – .264
2007 – .268
2006 – .269
2005 – .264
2004 – .266
2003 – .264

So, yes, batting average has been on a decline, but this is not an exponential decline similar to exponential increase of perfect games! A .255 batting average is quite frankly just that: average. The lowest on record is .237 in 1968 and the highest on record is .296 in 1930. Most years saw the overall batting average between .240 and .270. It's not like batters used to average .350 and now they're suddenly averaging .190!

The fact that batters are hitting .255 is a tiny dip in MLB's lengthy history. It is the minutest of correlations to the reality that six perfect games have been thrown in the past four years. It is not the cause.

Some claim the advanced scouting techniques that exist today are the cause of so many perfect games. I don't see any correlation between improved scouting and more perfect games. I find this idea to be rather flimsy. It's not like pitchers are the only beneficiaries of scouting reports. Hitters get the reports, too! I don't have any quantifiable statistics regarding scouting. You can easily prove scouting is better than before and that there are more perfect games today, but I don't really see a line that can be drawn between the two. I mean it's also true that we've had the first African-American president over the past six perfect games, but nobody is correlating President Obama to these perfect games.

I think the scouting improvements and perfect games are mutually exclusive facts. To me, scouting is a two-way street and I don't see why pitchers would have the advantage over hitters because of advanced scouting.

One suggestion I heard last week was that there is a mentality in hitters today that they are either going to strikeout or hit a home run and nothing in between. We've seen this in a lot of batters (Adam Dunn comes to mind) and I think there is some merit to that.

In 1904, one player, Harry Lumley, struck out more than 100 times in a season while playing in 150 of the Brooklyn Superbas' 153 games that season. It wasn't for another 10 years that two players had the nerve to strike out 100 times in a season when in 1914 Gus Williams and Grover Gilmore both embarrassed themselves in triple digits. And it wasn't until 1937 that three players struck out more than 100 times, led by Vince DiMaggio. By 1961, 10 players managed to strike out over 100 times. And it has only gotten worse from there.

In 2011, 78 players struck out 100 times or more. In 2010, it was 88 players. It has gotten so bad that from 2008 to 2011 we saw a player strike out more than 200 times in each of those years. So, yeah, I think the strikeouts might have something to do with the perfect games, but it is hard to tell just how much. Obviously if a player doesn't put the ball in play, they aren't going to get a hit, and they can't walk if they are swinging for the fences. So the number of increased strikeouts is a fair correlation to the number of increased perfect games.

But here's what's really interesting to me. The first no-hitter was thrown by George Bradley on July 15, 1876. Felix Hernandez's perfect game was only the 23rd perfect game, but it was the 278th no-hitter in 137 years. That's more than two no-hitters per year and only 0.1679 no-hitters per year.

There has been a crazy increase in perfect games, but has there been a crazy increase in no-hitters? The answer is surprisingly: no. Not at all.

I mentioned before that in the past 25 years, 52.2% of the perfect games had been thrown (in 18.2% of MLB history). Well, in the past 25 years, 22.6% of the total no-hitters have been thrown in 18.2% of MLB history. That is an astounding difference.

In the past four years, six perfect games have been thrown of the 23 in history (26%). Meanwhile, only 17 no-hitters have been thrown, which is 6.1% of the no-hitters in MLB history in less than 3% of the history of MLB. And there are other four year spans with similar no-hitter counts to the current era (1914-1917 has 19, 1967-1970 has 19, 1990-1993 has 18, 1883-1886 has 15, 1905-1908 has 14).

So we are going through a typical upswing with the no-hitters, but we have gone way off the chart with the perfect games. Why is that? Experts can blather all they want about pitching getting better, about intense scouting driving these perfect games, but the reality is the only real difference we are seeing is that pitchers are throwing more no-hitters without walks. And so the only real research we can do or wild speculation we can make is: "why are batters not drawing walks during perfect games?"

The potential answer is two-fold and it starts with the batters. It is said to be an unwritten rule that you can't bunt to break up a no-hitter. This is often brought up in 0-0 or 1-0 games where a pitcher has a no-hitter going and somebody tries to bunt. And we wonder: what is more important, an unwritten rule or winning the game?

I believe that a new unwritten rule has been subconsciously implanted into the minds of batters that says, "No drawing a walk to break up a perfect game." To me, that is one of only two possible explanations for the ridiculous number of perfect games we've seen over the past five years.

The other reason is that the umpires have the same unwritten rule. I'm not sure if an umpire had a notoriously bad strike three call in Cy Young's perfect game on May 5, 1904, but I know those types of calls have happened frequently of late in similar situations.

We all remember Jim Joyce blowing the call at first base and destroying Armando Galaraga's perfect game on June 2, 2010, but I think worse calls — well, let's not go that far, calls that are nearly as bad — are being made at the plate to keep perfect games going because umpires don't want to be "the next Jim Joyce."

I believe it is this mentality held by the batters (however subconsciously) and a similar mentality held by the umpires that is driving the number of perfect games through the roof. It is not better pitching. It is not better scouting. It is simply a mental shift in players' and umpires' minds that prevents them from playing and officiating baseball the way it was meant to be.

Posted by Andrew Jones at 11:18 AM | Comments (0)

August 27, 2012

State of College Football Nation

Ladies and gentlemen, our long national wait is over. Our season has arrived.

The state of the college football nation is, as in most years, an excited one. The SEC looks for its seventh straight national title, while Alabama in particular looks for a repeat and for keeping the crystal football in the state for a fourth consecutive year. Texas A&M and Missouri take the challenge of the SEC into their first year with the conference, while TCU and West Virginia try to take the Big 12 by storm. Southern Cal, damaged by scholarships, looks to be a formidable title contender once more. Michigan is on the rise, as is Florida State. And, for the first time, the thought of a playoff in the upper echelons of the sport finally has a date set in reality.

As the season begins, I hope for the following out of this year...

I urge student sections across the Big Ten to leave Penn State alone. The shame and difficulties of what happened there are not worth the mocking of any other school, period. While I know that there are drunk students everywhere who will yell out a cheap shot, it is the hope that Big Ten students ensure that this nightmare, while never forgotten, can be taken out of thought in the heads of Nittany Lion players for a few hours on Saturdays. The players on this team did nothing wrong; let them play in peace. And let us pray this never happens again.

I hope that the Heisman committee continues the selection of picking the best overall player, rather than the best player on the best team, should they be different. After years of choosing the latter, the committee did a great job in selecting Robert Griffin III to the Heisman family. That was a welcome move. Please continue, Heisman voters.

I'll advise caution and research on what will become a key issue in the near future: uniforms. Without question, Oregon has succeeded not only under Chip Kelly's breakneck system but also with winning recruits with a wide array of uniforms provided by Nike. Maryland would have a similar advantage with Under Armour, but let's face it, the helmets from last year still send a shudder down most people today, so they have no advantage on anyone just yet. However, I wouldn't be surprised if schools started calling for limits on just how many combinations teams can have uniform-wise, calling Oregon's edge an unfair recruiting advantage.

I ask for no injuries and no goats, only heroes. Though I know I'm naive in asking.

I hope that the bowl sets up in the right stadium and helps to lay a format for bowl games, not only as part of the playoff, but the rest of the BCS system, as well (by the way, my money is still on Arlington and the Cotton Bowl grabbing the big prize). I welcome the thought of all conferences pairing conference champions against each other should they not be invited into the playoff. Sure, the MAC and Sun Belt have near zero chance of making the playoff in the next couple of decades, but pair them up in a bowl. It'll make the season that much more interesting.

I'd like to think that we still have some tremendous kickoff returns, despite kickoffs being moved up to the 35-yard line. Given that touchbacks now allow teams to start on their own 25, I think there will be more strategy in kickoffs, which will make special teams more important than ever.

I'd like to have a period of no more suspensions and dismissals for players, for the sake of themselves, coaches and fans. Tyrann Mathieu, Michael Dyer, Da'Rick Rogers ... we don't need to lose any more players. To do that, though, players must remind themselves not to make idiotic decisions. That's asking a lot sometimes. However, the rewards for keeping your nose clean and making it to the NFL are so great that any player should keep his eye on the prize.

I'd say the same about no suspensions and dismissals of coaches. However, these guys make millions of dollars to handle the pressures of the job. How do they sleep at night? On big beds of money, that's how. So, the sympathy for coaches who are terminated is significantly less.

Finally, I wish that, when the final whistle of the season is blown, we find college football in a much stronger position than ever before. We are better and more fortunate for having the sport around, so may the competition be fierce, the fan base be loud but civil and the controversies be at an absolute minimum.

Here's to the start of the season ... with respect to the Olympics, let the games really begin.

Posted by Jean Neuberger at 9:23 PM | Comments (0)

Red Sox and Dodgers Drop the Big One

You thought Bobby Thomson, Bill Mazeroski, Chris Chambliss, Joe Carter, Steve Finley, and David Freese have hit shots heard 'round the world? What the Boston Red Sox and the Los Angeles Dodgers hit this weekend makes those shots resemble squib singles.

That was Adrian Gonzalez, Josh Beckett, and Nick Punto winging their way across country Saturday morning. (Punto squeezed a shot of the three jubilant now-ex-Red Sox aboard their flight and posted it on Twitter post haste, when they were barely off the ground.) Along with Carl Crawford, recuperating from Tommy John surgery earlier last week, they went to the Dodgers for James Loney (1B), Rubby De La Rosa (pitcher), Allen Webster (pitcher), Ivan DeJesus (infielder), and Jerry Sands (outfielder).

The word first passed Friday afternoon, with the only known possible snag being whether Beckett (with concurrent 10-5 rights) and Crawford would waive their no-trade clauses. The movement got more serious when Gonzalez and Loney were pulled from the starting lineups of the teams' Friday night games, a couple of hours before game times. Come 10:30 PDT Saturday morning, the Los Angeles Times sent the confirmation forth.

It's the first deal in major league history in which two players (Gonzalez and Crawford) making $100 million or more to come went from one team to another and to the same team in the bargain.

The Dodgers apparently weren't shy about taking on more salary in an all-in philosophy their new owners have taken up since buying the team from the Bickering Bickersons — er, Frank and Jamie McCourt. Chairman Mark Walter said as late as last Wednesday they could "still take on significant money," Times reporters Dylan Hernandez and Steve Dilbeck wrote, and that was before anyone thought the signficiant money would mean Gonzalez, Crawford, and Beckett.

Loney once looked like a Dodger fixture at first base for a long time to come but his slippage in the past two seasons finally wore down the front office and manager Don Mattingly, though Mattingly has made a point of speaking strictly in terms of Loney's on-field performance and not his effort. De La Rosa and Webster have been considered pitching prospects with enough upside — De La Rosa tops high 90s on the gun; Webster is considered a powerful sinkerballer — that the Dodgers had actually deemed them untouchable at this year's non-waiver trade deadline.

The Red Sox, for their part, aren't ready to call the deal a sign that they're going to blow up and/or re-build the Red Sox just yet. The most common word about the deal, according to ESPN's Gordon Edes, is "reset," as in button. "If it happens," Edes quoted a "high-ranking Red Sox official" as saying late Friday night, when the deal seemed only to be awaiting Crawford and Beckett waiving their no-trade clauses, "it will give us enormous flexibility to build a new winning team. This is certainly not a timid decision. But we needed to push the reset button."

It's also beginning to sound more as though the Red Sox put Gonzalez into the package as insurance that they'd find takers for Crawford and Beckett, the latter in particular. Even Bobby Valentine — the target of the long-enough infamous text mutiny that began with a message sent from Gonzalez's cell phone, a message Gonzalez merely facilitated but didn't write, from all indications since — speaks warmly of Gonzalez: "I haven't been around more of a professional, good guy, terrific player as him in a long time — if ever."

If only the Red Sox didn't have such a pronounced—and, considering the purgings earlier this year of Kevin Youkilis and Kelly Shoppach, immediate — history of ridding themselves of whistleblowers . . .

Edes seems to agree, though, that making a sacrificial lamb of Gonzalez, who was leading the majors in batting with men in scoring position before he was pulled from Friday night's lineup as the deal looked done, was the part falling under the heading of "if we must, we must" when most was said and done:

"Sacrificing Gonzalez, whom they still regarded more as part of the solution than the problem, was the price they had to pay for getting out from under the $135 million or so still owed to Beckett and Crawford. It was almost inconceivable they would find a team willing to take on both salaries, especially given the injury history of both players and their subpar performances. The Dodgers were that team.

"In one trade, the Red Sox eliminated nearly $60 million in guaranteed money from their 2013 payroll, a number that shrank from roughly $107 million to $47 million, according to numbers provided by Baseball Prospectus. What they do with that flexibility, of course, will ultimately determine how history will judge this deal. Rebuild? That word still does not exist in [team president Larry] Lucchino's vocabulary. "Reset" is the operative principle here."

It sounds a little like the scenarios offered up before the non-waiver trade deadline, when the Texas Rangers were thought to have strong interest in Beckett but wanted, possibly, Jacoby Ellsbury in the package.

However, unloading the salary burden they've just unloaded (the Dodgers are taking on over 90 percent of the ex-Red Sox's salaries) lines the Red Sox up for a possible play at Tampa Bay's James Shields, who becomes a free agent at season's end. And if John Lackey returns successfully from Tommy John surgery, they could — if Lackey performs well enough early in 2013—flip him for prospects at next year's non-waiver deadline.

The rotation rebuilding also begins with unloading Beckett, the tenacious right-hander who'd been a big factor in their 2007 World Series run and subsequent playoff drives, but who'd graduated from a solid to a toxic influence off the mound. The rebuild elsewhere probably begins with unloading Gonzalez, whom they may not really have wanted to lose, and Crawford, whom we now know has been playing hurt from the day he put on a Red Sox uniform and foolishly kept it up, until he finally needed Tommy John surgery, because he feared being tagged as a quitter.

The Dodgers get a first baseman who still has upside to burn in Gonzalez. Crawford could be back on the field early in the 2013 season and he may find playing Dodger Stadium's outfield a little more to his liking than playing Fenway's. Beckett, who began his career in the National League with the Florida Marlins, could find himself rejuvenated in a pitcher-friendly home park. Punto, a utility infielder, is considered a so-so bat but a jack-of-all-trades defender who gives the Dodgers options to burn around the horn.

The Red Sox don't get mere salary relief out of it. The Olde Towne Team now has the flexibility to chase a bat like Josh Hamilton, re-sign Ellsbury for the long term, and possibly secure David Ortiz for more than the single-year deals that have rankled the veteran DH, though it's not likely the Red Sox would offer more than two years considering Ortiz's age and injury history.

They get a good-looking utility infielder in DeJesus, who didn't get much opportunity to strut with the parent Dodgers, though he played well at AAA while moving around five positionsm including corner outfielding. (Yes, ladies and gentlemen — he's the son of the one-time major leaguer who went to the Phillies in the deal that made a Cub out of a Phillie newborn and future Hall of Famer … a newborn named Ryne Sandberg.) Sands could be an outfielder of the future for the Red Sox unless they need him as trade bait: he has a modest jacket in his few major league at-bats but he was hitting for a .911 OPS with 24 home runs and 101 runs batted in at AAA when the deal was made.

Are the Red Sox finished playing with the reset button? That remains to be seen. (From the Boston Herald: "This is a master stroke for rookie general manager Ben Cherington, who in one waiver trade will create enough financial flexibility to remake the roster almost any way he sees fit.")

Knowing their season is lost, they've removed an 18-ton salary truck parked on their heads. They may yet decide to remove another element or three responsible for the continuing toxicity in the clubhouse. One of which might be the manager they shouldn't have hired in the first place.

Posted by Jeff Kallman at 11:56 AM | Comments (0)

August 25, 2012

Foul Territory: Dope Fiends, Shoe Kings

* Piss on This, or He Relieved Himself — The United State Anti-Doping Agency will strip Lance Armstrong of his seven Tour De France victories after he dropped his challenge of drug accusations. Armstrong was relieved to find that a ride off into the sunset does not come with a drug test.

* For the Right Price, Nike Will Sell You Their Sole, or Fit For a King — Nike plans to sell a version of its Lebron X sneakers for $315, meaning prospective buyers will have to make a tough "decision" before buying. The shoes' design is inspired by diamonds, as is its price.

* This Colon Smells Fishy, or A-Positive, or He's a Pitcher, So He Got "Caught," or Failure To Launch … a Website in Time to Explain Your Positive Test — Oakland A's pitcher Bartolo Colon was suspended for 50 games after testing positive for steroids. The 39-year-old Colon had a 3.43 ERA in 24 games, with no complete games and one incomplete website.

* Ladies' Room, or These Green Jackets Come With Shoulder Pads — Augusta National admitted its first female members since the club was founded in 1932, as former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and South Carolina financial guru Darla Moore were invited to join. The women's toughest test may lie in conquering the tough Augusta layout, or possibly in using a men's urinal.

* Sugar Rush, or They Grunt When You Eat Them — Maria Sharapova launched her new candy, Sugarpova, on Monday at the retail store of her partner, IT'Sugar. Next for Sharapova's candy empire is a merger with Skittles, to be affectionately called "Somewhere 'Ova the Rainbow."

* Midriff Crisis, or Good-natured Ribbing — X-rays on Michael Vick's ribs were negative after he was injured on the sixth play in Monday night's game against New England, his second injury of the preseason. Andy Reid said Vick will be ready for the season opener at Cleveland, although much like DeSean Jackson, he likely won't give 100%.

* Skeet "Shooter," or Rebel Without a Gauze — Roger Clemens signed to pitch with the Sugar Land Skeeters, an independent Atlantic League team, and is expected to take the mound on Saturday. "Skeeter" is slang for "mosquito," which makes it surprising that Clemens would play for a team nicknamed after something that punctures skin and leaves a trail of blood.

* The Jags' Offense Can't Go North to South, So They'll Go West to East — The Jacksonville Jaguars will play four "home" games in London, one each year starting in 2013. Owner Shahid Khan said it's an effort to extend the Jaguars' fan base, ideally worldwide, but realistically beyond a quarter-mile radius of EverBank Field.

* They Filled the Gap — Michael Strahan will reportedly join Kelly Ripa on Live! With Kelly as the show's permanent co-host, replacing Regis Philbin, who retired last fall. Strahan reportedly said he'd like to have Brett Favre on the show, which of course wouldn't be the first time Favre has "sat down" for Strahan.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:20 AM | Comments (0)

August 23, 2012

Stay the Course With the Strasburg Plan

"It's funny," Stephen Strasburg told reporters August 21, after he waxed the Atlanta Braves with six one-run innings, not even letting a rain delay affect him. "Nobody talks to me personally about it. Obviously, I can either scour the Internet or watch all the stuff being said on TV or I can just keep pitching and watch the Golf Channel, I guess."

If Strasburg did any Internet scouting over last weekend, he might have seen the innings limit — the talk of which has dominated just about everything when it comes to the National League East and, really, most everywhere else in the Show — has now achieved what some might think the ultimate affirmation.

A writer for Rant Sports, Michael Collins, suggests the pending Strasburg Shutdown is really a well-constructed smokescreen the aim of which is to lull the competition asleep and then, bing! wheel out Strasburg once the postseason, into which the Washington Nationals seem to have a locked-down berth, practically, opens. And Mr. Collins all but blames the conspiracy on, what do you know, Strasburg's agent.

"Strasburg's agent is the venomous Scott Boras, and it wouldn't be beyond the scope of possibility that Boras, Rizzo, and all other parties involved have hatched a little scheme to catch other clubs asleep at the wheel.

"Boras has made passive aggressive legal threats in public regarding the Strasburg situation, saying that there could be "legal ramifications" if the Nationals don't follow the advice of physicians and shut him down. But has anyone really seen a doctor's note, or heard directly from any qualified physicians who have examined Strasburg and recommended this action? There's just a lot of fluff being thrown around the whole situation."

You want a doctor's note? How about commentary from the surgeon who performed Strasburg's Tommy John surgery? The Nats came up with the Strasburg Plan based on the counsel of Lewis Yocum. "It is Yocum's belief," wrote Thomas Boswell of the Washington Post, who has been absolutely on board with the Plan from the outset, "that pitchers who break down from premature returns from elbow surgery — sometimes ruining their shoulders, and their whole careers, rather than their new elbows — don't usually do so during the first big stress year but rather the following season. That would be 2013 in Strasburg's case."

If you believe Tyler Kepner of the New York Times, Boras isn't exactly talking like a man looking to snooker the competition on the field. He'll play the hardest game of hardball at the negotiating table when it comes to his players' paydays, but ponder what he tells Kepner regarding the Nats' following — read carefully, Mr. Collins, wherever you are — doctors' recommendations, if not doctors' orders.

"A lot of people have come to me," Boras says, "and said, 'What about the fans?' You've got to remember, the fans of Washington are benefiting from this program. The Nationals wouldn't be where they are without [Jordan] Zimmermann being part of that staff. Zimmerman followed the same protocol, and that's why he's about to pitch 200 innings and pitch in postseason games — because he's healthy."

Collins seems blissfully enough unaware that Zimmermann (who isn't a Boras client) underwent Tommy John a year before Strasburg did and, while Strasburg sat it out for 2011 after having his procedure, Zimmermann worked 161.1 innings and was shut down 28 August. It was the heaviest workload Zimmermann had had to that point, too.

Oho, you can hear Collins fuming to himself, but where did the Nats end up last year? Is he aware that, this year, unless there's a Boston-type breakdown due in September that we're not aware of, the Nats have run roughshod enough over the NL East in very considerable part because Zimmermann is working with, at this writing, the second-lowest earned run average in the league? Is Collins willing to argue that the Nats finished third last year because they shut Zimmermann down when they did?

Nobody else is, so far as I know.

And nobody else seems quite so ignorant of the point that, thus far, the Nats' three-way brain trust — owner Ted Lerner, general manager Mike Rizzo, manager Davey Johnson — takes doctors' recommendations/orders seriously.

Rizzo has been the point man on the Strasburg Plan, of course, and he's never been silent about his thinking regarding this. In the proverbial nutshell, the easiest thing on earth would have been to push for the Promised Land like now. (Want to know the last time a Washington team won a World Series? How does a month before Americans elected Calvin Coolidge to the White House in his own right strike you?) The harder but more prudent thing on earth would be exactly what Rizzo has said: taking the future of this pitcher and this team into full account.

"One reason the Nats have come so far, and so fast," Boswell wrote almost a fortnight ago, "is the same reason they will shut down Strasburg when Rizzo decides the day. The Nats do things their way — or, rather, Rizzo, Johnson and Lerner's way. They act in line with their best baseball, medical and philosophical judgment. Then, they don't care what anybody thinks — as they've proved time and again in recent years, though few notice."

It didn't begin with the Strasburg Plan. It sure as hell didn't begin with last season, when then-manager Jim Riggleman tried a holdup for a contract extension and Rizzo held the door for him as he quit ignominiously. And it didn't end with Rizzo bucking every last urging from the conventional wisdom and, ignoring then-free agent Mark Buehrle or failing to deal for Zack Greinke, sending the Oakland Athletics four prospects for Gio Gonzalez, whose 16-6/1.16 WHIP/3.23 ERA/9.5 K-9 is a neat parallel and companion to Strasburg and Zimmermann and whose personality has apparently turned the Nats' rotation as lively off the mound as on it. Gonzalez is also one of the Nats' best interviews. Not to mention one of the wisest, as he showed talking to a Washington radio host earlier this month:

"I don't really try to sit in the office and [say] 'Hey, Rizz. What are you doing?' I think he knows what he's doing and I think that we want the best for Stras. And if that's the situation, we're more than happy to back him up. He's an unbelievable pitcher and he's been lights out for us all year. He's key for us so far.

"But at the same time, we want him to be healthy and strong. We don't want him to be damaged in any shape or form. I feel like we have a great team behind us, great rotation. Guys that can still pick him up whenever they need them. Our bullpen to me is gonna be our key. As long as they're healthy and strong, they're gonna definitely clean up a lot of our mess."

The Nats aren't flying blind here. They know damn well that Strasburg is one of their biggest weapons against teams .500 or better. In fact, after he got through with the Braves Tuesday night he stood at a nifty 7-1 against those teams. Gonzalez is 6-3, but Zimmermann is 2-4. Edwin Jackson is 4-2 but Ross Detwiler is 2-4. But they have a bullpen more than capable of picking up and kicking aside any dicey openings.

But they also know damn well that their chances for going all the way to the World Series, never mind winning it, decrease without Strasburg. And if they're okay with it, and Nats fans seem more and more to be OK with it, what's the big deal?

Believe it or not, Tommy John himself thinks it is. The man upon whom the procedure bearing his name was first performed thinks the Nats should just turn Strasburg loose. Why? Because John himself pitched over 200 innings the year after he had the procedure. What he didn't say was that he'd pitched 1930+ innings before he underwent it. Strasburg pitched a mere 68 innings before his procedure; Zimmermann, 91.1.

"Should we follow the expert medical opinion of a licensed surgeon who performed Tommy John surgery," Boras asks, "or of the patient who was asleep?"

The Nats also know they're not the pitching-only club they were reputed to be when the season began. Since the All-Star break, they've scored the most runs in the National League. They've found ways to win that would have been unthinkable for earlier Washington franchises. Their defense has been showing itself as somewhere between acrobatic and brilliantly timed.

But they also know what those yammering to chuck the Plan and let the kid pitch don't know. Never mind that Washington hasn't seen a postseason since Franklin Roosevelt's first year in office, these Nats weren't built to win like yesterday, never mind now.

"We know what's right for us," Rizzo insisted as early as the Fourth of July. "And we have the guts to stick with it. We're an organization that prides itself on proper development of players. That's what we explain to every parent about their son and every agent about a player. What's changed? What's different than it was with Zimmermann? Oh, a Washington team is in the race. I guess people are shocked. We're building a team that we think will be good for a lot longer than one season."

It beats the living hell out of some near-future prospects getting the idea, based on dumping the Plan and possibly watching Strasburg turn from winger to wreck, that signing with the Nats means you have a great chance at a short career launching with a team that couldn't build and secure a Tinkertoy tent.

Damn right it's fun, fun, fun to say "Washington — First in war, first in peace, and way out in first in the National League East." Damn right it's going to be fun to watch the Nats in the postseason no matter how far they actually go without their main lancer. But won't it be even more fun to watch, very possibly, the Nats going back again and again, maybe even picking up a couple of rings, with Strasburg on the mound, and without having to worry about 95 percent of the time whether he's going to break in half for good along the way?

I guess it won't be, to enough people. Among them, the kind of people who let a great conspiracy theory — or a pitcher with a whole career ahead of him getting wrecked by overwork before he hits 25 — get in the way of plain sense.

Posted by Jeff Kallman at 12:55 PM | Comments (0)

Why the Nationals Should Pitch Strasburg

Coming into this week, the Washington Nationals had the best record in baseball, at some 30 games over .500. According to the widely-cited measure by CoolStandings.com, the former Expos are the likeliest team to make the playoffs with a 99.5 percent probability.

When the Nationals pick up their 82nd win of the season, it will clinch the franchise's first winning season in nearly a decade, when the team was barely over .500 in 2003 with an 83-79 record. The franchise has never won more than 94 games in a full season, and is currently on pace to win just over 100.

The Nationals' 2012 rise is somewhat analogous to that of the Pirates' this season, although it has been nearly a full generation since Pittsburgh has had a winning season. The team from Steel City also still has a fight on its hands before it can return to the playoffs for the first time since Barry Bonds and Andy Van Slyke patrolled the outfield.

However, should the Buccos get there, they will have their franchise player, possible NL MVP Andrew McCutchen, available for any playoff games, barring injury. When Washington clinches its playoff spot, ace and 23-year-old phenom Stephen Strasburg will spend the duration of October spitting sunflower seeds and chewing bubble gum in the dugout due to a set innings limit set by club management, of which the exact number is still unknown but is not thought to be more than 180.

Strasburg has currently pitched 145 and 1/3 innings. Depending on the exact number, Strasburg will only have a few more outings in his 2012 season. On Wednesday, Nationals GM Mike Rizzo made it official that Strasburg will be benched in the coming weeks.

The rationale for the limit is understandable. Strasburg is unquestionably the team's franchise player, underwent Tommy John surgery less than two years ago and has never pitched a full season in his short career. He is already one of the game's best pitchers, and the club doesn't want to jeopardize the righty's future health and productivity. Furthermore, there seems to be a consensus among those who follow and work in baseball that the move is the right one.

Still, the team should take the gamble on Strasburg and pitch him for the remainder of the regular season and the playoffs.

For one, the Nationals' dream season, while expected to be a division-winning one by many, has surpassed all expectations. While Washington has one of the youngest teams in the National League, and should be a contender for many years to come, there's no guarantee that the team can put up such a gaudy record again. In baseball, there are only so many chances teams get to win the World Series. By not pitching Strasburg in the postseason, the Nationals are hindering a prime opportunity to win now.

There is a recent precedent for the decision in the club's history. Fellow Nationals starter Jordan Zimmermann underwent Tommy John surgery in 2009 and then followed a progression in his return in 2010 and 2011 that nearly mirrors Strasburg's 2011 and 2012. Last year, Zimmermann had was limited to 160 innings and pitched marginally more than that number. It worked out since Zimmermann is now a star with an ERA and a WAR each better than Strasburg's in 2012. But there wasn't nearly as much on the line in the Nationals' below .500 season in 2011 as there is now.

I don't claim to be a doctor or know about the complex biomechanics of throwing a ball 100 miles per hour with a surgically repaired elbow, but I know that when Tommy John first had the surgery that he would become best known for, he pitched 207 innings in the season he returned. Technology is much better than it was in 1974, and doctors can still sit Strasburg at the first hit of any aggravation. It's also clear through the stellar performances Strasburg has shown this season that he is not the type of pitcher who comes back worse after having the surgery.

There are a couple of overlooked aspects of Strasburg's benching. One is that, given that the innings limit has been known all season, the Nationals management should have looked at more options to keep Strasburg at what they deemed to be a reasonable workload. While he's never been allowed to pitch more than seven innings in any one start, the team could have tried to skip starts, use a six-man rotation or even work Strasburg out of the bullpen to save innings. According to a Washington Post story, none of those options were seriously considered because Rizzo wanted Strasburg to have the repetition of throwing every five days during an MLB season.

Another part of the shutdown is the fact that Washington's playoff rotation with Strasburg had the potential to absolutely filthy. With Strasburg, Zimmermann and Gio Gonzalez all pitching at an ace level, and Edwin Jackson bringing playoff experience from his time with St. Louis last year, it would have been a tough task to take down the Nationals in a five- or seven-game series. Now, the team's lineup, which has performed well but is still around the league average in many key statistical categories, will have to shoulder the load more in October.

Zimmermann, Gonzalez, a strong bullpen and a deep order give the Nationals a strong chance to win in October, even without Strasburg. But with him, Washington would have likely been the favorite to win the World Series. And that's a chance worth taking.

Posted by Ross Lancaster at 11:30 AM | Comments (0)

August 22, 2012

Branching Out

Leave it to the home of the "Happiest Place on Earth" to steal a few headlines from Team USA during their trek to another gold medal. While Kobe Bryant and Pau Gasol were battling each other in the championship game, you couldn't help but wonder if their minds might be looking across the Atlantic to a future with new teammate Dwight Howard.

As the 30th Olympiad got underway, though, the Orlando Magic made another move to try and bolster their future. New GM Rob Hennigan chose San Antonio assistant coach Jacque Vaughn as the successor to embroiled ex-coach Stan Van Gundy. When I first heard this news, my curiosity was peaked. I knew the former University of Kansas star had made his way to the bench, but let's be honest. Vaughn's name hasn't been the first one mentioned for many head coaching vacancies.

The next thing I thought ... man, Gregg Popovich must be doing something right. Vaughn provides yet another opportunity to show that there may be waters of knowledge in the Riverwalk. Since "Pop" took over the Spurs bench in 1996, he's left his own mark on the Association (winning four titles). However, he's also planted seeds for his impact to continue well after he leaves the sidelines.

In terms of legacy, a coaching tree is an underestimated, but important, factor in how much effect a coach leaves in the annals of his league's history. It doesn't just show that the head honcho can be good with X's and O's. It displays his (or her) ability to teach the emotional aspects of the game (chemistry, balance, and camaraderie). And if you look up the background of most great coaches, you'll usually see a litany of disciples spreading the teachings to courts and fields across the country.

That's getting to be the case for Popovich, who has had both players and assistants achieve success on the bench. The shining example of this came from former player Doc Rivers. Rivers spent a successful term of four years in Orlando (with a bad start to his fifth) before winding up in Boston, guiding the "Big Three" to a championship.

The most successful Popovich assistant has to be Mike Brown. After getting the main gig in Cleveland, Brown helped steer LeBron James to his first NBA Finals. The Cavs didn't win less than 45 games in Brown's five seasons and had 60-plus wins the last two. Now, he gets the chance to coach Howard in Lakers purple and gold.

It doesn't stop there with the branches of this tree. Current NBA coaches Avery Johnson, Monty Williams, and Vinny del Negro also absorbed some kind of tutelage from the two-time Coach of the Year. Now,Vaughn gets his own stick on this growing oak.

There's two interesting notes about this. First, you might expect a man with the pedigree of a Popovich to establish his own roots in this way. What may not be expected is that those roots would be stronger than some of his peers. With 11 titles, you'd figure that pupils of Phil Jackson's legacy would be running the league. That's not the case, according to the three prime examples of Phil's time on the bench.

Tex Winter will forever be synonymous with establishing the success Jackson's teams. Hell, he's in the Hall of Fame for it. But the innovator of the Triangle offense didn't even get two seasons as a head coach in the Association. I don't even remember hearing his name mentioned for many openings, especially after moving to L.A.

Kurt Rambis finally got his shot to run a team when the Timberwolves gave him the job three years ago. Sure, the Wolves would have been a disaster with or without Rambis' involvement. But he didn't make it any better. Now he's an analyst at ESPN. Not saying that he won't get another chance down the road, but only time will tell.

Speaking of biding time, that's what Brian Shaw seems to be doing. You'd have to think that the most publicized of Phil's assistants has been a leading candidate for several positions across the league. Yet he keeps getting passed over. This could be a bit of reluctance from management staffs and an unwillingness on his part to go to certain teams. But with so many opportunities floating by, you wonder when (or if) Shaw will ultimately get the call.

The second interesting note about the Popovich tree is that it's only a branch itself. Sure, most folks (including me) had no idea who this guy was when he became an NBA coach (or even after the franchise's first title), but even he had some help along the way. That help came in the name of one of the most hallowed names in all of coaching ... Larry Brown. Yes, that Larry Brown. The man that could build a team from scratch, only to get happy feet and move on to the next project.

Popovich served under Brown in the same position that his assistants served under him (head coach of the Spurs). And with Larry being a direct branch of the Dean Smith tree, Pop has a lot of hoop lineage backing him up. It's a lineage that has separate trees rooted in the names of Pat Riley, Bobby Knight, Mike Krzyzewski, Larry, Dean, etc. Now, the man on the Riverwalk has his own root in that lineage.

With Hennigan basically hitting the 'Reset' button on the Magic organization, Vaughn will have to lean on his coaching lineage to help guide this team into the future. He hopes his branch won't be a short one on the newest coaching tree.

Posted by Jonathan Lowe at 9:03 PM | Comments (0)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 23

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Jimmie Johnson — After passing Brad Keselowski on lap 191, Johnson was poised to capture his series-best fourth win of the year. But a blown engine just four laps later ended Johnson's day, and his 27th-place finished dropped him to fourth in the point standings.

"That's was my second engine failure of the weekend," Johnson said. "Let me tell you, that 'b(Lowe's).' Who's building these things? Ironically, he may have to be 'let go.'

"Is Keselowski the biggest threat to my chances of winning my sixth Cup title? If number of tweets is any indication, then I'm in deep trouble. But I, a five-time champion, tend to put more stock in 'hardware' instead of 'software.' I don't follow @Kes, or that logic."

2. Brad Keselowski — Keselowski took the runner-up spot for the second-straight week, finishing second to Greg Biffle in the Pure Michigan 400. Keselowski remained fifth in the point standings and is 47 out of first.

"Am I destined for second place?" Keselowski said. "Apparently, I need to send a tweet to '@theleader,' because that's who I'm following.

"I hear than Joey Logano could be my new teammate at Penske Racing. I think it would be great to see Joey's name on the side of a Penske Dodge. That way I can once again say I have a teammate who's 'on something.'"

3. Greg Biffle — Biffle took the lead when Jimmie Johnson's engine blew on lap 196, and held off Brad Keselowski to win the Pure Michigan 400. It was Biffle's second win of the year, giving him the Sprint Cup points lead and significantly improving his position in the Chase.

"These are happy days for me," Biffle said. "Oddly enough, Johnson's 'expiration point' became my 'inspiration point.' And I 'made out' well.

"It looks like Jack Roush's hopes for the Cup title rest solely on my shoulders. Matt Kenseth seems to be mailing it in, while Carl Edwards won't deliver on Sunday."

4. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt, who won at Michigan in June, finished fourth in the Pure Michigan 400, his 10th top-10 of the year. He moved up one spot in the Sprint Cup point standings to third, 22 behind Greg Biffle.

"Jeff Gordon had some unkind words for me over the radio at Michigan," Earnhardt said. "I'm not offended. And neither is Rick Hendrick. In his eyes, Gordon was just 'sharing information."

5. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth finished 17th at Michigan, as Roush Fenway teammate Greg Biffle gave Jack Roush his 12th win at Michigan. Kenseth is now second in the point standings, 20 behind Biffle.

"Congratulations to Greg Biffle," Kenseth said. "I have no problem 'giving it up' for the Biff.' I also have no problem 'giving it up' for a fat new contract with Joe Gibbs Racing. I envy Biffle. He closed the deal and wasn't afraid to talk about it."

6. Kasey Kahne — Kahne solidified his wildcard position in the standings with a third in the Pure Michigan 400. He is 11th in the point standings, 33 behind Deny Hamlin in 10th.

"Mark Martin had a heck of a crash on Sunday," Kahne said. "Officially, he retired on lap 64. Considering the magnitude of the wreck, I'm surprised Mark was able to walk away. I'm even more surprised he didn't officially announce his retirement."

7. Tony Stewart — Stewart finished 32nd at Michigan after a long day in which he struggled after losing a cylinder on lap 51. After several trips to the garage, Stewart ended the day 92 laps down.

"Luckily," Stewart said, "I've got three wins to fall back on. And I pride myself on being amply cushioned.

"My good friend Danica Patrick ran over a shoe in Montreal on Saturday. It seems she's trying a little too hard to get her 'footing' in NASCAR. She probably could have used a shoe 'horn.' The GoDaddy.com car spits out shoes faster than a Chinese Nike factory."

8. Denny Hamlin — Hamlin finished 11th at Michigan, leading one lap and just missing on his 12th top-10 result of the year. He is 10th in the point standings, 96 out of first.

"Despite my standing in the points," Hamlin said, "I still think I'll contend for the Sprint Cup title once the Chase begins. So, unlike my unborn child, my championship hopes are 'legitimate."

9. Clint Bowyer — Bowyer posted his third consecutive top-10 finish with a seventh in the Pure Michigan 400. He remained seventh in the Sprint Cup point standings, 66 out of first and firmly in place to make the Chase.

"I'm a shoo-in to make the Chase," Bowyer said. "And speaking of 'shoe-ins,' a sneaker tossed on the track in Montreal derailed Danica Patrick's chances in the Nationwide race. She ran slap over the thing. I'm guessing she would have stopped had it been a high heel."

10. Martin Truex, Jr. — Truex finished 10th at Michigan, scoring his 13th top-10 result of the year. He stands sixth in the point standings, 60 out of first.

"Michael Waltrip Racing is poised to put two cars in the Chase For The Cup," Truex said. "Can you imagine an MWR driver winning the Sprint Cup championship? Michael says if you can't 'buy' that, maybe you will 'rent' it."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 1:22 PM | Comments (0)

August 21, 2012

Fantasy Football Running Backs

Fantasy football season is fast approaching, and it's just about time to start plotting your draft strategy. In most leagues, you need to take elite running backs early, but how do you choose which one? Last year, there were four RBs who went at the top of most drafts: Arian Foster, Chris Johnson, Adrian Peterson, and Ray Rice. Foster and Peterson missed some time with injuries, but were great when healthy. Rice was a sensation, especially in PPR leagues. And Johnson was a massive disappointment, especially in the first half of the season. Was there a way to predict these things? In particular, could we have foreseen Johnson's lackluster year?

Most specifically, I've been curious about how running backs perform after their best seasons. We all know that players tend to regress after a great year. It's rare for everything to go right two seasons in a row, and defenses tend to key around a player like Rice or CJ2K. But how much effect does this have on a player's stats? To find out, I looked at the top 30 fantasy seasons by an RB in the last 20 years: 1992-2011. Then I checked their performances in the year before (n-1), year after (n+1), two years after (n+2), and three years after (n+3).

For all seasons, I used the following scoring system:

1 point per 10 rush yards
1 point per 10 receiving yards
6 points per TD (any kind)
0.5 points per reception

That's a pretty simple fantasy scoring metric. Notably, it's a ½-PPR system, with no fumble penalties, and I have completely omitted two-point conversions and passing statistics. Those are fluke plays, not really what we're looking at here. I'm listing total points per season, but if you prefer per-game averages, 240 is 15 points per game, 320 is 20 points per week, and 400 is 25 per week.

The "average" line does not include years when a player was in college (Edgerrin James in 1998) or retired (including Ricky Williams' temporary absence in 2004), nor years in the future (Ray Rice and Arian Foster). What the average shows, though — and pretty clearly — is that great running backs seldom continue to deliver at a high level if they're more than one year removed from a great season. The n-1 and n+1 years look pretty good, the exceptions being related to playing time the year before or injuries the year after. But there's a significant drop-off when we get to n+2.

The top n+2 seasons:

1. Marshall Faulk, 1998-2000 (415)
2. Marshall Faulk, 1999-2001 (382)
3. Emmitt Smith, 1992-1994 (340)
4. LaDainian Tomlinson, 2005-2007 (333)
5. LaDainian Tomlinson, 2003-2005 (329)
6. LaDainian Tomlinson, 2002-2004 (312)
7. Emmitt Smith, 1995-1997 (259)
8. LaDainian Tomlinson, 2006-2008 (252)
9. Marshall Faulk, 2000-2002 (249)
10. Steven Jackson, 2006-2008 (210)

Those are the only n+2 years that beat the 207 average. So unless you're drafting Marshall Faulk or LaDainian Tomlinson, you probably shouldn't choose a player more than one year after his breakout season. And once those guys start to fade (Faulk in '02, Smith in '96, L.T. in '08), they're almost always finished as players who merit a first-round pick in fantasy.

Out of the 30 seasons included, only eight featured improvement from n+1 to n+2, and some of those eight are jokes: Terrell Davis scoring 42 fantasy points instead of 37 when he was injured in '99 and '00, or Jamal Anderson scoring 198 (which is not worth a high draft pick) instead of 10 because he didn't get hurt in Week 1. The only legit increases were Faulk, Smith, and Tomlinson, who never really regressed in the first place, plus a couple guys who returned from injury but didn't have great years. Effectively, no one on this list went from being great to getting hurt or just being above average, and then ever returned to being great. It basically doesn't happen.

From 1992-2011, there were 44 running back seasons which scored at least 300 fantasy points in this system, about two per season. Among players who had ever hit 300, none of them dropped below 250 and returned to 300 in the future. Ever.

There are some exceptions if we use a slightly lower standard. Tiki Barber scored 299 in 2002, dropped to 220, then had three more great seasons before retiring (326, 332, 272). Edgerrin James was over 300 each of his first two seasons, injured in 2001, and returned to 283 and 290 in '04 and '05, respectively. There is also a distinction if we separate the averages by age. Of the 30 seasons above, 15 were players 25 or younger, and the other 15 by RBs 26 or older.

For players 25 and younger, we're probably seeing something close to a normal regression to the mean. No one produces 350 fantasy points every year, and 230-260 is still very good. The real takeaway is for players who have already hit their mid-20s. If they didn't have a big season the year before, they're probably not going anywhere good. The older players' n+3 seasons included three who were retired, four who missed most of the season with injuries, four part-time players who scored under 200 points and another at 202, plus the last gasps from Faulk, Smith, and Tomlinson, all between 249-254. Don't draft old RBs who didn't light it up the year before, or at least not in the first two rounds.

This actually is not the conclusion I was expecting. It seemed to me that elite runners often go through a down year following their breakout campaign, because of overwork or defensive attention or strength of schedule (or whatever else), and then rebound in the n+2 season. My research does not bear that out. It may apply to young runners who still had good n+1 years, but almost never to older players who have already peaked. The old guys may rebound following a return from injury or a trade to a new team, but never again to elite status, not to deserving a high draft pick in fantasy.

Of course, where you draw the cutoff line for a first-round RB depends on the size of your league (and differences in scoring system), but 250 is probably a pretty reasonable standard in the system I'm using here. Over the past 20 years, 121 RBs have met that figure, about six per season. Number of RBs with 250+ fantasy points:

It's probably safe to say that if you're investing a first-round draft pick on an RB, and your league is less than 12 people, you're hoping for 250+ fantasy points as a return. So how do you use previous production to decide who's worthy? Specifically, how do you do that in 2012?

I examined 20 RBs who might merit a high draft selection, not including any rookies (or other first-year starters, including DeMarco Murray). We're using past performance to predict future production, so we need players with a track record. We'll consider Ray Rice, LeSean McCoy, Maurice Jones-Drew, Arian Foster, Darren Sproles, Marshawn Lynch, Michael Turner, Ryan Mathews, Steven Jackson, Reggie Bush, Chris Johnson, Matt Forte, Adrian Peterson, Fred Jackson, Frank Gore, Shonn Greene, Willis McGahee, Ahmad Bradshaw, Darren McFadden, and Jamaal Charles.

For each running back, I calculated fantasy points using the same system explained earlier, and looked at: best year (BY), how many seasons ago that was (-BY), last 250-point season (L250), last 300-point season (L300), and total points for each of the last two years (n-1 and n-2).

A few of these are older players who are probably starting to decline, and some of them young players on the way up. We're using a player's best season as the frame of reference, but for several of the names above, that best season probably hasn't happened yet. So how do we sort these 20 RBs?

Apart from injuries and suspensions, the ones who scare me are those whose 2011 were below 230 and whose best year came more than two seasons ago: Turner, Steven Jackson, Johnson, Forte, Peterson, Gore, and McGahee. I'll add Fred Jackson to that list, because he's a 31-year-old RB who missed six games in 2011 and has never topped 237 carries. If that's your RB1, I hope you're starting Aaron Rodgers and Calvin Johnson.

Everyone is down on Michael Turner. He's a value pick at this point, someone you add if he drops too far. I don't think anyone expects him to replicate 2008 (1,700 yds, 17 TDs), but he's always produced as a starter. Steven Jackson is a capable running back, and valuable in PPR, but you want your top RB to be a game-breaker. Jackson's a solid 12-points-a-week guy, but he gets hurt a lot, and if he's the best player on your fantasy team, you're not going to win your league. Jackson is a great RB2, but not a quality RB1. If you pick him as your top RB, you're just patching a hole, when you could be taking an elite QB or WR, maybe grabbing the first game-breaking TE off the board.

Chris Johnson still looks like a first-rounder in most leagues. A shooting star in 2009, he was good in 2010 and a huge disappointment last season. His total fantasy points by year: 230, 372, 255, 199. This year will be Johnson's n+3 season. He's got great speed and he's an asset in the passing game. No RB has ever had a season as good as Johnson's 2009 and not had another superb season, a 20 points per game kind of season. He did okay at the end of 2011, and his poor performance early may have been linked to an extended holdout. But at this point, I wouldn't bet on CJ. If he falls to the second or third round, yes, of course, grab him and do a victory dance. Even in the late first round, you get someone who's probably worth about 225 (14/gm) and has huge upside. But in the first five or six picks, I'd say you're reaching for a player whose magic only lasted one year. I'd rather roll the dice on McFadden or Mathews staying healthy.

Matt Forte will go in the first round of most drafts. In four seasons, he's had two very good years (about 250 pts), one pretty poor year (164), and one very good year shortened by injury (199). Considering the Bears' acquisition of Michael Bush, it seems very unlikely Forte will top 250 this season. The track record for guys whose best season was four years earlier is really bad, unless you're Marshall Faulk, Emmitt Smith, or LaDainian Tomlinson. Forte's a nice player, but he's not nearly of that caliber. Based on previous production, I see Forte as a second-round value. Someone else will draft him before it's worth it for you to take the gamble. If you don't play PPR, don't touch the guy.

Adrian Peterson, a reliable fantasy stud coming off a serious injury, is a lottery ticket. He's probably not worth an early-round pick at this point. I'd be surprised if he earns 200 fantasy points this year, and shocked if he tops 250. I know some people are drafting him with the assumption he'll be available for the fantasy playoffs, but I don't like that kind of gamble on a guy trying to come back quickly from knee surgery. That usually takes more than one year, and you may not make it to the playoffs in the first place if you're waiting for your best player to get healthy. AP is getting drafted based on name recognition and false hope.

Frank Gore, a high-quality RB who can't stay on the field, could also be considered a lottery ticket. The odds of getting 15 or 16 healthy, high-productivity games out of Gore are probably about the same as the odds of actually winning the lottery. This will be his n+6 campaign, and I think I'm done with The Inconvenient Truth as an RB1.

I'm not sure why I included Willis McGahee in this exercise. He's obviously not an elite RB, but he can still play and he gets the ball. Grab him as an RB2 or flex option if he slips to the middle rounds.

The one other player I want to comment on is the ultimate lottery ticket, Jamaal Charles. As a part-time back in 2009 and 2010, he scored 210 and 264 fantasy points, respectively. He averaged about six yards a carry, and was a first-round pick in virtually every fantasy league last season. He got hurt in Week 2 and missed the rest of the season. Charles is a small (200 lbs) RB who's never been a full-time starter, coming off a serious injury and sharing time with Peyton Hillis. If he cracks 250 points, I will buy a hat and eat it. Charles has nice upside, but you can't afford to throw away a first-round pick on a guy whose realistic ceiling is probably close to 200 fantasy points. If you draft Charles, you also need to handcuff with Hillis, blowing another mid-level draft pick. I wouldn't seriously look at him until the bottom of the second round, maybe even late third in smaller leagues.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 12:36 PM | Comments (0)

August 20, 2012

Upsets in Cincinnati: Few of Many in 2012

Now that the last big test before the last Slam of the calendar year has ended in Cincinnati with Roger Federer winning the men's draw and Li Na winning the women's draw, we have finally arrived to the week preceding the U.S. Open during which a plethora of detailed analysis will appear all over the media wires. This analysis will provide various critical commentary on what the 2012 season has unfolded for us and explaining why the USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center in Flushing Meadows Corona Park will have the last word on the debate regarding who are the best players this year.

On the men's side, they will be right one hundred percent: including the Olympic Games, we have had the "big four" split the titles at the Australian Open (Novak Djokovic), the French Open (Rafael Nadal), Wimbledon (Roger Federer), and the Olympic Games (Andy Murray). The U.S. Open title would certainly constitute the end of the debate on who is the best player of 2012, and we already know that it will not be Nadal, who pulled out of the U.S. Open citing a knee injury. On the women's side, however, it seems like Serena Williams already has the best player of 2012 title displayed in some corner of her residence with her Wimbledon and Olympic titles.

Instead of doing what most tennis pundits do this week (see above), watching Andy Murray lose to Jeremy Chardy and Serena Williams lose to Angelique Kerber has inspired me to look back at the upsets so far this year. Surprise results happen every year and there is nothing extraordinary about them except that, well, an upset is "extra-ordinary" by nature. I might add that, if anything at all, 2012 has provided an unusual amount of "extraordinary upsets," if you will.

History of tennis is filled with stunning single-match upsets such as Alex Corretja defeating Pete Sampras on grass in 2002. I don't care that it was Pete's retirement year, or that Corretja was a regular top-10 player for a few years. Corretja's grass-court career is about as good as my grandmother's career after the age of 70 on the bowling alley, and Sampras losing to Corretja especially after winning the first two sets is as wild and unlikely as a single-match upset gets.

Or is it? Have you heard of Marek Semjan? Yes, you read correctly. The name is Marek Semjan.

The biggest upset in 2012 so far is neither Lukas Rosol, ranked No. 100 in ATP at the time, defeating Rafael Nadal at Wimbledon, nor the victory by then-111th-ranked Virginie Razzano over Serena Williams in the first round of French Open Women's Draw. Even Albano Olivetti from France, then-ranked-388th player in ATP, who defeated top-10 player Mardy Fish in Marseille in February, has nothing on the 24-year-old Semjan from Slovakia. When Semjan defeated the No. 16 player in the world Fernando Verdasco, 6-4, 6-7, 6-4 in the Prostejov Challenger in Czech Republic, in my book he put his name in the history books as the hero of what is arguably the biggest upset win in tennis history.

How stunning of an upset win was it? Let's begin with the obvious: Semjan was No. 1,166 in the world at the time versus Verdasco's top-20 ranking. Yes, the guy was outside the top 1,000! Let me continue with the less obvious, but one on which many conspiracy theorists would love to jump: the match was not fixed, and first-hand reports by an ATP level player and a coach assure me that Verdasco did not tank the match and did everything he could to avoid getting upset (and the score alone would seem to confirm that).

Let's put this upset in perspective. Semjan entered the tournament from the qualifying rounds as an unseeded player, and had to win three matches to earn the right to play Verdasco in the first round of the main draw. At the time he walked on the court in Prostejov to face Verdasco, who was looking to earn a few extra points after unexpectedly exiting early from the French Open, Semjan was playing his first challenger of the year, because it made sense to play only futures up to that point in the year due to his extremely low ranking. His last ATP-level tournament — entered as a qualifier — was 16 months ago in January of 2011. Furthermore, he had a dismal 10-34 record in 2011 and 2012 combined, a period that included a disastrous 17-match losing streak.

There are still 10 weeks of tournaments and hundreds of matches to be played in 2012. Even during a year in which surprises have been popping up in abundance throughout the calendar year (I almost overlooked then-216th-ranked Brian Baker's run to the finals of Nice, France ATP tournament), I can hardly see any player equaling or surpassing Semjan's stunning upset of Verdasco.

But don't expect to see Semjan at the U.S. Open, not even in qualifying. He is too busy playing $10,000 futures in Slovakia and Croatia to be traveling to the U.S., not to mention his ranking of 530 being too low to enter the U.S. Open at any level, except as a spectator.

Posted by Mert Ertunga at 1:18 PM | Comments (0)

August 18, 2012

The Worst Job in America

With the Olympics finally over, it's time to redirect America's sports focus. No more stories of athletes treating each other with respect and sportsmanship, or more fans rooting on all participants as they strive to reach new heights. It's time to return to the ugliest neighbor-hating, ill-willing corner of the sports universe.

It's time to talk about college football.

Last week, USC coach Lane Kiffin caused a minor stir when he suggested he wouldn't vote his team atop his coaches' poll ballot. Kiffin's only problem was that USA Today, per its policy to publish the ballot of a coach who lies about his vote, showed that the Trojan head coach did, in fact, vote USC No. 1.

What inevitably followed in some corners, particularly East Tennessee and the Bay Area, was a clip-show recap of Kiffin's infamy to-date, its backstory filled with knowing "only Lane Kiffin" smirks and head shakes. In fact, just seeing Kiffin's name likely colored most people's analysis of the story given the connotation of his short but eventful career.

But what struck me shortly after was just how many college football coaches are notorious to some portion of the population. To some, Les Miles is lucky or zany. Or Nick Saban is a liar. Or Mike Gundy is a bully.

Much of this probably stems from the constant turnover of college football players while coaches stay (relatively) longer. Yankee haters have had Derek Jeter to punch around for parts of three decades, but Alabama fans only had Cam Newton in their lives for a scant six months.

Even more relevant, though, is college football's culture of pride. Maybe this is because most rivalries are regional, or maybe the larger number of college football programs in the flyover country uninhabited by pro teams. But for a collection of reasons, college football fans seem to care just as much about the tabloid news their teams make as what they do for a dozen Saturdays in the fall.

When an NFL player is arrested or a major leaguer tests positive for a banned substance, fan reaction tends to be pragmatic. The digression is quickly translated into lost time on the field, which affects fans' perception of their team's future success like a quarterly earnings announcement affects a stock price. Discussions of moral superiority almost never seem to elevate, probably because free agency and the interchangeability of professional players mean the offender could be playing in your town next year.

But somehow, far lesser missteps stick to college football programs, especially their coaches. Some coaches are the source of barbs for rival fan bases for seemingly inane transgressions. It seems as though any coach on the national stage for a handful of years has some kind of finger-wagging pinned to his shoulders. Chip Kelly answers media questions too tersely. Will Muschamp and Bo Pelini yell too much on the sidelines. Todd Graham resigned from Pitt with the wrong part of his Verizon plan.

Consider the aforementioned Kiffin. In roughly 10 years of major football coaching, Kiffin's worst offenses seem to be some minor recruiting violations at Tennessee, leaving the Vols to return to USC, and some socially ineptness. Meanwhile, Kiffin's Oakland replacement, Tom Cable, was eventually fired amid allegations he assaulted a Raiders assistant coach and a former girlfriend.

And which guy has a lower Q rating?

The escalation of minor, if existent, missteps like Kiffin's reflects the increasingly awkward link between college football and the academic universities it is connected to. Division 1A football exists primarily because it delivers talent to the NFL. For all of the lofty rhetoric about student athletes, most 18-year-olds that accept a D1 scholarship do so because it is the most likely path to Sunday football.

This reality leaves major college football coaches torn between competing goals. On one hand, they are bound to the ideals of the institutions they represent. Yet on the other hand, they have to address the motives of their players else risk not recruiting future classes of elite talent. As we have so often seen, these two goals come into conflict.

Worst of all, for many major college programs, success has become defined as going undefeated. At places like Alabama, Ohio State, and Texas, each season is a tight-rope walk over a tank of samurai gila monsters; the only reward for success is avoiding instant death.

So pity the college football coach. Sure, he gets paid handsomely, but he does so while knowing he will most likely be fired during the next decade and be held in generally ill regard by many fans. Don't believe it? Name a major college coach with a better than tepid national image.

This has to be the worst job in America.

Posted by Corrie Trouw at 5:06 PM | Comments (0)

August 17, 2012

Now Hiring: Jobs For Chad Johnson

Free Chad Johnson! No, that's not a plea to the Broward County jail. On the contrary, it's a plea from Johnson himself, indicating that it will cost very little to hire football's loosest cannon. After being liberated from the Miami Dolphins, as well as from a VH1 reality show, Johnson is unemployed. His wife, Evelyn Lozado, says Johnson "needs help." But he needs work more. Johnson would be uniquely qualified for the following positions.

* Host of MSNBC's new political debate show called Butting Heads With Chad Johnson.

* Annoying stage announcer for the NBC's spinoff series, America Had Talent. Johnson's no Nick Cannon, which is nowadays likely the only compliment Johnson is eligible to receive.

* NFL replacement referee: Johnson could continue to have a negative impact on the game. In addition, he'd be wearing black-and-white stripes for the first, but probably not the last, time.

* New Year's Eve celebration host: finally, it would be Johnson's job to drop the ball.

* Catholic priest: could the man who never shuts up handle a job in which he mans the confessional booth and is, God forbid, forced to listen?!

* Character in "World of Warcraft" video game: Alas, Johnson would again have some "fantasy" value.

* Bookie: Johnson could specialize in offering his customers bets that he swears "can't be covered."

* Inspiration for MTV's new cartoon series Ev L.'s and Butthead, in which the animated likenesses of Johnson and his estranged wife lounge around their widescreen television and tweet about the day's least important events.

* Adult film star: what's the best thing about Chad Johnson as an X-rated movie actor? He doesn't even need to change his name. Of course, should he require a name change, Chad Ochoincho is available.

* Star of The Expendables 3, in which teams up with other aging action in a film that's destined for "early release."

* Author: who wouldn't want to read Johnson's autobiography? Especially if it was titled Chad Johnson Gets Booked.

Then again, who would want to read Johnson's autobiography, since it would likely be comprised of 2,000 chapters, each of a length of 140 characters of less?

* Wal-Mart greeter: the loquacious Johnson would excel at this. In no time, he could, once again, claim to be a "No. 1 receiver."

* Interstate 77 hitchhiker: this job would give Johnson his best chance to get to Canton, Ohio.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 1:12 PM | Comments (0)

August 16, 2012

TBS's Grand Experiment

You may not have noticed (the rating have been quite poor), but besides FOX Saturday Baseball and ESPN's Sunday Night Baseball and occasional weekday forays, there is another national baseball broadcast in the regular season — MLB on TBS, airing Sunday afternoons.

If you're like me, you grew up with TBS on cable. Along with WGN in Chicago and WOR and WPIX in New York, TBS (or as we knew it then, WTBS) was one of the first "super stations." That meant that although it was a local channel in its region it was also picked up by many, many cable stations throughout the country.

WGN still (somewhat) acts like a local station, and has a local news broadcast (pretty convenient for Chicago expats), TBS long ago discontinued any association with Atlanta in terms of what they broadcast. But in my childhood (and in fact, clear through to 2007, far beyond their programming association with Atlanta for anything else) they showed Braves games. Tons and tons and tons of Braves games.

I'd be willing to bet more Braves games were available to me on television each year in the mid to late 80's than Indians games (I grew up in the Cleveland television market). I'm sure I'm not alone in this across the country, making marginal players like Claudell Washington and Rafael Ramirez household names, and legitimate starts like Bob Horner and Dale Murphy even bigger.

But TBS said goodbye to Braves baseball in 2007 and since then, not that anyone has noticed, has shown a national game of any given matchup just like Fox or ESPN do, in order to, as they put it, "emphasize the channel's national programming prominence."

While that's a winsome development for a lot of us, and very few people seem to watch baseball on TBS (save the playoffs), you might want to tune in this Sunday for their Braves (ironically enough) vs. Dodgers telecast.

For the first time in MLB television history, the commentary will be covered by a woman, Michele Smith (well, partially covered — John Smoltz will be there too, along with Ernie Johnson doing play-by-play). Her bona fides are as a softball legend — twice a gold medalist, Japanese League MVP, and Hall of Famer. She has also covered her sport when ESPN has broadcasted softball.

When I think of women broadcasting men's sports, I first think of Pam Ward of ESPN, who has covered college football for several years — and done so very well, I think. She has three qualities I admire in a broadcaster: she's articulate, knowledgeable, and enthusiastic.

So it was with surprise and dismay when a few years ago I discovered AwfulAnnouncing.com, which should be the kind of site I really like — a blog all about sports announcing and announcers. But their centerpiece as a site is the "Pam Ward Chronicles" or "Pammies," where they tabulate the dumbest things that college football announcers say each week, and vote on the worst of it. That they named the awards after her tells you all that you need to know of their opinion of her, and she has "won" the overall season award twice.

Their selections of her worst soundbites are rarely, if ever, that bad ... she gets chosen as the worst over clearly bigger announcer gaffes ... and they post a lot of her supposed double entendres which they clearly have to stretch to to the limit represent it as such.

And I think therein there's a systemic, subconscious sort of bias against female announcers of men's sports, where we put their words under a microscope, looking for anything to criticize, in a way we would not do a man. That's natural. People who threaten the traditional order of things or just represent a threat to what we find comfortable will always be held to greater scrutiny and a higher standard.

But bias is still bias, and I'm bracing myself for the blowback of baseball fans, the most traditional of the lot, following this Sunday. So I ask everyone who plans to tune to give her an honest, fair shake. If you find something she says to be stupid, ask if you would find it equally eye-roll-worthy if a man said it.

And if you're not willing to do that, that's fine, too, but just admit it. Say "I don't want women broadcasting baseball." It's okay. You're allowed. What grinds my gears is when one clearly has that opinion but doesn't have the courage of their conviction, so they pretend the object of their contempt is for different reasons than (to put it kindly) a traditional philosophy. This is what Pam Ward (or at least, her reputation) has to endure on AwfulAnnouncing.com, and it would be good if we didn't extend that to other female announcers.

Posted by Kevin Beane at 5:55 PM | Comments (0)

Johnny Pesky, RIP: He Only Held Your Heart

It should have been erased by sense and the evidence, long enough ago. But even past the day when the Boston Red Sox finally busted the actual or alleged curse, you might be forgiven if you thought his full, legal name was Johnny Pesky Held the Ball.

Actually, his full legal name at birth was John Michael Paveskovich. It was his teachers who called him "Pesky" as a youth. In 1947, he legalized it as his surname while making a baseball life under it. Now Johnny Pesky has gone to his reward.

His father once told him that if he played baseball, he'd be a bum for all his life. To hear some people talk, or see them write, in the decades-long aftermath of the bottom of the eighth inning, Game 7, 1946 World Series, you'd have thought Pesky made his father resemble a prophet.

Two outs, St. Louis Cardinals batting, Enos Slaughter on first having led off with a single, and Harry (The Hat) Walker at the plate. Facing Red Sox reliever Bob Klinger, Walker hit a sinking liner to left center field. As Leon Culberson ambled for it, Culberson having been sent out to spell Dominic DiMaggio (first as a pinch runner, when DiMaggio's leg gave out after he tied the game with a double), Pesky ambled likewise into shallow left center as the cutoff man. Culberson chased down Walker's hit — a double, by the way, not a single as the legend would have it — as Slaughter was off to the proverbial races.

With Slaughter having no apparent intention of slowing down, Culberson wheeled and threw a high lob in toward Pesky. The myth of Pesky holding the ball took hold not because he actually held it but, rather, because he had to come down with his hands after taking the high lob before turning to make a try for Slaughter heading for the plate.

The swift Slaughter may have been twenty feet from the plate when Pesky was able to throw home. And Slaughter was no dump truck. The real key to the play: Slaughter had been running with the pitch with a mind toward stealing second, and Pesky had scampered at first toward the base to cover on a possible throw up from the plate.

That, of course, would be the last time Pesky, DiMaggio, Bobby Doerr, and Ted Williams got anywhere near a World Series. I single them out because of David Halberstam's sweet book about their lifelong friendship, The Teammates (2003), hooked around the final pilgrimage DiMaggio, Doerr, and Pesky planned to visit the dying Williams. Except that Doerr couldn't make the trip; his customary travel plans had been crimped by the strokes his wife had suffered recently (she died in 2003), on top of her battle with multiple sclerosis.

Pesky came from solid Austro-Hungarian stock; his father's traveling companions to America included the grandfather of eventual Detroit Tigers' World Series hero Mickey Lolich. When Pesky went into the Navy in World War II, and became an officer through one of the Navy's special programs, Jacob Paveskovich, who'd been an officer in the Austro-Hungarian navy, was amazed. "John, do you know how long it took me to get what you got in the old country, to become an officer?" His son didn't know. "Ten or twelve years," the father replied. "And you got it in under two."

"Pop," said Pesky, "we're not in the old country — we're in the new country."

"You're right, John," the father replied, with a grin. "We're not in the old country."

When Pesky changed his legal name in 1947, his mother, however, was dismayed — at first. "Ma, I'm not ashamed," the shortstop replied, "but we're in America now." Something Ma Pesky understood, and began to love, when in their Oregon hometown she became recognized as the mother of Johnny Pesky of the Red Sox.

Pesky was a solid infielder, a solid hitter (he led the American League in hits in back-to-back seasons, including the year he finished second to Ted Williams for the batting title; he did thrice what Williams couldn't do once because of his walks — get 200+ hits in a season), a student of the game. It stood him in solid stead after his playing days. (Red Sox Nation probably forgets, as if it matters, that Pesky was dealt away, to the Detroit Tigers during 1952, then to the Washington Senators two years later, before he was released, picked up by the Baltimore Orioles for a swan song which ended early in 1955.) He became a valued minor league manager in the Red Sox system, respected as a teacher and mentor.

Among other things, he took a big, hulking right-handed pitcher with a howitzer of an arm but little much else beyond a cannonball of a fastball and a serviceable slider, and converted him to relief pitching. "As it turned out, it was the best thing that ever happened to me," remembered Dick Radatz to Peter Golenbock (for Fenway: An Unexpurgated History of the Boston Red Sox). "If you're going to be a starter, you should have the command of three good pitches … I didn't have enough to be a starting pitcher. My anger subsided when I discovered Pesky was going to pitch me a lot … I loved Johnny Pesky. He understood the plight of ballplayers, understood their problems. He was your boss, but he was also your confidant. He'd say, 'If you're having a problem on the road and want a beer, we'll talk about it.' He was almost like a father away from home."

That was Pesky managing in the minor leagues. When he got his chance to manage the Red Sox, in 1963, after such dynamic farm managing with a game-wide reputation as a teacher, Pesky found his legs cut out from under him. The ineffective Pinky Higgins was kicked upstairs to replace Bucky Harris as general manager, and the legend for years has been that Higgins went out of his way to make sure Pesky didn't have a prayer as the major league skipper.

Pesky had favored and won in the minors with an aggressive, hit-and-run game, and he hoped to teach the parent club the same game. The Red Sox he was handed were too accustomed to living large under Higgins' laissez-faire disciplinary style, and they had no intention of changing for the new skipper. Between that and Higgins' refusal to back Pesky on scattered disciplinary matters — Pesky in the minors might chew a player out, but he'd drop it as soon as the lesson was taught and never hold it against a player — Pesky was cooked before he stood a reasonable chance.

He had Carl Yastrzemski as a superstar in the making. He had Dick Radatz to finish what his starters couldn't, earning his nickname The Monster. But he also had some aging veterans, some green kids, including a promising slugger named Tony Conigliaro. And, he also had Dick Stuart. This power-hitting first baseman with a cement block for a glove and, possibly, a head, so flouted Pesky's authority in the clubhouse and on the field that Pesky, more than once, moved to have him dealt away. Higgins refused. Then, after two and a half testy enough seasons, he executed Pesky.

To his credit, Pesky didn't let that destroy his relationship with the Red Sox. He became a Red Sox coach for several seasons; then, he became a valued teacher in Red Sox spring trainings, broadcasting for the team for a period, even taking the managerial reins to finish 1980 after Don Zimmer was fired amidst an ownership squabble. The longer the years passed, the more frequently you could count on seeing Pesky in spring, in uniform, fungo bat in hand, smile and teaching in mind. Then, on afternoons before games in Fenway as a special assignment instructor, since 1985, the more you felt the sun would still rise in the Olde Towne no matter how the Red Sox were doing.

"He promised me he'd quit when he got to eighty," Pesky's late wife, Ruth, told Halberstam, when her husband had crossed the threshold to 82. "But he didn't. But I do think he'll quit when he reaches 85."

Pesky didn't exactly quit when he did hit 85. If he had, he'd have missed seeing the Red Sox perform the improbably impossible, or was that the impossibly improbable, in 2004. Or, from running the World Series championship flags of 2004 and 2007 up the Fenway flagpole. But he did restrict himself from then on to a folding chair, then a wheelchair, bat in hand, pen likewise for fans, refusing to demur if asked for a tip, a pointer, or an autograph.

If you were a Red Sox fan, Johnny Pesky was your fan. His idea of VIP treatment, Gordon Edes writes, "meant a table at the Salem Diner, where every morning, Monday to Friday (breakfast on the weekend was reserved for Ruthie), he would gather with a motley assortment of friends ...[and] they would swap stories, and tease Georgia the waitress, and take turns paying the bill. Earl Weissman, the lawyer, of course, kept track of whose turn it was."

"Pesky," Halberstam wrote, "was in no way disappointed with what had not taken place during [his post-playing] life. Instead he seemed somewhat in awe of how long it lasted, how rich his life had been, how many friends he had made, how many people actually liked him, and how many people still remembered him and his glory days, and were pleased to be in his company."

They named Fenway Park's right field pole for him. They should have re-named the whole damn ballpark for him. At Fenway's centenary, Pesky sat warmly at second base, in his wheelchair, moved to tears during the pre-game ceremony. As Red Sox Nation and just about everyone in or near baseball is moved to tears for losing, really, the next best thing we have to our baseball grandfather.

But only his earthly life span was 92. On Grandpa Pesky, it still seems too young.

Posted by Jeff Kallman at 12:52 PM | Comments (0)

August 15, 2012

Penn State's Appeal Smacks of Defiance

Come on, admit it. You thought the Penn State administration would take their punishment from the NCAA like contrite little boys, lick their wounds, and say, "we're sorry, we won't do it again," and start trying to repair the damage. Right?

I admit it. I did, too. After all, don't they just want to start putting the nightmare of the past few months behind them and move forward? Don't they realize the rebuilding of their shattered image will probably take longer to rebuild than the years of NCAA sanctions given them? Aren't they glad that they escaped the dreaded death penalty?

Not so fast, my friend. Several university trustees have decided the game isn't over yet, the clock hasn't quite wound down to zero. An appeal was filed Aug. 6 with the NCAA over the sanctions levied against them for their role in the Jerry Sandusky sex-abuse coverup. In the appeal, the trustees claim the consent decree school president Rodney Erickson agreed to and signed is "null and void." According to the appeal, Erickson had neither the legal authority nor the board's approval to enter into such an agreement. The appeal is most likely the first step toward a federal lawsuit attempting to overturn the sanctions, since the NCAA has already stated the Penn State sanctions are not subject to appeal.

The trustees also claim the NCAA didn't give the school due process, since it declined to follow its usual course of investigation and enforcement procedures, relying instead on the Freeh Report to reach its decision.

Another point of contention is the Freeh Report itself, that its findings were contrary to the evidence presented. The NCAA's punishment was deemed "excessive and unreasonable" and inflicts "permanent damage to an entire generation of student-athletes and coaches who were innocent of any wrongdoing during their time on campus."

Don't get me wrong. I've long been critical of the NCAA's heavy-handed policies and out-of-touch regulations. When a coach can't even buy a player dinner on a road trip, or a plane ticket to go see his sick mom without facing the crack of the NCAA's mighty whip, something's wrong with that picture. But I digress.

If Erickson violated university policy by failing to bring the decree to the entire board before signing it, that's not the NCAA's problem; it's an internal issue. Erickson did consult with board chairwoman Karen Peetz and the university's legal counsel about the decree before signing it, but didn't bring it up to the entire board.

While it's true the NCAA did not follow its usual protocol of conducting its own investigation before handing down punishment, it was determined the Freeh Report contained sufficient enough evidence to make a decision. Plus, an additional investigation would probably take several months or longer, time the NCAA apparently felt it didn't have given the severity of the situation.

The school's contention that the Freeh Report was flawed in its findings is puzzling. The investigation for the report was backed by the university, and they signed off on its findings. Deciding after the fact it wasn't sufficient makes them look rather foolish. Can you say "sour grapes?"

The trustees' claim the NCAA's punishment was excessive and damaging to innocent players and coaches may be their strongest case, but even that is questionable. The vacating of wins from the books is something I have never endorsed. Once you play the game, you can't just magically rewind the clock and erase the experience. Try telling quarterbacks they didn't really throw those touchdowns, running backs or receivers they didn't score, or the defensive players they didn't actually sack or intercept all those quarterbacks. Good luck convincing players who injured hamstrings or tore knee ligaments they didn't really injure themselves (although I'm sure they wish it were true).

It's hard to argue the point the sanctions will affect players and coaches, past and present, who had nothing to do with what Jerry Sandusky was up to. But, as I often told my kids when they were younger, sometimes the consequences of your behavior will affect others, and it can't always be undone. A number of totally innocent boys who didn't ask to be abused are now scarred forever because of Sandusky's actions and Penn State's leaders looking the other way. Now their latest decision to keep up the fight against the punishment given them with possible lawsuits will only further damage their image. The only winners will be the attorneys raking in handsome fees if that happens.

Posted by Stephen Kerr at 12:19 PM | Comments (3)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 22

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson finished third at Watkins Glen, posting his Sprint Cup series-best 11th top-five result. Johnson jumped three spots to the top of the points standings, and leads Greg Biffle by one.

"Wow! What a finish!" Johnson said. "That's what NASCAR racing is all about. Too bad it only happens once or twice a year.

"But I'm tickled by any race that ends with me on top in the points standings. Now, is Marcos Ambrose a threat to win the Sprint Cup? No way, and the thought of such is pure 'Tasmanian drivel.'"

2. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt spun with seven laps to go, losing a likely top-10 finish and crossing the line 28th. He tumbled out of the Sprint Cup points lead, and is now fourth, 17 out of first.

"After two weeks atop the Sprint Cup point standings," Earnhardt said, "who didn't expect a tailspin.

"The track was a mess. It was as 'well-oiled' as the Junior Nation campground."

3. Brad Keselowski — Keselowski led with one lap to go in the Finger Lakes 355 at the Glen, but was passed by Marcos Ambrose near the finish in a wild final lap. Keselowski was denied his fourth win of the year, but moved up two places to fifth in the points standings, 44 out of first.

"I was so close to getting away with the win," Keselowski said, "but much like Roger Penske's other kids, I got 'caught.' If Roger's boys would have been as slippery as the Watkins Glen track, they'd never have been caught.

"As it is, Roger may have to pull another A.J. Allmendinger and disown them."

4. Greg Biffle — Biffle took sixth at Watkins Glen, as Roush Fenway Racing placed three cars in the top 14. Biffle moved up one spot to second in the point standings, and trails Jimmie Johnson by a single point.

"I did what I needed to do at The Glen," Biffle said. "Finish in the top 10 and steer clear of Boris Said. He finished 25th, which was nowhere near me. So, the answer to what Boris Said and Boris did is 'nothing.'"

5. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth finished a solid eight at Watkins Glen, earning his 14th top-10 of the year. He is now third in the point standings, trailing Greg Biffle by one and points-leader Jimmie Johnson by two.

"I am soooo close," Kenseth said, "…to announcing the details of my deal with Joe Gibbs Racing. Hopefully, my last races with Roush Fenway Racing will see me contending for the Cup championship. I definitely want to have a 'going away presence.'"

6. Tony Stewart — Stewart was running second when he spun in the final turn with 16 laps remaining. With extensive rear-end damage to the No. 14 Office Depot/Mobil Chevy, he had to settle for 19th at The Glen.

"I was going for 'broke,'" Stewart said. "Unfortunately, I succeeded. It's not often I can say 'I lost it' and it not have anything to do with Kurt Busch."

7. Kasey Kahne — Kahne remained in the hunt for a Chase position with a respectable 13th-place finish at Watkins Glen. He is 11th in the Sprint Cup point standings, and currently holds the first wildcard spot for the Chase.

"I've never been to the Nantucket Yacht Club," Kahne said, "but I'm confident I'll fare better 'in the Chase' than Roger Penske's boys."

8. Martin Truex, Jr. — Truex posted his 12th top-10 finish of the year with a 10th in the Finger Lakes 355 at the Glen. He is now sixth in the point standings, but with no wins on the year, would likely start at the bottom of the Chase For the Cup field.

"You never know," Truex said. "I could get hot and win the Sprint Cup championship. I would say I need to 'Get in the Zone,' but I'm contractually forbidden to do so."

9. Denny Hamlin — A disastrous weekend at Watkins Glen started with a crash in Friday practice and ended with a 34th-place finish on Sunday. Hamlin's No. 11 FedEx Toyota suffered a fiery end when his engine blew and ignited on lap 57. Hamlin fell two places to tenth in the point standings, 84 out of first.

"Kyle Busch and I were both victimized by our respective old nemeses," Hamlin said. "For Kyle, it was Brad Keselowski. For me, it was a Toyota engine. Kyle and I were both left 'fuming.'"

10. Marcos Ambrose — Ambrose nipped Brad Keselowski at the wire to win for the second year in a row at Watkins Glen. Ambrose and Keselowski dueled on a wild final half-lap on a track made treacherous by leaked oil from the car of Bobby Labonte.

"There's only one way to describe this," Ambrose said, "and that's 'Finger Lake-ing good!' I gave Keselowski the slip. This more than makes up for Sonoma two years ago when I stalled my engine and let a sure win get away. There was only one way to describe that: 'Sonoma, bitch!'

"I think it's safe to say that I'm Tasmania's most famous citizen who's not a cartoon character."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:29 AM | Comments (0)

August 14, 2012

Thumbs Down For Olympic Coverage

I mentioned last week that I didn't get into the Summer Olympics as much as usual this year. Much of the reason, I'm afraid, was NBC's television coverage of the London Games. I think complaints about U.S. Olympic coverage peaked in the late '90s and early '00s, when it seemed like more time was devoted to athlete profiles than to the Games themselves. This was before the explosion of widely-available cable channels, so it's not like viewers unmoved by a heart-warming story of someone's dyslexic brother could switch to some obscure NBC affiliate on channel 8000 and watch handball or whatever.

The problem got so bad that even casual viewers, the ones who were supposed to love this stuff, joined the ranks of the dissatisfied. And since then, the coverage has mostly been pretty good — until this year. In no particular order, the biggest problems with NBC's coverage of the London Games:

Substandard coverage of popular events and excessive focus on U.S. athletes

The one thing NBC did a great job of was getting sports on the air. Even the more obscure Olympic events got a fair of amount of coverage on NBC's army of cable stations. That's great, and while it's a little weird to find judo on MSNBC, as a sports fan, I appreciate it. In fact, the coverage of less popular events was far better than the coverage of popular ones. That part is a problem.

While fringe sports received thorough coverage on NBC's cable affiliates, the primetime sports, the highlight of the Games, got massacred. Do you enjoy Olympic swimming? I hope you didn't want to see anyone who wasn't from the U.S. Sometimes, NBC failed to stay with the race after an American finished, cutting from the pool to show a close-up of the winner and leaving viewers uncertain who advanced from the heat or won the bronze medal. Do you live for gymnastics? I hope you didn't want to see any of the teams that finished outside the top four. How about beach volleyball? You didn't want to see any of the matches except those involving the U.S., did you?

Of course, nothing gets sliced and diced more than track and field. Well, mostly field. If you enjoy the throwing and jumping events, like javelin or high jump, the Olympics are probably really frustrating, because all you see is the top three or four, mostly in the later rounds, and maybe the top American if s/he isn't already near the top of the leaderboards. For NBC to take some of the most popular events in the Games, things like track and swimming and gymnastics, and show viewers only a fraction of the coverage, or miss the end of races and ignore medalists from other countries, is unconscionable.

I'm not opposed to focusing on U.S. medal hopefuls. That makes sense in a U.S. broadcast. But focusing on them to the exclusion of other competitors is unacceptable in an explicitly and uniquely international sporting competition. This is one of the very few opportunities most Americans have to see Kenyan runners, Chinese divers, Romanian gymnasts, and Russian swimmers. Speaking of which, when you're so focused on the Americans who won gold and bronze that you cannot be bothered to show, even for a second, the Russian who won silver, you're seriously screwing up the Olympics. Likewise when you're so psyched an American won gold that you cut away to a close-up and viewers don't get to see who won bronze. How can anyone in sports television be so deaf and disrespectful of the sport?

Highlight the local athletes, by all means. But don't ignore everyone else.

Strange priorities

If you have a good cable package, it probably didn't bother you that popular sports like soccer and tennis were on NBC Sports instead of the main station. But it was weird to see the women's gold medal soccer match on an obscure cable channel while the bronze medal match for water polo was on NBC. Tennis matches featuring big stars like Serena Williams and Roger Federer didn't get to primetime until the gold medal matches. Even basketball often got that treatment, though I found that more understandable, since some of the games were blowouts.

Maybe I just underestimate the popularity of sports like water polo, but for viewers without NBC Sports, or those who simply trust NBC to put the major events on its network channel, you may have missed some of the highlights of the London Games.

Television coverage not sorted by event

Whether browsing on your television or struggling through NBC's mess of a website, it was not easy to tell when your favorite events would be on. And if you wanted to record anything and watch it later, I hope you have a huge DVR, since most daytime coverage was in blocks of 6-12 hours. Heaven forbid they break it down into individual events, or even smaller blocks of mixed events.

Way too much switching between events

While daytime coverage was grouped into huge, unwieldy blocks, at least the event coverage was fairly consistent; they wouldn't split two sets of volleyball and show a soccer match in between. But in primetime, that's exactly what happened.

Watching the network's primetime coverage was a serious headache. Unless you really want to devote four hours every day to watching the Olympics, you have to pick and choose which events you're going to watch. For me, that's mostly tennis and the various races (swimming, track, etc.). For you, maybe it's gymnastics and volleyball, or basketball and water polo, or whatever. But if you have anything else at all to do with your life, you can't watch everything.

Unfortunately, NBC chose not to block together similar events. They'd show a swimming event — sometimes multiple heats for a prelim, but probably just the race and an awkward post-swim interview with Andrea Kremer if it's a final — then go to commercial and come back with gymnastics. After the next commercial, diving. Then back to swimming, then beach volleyball, then balance beam, and so on.

That means you're either (1) recording the events, praying you don't find out what happened, and going for your fast-forward button so often you get carpal tunnel syndrome, or (2) getting up every time there's a commercial and periodically wandering back in to see if something interesting is on. Either way, it's annoying. I guess the network's theory is that people who are mostly interested in one sport will stick around to watch the others if they don't show all the events at once. My theory is that they're pissing people off. Show all the swimming (or gymnastics, or track, or whatever) in one or two blocks, uninterrupted except by commercials, and it's a lot easier for viewers to build enthusiasm about the Games.

Too many commercials

Honestly, this is less about the volume of ads than the frequency. During the primetime broadcast, it seemed like they cut to commercial after every event. I'm willing to sit through a slightly longer break if it means getting to watch more than one event at a time. It's hard to build enthusiasm when everything keeps getting interrupted. The constant switching between sports didn't help, either.

Excessive focus on the big stars

Nothing in sports is more compelling than a great underdog. My favorite event from Beijing was the women's marathon, won by 38-year-old Constantina Dita. No one paid her any attention before the race, and even when she went ahead on a breakaway, everyone figured she'd never keep it up. The longer she held on, the more compelling it became, the oldest woman in the race going ahead and staying there, winning an event she had no business in.

In a two-hour race, you've got time to learn about an athlete who surprises you. But most events don't work out like that, and if the only person you've heard about underperforms, you can get sort of lost, unsure who that is in Lane 8 that might just win this thing. NBC got repeatedly burned by that in the first week of the Games, when Jordyn Wieber and Michael Phelps fell short of expectations in their early performances.

The Olympics are going to produce star athletes and great stories. That's the nature of sports, and of the Olympics in particular. The process doesn't need any help from television networks, and this year, NBC's coverage made it harder to find new heroes and unlikely stars, not easier or more enjoyable.

It would also be nice if the second-tier U.S. athletes, the ones who win bronze or finish out of the medals, weren't treated as sidecars to people like Missy Franklin and Allyson Felix. I'm not blaming Franklin or Felix, or any of the big stars. It's a poor reflection on no one but NBC that Kremer interviews their fellow Olympians and only wants to talk about the gold medal winners. Also, it would be great to let the athletes catch their breath before you shove a microphone in their faces.

Disrespect

What ties all these problems together is lack of respect. The people in charge of NBC's coverage clearly are not sports fans. They don't care about sports fans, and they don't respect the sports. This is ESPN's biggest problem, too: the networks believe, and I suppose they're probably right, that sports fans are going to watch regardless of how the broadcast is treated. It's the casual viewers they're after, the ones who don't really care about sports most of the time.

That's why we get the deep background on a great story like Missy Franklin or Gabby Douglas. That's why Bob Costas and Andrea Kremer constantly hyped the big stars like Ryan Lochte and Phelps. They assume you won't care about the events, but maybe they can get you to care about the people. I get that, but I don't understand how someone involved in sports broadcasting can be so blind to the appeal of sports. The stories pull you in, without any artificial enhancement. Plenty of medals have meant more because we know what the athletes went through to get there. Dan Jansen. Kerri Strug. But you don't always need a story.

Dita's marathon in 2008 was compelling just from one number: 38. Missy Franklin was a great story without hours of coverage devoted to her parents and classmates. In any sport, but especially in the Olympics, it's easy for viewers to connect to the athletes. Everyone understands a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, everyone understands being rewarded for years of hard work to become the best, everyone understands being honored to represent your country, to hear the anthem play and know it's because of you.

Everyone understands those things — except the people who make broadcast decisions for NBC. They need to radically rethink their approach before the 2014 Winter Games.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 9:03 PM | Comments (5)

Britain's Golden Boy

For years, Andy Murray has been labelled "the best player not to win a slam," and that hasn't changed. Some have simply branded him "unlucky," and, had he not lived in arguably the toughest era in tennis, he would have won several by now.

But Roger Federer has taken 17 slams since 2003, Rafael Nadal has taken 11, and Novak Djokovic has taken 5. What is worse is that Nadal and Djokovic are close to Murray's age, and won't be going away for some time. Federer, now 30, should have faded years ago, but is suddenly back to his best.

Murray was also hugely unlucky to have reached four grand slam finals, and to find both an experienced and an in-form Federer three times, and on the other occasion, he met Djokovic, in the best form of his life, right at the beginning of his almost unprecedented 44 match-winning streak.

But Rafael Nadal has been the real bane of Murray's career. Nadal and Murray have been in the same half of the draw in 20 out of the past 22 majors, which means Murray has consistently come up against the second best player of last decade, and joint best player of this decade, an incredible number of times. Murray has reached a career-high of world No. 2 before, and guess who was No. 1? If you guessed Nadal; good guess.

So the odds don't look good for Murray. The usual rule is: if you are going to win multiple slams, you should win your first before you are 21. Federer managed his first shortly after turning 21, and has run away with the lion's share of slams since. Rafa Nadal won his first at 19, and won one a year for three years before widening his horizons. Djokovic made the big step at 20 at the 2008 Australian Open, but it took him four long years to shift the tag "One Slam Wonder."

Murray, on the other hand, is now 25. He has been to four major finals, and in his first three, lost in straight sets. In those three, he was outplayed from start to finish, and never really brought his A-game.

That all changed at this year's Wimbledon. In his first Wimbledon final in front of a home crowd, he produced his best tennis and completely outplayed Federer in the first set, breaking twice, and taking the first set 7-5.

He maintained this excellent pace, kept his foot on the gas and again outplayed Federer for much of the second set, the Swiss barely hanging on to his serve and just keeping in touch. By no means was he going toe-to-toe with this newly fired-up and aggressive Murray — the Murray Brits had been crying out to see for years — Federer was clinging on for dear life.

But when it really mattered, Federer found a slice of luck as Murray served to stay in the second set at 6-5 to take it to 30-30, whereupon two truly incredible points from the Swiss gifted him the second set. Federer had done the impossible, and done what all great champions do. He won when he wasn't at his best, and even having been outplayed for two sets, he still managed to edge the second to even the playing field.

After the roof closed, Murray's chances of winning all but vanished. Federer, though a true all-courter, relishes playing indoors, and is one of the great indoor specialists. For the remaining two sets, Murray hung in there valiantly, but it was obvious Federer had the upper hand and was playing by far the better tennis now. The Fed-Express steamed onwards and took the next to sets to win in emphatic style, hardly putting a foot wrong.

In the post-match interviews, Murray, clearly crushed by yet another oh-so-close match that inevitably ended in his losing, was reduced to tears. He managed to remain gracious in defeat, and even brought a few chuckles from the crowd as he opened with, "Well, I'm getting closer."

One set in a grand slam final was indeed a lot better than he had previously managed, although people should not forget Murray had set point against Federer in the third set of the 2010 Australian Open, during the huge tie-break (which Federer won 13-11), as Murray put a routine forehand winner into the net. But nearly getting a set and actually closing one out are very different things. Murray now knew he could close out a set in a major final.

And that was all it took. Murray had been fortunate this time around at Wimbledon that his usual nemesis, Nadal, had been knocked out in the second round by the unseeded, unheralded Lukas Rosol, in an epic five-setter. How would Murray fare at the Olympics? Same surface, same venue. With no disrespect to Tsonga, Nadal would be a stiffer opponent.

But Nadal's injury woes meant he would not compete at the Olympics. The Spaniard chosen to bear his nation's flag would not be present in London for the Games. Good signs for Murray? No. On this occasion, he would be drawn in Djokovic's half of the draw. Great.

At the beginning of the year, I was asked if Djokovic's dominance would continue? Would he win a career Grand Slam with victory at the French Open? Would he win a calendar Grand Slam, winning all four majors in one calendar year? Or could he possibly defy all odds and become the first man to win a calendar Golden Slam, which involves winning all four majors,and Olympic gold, all in one year.

My answer to most of these questions was a simple "no." 2011 was his year, without a shadow of a doubt, and towards the end of the season, he had lost steam. Yes, it was possible he could win the French Open and complete a career grand slam; he is, after all, a superb clay-courter. But would he win all four in a year? No. Would he win Olympic gold as well? I doubted it.

At the time, I claimed Murray would have a good chance of winning at the Olympics because of home-crowd support and it being a best-of-three-sets event. At the time, I was speaking more out of hope than expectation. At the time, I was also downplaying the value of the Olympics. At the time, I was unaware that although matches were best-of-three up until the semis, the final would be played out in a best-of-five format — the same as a grand slam.

When the time came, it looked as though Murray would fight the good fight, but ultimately crumble against a better opponent. But Murray played well and produced his best ever tennis to see off a baffled Djokovic 7-5 7-5 in the semis, the Serbian overwhelmed by both the occasion and by the sheer ferocity of Murray's groundstrokes and the pin-point accuracy of his volleys.

The semifinals were surely the highlight of Murray's tournament. He surely couldn't overcome the player who delivered the last crushing defeat on the same court, in the same atmosphere, in the same best-of-five-set format, all that just three weeks previously.

But he did. And in what style! From 2-2 in the first set, Murray thrashed Federer to deal him one of the worst defeats of his career. Murray broke twice in both the first and second sets, running away with them, 6-2, 6-1. Federer got himself back into contention in the third, but was broken at 4-4 to leave Murray to serve out for the championship. The 25-year-old Scot served out and took home the Olympic gold medal.

Although the Olympics are worth fewer ranking points than a grand slam event, and the format is shorter — the Olympics only come around every four years — and therefore Olympic gold medals are something to be highly treasured. Murray gave this event the respect it deserved, and he treated it as though it were a grand slam. For his efforts, he received Olympic gold.

Where there has been doubt in his mind before, there is now only confidence. He has won on the big stage and has shown he can dismantle any of the top players with ease, should he play the right game. Britain has been crying out for years for Murray to demonstrate a champion's qualities, and he has finally delivered.

In his youth, Murray's blasé approach to interviews won him few friends among what should have been his home fans — they were still mourning the loss of the much loved "Tiger Tim" Henman — and his grumpy on-court demeanor and passive style of play has been picked at and scrutinized for years.

It has been a long, and at times very dark tunnel for Murray, but the Olympic torch and Olympic gold have provided a light at the end of the tunnel. The question is no longer, "Will Murray win a slam?", but "Which one?"

His valiant display at Wimbledon in July, followed by an emotional few words showed the often sullen Scot had a soft side. As he choked on his words, thanking the "amazing" crowd for the way they helped and not hindered him, he won the love of the British public at last. And now, to show such resilience to come back and win Olympic gold — well, he really has become Britain's golden boy.

Posted by Angus Saul at 6:56 PM | Comments (0)

August 13, 2012

What London 2012 Was Really About

The Medal Haul is surely what matters most to each country, in terms of how good this particular Olympics was, and this has been the case for many years. But something changes at every Olympics, however small or insignificant. In Beijing, it was the mark of China's rise to sporting dominance, coming out of nowhere to win more medals than any other country.

But that is not what is changing at the London Olympics. Britain's recent census showed there were around 61 million people living in Britain, paling in comparison to China's 1.34 billion. So, of course, in spite of "Home Games' Advantage," Team GB were never going to live up to the Games' previous hosts.

What is changing was displayed at the Opening Ceremony. If you, as I did, sat through the entirety of the Opening Ceremony, you would have seen the lighting of the Olympic Flame. You would also have noticed that it was not one, but six young athletes who lit the flame.

Some of the most prominent retired British athletes selected a young, rising star to pass along the baton to and to pass the flame. It signified something more than simply, "Here are young athletes, they will do well at these Games; it is time for us to hang up our boots." It was more than just the changing of the guard.

It is getting more Brits involved, and indeed more people all around the world, in one of the few truly international events. The medal tally might be low this time for some countries, but in four year's time, it will pick up — people are watching sports they have never seen before and are thinking, with time and effort, I could be in Rio in four years.

As it turned out, London 2012 produced Great Britain's best ever medal tally, including more gold medals, too. The second Saturday has already become known as Super Saturday in Britain, where there were three gold medals won on the track, and another three elsewhere — the most gold medals won in a single day by Britain in over a century.

But the important thing here is to capitalize on the success of these Olympics. After Australia's dominance in Sydney 2000, the Australian team has faded away. London must not let this happen. It is a tremendous privilege to host the Games, and the success that was borne in the East End will hopefully spark hopes and dreams in thousands of youngsters, each now hoping to compete in Rio 2016.

We have seen these Olympics and we have seen how sport progresses through time. This time around, the medals table ended China, USA, Britain, with Russia not far behind. In 2020, where the Games will be hosted by either Istanbul, Tokyo, or Madrid, who knows what the sporting world will look like. It will surely depend on how people respond to this year's Games.

In terms of passing along the baton and giving future generations the determination to succeed, what better example can there be than that of Michael Phelps and Missy Franklin? Phelps retired from swimming at London 2012 with 18 gold medals to his name and 22 overall, making him the most decorated Olympian of all-time.

Missy Franklin is the new breakout Olympian, at her first Games. Franklin shot out of the blocks with nothing to lose and won four gold medals and a bronze. And she's only 17. She's certainly got two more Games in her, and permitting she doesn't retire early to start a family, she could easily still be competing until 2024.

For American swimming, there can be no better advert than that of Phelps, Franklin, and Ryan Lochte (who has a medals total of 11). It will not be difficult to coax young Americans into swimming.

In much the same way, it will not be difficult to coax young Brits into cycling. For the second Games in a row, Team GB has won almost every event, and had it not been for a change in the rules, meaning only one competitor from each nation was allowed per event, they would have won almost every medal in the velodrome.

Sir Chris Hoy, who carried the flag during the opening ceremony, is now the most decorated British Olympian of all-time, with six gold medals and one silver. Bradley Wiggins is another cyclist who has captured the public's imagination, winning Olympic gold and becoming the first British man to win the Tour De France.

London 2012 was all about passing on the baton. We can only hope that the baton is passed with good grace, and that sport will benefit from such a marvelous event.

Posted by Angus Saul at 8:51 PM | Comments (0)

Centralized Power

Only three players in the National League rank in the top 10 of all three triple crown categories. All of them play in the National League Central. Only one division has three of the top five in wins and in saves — the National League Central.

No other division has a stronger top three, and no other division has a better run differential at the top, than the NL Central. According to ESPN, there's a better statistical chance of three teams from the Central making the playoffs than there is from any other division, and more of a chance of that occurring than of only two teams from the NL West playing October ball.

The Central is the best division in the NL without any doubt from a serious and unbiased observer, and to most statistical gurus (at least those that realize that teams usually end up close to their expected record stat) it may just be the best division in all of baseball.

It may not go over well on either coast, but the best baseball is being played in America's heartland. The Cincinnati Reds, Pittsburgh Pirates, and St. Louis Cardinals are all in the thick of the playoff race, and very few people who know anything about baseball would be surprised if all three teams made the playoffs this year.

If they do, it will be the first time that three teams from the same division have made the playoffs in the same year (although it's also the first year such a feat would be possible). This simply means that three of the top five teams in the league could likely play in the same division, which is even more impressive when considering that those elite records have been/will be amassed while playing a large number of games against two of the top five teams in the league.

Last year, the Central was the only NL division to put multiple teams in the playoffs, and the NLCS was an All-Central battle as well. So why is it that this division can't seem to shake the perception of weakness?

At first, it seems like a good question, especially when considering that almost every measurable statistic says exactly the opposite — that it has been the strongest division over the last two years. But after a while of mulling it over, an unsettling truth becomes all too clear: the Central is hated and despised not because of its overall talent pool and level of play, but only because of the ignorance of the most vocal baseball fans and experts.

I'm not blaming these fans, however, as much of the blame falls upon sports reporters and writers being lazy and unwilling to do proper research. It's simply easier to say "the Central is weak this year" than it is to say "the Central looks weak this year in some ways, but in almost every way that matters, they're an elite division." The second quote just wouldn't sell enough papers or get enough page views, would it?

So forget what you think you know about the National League Central. It is not weak, it is not average, it is an elite playing field that just might make playoff history in less than two months. If that isn't enough to excite baseball fans everywhere who are anticipating playoff ball, I don't know what would be.

Posted by Paul Foeller at 11:40 AM | Comments (0)

August 10, 2012

Foul Territory: Gold Medals, Family Jewels

* Ego Trip, or Westward, Ho' — The Lakers acquired Dwight Howard from the Magic in a four-team trade. Many in the NBA were surprised by the deal, but none more than Kobe Bryant, who swore he's never play with a former Magic center again.

* They're Playing For Medals, and Jewels, or London Balling, or Carmelo-Blow — Carmelo Anthony said the cheap shot in the groin by Argentina's Facundo Campazzo in the United States' 126-97 win on Monday was "uncalled for." For safety, players are expected to wear athletic supporters in what are sure to be physical contests, making this international competition less like the Olympics and more like a "World Cup."

* I Don't Believe What "Usain," or "Jamaica Fool of Yourself" — Tennessee Titans running back Chris Johnson said he could "probably" beat Olympic sprint king Usain Bolt in the 40-meter dash. If the race happened to take place, win or lose, Johnson would likely have his longest run of the year.

* He's "Lying" in Wait, or Bonds Can't Help But Be "Big-headed" About It — Barry Bonds said there's "not a doubt" that he belongs in the Baseball Hall of Fame in an interview with MLB.com. The interview was an unusual one for Bonds, in that it didn't take place under oath.

* Brown and Reserve — The Browns named rookie Brandon Weeden their starting quarterback, leaving incumbent Colt McCoy to battle for the backup role. It seems McCoy was a casualty of the "Weeden out" process.

* It's Just What the World Needs: Another Woman Telling a Man What He's Done Wrong, or Luckily For Her, Vertical Stripes Have a Slimming Effect — Shannon Eastin became the first female to officiate an NFL game when she served as line judge for Thursday's Packers/Chargers preseason game. Eastin made no major mistakes, something that differentiated her even more from her male counterparts.

* 12th Man, Meet 5th Wheel, or Qwest-ion Mark? — The Seattle Seahawks signed Terrell Owens to a one-year, $1 million contract on Monday, leading to much excitement among the Seahawks' faithful. Owens said he "appreciates the support," a sentiment that was echoed by his babies' mommas.

* They're Betting You'll Want to Watch, if This Show Fails, it May Be the Only "Bust" Pete Rose Gets — TLC will air a reality show starring baseball great and Hall of Fame pariah Pete Rose and his model fiancée Kiana Kim, who has posed for Playboy. While no one has yet to see Rose's, everyone's seen Kim's "bust."

* Let's Hope the Jets Show This Kind of Fight Come December, or He's Lost More Patience Than Weight — Rex Ryan stopped practiced and punished his team with wind sprints this week after players brawled for the second day in a row. It was likely the first time Ryan ever put a foot down.

* Totally Beachin' — Misty May-Treanor and Kerri Walsh Jennings beat fellow Americans Jennifer Kessy and April Ross on Wednesday to win the beach volleyball gold medal. The duo has now won gold in Athens, Beijing, and London, meaning they've got gold in places we can only dream about, as well as sand.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 7:21 PM | Comments (0)

August 9, 2012

Padre O'Malley

Pending the other owners' approval, which isn't likely to be withheld, Peter O'Malley is back in baseball. And in southern California, to boot. Only it may take a few people a little time to get used to thinking of an O'Malley owning the San Diego Padres.

All but forced to sell the Los Angeles Dodgers to News Corp., which sold the team in turn to Frank McCourt, O'Malley left the game with a reputation mostly as spotless as his father's had been controversial. The father had too refined, too embedded a taste for wheeling, dealing, and (some said) stealing; the son had too much taste for the quiet way. Walter O'Malley was once reputed to have beaten his front-office and farm system employees out of rightful earnings or rewards; Peter O'Malley remains famous for sending gallons of vanilla ice cream to his employees for every day the Dodgers occupied first place.

San Diego may be scratching their heads now and then, even as they're smiling at the rhetorical possibilities. But vanilla ice cream around the front offices probably beats a Big Mac (McDonald's founder Ray Kroc once owned the team, somewhat notoriously) any day of the week. No one will be likely to accuse O'Malley — as Hall of Fame reliever Goose Gossage, once a key on the Padres' first World Series entrant, said of the Krocs' signature product — of poisoning the world with his favorite treat.

The Padres now have this much in common with the Dodgers: Another sport's Hall of Famer, in this case golfer Phil Mickelson, will co-own them. O'Malley's group includes Mickelson, a lifelong Padres fan; and, Ron Fowler, a successful San Diego-area beer distributor. But the Padres also have now what the Dodgers haven't had since Bill Clinton's impeachment: an O'Malley hand on their tiller. And, for the same reason basketball Hall of Famer Magic Johnson now co-owns the Dodgers, Mickelson, O'Malley, and Fowler, will co-own the Padres: an owner (John Moores) forced to sell in or in the wake of a divorce settlement.

When McCourt finally agreed to let the Dodgers go, he'd gone from a reasonable if sometimes clumsy steward of the franchise's reputation. The Dodgers did have four first-place finishes in the National League West under his ownership, but he'd bought the team with debt, as heavily leveraged a buy as has ever been seen in baseball. Then he hiked ticket and concession prices constantly to help offset the purchase, while simultaneously trimming Dodger Stadium security.

Baseball government and the IRS came in due course to believe McCourt, too, was siphoning Dodger money to finance a lifestyle thought to be extravagant even by the common standards of the giga-rich. When his contentious divorce was settled at last, his now-former wife, surrendering her claim to half the Dodgers' ownership, got six of the couple's eight homes, leaving McCourt with a measly two.

O'Malley first put a group together to buy the Dodgers back in 2011. God only knew enough Dodger fans were so disgusted by McCourt that they hectored him to find a way to wrest the team back every time they ran into him. But he'd been compelled to sell in the first place, in 1998, because a) he couldn't convince Los Angeles's city fathers to let him build a new NFL facility on Dodger-owned land, depriving him of a revenue source that might have enabled his family to keep the Dodgers; and, b) absent that, he'd have faced a profound tax beating had he merely passed the Dodgers to his and his sister's children, as he also thought of doing.

Those children now are likely to handle the Padres' day-to-day operations. The Padres are a franchise in need enough of revival. Don't think for a minute that their father/uncle won't take a hand enough in guiding them. If anyone can tell you the best and the worst about running a baseball team, Peter O'Malley can.

This isn't the first time the Padres have managed to land a formidable former Dodger presence. Indeed, they were born with one. Legendary Dodgers general manager Buzzie Bavasi left the Dodgers at the end of 1968 to take the same job with the embryonic, expansion Padres. By the time the team showed its first signs of serious life in 1975, Bavasi took a hike when he fell into disfavour with the Krocs, who bought the team that year. Bavasi wasn't wild about their intention to hire Alvin Dark (which they would, eventually, in 1977) as the team's manager.

And the Padres reaped a benefit, on the field and in the press, when they outbid the Dodgers, after the 1982 season, for then-iconic, free-agent first baseman Steve Garvey, who'd help push them into their first World Series after years of doing likewise for the Dodgers. Garvey also just so happened to tie the National League record for consecutive games played in Dodger Stadium — in a Padres uniform, in his first return to the park where he'd excelled for so many years.

The Padres got Garvey in the first place because a) Garvey wanted to negotiate a new deal in spring 1982 but the Dodgers then didn't like negotiating with players until their contracts actually expired; and, b) O'Malley, who wanted to keep Garvey in the worst way possible, was willing to pay him $5 million over four years but Garvey wouldn't budge on a five-year deal, and O'Malley continued, stubbornly, to follow what was then a Dodger policy of not competing in the open market for one of their own.

Which symbolized that even O'Malley could be only human, after all. Not that he hadn't shown it before. Seven years before spurning Garvey's bid to open new contract talks a little early, then-GM Al Campanis got too personal in talking contract with Andy Messersmith. It moved the usually easygoing right-hander to refuse to talk to any Dodger official lower than O'Malley. To that, O'Malley was more than agreeable. Where he disagreed was with Messersmith's key demand: a no-trade clause. It wasn't the Dodger way of doing things until then, and O'Malley saw no reason to try it in 1975, either.

O'Malley may have been the essence of sincerity when he said he had no intention of trading his best pitcher. But Campanis had put enough iron into Messersmith's spine that the pitcher would work the entire 1975 season without signing a contract. O'Malley tried sweetening the pot as Messersmith pitched on, offering three-year deals that escalated with each offer, as in $200,000+ annual salaries. Messersmith stood fast and, after another sterling season, took his reserve clause challenge to an arbitrator ... and won his and all players' free agency, finishing what Curt Flood started a few years earlier.

In time, it wouldn't be stubborn clinging to tradition but a revenue shortfall he couldn't redress, that pushed him to sell the Dodgers. Los Angeles's even more foolishly tradition-bound politicians obstructed his more sensible stadium plan by their absolute insistence — to which they still cling, probably — that the antique, threadbare Los Angeles Coliseum should be the sole legitimate option for any NFL franchise coming to Los Angeles. Without the revenues a new NFL stadium would have brought, O'Malley was forced to surrender the baseball franchise that was in his blood.

Dodger fans who once begged O'Malley to find a way, any way to get the Dodgers out of McCourt's hands, must now be scratching their heads a little, thinking of an O'Malley owning any other team, never mind a downstate National League West competitor. Indeed, the primary reason O'Malley didn't take the Dodgers off McCourt's stained enough hands was that the price kept rising high enough and fast enough to go beyond the O'Malley family reach.

He and his group landed the Padres for $800 million. If you wanted clues that O'Malley's group was going to be the likely winner for the team, be advised, as the North County Times says, that certain things would not have been done if O'Malley had objected, specifically the contract extensions for outfielder Carlos Quentin and closer Huston Street, both of whom were rumored to be on the non-waiver trading block.

All the Padres have to do now is hope the golfer, the beer seller, and the O'Malleys can find the way to give the scuffling Padres one more thing in common with the Dodgers: even one World Series ring. Never mind six.

Posted by Jeff Kallman at 4:10 PM | Comments (0)

New CBA the End of Mega-Term Deals

The negotiations between the NHL and NHLPA have been cordial and plentiful, which is a good sign. However, we haven't really gotten down to the meaty issues yet — in CBA terms, that's usually protecting the owners from themselves. And one of the key sticking points will be capping off a contract's term. This comes not a moment too soon, as the number of mega-deals has risen at an alarming rate. In many ways, it's become one of the few ways teams can actually outbid each other for a player's services. But, just like spending too much money, offering too much term is a huge risk that makes little sense in the long-term.

Over the past few years, we've seen the highest player salaries top off on a cap hit around $8-$9 million, even though they could theoretically blow past that. Top players continue to get their money, but the term is now the key negotiating factor. It's sure to be one of the things removed when the next CBA is resolved, and while we don't know how they'll be affected (my guess is that all existing contract terms stay the same but we won't see these in the future), I'm guessing that the owners will be thankful that they're eliminated.

Of course, they'll find another way to get into a ridiculous bidding war with each other. But in the meantime, let's take a hard look at what they're probably saving themselves from. Rick Dipietro's contract was the laughing stock of the league when it was signed, but between 2006 and early 2008, Dipietro played well enough to put up solid numbers and an all-star selection. Injuries derailed his career, but had he stayed healthy, the Islanders would have had a $4.5 million cap hit for their starting goalie. These days, second-line centers make more than that.

The risk/reward situation was simple: if the player stays healthy and plays reasonably to expectations, it's a bargain. If they get hurt or if their game goes south, then it's a disaster. It's a high-wire act, and Dipietro represents a cautionary tale. Yet some teams can't seem to stop themselves from jumping in on this.

While the Minnesota Wild made a huge splash in the publicity department by signing Ryan Suter and Zach Parise, one has to wonder about the long-term logic of these deals. It'd be different if each player was in his early 20s, but both are entering the prime of their career. That means that their performance value will probably be high for the next 2-4 years before they begin to follow the typical player model of regressing with age. There's no guarantee to that — players like Ray Bourque and NIcklas Lidstrom showed us that a special few consistently defied age — but that is a significant amount of cap space taken up for a value that will probably only deliver for the first third of the contract term.

Outside of player regression, there's always the issue of catastrophic injury — one that forever changes the way a player performs. If these types of contracts were the norm back in the mid-'90s, don't you think the Philadelphia Flyers would have offered one to Eric Lindros? And yet, just a few years and a few concussions later, the Flyers and Lindros would have had an even uglier situation to deal with in their messy divorce. You can't predict these things, yet some teams continue to feel the need to think bigger and shoot higher than their peers.

These days, fans may appreciate the publicity and sports-talk fodder that these types of deals create. But it doesn't take long for the sheen to wear off and things to go sour — look at the Washington Capitals, where even captain Alex Ovechkin's long-term deal became the subject of some grumbling during his sub-par performance last year. The new CBA will most likely cap things (I'm guessing 7-8 years, which is still a long time when you think about it).

That will take some of the bidding-war excitement out of things, but fear not, fans. There's always a way for teams to come up with creative CBA circumvention … and there's always a way for other teams to take that loophole to new, ridiculous heights.

Posted by Mike Chen at 2:39 PM | Comments (0)

August 8, 2012

Shocker: Unsportsmanslike Conduct at Olympics

The entire world is watching, and given the attention that the global media has recently dedicated to unethical behavior of certain Olympic athletes, sports fans could mistake it for a newly introduced Olympic sport of its own during these 2012 London Summer Games.

Who would have ever thought that so many would ever choose to care about a women's badminton tourney, which apparently is the new tipping point or benchmark for unethical behavior? And for an international organization, aka the International Olympic Committee (IOC), with a past littered with scandal and corruption well before most of us can remember, it is a tad ironic.

Who would have ever thought that it would take a women's soccer team, most notably the team who actually won the 2011 Women's Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) Soccer World Cup, who now are more notorious for unethical behavior than that very championship?

To wit, four women's badminton doubles teams were accused of match-fixing during the first week of these Games; not playing all-out in order for them to get better seedings in the tournament, prior to the medal elimination rounds. The teams involved were the Chinese world doubles champion team, two South Korean doubles teams, and an Indonesian doubles team.

In the case of the soccer team, it was ironically the team from Japan, arguably the chief rival of the United States women's soccer team, who defeated the U.S. via a penalty kick after overtime in the 2011 World Cup final match, which was derided by the media.

But here is where it gets interesting: the badminton teams were immediately suspended from the Games and sent home packing — much to the most likely chagrin of those in the legal sports betting parlors of London, where betting on anything is fair game and an Olympic sport unto itself.

For the first time during these Games, qualifying rounds were introduced in badminton, rather than the all-elimination format used in the past. That opened up the door for match fudging. However, had it not been so blatant, perhaps it would not have been so scandalous.

And with regard to the Japanese soccer team, its coach fully admitted that he directed his team to deliberately not score at all in their match against South Africa. The final score remained 0-0.

Not only did it impact their seeding, as they assumed home field advantage in the next round against Brazil, but they did not have to travel some 400 miles to Glasgow, Scotland, to play either the U.S. or France, sequestered in Scotland, away from the games since before the official opening of the of these 2012. And their location even forced the U.S. soccer team to not participate in the Opening Ceremonies.

Therefore, Japan got to stay in Cardiff, Wales, just 124 miles from London, to begin their quarter-final match. And why the women's soccer games are taking place in two foreign countries outside of England is a question for the London Olympic Games Organizing Committee (LOGOC), which perhaps the esteemed media has not gotten around to doing.

And since the locale of the Japan women's team is key to their match-fixing, it is a good question to ask. Should the teams competing have an unfair advantage by virtue of the actual field on which they compete?

But, unlike how the badminton teams were treated, Japan's coach and team — if they are at all penalized — it will be following the Olympics and it will be up to FIFA, should it decide to get involved. Why the IOC should renounce its jurisdiction over Olympic medal winners to FIFA makes it even more egregious.

Ironically, as it turns out, the U.S. will face Japan in the Gold Medal match on August 9th, where both will finally compete in England in the city of London at Wembley Stadium.

Now, before your brain goes into vapor-lock in thinking that this is just another women's sports article that you certainly have no use for, there is a big picture point to be made, both historically and going forward. And that is the duplicitous manner of how punishment was rendered to the teams in these women's tournaments, which is steeped in hypocrisy.

There is plenty of blame to go around, as to the inner workings and seemingly overwhelming pieces that have to come together just right in order to coordinate any Winter or Summer Olympic Games. But the Olympics are no stranger to corruption and should itself have been considered a sport unto itself by now.

From the bidding process for city locales, to the broadcasting rights and fees, to the sponsorships and now even the ticketing process, the Olympics mimic corrupt governments worldwide, which send their athletes to "participate" in order to bring glory home. And corruption does not discriminate; from the West to the East to the most impoverished nations, both north and south.

Many in the U.S. media no longer expect much from prima donna professional athletes and their sometimes horrible behavior, yet these same folks are all aghast at the female badminton and soccer teams and their unbecoming behavior.

And many such media types in the past have written that "we expect more of female athletes than male athletes," which not only presents the old double-standard, but an unchallenged type of sexism. But pretending to care about badminton and women's international soccer, where soccer, even in the U.S., gets little gravitas except for maybe every four years, is a joke.

The real story here could be the moral decay of government, the media and yes, the Olympics as an organization. And that athletes who supposedly "cheat" are a symptom of such sacrilege. And given the many number of issues needing a fix in the Olympics' oligarchy, it sadly cannot all be covered in just one report.

But to not provide a couple of such issues that have impacted not only those who are sports fans, but sports consumers, and also to the good people of London, would be a disservice.

Firstly, shopkeepers and small business owners, both proximate to Olympic venues and even those on its outskirts, were courted by both the IOC and the LOGOC that the Games would be a boon for business and the London and Great Britain economies.

Yet, as the Games approached, even a butcher who rolled sausages into the symbolic five Olympic rings and who then displayed them in his butcher shop window was told to take down his pork, as it violated said pork of the Olympic sponsors and their agreements with the IOC.

No reference to "2012", "London Olympics," or "gold rings" was to be allowed or tolerated in shop windows, or fines would ensue. And such word went out to the London and suburban business districts just two weeks prior to the Games of these rules.

In so far as ticketing and the fiasco it became, again, corporate sponsorships played a role. The dearth of seats being filled, even at major event venues, had the hands of corporate-give-away all over them.

The folks of London also were sold on the fact that the Olympics this time would be affordable, accessible, and available to its residents and a "fans in front" policy would be a key component to getting a thumbs-up from Londoners.

What rather happened was the LOGOC that insisted that events were sold out were reserved for international federations, IOC officials, sponsors, the media, participating and notable prior Olympians, amongst other elite groups, who were no-shows.

The LOGOC promises a "full review" of its ticketing policy, following the Games. Little good now, unless future Olympic committees are serious about a "fans in front" policy, rather than providing mere lip service.

And lastly, we have NBC, which we should all feel sorry for, as it laid out $1.8 billion to broadcast these Games on multi-level broadcast outlets and platforms.

But the word "live" was given new meaning by NBC suits. There were few real "live" events on either broadcast television or online streaming, as promised prior to and even during the airing of these Games. All marquee events, such as swimming, gymnastics ,or track and field, including preliminary heats for such, were completely unavailable "live" online on the day these events took place, and were to be broadcast on television in prime time that day via tape delay.

They were rather chopped up and served on a platter with the pretense that they were actually aired "live." Yet the media and television and radio broadcasters were never shy about revealing results hours prior to the visuals being able to be viewed.

So what, you say? How about cooling the unethical behavior by NBC? If they are not going to provide "live" availability for events, they should not pull a bait-and-switch on consumers.

And to try to wrap this up, the next time the media tries to distract its audience by encouraging it to get fired up about an athlete or team trying to gain an edge, remember the big picture.

A misinformed public is an ignorant one. And that is a far more a scarier proposition than a stray birdie in a game of badminton.

Posted by Diane M. Grassi at 1:46 PM | Comments (0)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 21

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson led heading to a lap 91 restart, but got loose upon accelerating and slid into the path of Matt Kenseth. Denny Hamlin slammed into Kenseth while Jeff Gordon took the lead. Ran ended the race two laps later, and Johnson was left with a disappointing 14th-place finish.

"I'll be thinking about this one for awhile," Johnson said. "Call it a 'Long Pond-er.'

"It was a mistake on my part. We knew the rain was coming; I just lost control when it counted. Obviously, I don't work as well under clouds of suspicion as Chad Knaus."

2. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt was strong early at Pocono, leading 17 laps before transmission problems surfaced on lap 50. He eventually finished 32nd, 18 laps down to the leaders, but remained atop the Sprint Cup point standings, five ahead of Matt Kenseth.

"I'm still on top of the points," Earnhardt said, "thanks to a lengthy downpour. Ironically, the absence of a short-lived rain prevented a short-lived reign.

"In the business, we call a transmission a 'tranny.' We call a funny-sounding tranny 'Michael Waltrip.' And the No. 88 sounded a lot like Michael on Sunday."

3. Tony Stewart — Stewart posted his ninth top-five finish of the year with a fifth in the rain-shortened Pennsylvania 400. He is sixth in the points standings, 53 out of first.

"I can't complain," Stewart said. "I'll take this result and run with it, which is the only 'running' I plan to do. It's certainly not the first time I've said this, but I'll take what Mother Nature gave me."

4. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth saw a top-five result evaporate when he was clipped by Jimmie Johnson on a lap 91 restart. Kenseth's spinning No. 17 Zest car was nailed by Denny Hamlin in the aftermath. Rain ended the race early two laps later, and Kenseth finished 23rd.

"I joined an exclusive club," Kenseth said. "Now, much like Jimmie Johnson's wife, I can say I've been 'taken out' by a five-time champion."

5. Brad Keselowski — Keselowki finished fourth at Pocono, recording his ninth top-5 finish of the year. He moved up two places to seventh in the point standings, and trails Dale Earnhardt, Jr. by 54.

"The No. 2 Miller Lite car was fast," Keselowski said. "By the way, how is A.J. Allmendinger like Miller Lite? He's 'canned.'"

6. Greg Biffle — Biffle came home 15th in the rain-shortened Pennsylvania 400 at Pocono, seeing a top-five finish disappear due to Jimmie Johnson's late spin. He remained third in the Sprint Cup point standings where he trails Dale Earnhardt, Jr. by 6.

"I don't agree with NASCAR's scoring after Johnson's crash," Biffle said. "You could say that, like A.J. Allmendinger, I'm 'super-pissed."

7. Denny Hamlin — With rain approaching, Hamlin was victimized by the wreckage caused by a mad scramble on a lap 91 restart. Hamlin's No. 11 FedEx car plowed in to Matt Kenseth, who was spun by Jimmie Johnson. A thunderstorm minutes later officially ended the race, and Hamlin limped away with a 29th.

"Kenseth has been reluctant to announce his move to Joe Gibbs Racing," Hamlin said, "so I decided to put out the unofficial 'Welcome, Matt' for him.

"As you may have heard, I'm expecting my first child with my girlfriend. I'm excited, and so is FedEx, because it's a great opportunity for a 'delivery' promo."

8. Jeff Gordon — Gordon finally took his first win of the year, thanks to chaos on a late restart and a timely thunderstorm that ended the Pennsylvania 400 after just 98 of 160 laps. Gordon weaved his way to the lead when Jimmie Johnson spun on the lap 91 restart, which shuffled the front-runners.

"I'll take any good fortune that comes my way," Gordon said. "Take it from me, it's better to be smiled upon by Lady Luck than Miss Winston. And if 'Luck' runs out, it will cost me much less."

9. Kasey Kahne — Kahne took the runner-up spot to Hendrick teammate Jeff Gordon at Pocono, finding fortune in Sunday's rain shortened race. Kahne sits 11th in the point standings, and would currently qualify for the Chase For the Cup as a wild card.

"I'm not sure what happened to Jimmie Johnson up front," Kahne said. "I've heard he had a flat tire. Or did he? Either way, the 'pressure' got to him."

10. Clint Bowyer — Bowyer finished eighth at Pocono, earning his tenth top-10 finish of the year. He is currently 10th in the Sprint Cup point standings, 65 out of first and 77 ahead of Kasey Kahne in 11th.

"Kevin Harvick and I sit ninth and 10th in the point standings," Bowyer said, "which places us in very tenuous positions for the Chase. It's possible RCR won't have a representative in the Chase, which is not very representative of RCR."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:16 AM | Comments (0)

August 7, 2012

Olympics: Gymnastics is Not a Sport

I really like the Summer Olympics. Most of the winter sports, I can take or leave, but I love the Summer Games. Actually, I'm not getting into the Olympics as much as usual this year (I blame NBC's horrendous coverage), but the events are much more to my liking, with popular sports like basketball, soccer, and tennis, plus a huge number of races.

In the Winter Games, most of the races feature competitors going one at a time and striving to beat the clock, which doesn't do much for me. But every four years, we're treated to cycling, swimming, track and field, marathon, rowing — competitors directly racing one another, first one over the finish line wins. It's such a pure form of sport, and I love it. I've also enjoyed portions of the Olympic gymnastics programs, but they're almost as frustrating as they are entertaining.

The problem is that gymnastics is not a sport.

Let's start here: gymnastics requires enormous skill and raw physical ability, and I do believe that gymnasts are athletes. But in my mind, any sport must fulfill two essential conditions:

1. Athleticism
2. A clear winner

Games like poker and chess satisfy the second condition, but not the first. They aren't sports because they don't require anything athletic. A computer can play those games at a high level. I mean, if poker is a sport, Monopoly is a sport, and the day they put Monopoly in the Olympics (Summer Games or Winter?), I'm going to jump off a bridge.

Activities like gymnastics and synchronized swimming satisfy the first condition, but not the second. They're athletic, sure, but the competition is totally artificial. You take something beautiful and try to quantify or rank it. It's like judging yoga, or grading painters. How do you give Van Gogh a 9.6 and Monet a 9.4?

The primary virtue of these "sports" is aesthetic, and the competitive aspect is problematic. In 2003, I wrote a half-joking piece I called "A Sports Manifesto", including a paragraph in which I decried the idea that ballroom dancing could be a sport. But reading the paragraph now, I could have been writing about gymnastics:

"Ballroom dancing is a demanding physical activity that requires an enormous amount of talent and practice. But it isn't a sport, either. The competition is forced. In football, baseball, basketball, hockey, and soccer, anyone watching knows who won. Races — sprints, marathons, you name it — have a clear winner. If you need judges from seven countries to vote on who won, your activity is not a sport."

All sports have a clear winner. In sports like basketball and soccer, whoever scores the most points wins, and barring the occasional argument about officiating, the winner is clear. In races, whoever finishes first wins, and with the aid of modern technology, that too is clear. The Summer Olympics feature events like weight-lifting and pole vaulting. Whoever lifts the most weight or vaults the highest wins such competitions. Those are sports (though pole vaulting is a little weird). Those are actual competitions.

Judging in gymnastics — and I use that an example because it's the most popular of the non-sports in the Olympics — is subjective. It's happened less often in London than in Beijing four years ago, but NBC viewers have repeatedly heard puzzled gymnastics announcers predict high scores for Americans who scored low, and low scores for foreign athletes who scored high. And for most of us it's impossible to tell whether the announcers are biased, or the scoring uneven.

Gymnastics performances can be enjoyed by anyone, appreciated for their beauty or for the sheer physical talent necessary to perform certain routines. But a layperson — which is most of us — can't usually tell the difference between one routine and another, noticing only the most obvious errors, things like a step on the landing or a fall. Important distinctions between 1½ rotations or a full two are lost on most viewers.

In my mind, the biggest problem with modern gymnastics (besides 16-year-olds who look like third graders and dress in form-fitting outfits) is that people have tried to make it a sport. Watch old gymnastic routines, and many of them are stunning. They're beautiful and impressive and artistic and precise, and altogether fun to watch; Nadia Comaneci never gets old. Contemporary gymnastics is all about the degree of difficulty, meeting the weird grading system, and other than the brief tumbling runs in a floor routine, I generally don't find it very entertaining. Certainly I don't find most of it beautiful or artistic any more.

I get why they've moved away from subjectively scoring artistry, and I applaud that. But instead they're subjectively scoring other elements of the program. It's still wildly controversial, and the judges are still largely unaccountable, but now all the passion has been sucked out. It's about doing the most difficult maneuver, not putting together a routine that's inspiring or fun to watch.

I don't know how much scoring has changed in the last four years, but I remember the women's vault final in Beijing, featuring U.S. gymnast Alicia Sacramone. Following Sacramone was Cheng Fei of China, whose second vault ended in apparent disaster: she landed on her knees. Despite what looked to me like a game-ender, Cheng's second vault received about the same score as Sacramone's. With the disclaimer that I have no background in high-level gymnastics, it looked to me like the Chinese gymnast simply did not complete her vault — that the second one was a complete failure, or close to it. But evidently it was such a difficult vault (a high "start value") that completing it was not necessary in order to get a good score.

You know, I've met a lot of people who could fail to complete a 7.3 difficulty vault. That doesn't seem to merit a bronze medal. There's a great reward for high-difficulty routines, but in Beijing there appeared to be no risk. Mess up a 6.5 and you'll probably beat someone who nails a 5.5. Falling scored less than a one-point deduction. Sacramone's vault looked good; Cheng Fei's looked like a train wreck, but it earned the higher score. That's a soulless way to score an event, and I think it's a mistake for gymnastics. We can't prioritize ambition and difficulty over aesthetics and success, and we shouldn't try to judge artistry objectively.

Ultimately, the reason gymnastics is not a sport is that it cannot be scored objectively. From tennis to long jump to 100-meter backstroke, there's an objective winner, and those are sports. Gymnastics is subjective, and in the eye of the beholder, there's a lot of room for both conscious and unconscious bias. It's also very difficult to hold a judge accountable for a bad score, which means that an appearance of corruption can easily be present even if no actual corruption is.

This doesn't just apply to gymnastics: it's true for any "sport" where the winners are determined primarily or solely by judges: diving (especially pairs diving), synchronized swimming, ice skating, etc. Actually, in the Winter Games, I prefer ice dancing to ice skating. The latter features difficult jumps, and routines are scored mostly on difficulty, but at real speed I can't tell the difference between a double axel and a triple. Ice dancing is pretty; it's fun to watch. And if people want to score it and choose winners, that's okay, too. But you can't tell me ice dancing is a sport. Sports have a clear winner: who finished first, who scored the most points, who went highest or farthest or fastest. That's what makes them sports, what separates the event from practice: there's a clear and fairly determined winner.

Gymnasts are athletes. I'm not trying to take anything away from the competitors or their immense physical abilities. I will add, though, an important complementary reason that gymnastics cannot be a sport: the best performers in the world are 12. Normally, humans reach their athletic peaks some time between the ages of 18 and 30. If hitting puberty can end your career, you are not playing a sport.

I am not suggesting that gymnastics should be removed from the Olympics, which are billed as "Games" rather than sports. But it would be nice if the results were a little more intuitive, and it would be great if we could enjoy activities like gymnastics and ice skating and even cooking ("Allez Cuisine!") without trying to make them more like boxing. And it's a shame, I think, that synchronized swimming has a spot in the Olympics and softball does not. Two essential conditions must be fulfilled by any sport:

1. Athleticism
2. A clear winner

I still believe what I wrote almost a decade ago: "If you need judges from seven countries to vote on who won, your activity is not a sport."

Posted by Brad Oremland at 1:01 PM | Comments (20)

August 6, 2012

MLB Predictions: August Until the End

With the MLB season approaching its final third, it's time to predict what will occur between now and the beginning of the postseason.

American League East

New York Yankees (99-63)

Even with Alex Rodriguez injured and Mark Teixeira's potential wrist issue, this team's offense is built to dominate the regular season. Add to the mix that their starting pitching is one of the more formidable rotations in the American League (CC Sabathia/Hiroki Kuroda/Ivan Nova) in a short series is no walk in the park), and I see the Yanks pulling into the postseason as the top team in the AL East.

What could go wrong?

Injuries. If Sabathia and Teixeira cannot recover, then Alex Rodriguez's absence will be more of an issue. If they heal, problems solved.

American League Central

Detroit Tigers (94-68)

Prince Fielder has lived up to expectations. Austin Jackson has arrived. Miguel Cabrera is Miguel Cabrera. This team's offense is coming around and I feel like it's only a matter of time before the Chicago White Sox bend a little bit. Justin Verlander hasn't been himself all season — which is saying something because he's the all-star starter. This just goes to show how great he is. Once he gets hot again, it will be contagious and the rest of the staff will follow suit. The Tigers will win a close one.

What could go wrong?

Starting pitching. My confidence in Verlander is unwavering; however, my prediction that his success will beget success for those around him comes with its reservations. Will Max Scherzer, Rick Porcello, and Doug Fister truly step up their game to another level? I think so. But I'm not sure.

American League West

Texas Rangers (94-68)

I might be selling Texas short on the win total here, but I'm still confident they will win the division yet again. Their offense is too good to bet against; however, I see some holes in their makeup. First, let's focus on the good: they're going to score enough runs to protect even mediocre pitching performances (case in point: Ryan Dempster's first outing with the club). Secondly, their bullpen is strong enough to hold the leads they jump out to. Finally, their manager is a calculating man who knows how to hold onto a division lead — and has proved it for a few years now.

What could go wrong?

The Angels. Of all the teams that improved at the All-Star Break, the Angels were just behind the Dodgers in terms of the splash they made. They are 6 games behind Texas as of August 6th, and larger leads have been lost. Their rear-view mirror is the only thing that can dethrone the Rangers.

American League Wild Cards

Anaheim (I refuse to call them Los Angeles because Anaheim is more than an hour outside of L.A.) Angels (92-70) and Chicago White Sox (89-73)

The Angels will continue to improve and with Zach Greinke will come as close to winning the division as a team with its dismal April can come. The White Sox, on the other hand, will fold down the stretch. They are simply not as good as the Tigers and I do not see Chris Sale (with his health) and Francisco Liriano (with his Jekyll and Hyde past) being the driving forces behind a division winner. Having said that, these two teams will get to play a single-game playoff in order to make it into the official postseason.

Result of the one-game playoff?

Zach Greinke or Jared Weaver (how many teams have a choice like that?) will throw a gem against the overpowered White Sox offense. Trout and Pujols will each have 2 RBI, and the Angels will face the New York Yankees in the Divisional Series after dispatching the White Sox 6-2.

National League East

Atlanta Braves (92-70)

Call this the wily veteran pick. I look at Chipper Jones as being a great leader and a driving inspirational force for this team down the stretch. The only thing that is really against the Braves right now is the health of their starting rotation; however, I feel that Jones' leadership, combined with the veteran presence of Brian McCann, Martin Prado, and Dan Uggla, will prevail over the trendy Washington Nationals — leading to one of the more difficult decisions Washington may ever have to make (more on that later).

What could go wrong?

The Nationals could jackknife and have Stephen Strasburg continue to pitch into the pennant race. Even though he pitches only once every five days, his presence is felt even on his off days. He is a stopper who could take Atlanta's momentum and crush it with his consistent outings.

National League Central

Cincinnati Reds (88-74)

This division winner will be the result of a not-so-hard fought final few weeks where the Reds, Pirates, and Cardinals take turns losing to lesser-talented teams like the Cubs, Brewers, and Astros who have no pressure. The Reds will be the last ones standing due to Joey Votto and late-September callup Billy Hamilton. Hamilton will not be a Mike-Trout-esque player. Rather, he will provide just enough of a spark to inspire the hitters around him with his energy, his speed, and his hype.

What could go wrong?

The Cardinals. St. Louis proved last year that they cannot be counted out. I still think the Cardinals have the better team, but my gut tells me that Cincinnati is going to fend them off this season.

National League West

Los Angeles Dodgers (90-72)

Their trade deadline was one of the best in recent memory, with the additions of Shane Victorino, Hanley Ramirez, Joe Blanton, Brandon League, and potentially Cliff Lee. If they claim Lee off of waivers, this division is theirs to lose. After watching them sweep the lowly Cubs this past weekend, I can say with confidence that this team is not going to be one of those teams that chokes down the stretch. If they have their foot on a team's throat, they'll finish the job. I like the Dodgers to pull this one out.

What could go wrong?

Victorino stays cold, Ramirez loses the spark, the bullpen falls apart. They have a lot of big "if"s on this team. The back of the bullpen isn't dominant and has the potential to lose a few late. Victorino has not been doing much flying over the past month or so and is not a guarantee to heat up. Ramirez has been known for lapses. If any or all of these occur, the Dodgers could be on the outside looking in come October.

National League Wild Cards

Washington Nationals (91-71) and San Francisco Giants (86-76)

The Nats have what it takes across the board — a formidable lineup, a talented group of pitchers, and a manager who appears to be leading them well. The only reason I chose the Braves to edge them in the division is because I truly believe that Strasburg will be shut down at 160 innings. I think this move will disorient an otherwise unified team and cause them to let down slightly, though not enough to crush their hopes. The Giants, on the other hand, have too strong of a pitching staff to fall off completely. They will be breathing down the necks of the Dodgers for the remainder of the season and poised to win the division with two weeks left against the Padres, Rockies, and Diamondbacks. Then, out of nowhere, these teams without any postseason hopes will turn up the heat and the Giants will be caught in a funk.

Result of the one-game playoff?

Remember when I said the Nationals will be left to make one of the biggest, most difficult decisions all season? They will have a rested Stephen Strasburg and a do-or-die situation against Matt Cain. I think the Nats stick to their guns and start either Jordan Zimmerman or Gio Gonzalez and lose a pitcher's duel to Cain's Giants, 3-1.

Obviously, predictions are meant to be proven wrong — and I tried to make some bold ones for the sake of speculation, fun, and a legitimate belief in the strangeness of September baseball. Let's hope that the season is, if nothing else, entertaining down the stretch.

Most importantly, let's hope we don't somehow have to watch the Yankees/Red Sox in the ALCS.

Posted by Louie Centanni at 7:27 PM | Comments (1)

August 3, 2012

Olympian Tweets We'd Like to See

For better or for worse, London's games will be known as the "Twitter Olympics," and never has the information superhighway been littered with more detritus. With it has come the rise of a possible new sport, "synchronized racism," as well as Twitter feuds, and a surfeit of uninteresting Tweets.

To all the Twitter fiends in London, please, tell us something we want to hear.

* The Badminton World Federation, which banned eight female doubles players for trying to lose matches in order to receive a more favorable place in the tournament: "You go girls! #Shuttlecock-blocked."

* Greek triple jumper Voula Papachristou: "My apologies. Incorporating mosquitoes within a racist tweet is certainly repellant. #There's career suicide, and there's career insecticide."

* United States men's gymnastics team, after faltering in the all-around competition left them dejected: "We've fallen, and can't get up. #We stick landings like the Hindenberg."

* Kim Rhode, skeet shooting gold medalist in five-straight Olympic Games: "I have a very particular set of skills, skills that I have acquired over a long career. #Liam Neeson. #Clay-pigeonholed. #I call shotgun."

* Michael Phelps, all-time Olympic medalist: "I'm like marijuana — I go better in water. #hash. #If I get too high, I have to do the American crawl. #I am legend."

* United States women's gymnastics team, winners of the all-around gold: "We showed the world what we're made of, and so did our uniforms. #Is there a draft?"

* Hope Solo: "Just apologized to Brandi Chastain. Felt so good, I took off my shirt. #Blow my top."

* Kobe Bryant: "Don't mind taking backseat to '92 Dream Team. Also don't mind taking back doors. #I just made another settlement."

* Kristin Armstrong, who won her second straight cycling Olympic time trial gold on Wednesday: "@IOC doping agency: no relation to Lance Armstrong. #No testosterone, but plenty of balls."

* John Leonard, executive director of the American Swim Coaches Association, who alleged that Chinese teenager Ye Shiwen is on performance-enhancing drugs: "Ye puts the 'he' in 'she.' #Chinese hypocrisy."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 12:52 PM | Comments (0)

Becoming an Olympian

[click to expand]

Credit: eCollege Finder

Posted by Marc James at 12:23 PM | Comments (0)

August 2, 2012

NFL Preseason Counts More Than You Think

As we head to the first set of NFL preseason games, beginning with the Hall of Fame game between Arizona and New Orleans on Sunday, the age-old debate about the value of preseason will once again annoy the living hell out of me.

Side 1: It's not real football, the stars don't play, coaches don't use the full playbook, fans get screwed on ticket prices, I've never heard of these guys, blah blah blah.

Me: Shut your face. It's football. And "these guys you've never heard of" are the "diamonds in the rough" you'll be bragging about in a couple of months once they become relevant to your fantasy teams.

I love the preseason, and I don't care who knows it.

Going into the 2009 preseason, running back Arian Foster was undrafted trying to stick in Houston. He came on through the preseason, and was able to stick around the club through the year (active roster and practice squad). The following summer, he blew up in the third preseason game against the Cowboys (18 carries, 110 yards, 1 TD), and went on to be named First-Team All Pro.

It was Tony Romo's preseason performances in 2004 and 2005 that set up the future of the Dallas Cowboys over the past five years.

And it's not just the stars. In 2010, Tennessee Titans rookie Marc Mariani, a seventh-round pick out of Montana, won the return job with a stellar performance through the preseason. He went on to make the Pro Bowl.

And I know the majority of the "I've never heard of these guys" will stay in the shadows of camp body anonymity. But some of them will break through and become household names. We don't know which ones are which yet, but they're there.

A week into camp, here are a few I think are worth your time:

(Note: No first-rounders here. Sure, Bucs running back Doug Martin is relatively unknown to most fans, but he was a first-round pick out of Boise State. Lack of name recognition doesn't make him a long shot. I'm going for the fourth-quarter guys.)

WR Juron Criner, WR, Oakland Raiders

The fifth-round receiver out of Arizona has already made a bit of a name for himself through OTAs with his penchant for circus catches. He doesn't have the speed of Darrius Heyward-Bey, Denarius Moore or Jacoby Ford (hence the fifth-round draft position), but there's room in that offense for a possession receiver with size, and Criner fits the bill at 6-foot-3, 225 lbs. The Raiders cleared an extra spot at the position with the trade of Louis Murphy to the Bucs.

Tank Carder, LB, Buffalo Bills

Carder, a fifth-round pick out of TCU, is a second-teamer on the Bills defense behind Kelvin Sheppard, who started nine games as a rookie in 2011. But Carder has special instincts in the middle of the defense, earning him a spot on the 2010 All-American first team and back-to-back honors as the Mountain West Defensive Player of the Year. There's Sean Lee potential here.

Colt McCoy, QB, Cleveland Browns

The opposite of the young guy looking to make a name for himself is the older guy looking for redemption. Of course "young" and "old" are relative terms in the NFL, with McCoy just 25 and entering his third-year in the league, but he's been around enough for people to forget his intangible awesomeness coming out of Texas, remembering instead the pounding he took as just another guy who couldn't hack it. Now, with a new savior, first-round pick Brandon Weeden, ready to take his place, McCoy is one injury on another team away from getting his much-needed ticket out of town. But he's going to need to show he's still got the ability to lead an offense, and here's betting Cleveland gives him every chance to do so, beginning next Friday in Detroit.

Everette Brown, DE, Detroit Lions

Sticking with the redemption theme, Brown had a stellar final year in 2008 at Florida State, finishing with 13.5 sacks, 21.5 tackles for a loss and second-team All American Honors. Originally projected as a first-round pick, he fell to the Panthers in the second. But after two mediocre seasons in Carolina, Brown was shown the door, eventually landing with San Diego in November for a couple of months (three games, two tackles). Now on his third team in Detroit, with a well-stocked D-line rotation, there's no real reason to expect Brown to suddenly find the "on" switch, even if he makes the team. But with Jim Schwartz and Gunther Cunningham pushing his buttons, this could be the opportunity Brown has been waiting for. We'll see if he takes advantage.

Vontaze Burfict, LB, Cincinnati Bengals

Staying on defense, the story of Burfict is one that has two completely, diametrically opposed possible endings. One, he can take his head out of his ass and use his incredible physical skills to dominate and become the centerpiece of the Bengals' defense (I am not a Rey Maualuga believer). Or two, he can keep being an a-hole, which caused him to drop from a high draft position to undrafted free agent, burn out of the league, and wonder what could have been for the rest of his life. The very early returns seem favorable, so we'll see if Burfict can keep it up. Having defensive coordinator Mike Zimmer in his ear will help tremendously.

Bryce Brown and Chris Polk, RBs, Philadelphia Eagles

If Brown's name sounds familiar, it's because he was once a top 10 national recruit, behind only Trent Richardson among high school running backs in the Class of 2009 according to the ESPN 150. But whereas Richardson went on to stardom, winning two national championships at Alabama and becoming the third overall pick by Cleveland in April's NFL draft, Brown bounced from the University of Tennessee to Kansas State (104 total collegiate rushing attempts) and was selected in seventh round, the 229th overall pick. Still, Brown is a big kid and I'm fairly sure those 104 carries didn't sap away the skill that made him one of the most sought after recruits just three years ago.

Polk, meanwhile, logged nearly 800 carries for more than 4,000 yards in his four-year career at Washington. (You may recall his 30-carry effort for 149 yards and a TD in the classic Washington/Baylor Alamo Bowl that served as Robert Griffin III's farewell to amateur athletics.) With injury concerns pushing him out of the draft, Polk comes in as the classic undervalued talent. The Sporting News even went so far as to rate him the top overall undrafted free agent in this year's rookie class.

Third-string RB battles may not make SportsCenter, but considering the diminutive Dion Lewis (23 carries as a rookie in 2011) is all that stands between Brown/Polk and the starting job for the Eagles should starter LeSean McCoy go down, this is a battle of unknowns you might want to keep your eye on.

Other guys to keep an eye on: WR/PR Joe Adams (Carolina Panthers), QB Kellen Moore (Detroit Lions), WR Jeff Maehl (Houston Texans), WR Ty Hilton (Indianapolis Colts), RB Vick Ballard (Indianapolis Colts), WR Emmanuel Arceneaux (Minnesota Vikings), WR Nick Toon (New Orleans Saints), DE Justin Tratto (New York Giants), WR Marquis Maze (Pittsburgh Steelers), WR Chris Owusu (San Francisco 49ers), QB Kirk Cousins (Washington Redskins)

Posted by Joshua Duffy at 11:58 AM | Comments (1)

College Football Odds and Ends

So let's say that you are an animal clinic worker entrusted with the care of the local university's mascot bulldog. It's a hot day, but you still take him out for some exercise and outdoor time. What's your play?

a. Make sure he has lots of water available and limit his time outdoors.
b. Toughen him up by depriving him of water and keeping him outside for longer.
c. Forget about him until he's dead of heat stroke.

Let's say you chose "C" and now have a dead beloved mascot on your hands. What's you play now?

a. Immediately inform your superiors and resign from your job in disgrace
b. Call a press conference to say, "It was just a stupid wussy dog anyway. Tougher dogs should represent our university."
c. Report him missing so that dozens of volunteers spend days looking for him.

If you answered "C" to these questions, congratulations, you may be eligible for employment at Sexton Animal Health Center in Ruston, Louisiana, home of the Louisiana Tech Bulldogs. Or actually, not, as this horrible employee was obviously fired.

It's that rare-but-not-rare-enough double whammy of professional dereliction compounded by total cowardice, and this "employee" is extremely lucky his former employers are not releasing his or her name. As a result, Louisiana Tech goes on the search for "Tech XXI" and the animal caretakers as Georgia, Mississippi State, and Fresno State are undoubtedly giving their charges an extra hug and a milk bone today. This is actually the second consecutive Louisiana Tech mascot to suffer be done in by heat stroke, as Tech IX (no, not Tech N9ne) was forced into retirement after suffering heat stroke in a game against Central Arkansas.

It's always great when a five-star recruit chooses a non-dynasty school to play for, most notably when high school hoops star Adonal Foyle chose to stay near his home an attend Colgate in 1993. That wasn't the case for Kyle Prater, the Illinois native who two years ago was the No. 1 high school wide receiver in the country (No. 3 player overall) and took his talents to West Beach, or USC. But two injury-plagued and depth-chart-burial seasons later, he's returning to the Midwest to further his career in the Chicagoland region — not for Illinois, Wisconsin, or Notre Dame, but for Northwestern.

What's more, because he's returning to his home state, the NCAA is waiving the normal requirement to sit out a year and Prater can play for the Wildcats immediately.

Behind Ohio State, Northwestern is my second favorite Big Ten program. It has the distinction of being the Big Ten's only private school, and has the Journalism School that budding young scribes always hear about growing up. It could be an interesting year for Northwestern Football — their toughest non-conference opponent is Syracuse, and if they can get by them and a Penn State team that may or may not be in disarray, a 7-0 start is a possibility. They also avoid Ohio State and Wisconsin entirely this year.

So while things are looking up for the Northwestern receiving corps, they are looking down ... way, way, way down ... for Oklahoma's. You might remember Kenny Stills, their all-everything wide receiver with the multicolored mohawk and the colorful personality. He's back. Here's a list of all other Sooner receivers who have caught a pass in college football. End list.

They were hit hard by graduation, but also had not one, not two, but three receivers suspended indefinitely and two of those have had their scholarships revoked. They were hoping to get a boost from junior college transfer Courtney Gardner, but he was not able to make the grade in time for eligibility this year. Their only returning receiver besides Stills is a walk-on who caught no passes. This means it's going to be Stills and a bunch of freshmen this year for Oklahoma, and of course that will lead to secondaries double- and triple-teaming Stills while daring the freshmen to break one-on-one coverage and leaning hard against the run.

I'll be interested to watch their first game, at UTEP. While UTEP is obviously not in the same class as Oklahoma, they are at home and have been known to produce surprising results and even more near-misses when they can lure a big team to El Paso.

Finally, I have to tip my cap to the fans of Pitt Panther football. They were spurned in the offseason when Todd Graham, their coach of only one year, bolted (informing the players via text message) to become the next coach of Arizona State ... this after previously pledging his commitment to Rice. And Tulsa. In fact, Every Day Should Be Saturday hilariously implemented a Todd Graham simulation for NCAA 2013 on XBox, where they played as Graham in some sort of Coach Legacy mode where he promised every recruit the moon, as well as coaching stability, and then tried to immediately get another coaching job after a season of mediocre results (result: virtual Boston College took the bait!)

Anyway, in real life, Graham's handlers at Arizona State opened up the Twitter hashtag #askASU as part of Pac 10 Media Days. Pitt fans, and others, responded in force:

Did you really tell the Panthers you were just going out for a pack of cigarettes? #askASU

What are your thoughts on texting? I think it's pretty neat. #AskASU

#AskASU wouldn’t it just be cheaper to buy a U-Haul at this point instead of renting one every year?

Hey Todd, my grandma's cat passed away, can you text her the bad news. I don't have the heart. #AskASU

More examples, and good background on Graham if you don't know the story, here.

Posted by Kevin Beane at 10:10 AM | Comments (0)

August 1, 2012

MLB Trade Deadline: Winners and Losers

Part one of the Major League Baseball trade deadline saw some interesting activity and as always interesting rumors. It's never easy to tell if deadline trades will pan out, but historically, no is generally the answer. Trading multiple prospects for a two-month rental (three-month if you make a run in the playoffs) hardly seems worth it. Only two things can amount to the trade being a victory for the buyer: a World Series championship, or signing the rental player to a long-term deal.

In today's game of big market teams, small market buyers have little chance of signing rentals in the offseason. It's probably no surprise; however, that the buyers are more often than not big market teams. But let's take a look at a few of the recent deals.

Ryan Dempster from the Cubs to the Rangers

The Dodgers had been courting Dempster for weeks, but in the end, a deal couldn't get done and Dempster found himself on the way to Texas. This was most interesting news as the Rangers were one of the few big market teams to not make any major moves near the deadline. Their AL West rivals, the Los Angeles Angels, landed their own starting pitcher days earlier in Zach Greinke. The Rangers had been rumored to be after the Phillies' Cliff Lee and some speculated as to the Rangers picking up the Red Sox Josh Beckett, but in the end it was Dempster, a far better pitcher this season than either Lee or Beckett. This is good news for the Rangers as Roy Oswalt is playing poorly and Colby Lewis is out for the season. A three-man playoff rotation of Dempster, Yu Darvish, and Matt Harrison could be a formidable one.

Winner: Texas Rangers
Loser: Los Angeles Angels

Zach Greinke from the Brewers to the Angels for three prospects including shortstop Jean Segura

The Angels pulled their best New York Yankees impression in signing Greinke, letting go of Segura who was considered their top position player prospect. Greinke is obviously a solid pitcher as the 2009 Cy Young Award attests to. And the price tag of $5.5 million dollars for the remainder of the season is quite reasonable. But the sacrifice of three prospects to get him? I'm not in love with this trade. However, the Angels have proven they are the least shy team in baseball recently with the offseason signings of Albert Pujols and C.J. Wilson, so signing Greinke in the offseason is a real possibility.

Mostly on this trade, I just feel bad for Segura. He gets called up to play one game with the Angels, a place where he could probably have a lot of success and could have likely replaced Maicer Izturis as early as next season. Instead, he's now in the Milwaukee system where he's behind Cesar Izturis — Maicer's half brother! Not only are the Brewers worse than the Angels, they're also severely lacking discipline right now. Did you see Martin Maldonado get picked off at third by Cliff Lee? Does he have narcolepsy? And did you see Carlos Gomez's touch 'em all on his foul ball? This team is not a healthy place to be right now. Sorry Segura. You don't get to play with fellow Dominican Albert Pujols, but you do get to play with fellow Dominican Carlos Gomez.

The Angels also have a powerful top three for a playoff run in Jered Weaver, Wilson, and Greinke. Oh, and there's that Dan Haren guy, too. A playoff showdown with the Rangers could see numerous amazing pitching duels.

Winner: Los Angeles Angels
Loser: Jean Segura

Francisco Liriano from the Twins to the White Sox for Eduardo Escabar and Pedro Hernandez

Liriano's statistics in 2012 look bad, but the truth is he's been very good … and very bad. He's still one of the most inconsistent starters in baseball, but when he is on, he is on. Liriano has been known to be a mentally weak player, which could prove a bad thing for a White Sox team that is looking to win their division, make a playoff run, and don't forget plays in Chicago. Liriano was stressed while playing in small market Minnesota. Granted, in Minnesota, he was expected to be the ace or at least the number two, in Chicago, he's more of a number four, which might alleviate some pressure.

All in all, this was a good trade for both sides. The White Sox didn't give up much and got some help at a position that has been plagued by injuries this season. We'll see where Liriano winds up next year based on his performance in the final months of the season. If he is mediocre to average, I expect him to be in a Twins uniform again next season. If he's good, I expect the Rangers to take a look at him over the winter.

Winner: Minnesota Twins
Loser: Eduardo Escabar

Shane Victorino from the Phillies to the Dodgers

The Phillies were bound to do something on deadline day. Cliff Lee's name was floating around, but Victorino will join the Dodgers outfield which is now pretty stacked with Matt Kemp and Andre Ethier already there. The deal includes two pitchers and on option for a third player to be named or cash headed toward Philadelphia at some point.

It's unclear at this point if it will be Kemp or Victorino who moves to center field. It will also be interesting to see where he bats in the lineup. He's had significant at bats in the two, three, and five spots. The three spot is Kemp's, and four is generally Ethier. There is also Hanley Ramirez to consider, so Victorino and Ramirez batting second and fifth is a magnificent four in a row.

Winner: Dodgers 2012
Loser: Dodgers 2015

Hunter Pence from the Phillies to the Giants for Nate Schierholtz and two prospects

And the Phillies outfield continued to get smaller as Pence jumped to the west coast shortly after Victorino and landed six hours north and the two are now rivals. I really didn't think a Pence deal would get done because the Phillies asking price was said to be high and it certainly was. I don't know what the Giants were thinking on this one. Pence is certainly an upgrade to Schierholtz, but is he worth two prospects, as well, at this point in the season? I think the Dodgers move to get Victorino pressured the Giants into making a poor trade in the long wrong. It might help the Giants stay in the hunt for the division title against the Dodgers in the NL West, but I think the Giants gave away far too much.

Winner: Phillies 2014
Loser: Giants 2014

Chris Johnson from the Astros to the Diamondbacks for two prospects

I think the Astros might be trying Dave Ramsey's "The Total Money Makeover." Seriously, they started the season with the third lowest payroll with an average (mean) salary of $2.33 million dollars. Now, their highest paid player is making half of what the average was to start the season! Jed Lowrie is the highest paid player for the Astros, earning a staggering $1.15 million dollars.

Johnson is serviceable at third base, but the Diamondbacks are .500 and fifth in a wild card race for two spots. I don't think Johnson is going to put them over the edge.

Winner: Chris Johnson
Loser: Arizona Diamondbacks

Hanley Ramirez from the Marlins to the Dodgers

Everybody else in this trade seems irrelevant to me. And I honestly can't believe Hanley lasted in Miami as long as he did. The Dodgers need some more pop in their lineup. Despite having Matt Kemp and Andre Ethier, the Dodgers are ranked 28th in slugging percentage in all of baseball with a minuscule .367. We'll see if Ramirez finds a home in Los Angeles. If not, he only has two years left on his contract before somebody will over pay him in the spring of 2015.

Winner: Los Angeles Dodgers
Loser: Miami Marlins ... other than their wallet

Ichiro Suzuki from the Mariners to the Yankees for RHP D.J. Mitchell and RHP Danny Farquhar

What, you've never heard of two of those three players? This is one of those trades that is surprising simply because it didn't happen sooner. Ichiro has been with the Marlins since he came to the USA. He won a Rookie of the Year Award, and MVP, had over 200 hits in 10 consecutive seasons, was part of the Mariners 116 win season in 2001 — Ichiro's rookie season. It's been all downhill from there for the Japanese superstar. The Mariners failed to seal their epic season with a World Series victory and haven't even made the playoffs since 2001. I'm surprised Ichiro didn't land in New York in 2005.

I don't think this trade can be judged objectively by the actual value of the players involved. I don't like the trade because it means I have to choose between cheering on Ichiro and the Yankees to a World Series so Ichiro can have a bit of redemption and booing the Yankees because they are made of so much money that they are buying a guy they don't even really want on their team.

Winner: Ichiro Suzuki's career
Loser: Ichiro Suzuki's soul

And now on to some of the wild rumors we heard.

The Red Sox had been shopping Josh Beckett around and nobody was apparently taking the bait. It's no surprise why. Beckett was once an elite playoff pitcher, but his last four playoff starts have been pretty rough. He has gone 1-1 with an ERA of 7.71 while giving up 7 home runs in only 21 innings. Despite a decent showing for the majority of the 2011 regular season, I'm calling it: Josh Beckett is washed up. Either way, the Red Sox took Beckett off the trading block early on Tuesday and no deals went down.

Cliff Lee was another interesting name on the trade block, but if rumors are true, the asking price for Lee was significant despite his having an off year. And after trades for Victorino and Pence were taking shape, Lee got taken off the trading block. In the end, the Rangers did very well to get Dempster instead of Beckett or Lee.

The Cubs and Dodgers were talking for weeks about Ryan Dempster, Alfonso Soriano, and even Garza. The Dodgers might not have had a farm system if any those had happened considering what they gave up for Victorino and Ramirez, but getting just Dempster, would have launched them to be the favorite in a National League filled with inexperienced teams such as the Washington Nationals and Pittsburgh Pirates near the top of the standings.

In the waning hours of deadline day, Dempster came out and said he'd be willing to go to the Yankees or Rangers if the Dodgers didn't work out. Dempster laded with the Rangers, but imagine Dempster with the Yankees or the Dodgers. I think that would put/keep both of those teams at the top of their leagues without any question.

We'll see if any other deals go down in August with the waiver loophole. Despite not getting Dempster, I see Dodgers to be the obvious main winners in the trade deadline sweepstakes, at least for 2012. The Angels and the Rangers also did well, but the Dodgers are the true winners in my book.

Posted by Andrew Jones at 1:11 PM | Comments (0)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 20

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson led 99 of 160 laps at Indianapolis, powering to the win in the Brickyard 400, his fourth career Brickyard triumph. He remained fourth in the Sprint Cup point standings, 27 behind Dale Earnhardt, Jr.

"That ties me with Jeff Gordon for most Brickyard wins," Johnson said. "And I'm getting awfully cozy with the bricks. One more win at Indy, and they'll have to start calling me the 'Brick-layer.' And much like a brick, my championship aspirations have been 'solidified' in concrete."

2. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt posted his ninth top-five finish of the year with a fourth at Indianapolis, and ascended to the top of the point standings. He leads Matt Kenseth by 14 as the series heads to Pocono for Sunday's Pennsylvania 400.

"It's great o finally be atop the point standings," Earnhardt said. "To quote Jeremy Mayfield, 'I can't get any higher.'

"Lately, there's been a lot of talk about A.J. Allmendinger's 'A' sample and 'B' sample. But let me tell you about some other samples that, like Allmendinger's, always turn out positive. Those are the urine tests of the people of Junior Nation, whose 'E' samples never fail."

3. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth finished 35th in the Brickyard 400 after getting caught up in a late accident that left him 28 laps down. He fell out of the Sprint Cup points lead and now trails Dale Earnhardt, Jr. by 14.

"I was wiped out by Joey Logano," Kenseth said, "whom I may very well be replacing at Joe Gibbs Racing next year. On both subjects, Logano's driving skill and my impending move to JGR, I'll hold my tongue. 'Mum's the word.' Or, in Logano's case, 'Dad's the word.'"

4. Denny Hamlin — Hamlin started on pole at Indianapolis, leading 27 laps before finishing sixth, his 11th top-10 of the year. He remained fifth in the point standings, 64 out of first.

"As a driver who's never won a Sprint Cup championship," Hamlin said, "I guess starting on pole is as close as I can come to saying I 'went out on top.'

"But not having won since April, I'm primed for another win. And I'm always solid in the Pocono's. I'm no Dale Earnhardt, Jr., but you could say I'm 'Mountain Due.'"

5. Tony Stewart — Stewart finished a solid 10th at Indianapolis, his 10th top-10 finish of the season. He is eighth in the point standings, 79 out of first.

"The Chase is shaping up to be a battle between Jimmie Johnson and myself," Stewart said. "There are eight championship titles between us. It will be a battle of epic proportions. And I'm sure this is one time when Jimmie doesn't mind being categorized as a 'heavyweight' along with me."

6. Greg Biffle — Biffle was the lone bright spot for Roush Fenway Racing in the Brickyard 400, finishing third while teammates Carl Edwards and Matt Kenseth finished 29th and 35th, respectively. Biffle held on to third in the point standings, and trails Dale Earnhardt, Jr. by 22.

"Kenseth may be leaving Roush Fenway," Biffle said, "but Edwards is staying. Jack Roush isn't the only one who believes Edwards is 'going nowhere.'"

7. Brad Keselowski — Keselowski led 22 laps at Indianapolis and finished ninth, one day after winning the Nationwide Indiana 250. He is ninth in the Sprint Cup point standings, 82 out of first.

"Thanks to NASCAR for penalizing Elliot Sadler on the final restart Saturday," Keselowski said. "Apparently, NASCAR supports my use of Twitter and social media, because they gave me one more follower."

8. Kyle Busch — Busch finished a distant second to Jimmie Johnson, posting his sixth top-five finish of the year. Busch's runner-up result boosted his Chase hopes as he moved up two places in the point standings to 11th.

"Jimmie Johnson opened up a four second lead on me," Busch said. "Take it from someone who knows what it's like to go insanely fast: the only way I could have caught Johnson was with a blue light."

9. Kevin Harvick — Harvick finished 13th in the Brickyard 400 and still remains winless on the year. He is sixth in the Sprint Cup point standings, 78 out of first.

"Fatherhood has put life into perspective for me," Harvick said. "I'm calmer, more grounded, and less ornery. Trust me, everyone's praying that the Busch brothers' parents get grandchildren soon."

10. Martin Truex, Jr. — Truex finished a solid eighth at Indianapolis, posting his 10th top-10 result of the year. He is tied for sixth in the point standings and trails Dale Earnhardt, Jr. by 78.

"Congratulations to Dale Earnhardt, Jr.," Truex said. "I know he's spent years trying to live up to his dad. And I think he's on the way with the No. 1 spot in the points. Finally, Junior's got seniority."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 12:56 PM | Comments (0)