Sports Central | Articles and Columns

« February 2014 | Main | April 2014 »

March 31, 2014

Trout vs. Cabrera: A Tale of Two Extensions

When Mike Trout approached his second major league season a little over a year ago, the Angels looked a little bit foolish for raising the 2012 Rookie of the Year and damn-near Most Valuable Player a measly four percent above the major league minimum salary. Trout took it with a far larger grain of salt than his agent even as the Angels handed the largest such renewal (unsigned players could be renewed by the club between 2-11 march) to since-traded Mark Trumbo.

"I'm just happy to be in the lineup," Trout insisted on the record. "I mean, my time will come. I just have to keep putting out numbers and concentrating on one thing, and that's getting to the postseason." The Angels didn't get to the postseason last year, but Trout's time has come — and how. Hours after the Tigers dropped every jaw in baseball by signing Miguel Cabrera to an eight-year, $248 million contract extension on a contract that still had two years to go as of this season, the Angels retrieved those jaws and set them back into proper place by handing Trout a six-year, $144.5 million contract extension.

Added to the 2014 season to which he's already signed, Trout's deal sets a record for a player his age (22) and time in major league service. Cabrera's merely makes him, including the two years left on his incumbent deal, the highest-paid player ever, even slipping past now-suspended Alex Rodriguez's incumbent deal.

Trout celebrated by accepting some royal treatment at Angel Stadium Saturday afternoon, before the Angels squared off against the Dodgers in a final spring exhibition. He didn't stop there. In the game itself, Trout faced former Angel Dan Haren in the second inning and flogged one into the left field bullpen, just beyond the leap of another former Angel, Chone Figgins, who's made the Dodgers' roster in spring training after spending 2013 out of the majors.

After the game, Trout and teammate Garrett Richards challenged each other over a pair of 36-ounce steaks. This was a day after Trout's teammates needled him that they were waiting for him to sign so he could start picking up some serious checks.

So why is baseball celebrating Trout's extension while reaching for the rye bottle over Cabrera's?

"More than anything, this feels like a case of money burning a hole in 84-year-old team owner Mike Ilitch's pocket," writes Grantland‘s Jonah Keri. "After failing to sign an elite corner outfielder like Shin-Soo Choo this offseason and seeing co-ace Max Scherzer reject the team's six-year, $144 million offer, Cabrera was the next man up. And rather than wait two more seasons to collect additional data on an aging beefy giant with no skills other than hitting on which to rely, the Tigers focused on Cabrera being one of the most incredible hitters on the planet and opened their wallets, and so here we are."

Keri and others fear that, for all Cabrera's hitting skills — and he's a poetic study when wringing pitchers to get the pitch he wants, not flinching if it happens to come six inches inside the plate, and hits conversation-piece home runs off such pitches — the Tigers have channeled their inner Ruben Amaro, Jr., the Phillies' general manager whose Ryan Howard contract extension has been a regular conversation piece from the moment Howard began showing his age, a series of injuries, and a diminishing of his performance papers. Howard, too, had two years to go on a contract when Amaro hastened to make him an even wealthier man before he absolutely needed to think about it.

Ryan Howard, good as he was, has never been Miguel Cabrera. But the charitable analyses project that Cabrera may have three seasons to come before injuries and age begin making themselves manifest in earnest. The serious analyses, such as that by Yahoo! Sports's Jeff Passan, remind one and all that only six men previous in baseball history (in alphabetical order: Hank Aaron, Barry Bonds, Willie Mays, Babe Ruth, and Tris Speaker) were good enough between ages 33-40 to support the dollars-per-win Cabrera will cost the Tigers.

Trout, conversely, is almost a decade Cabrera's junior. He's also a far more complete package coming in. The major drift of the Trout-vs.-Cabrera argument over the past two seasons, when Cabrera bagged back-to-back MVP awards but serious cases were made that Trout should have bagged one of them at least, is that Trout does more to help his teams win than Cabrera does. Cabrera may have been a more clear-cut MVP than Trout in 2013, but in 2012 Cabrera's Triple Crown probably caused a lot of people to wave Trout off as a rook whose "time" hadn't "come." The fact that Trout created only one fewer run than Cabrera while using 56 fewer outs to do it, and saved his team thirty defensive runs in the field while Cabrera saved four below the American League average for his position, escaped those folks. So did Trout's .786 offensive winning percentage compared to Cabrera's .745.

Last year, Trout led the league in runs scored, walks, and wins above a replacement level player. Cabrera was a counting-stat monster last year, too. But he finished fourth in wins above a replacement level player, and defensively he was fifteen runs below the league average at his position. At the plate, Cabrera's MVP case was a little more clear than it was the year before. And, as in 2012, his team did get to the postseason while Trout's team didn't. But you can't fault Trout for the Angels' troubles in 2012-2013. Angel fans lamented what American League hitters thanked God for every night, that Trout can only play highlight-reel defense one position at a time.

Cabrera's extension is a big gamble by the Tigers on the assumption that the best hitter in baseball right now is going to continue hitting at that level for most of his 30s. Trout's extension is a vote of confidence by the Angels that this kid is their present and future even as they have other things to do — seeing that Albert Pujols and Josh Hamilton are back to something resembling their former all-star selves, hoping the rear end of the rotation doesn't prove to be the rear end of the front office that swapped Trumbo for two of those parts, hoping David Freese will find enough comfort in his new environment to play within himself, hoping the bullpen isn't just a lot of bull behind Ernesto Frieri, who saved 37 last year but whose 3.80 ERA and 1.24 WHIP might raise a red flag here and there.

Right now, however, Trout's going to enjoy being the beneficiary of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The thought of other baseball agents fuming because he didn't look to try milking the Angels' cow for every last drop of cash he could milk doesn't seem to faze him. All he has to do is live up to what he observed after signing the new extension.

"I'm relieved, man," he told reporters after the deal was done. "I'm going to play loose, and it's going to be fun. I think I play loose anyway, so I think it won't affect me. I'm just going to play like I've been playing, and it won't change." That would be even more wonderful news for Trout and the Angels, and more migraines for the league's pitchers and hitters alike.

Posted by Jeff Kallman at 4:36 PM | Comments (0)

March 27, 2014

Sweet 16 Predictions

South

No. 11 Dayton vs. No. 10 Stanford — The Flyers dotted the eyes of Ohio State, then squeezed the Orange of Syracuse. Now they'll try to knock out Stanford, who are officially known as the Cardinal, but whose mascot is a unofficially a tree. Makes sense, right? Well, a little birdie told me that after this game, the Flyers will make like a tree and leave.

Stanford wins, 64-58.

No. 4 UCLA vs. No. 1 Florida — The Bruins can put points on the board, and have a coach, Steve Alford, who teaches Bobby Knight principles with a catch — he doesn't mentally and physically terrorize his players. The Gators may be the tournament's best defensive team, and Billy Donovan is a tournament-tested coach.

Florida wins, 75-71.

West

No. 6 Baylor vs. No. 2 Wisconsin — When the Bears meet the Badgers, one thing's for sure — the fur will fly. And the whites to blacks ratio on the floor will be higher than 0.

Give me Baylor in a shootout, 84-82.

No. 4 San Diego State vs. No. 1 Arizona — Who coaches Arizona? Is it Archie Miller, or Sean Miller? Don't ask that half-fro Greg Gumbel of CBS. Anyway, it's Sean Miller, and the Wildcats will leave the Aztecs in ruins.

Arizona wins, 77-67.

Midwest

No. 11 Tennessee vs. No. 2 Michigan — The Volunteers and Wolverines have a lot in common, like 100,000-seat football arenas, and disgraced former coaches. And this tournament game is a lot like the basketball programs of these two schools — it's been "sanctioned" by the NCAA.

Michigan's three-point flurry takes down Tennessee, 79-77.

No. 8 Kentucky vs. No. 4 Louisville — If you like bluegrass, you'll love Walter White's new foray into the marijuana trade. And, you'll love this Sweet 16 matchup of the state of Kentucky's finest thoroughbreds.

Both teams are peaking at the right time — the Cards because it's tournament time, the Wildcats because the NBA draft is drawing near. I'll take experience and talent over just talent.

Louisville wins, 80-74.

East

No. 7 Connecticut vs. No. 3 Iowa State — This matchup in the East could be one of the most thrilling of the Sweet 16. Don't believe me? Ask anyone. Heck, ask Gomer Pyle. And what does Gomer Pyle say when he's excited? "Shabazz!" Maybe not, but you get the picture. Husky senior Shabazz Napier is the shiznits, and scores 22 in Connecticut's 72-70 win.

No. 4 Michigan State vs. No. 1 Virginia — Is the NBA courting MSU's Tom Izzo again? Rumor has it the Detroit Pistons want Izzo as their next coach. Fact has it Izzo wants no part of Detroit. So, the answer to the Pistons "Izz-no." And who can blame him. If Isaiah Thomas has been there, it's probably beyond fixing.

All distractions aside, the Spartans deny the Cavaliers and win 82-76.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 5:24 PM | Comments (0)

The Golden Age of Sports Journalism

There's something perversely satisfying — and maybe this doesn't say much about me as a person - about teeing off on a horribly misbegotten piece of sports punditry. I've done it many, many times over the years, and I'm hardly the only one. There's even a name for it if you do it point-by-point: fisking.

That old guard of writers — the written word's versions of Skip Bayless — are still around, guys I and others love to hate. Bill Simmons. Rick Reilly. Gregg Easterbrook. Peter King. But the sports journalism landscape is actually pretty great these days, and three websites in particular have excelled in curating great pieces. I would like to highlight them.

Sports On Earth — This baby has rich parents — USA Today and Major League Baseball — but thankfully they do not suffer from the money-driven abomination of publications where accountants and PR hacks have the last word. The quantity is thick and the quality is excellent. More than any other site, they have names you probably already know — Will Leitch, Patrick Hruby, Michael Weinreb — but probably no one you dislike.

Sample piece: I've written here about the fascinating differences between United States and European sports culture, and others at Sports Central have, as well (I can't find it, but I distinctly remember a Sports Central writer in Turkey writing about the lack of parity in soccer there), but I'm not sure we've done it as succinctly as Colin McGowan, who warns us that for the semi-Cinderellas in the UEFA Champions League, midnight approaches.

The Classical — This one has far pluckier beginnings than Sports On Earth: Kickstarter. Their writers, unlike Sports On Earth, are more from the shadows of sports journalism, writers and bloggers you thought you were cool for liking before everyone else did. They released something of a mission statement that says, in part, "We will make no attempt to be comprehensive ... (w)e will not try to be a smarter version of what you can find elsewhere."

It's true, they produce far less content than Sports on Earth or Grantland. I'm going to have to disagree on the second part, though.

Sample Piece: Here's a piece, one of a series actually, providing an on-the-ground view of Sochi during the Olympics. Specifically, it's about drinking with an Estonian Nordic Combined skier. Alexander Sugiura manages to strike an Hunter S. Thompson feel without being pretentious or affectatious. That's no small feat.

Grantland — This one is the brainchild of none other than Bill Simmons. The same Bill Simmons I warned you away from. But I really think he has an incredible eye, perhaps the best at the business, at recognizing other talent. He's essentially Brian Epstein forcing his way onto the Beatles. Grantland maybe, just maybe, be my favorite of the three. Good podcasts, too.

Sample piece: Oh God, please read this column by Andrew Sharp. I was this close to abandoning this story and put on my fisking gloves for it, while reevaluating my love for Grantland. It's a hoary rant putatively about the importance of college basketball whiz kids staying in school, especially after flaming out early in the tournament as frosh phenoms.

Then I noticed the header: "Every now and then, we will attempt to write the worst sports column on earth. Today: let's talk about Andrew Wiggins and the choices facing the one-and-done generation."

I was this close to taking it at face value and making a supreme fool of myself. I know from satire. If it were appropriate for me to write 1,000 words here about how you simply must read The Onion, I would.

But this piece is something else. I fell for it because it's so believable, such a subtle act of parody. He hits all the tropes and cliches and I'll let you pick your favorite. My own favorite was the ol' clarifying-a-metaphor-that-needs-no-clarifying: "If it'd been a magic show Sunday in St. Louis, the Andrew Wiggins disappearing act would have ended in a standing ovation. But it wasn't a magic show. It was a basketball game."

There are a couple more sites that I want to mention, but are too narrow in scope and wonky in mission to fit in a list of the above three. But if you want incredibly insightful number crunching and guys who look at sport and stats in all sort of new and illuminating ways while being able to write like a writer and not like a statistics professor, please read Football Outsiders for football and Fangraphs for baseball. Bill Connelly does the same for college football at SB Nation.

Posted by Kevin Beane at 12:05 PM | Comments (0)

March 26, 2014

Bracket Patterns

The opening four days of the 2014 NCAA were about as good as it gets in the world of sports. Upsets, injuries, overtimes, and Cinderella stories highlight the headlines of this year's tournament. And for some, the excitement of the tournament was heightened by the offer of $1 billion to any fan who predicted a perfect bracket. As I'm sure you have heard, the chances of this are something like 1 in 9 quintillion (though I'd submit that so long as you're not an idiot, the chances are closer to 1 in 7 quadrillion) and nobody even produced a clean round of 64 (the chances of which are about 1 in 4 billion — maybe as high as 1 in 500 million ... if you are not an idiot).

All this got me thinking about perfect brackets, what it would take, and if there were any patterns over the past few years that might lead to advice on how to go about producing a bracket that resembles a typical, real bracket. And is there even such a thing?

A few notes before we get started though. I fully expect Warren Buffett to offer another $1 billion next year. I fully expect that nobody will win. I do not think anybody will ever produce a perfect bracket, but I honestly and sincerely hope that somebody does some day. This is not to help you produce a perfect bracket. This is to enlighten you about recent tournament history and help you produce a better bracket, one that at least fits the pattern of a real tournament bracket.

Upsets

There are always upsets. How many is an interesting thing. In the round of 64, here is the breakdown over the past five tournaments (I don't count 9 seeds over 8 seeds as upsets, more on that later):

2014: 7
2013: 8
2012: 9
2011: 6
2010: 8

So between 6 and 9 upsets on Thursday and Friday (maybe between 5 and 10 to be lenient). If you pick 12 upsets in the round of 64, that's too many. If you pick 4, that's too few. Another issue is choosing the biggest upset in the tournament.

Highest Seed Upset in the Round of 64

2014: 3 – Duke (by 14 – Mercer)

2013: 2 – Georgetown (by 15 – Florida Gulf Coast)

2012: 2 – Missouri (by 15 – Norfolk State); 2 – Duke (by 15 – Lehigh)

2011: 4 – Louisville (by 13 – Morehead State)

2010: 3 – Georgetown (by 14 – Ohio)

This is really where I think most people have trouble in their brackets. They are simply unwilling to pick one big upset. But truly, it's a necessity. Everybody loves 12s over 5s, but the pattern is that those are not enough. And if the last 5 tournaments are any indication, you should probably choose a successful program to be upset as Duke, Louisville, Georgetown are tough programs.

8 vs. 9

I hate choosing 8 vs. 9 more than any other match-up in the bracket. I constantly second guess myself. The 8 seed is 13-7 in the past five tournaments, but truly there is no discernible pattern. Good luck.

Lowest Seed in the Sweet 16

If there were no upsets, the lowest seed in the Sweet 16 would be a 4. Yeah, right. Here's the breakdown:

2014: 11 – Dayton and Tennessee
2013: 15 – Florida Gulf Coast
2012: 13 – Ohio
2011: 12 – Richmond
2010: 12 – Cornell

Another angle is:

Number of Seeds Lower Than 4 in the Sweet 16

2014: 6/16 (11 – Dayton; 11 – Tennessee; 10 – Stanford; 8 – Kentucky; 7 – UConn; 6 – Baylor)
2013: 5/16 (15 – Florida Gulf Coast; 13 – La Salle; 12 – Oregon; 9 – Wichita State; 6 – Arizona)
2012: 5/16 (13 – Ohio; 11 – North Carolina State; 10 – Xavier; 7 – Florida; 6 – Cincinnati)
2011: 6/16 (12 – Richmond; 11 – VCU; 11 – Marquette; 10 – Florida State; 8 – Butler; 5 – Arizona)
2010 8/16 (12 – Cornell; 11 – Washington; 10 – St. Mary's; 9 – Northern Iowa; 6 – Tennessee; 6 – Xavier; 5 – Butler; 5 – Michigan State)

So we are looking at 5 to 8 teams seeded 5 or below making it to the Sweet 16 (or perhaps more helpfully, 5 to 6 teams seeded 6 and below making it to the Sweet 16).

Sweet 16 Sums

Stick with me on this next point. If you add up the total number of seeds for each team that made the Sweet 16, the numbers you get from year to year are interesting. If there were no upsets, you would have 40 (1+1+1+1+2+2+2+2+3+3+3+3+4+4+4+4).

2014: 79
2013: 81
2012: 73
2011: 80
2010: 80

Personally, I find that fascinating. So next year, add up the seed numbers of the teams you are thinking of putting in the Sweet 16. If it's not between 70 and 85, try something different.

I won't break down the Elite Eight quite as far as the Sweet 16.

Lowest Seed in the Elite Eight

2013: 9 – Wichita State
2012: 7 – Florida
2011: 11 – VCU
2010: 6 – Tennessee

In 2014, this will be either a 10 or 11 (10 Stanford takes on 11 Dayton on Thursday and 11 Tennessee faces 2 Michigan on Friday). This is personally where I struggle the most. I have a hard time putting a team in the Elite Eight that isn't ranked in the AP top 25. But the tournament history shows one very unexpected team will make a run. Choose wisely. If your Elite Eight is all 1s, 2s, and 3s, think again.

The Final Four is a Bit More Variable

2013: 1, 4, 4, 9 = 18
2012: 1, 2, 2, 4 = 9
2011: 3, 4, 8, 11 = 26
2010: 1, 2, 5, 5 = 13

There's not a terribly discernible pattern there. 2011 was really an oddity seeing the first Final Four without a 1 or a 2, and on top of that having an 11, tying the lowest seed to make the Final Four.

What About Conferences?

Over the past five NCAA tournaments, no conference has had more than four teams in the Sweet 16. Very generally speaking, about half (or below) of a conference's teams in the tournament will make the Sweet 16. But even in 2011 when the Big East had 11 teams in the tournament, only two of their teams made the Sweet 16.

What does this mean? Don't expect any conference to do too well. This year's SEC having three teams in the tournament (Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee) all make the Sweet 16 is a rarity.

So let me summarize what every tournament will look like for the foreseeable future:

* Between 5 and 10 round of 64 upsets
* At least one big (seeds 2, 3, or 4) upset (possible two, probably not more than three)
* An 11 to 15 seed in the Sweet 16 (15 is a stretch; Florida Gulf Coast is the only 15 to make it that far)
* 5 or 6 teams seeded 6 or worse in the Sweet 16
* A 6 to 11 seed in the Elite Eight
* Not too much conference loyalty and bias

There you go. Don't expect this to be the key to a perfect bracket, but hopefully it helps you produce a bracket that at least stands a chance of being a perfect bracket.

Finally though, the current bracket scoring systems are stupid and I'd like to offer a counter system.

How much sense does this make? The chances of you picking the overall champion is 1 in 64 (1.56%); your chances of picking a perfect round of 64 is 1 in 4 billion (.000000025%). And yet in every round, the amount of points available remains the same: typically 32 or 320. We desperately need a new system.

What would be fair? Your odds of predicting 6/6 games correctly in the Round of 64 is the same as predicting the National Champion. So in reality, if Round of 64 games are 1 point a piece, the national championship should be worth 6 points, not 32. Breaking that down further we would find that the scoring should be more like this:

From 64 to 32 – 1 point per correct – 32 points available
From 32 to 16 – 2 points per correct – 32 points available
From 16 to 8 – 3 points per correct – 24 points available
From 8 to 4 – 4 points per correct – 16 points available
From 4 to 2 – 5 points per correct – 10 points available
From 2 to 1 – 6 points per correct – 6 points available

This probably sounds terrible to you. I admit, I'm not in love with this either. Perhaps a hybrid is in order, just splitting the difference.

From 64 to 32 – 1 point per correct – 32 points available
From 32 to 16 – 2 points per correct – 32 points available
From 16 to 8 – 3.5 points per correct – 28 points available
From 8 to 4 – 6 points per correct – 24 points available
From 4 to 2 – 11.5 points per correct – 21 points available
From 2 to 1 – 19 points per correct – 19 points available

That might work for me. What do you think?

In the end, I can say this has been one of the best NCAA tournaments so far and though I doubt anybody will be a billion dollars richer by filling out a bracket, we can always dream ... right?

Posted by Andrew Jones at 1:30 PM | Comments (0)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 5

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Carl Edwards — Edwards took 10th in the Auto Club 400 on a wild day in Fontana. Edwards now leads the Sprint Cup points standings by one over Dale Earnhardt, Jr.

"It was an eventful day in Fontana," Edwards said. "You had lead changes, exploding tires, malfunctioning lights, and Muppets. Of course, the only thing unusual about that in NASCAR is the Muppets.

"Tires played a huge role in Sunday's race. I think a lot of cars were running on under-inflated tires, and that caused the excessive tire wear. Unfortunately for them, they didn't 'air' on the side of caution."

2. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt finished 12th in the Auto Club 400, his second straight race outside of the top 10 after three top-two finishes to start the season. He trails Carl Edwards by 1 in the points standings.

"Despite my fans' high opinion of me," Earnhardt said, "I'm no god. So, it was only a matter of time before I 'came back down to Earth.' In fact, the only thing 'hole-y' at Auto Club Speedway last weekend were the tires."

3. Brad Keselowski — Keselowski led 38 laps early at California and was poised for a likely top-five finish before a flat left rear tire sent him down in the order. He finished 26th, and is now third in the points standings, 4 behind Carl Edwards.

"It was a frustrating day," Keselowski said. "Not only did tires hurt us, NASCAR had another problem with lights. It's a situation similar to that of NASCAR's 'Driver For Diversity' program — hey just can't seem to get the 'color' right."

4. Jeff Gordon — Gordon had the lead with two laps to go, but Clint Bowyer's spin ruined his plan to finish on old tires. After frantic pit stops, Gordon lost track position and finished 13th. He is third in the points standings, two out of first.

"Bowyer cost me the race," Gordon said. "I'd go so far as to say his spin was intentional. And movie gurus in Hollywood even noticed. Which leads to the tie-in for next Bruce Willis blockbuster: 'Old Habits Die Hard.'"

5. Kyle Busch — Busch jumped to the lead on a green-white-checkered finish at Auto Club Speedway and took the win, his second straight win at California. Busch is now 7th in the points standings, 28 behind Carl Edwards.

"Kyle Larson almost stole the win," Busch said. "That would have been a case of 'Larson'y.'

"Tire problems were the story of the day. But we didn't have any. Maybe that's because we ran Goodyear's recommended pounds per square inch inflation level. I'm glad we did, because I'm 'pumped.'"

6. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson had the race in hand before blowing a tire seven laps from the finish, leading to a wild finish that Kyle Busch capped off for the win. Johnson finished 24th and is now eighth in the points standings, 21 out of first.

"We weren't the only ones that suffered tire problems," Johnson said. "Chad Knaus can certainly relate to our tire issues — they're both 'balding.'

"It was a crazy day in Fontana. 'Gonzo' the Muppet gave the order to start the engines. But what good is he to me? Sure, he can tell me how to get to Sesame Street, but I need to know how to get to Victory Lane."

7. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth started on pole at California and finished fourth, while teammate Kyle Busch took the win. Kenseth is now fourth in the points standings, seven out of first.

"Is it me," Kenseth said, "or is Michael Waltrip's pre-race crowd surfing growing old? It was like the Sixth Sense out there — he sees dead people. Guess what, Michael? That wasn't Donna Summer. You know why? Because she wouldn't be caught dead at a NASCAR race."

8. Tony Stewart — Stewart posted his second consecutive top-five result, finishing fifth in the Auto Club 400.

"I was battling Kurt Busch for the lead on the final lap," Stewart said. "The next thing I know, Kyle Busch and Kyle Larson went right by us. Eventually, Kurt finished third and I finished fifth. It was just like old times in the NASCAR hauler for the two of us — there was someone 'separating' us."

9. Ryan Newman — Newman led three laps and finished 20th at California. He is seventh in the point standings, 36 out of first.

"Kyle Busch may be 'Hell on Wheels,'" Newman said, "but that track is 'Hell on Tires.' Fontana's surface is more abrasive than my relationship with Rusty Wallace.

"Michael Waltrip tried to chat me up on his pre-race walk through pit row. He wasn't looking for the bathroom, but I told him where it was anyway. Michael just the opposite of a Goodyear tire — he's 'full of it.'"

10. Kyle Larson — Rookie sensation Kyle Larson finished second at California, nearly completing the weekend sweep after winning the Nationwide race on Saturday.

"I may have just clinched NASCAR's Rookie of the Year award," Larson said. "I may be a rookie, but I certainly belong here with the big boys. I earned my seat in the car on merit. You hear me, Austin Dillon? The only thing my grandfather gave me was DNA."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 10:37 AM | Comments (0)

March 25, 2014

Broncos Go All in For Manning

Peyton Manning turned 38 yesterday. Only one quarterback has started for a Super Bowl winner after turning 38: John Elway. No quarterback has started for a Super Bowl winner after his 39th birthday.

Manning was the best QB in the NFL last year, but his window is closing. That laser, rocket arm isn't the same since his neck surgery, and it might not be realistic to expect that he can still perform at a championship level in two years.

The Broncos clearly understand this, so they're going all in for 2014. No team has created more headlines in free agency. They signed Aqib Talib, T.J. Ward, DeMarcus Ware, Emmanuel Sanders. How much impact will those signings have? What will Denver look like this season?

The offense, which broke yardage and scoring records in 2013, figures to look pretty good. Knowshon Moreno is as good as gone, but evidently the team has faith in young running backs Montee Ball and Ronnie Hillman. Wide receiver Eric Decker signed with the Jets, but Sanders will fill his roster spot, for a fraction of the money. Decker got as much guaranteed money from the Jets (roughly $15 million) as Sanders will get in his entire three-year contract, and Sanders is a good player. He'll be Manning's fourth option as a receiver, behind Demaryius Thomas, Wes Welker, and tight end Julius Thomas. The team's 2014 offense should look a lot like its 2013 offense, though probably a bit more down to earth, just as a function of normal regression to the mean.

What's really created a buzz is the movement on Denver's defense. Champ Bailey is gone, replaced by Talib. That's a huge upgrade. Bailey is almost as old as Manning, and he hasn't been an elite player in years. Talib, as long as he stays healthy and keeps his head on straight, is one of the best cornerbacks in the league. The one really underrated signing is T.J. Ward. He doesn't carry the same name recognition as Talib and Ware, but Ward is one of best strong safeties in the NFL. He'll replace Duke Ihenacho in the starting lineup, or push him to another position. Denver's secondary suddenly has two very good players who weren't there last season.

DeMarcus Ware has probably generated the most publicity, but his signing is the most puzzling to me, the one that has the least obvious impact. The Broncos started two good pass rushers last year, Shaun Phillips and Von Miller. Phillips is a free agent, so I guess Ware will replace him, but it's not obvious, at this stage of their careers, that he's an upgrade. If Phillips does return — and that seems unlikely — then the Broncos have nice depth on the defensive line, but they'll have a Pro Bowler in a part-time role. I expected the team to target other positions.

Two thousand miles to the East, the New England Patriots are keeping pace. After losing to Denver in the AFC Championship Game, the Pats have been almost as aggressive in free agency as the Broncos. New England has improved its defensive backfield, despite losing Talib. The team signed Darrelle Revis and former Seahawk Brandon Browner, giving the Patriots probably the best pair of starting cornerbacks in the NFL. That ought to slow down any quarterback, including Manning.

Both teams have lost players who merit more attention. Moreno is a big loss for the Broncos, and left guard Zane Beadles signed with Jacksonville. Wesley Woodyard and Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie are gone. Shaun Phillips and Mike Adams will probably sign with other teams. The Broncos have lost more players than they've added. It's not all gravy. The Patriots have signed two star cornerbacks, but they've lost one, too, and linebacker Brandon Spikes signed with the rival Buffalo Bills. That's a big loss.

It's too early to declare anyone a Super Bowl favorite, but neither of the AFC's powerhouses is standing pat, and neither seems content. If the windows are closing for Peyton Manning and Tom Brady, it appears they'll do so with a final blaze of glory.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 12:55 PM | Comments (0)

March 24, 2014

The Race For the Final Playoff Spots

Ever since the NBA expanded its playoff format to 16 teams in 1984, the No. 8 seed in each conference has often times been regarded as a pushover and a club that the No. 1 seed would dispatch with in short order before playoff series with other, better teams.

For the first 10 years of that playoff format, that was the case, as it was 1994 before Denver beat Seattle in the first 8-over-1 upset. It was the only the year before that when a No. 8 seed took a conference's top team to a deciding first-round game.

While the top regular season club in a conference is still a prohibitive favorite in any year's playoffs to advance from the opening matchup, the inevitability of the series winner has changed in the last decade.

In 2007, the Don Nelson and the Warriors famously ran the 67-win Mavericks off the floor in a six-game shocker. Four years later, Zach Randolph and the Grizzlies bruised their way past the Spurs, and two years ago, the Sixers dispatched of the Derrick Rose-less Bulls.

This season, the winner of East's top seed, be it Miami or Indiana, figures to have an easy time with whoever claims eighth in that conference, right now likely to be Charlotte, Indiana or New York with an under-.500 record. But in the West, the three teams competing for the last two playoff spots are all at least 10 games over .500 as of Saturday, and each would pose a unique and challenging test to the No. 1 team in the West.

If the season ended after Friday night's games, Phoenix would be out of the playoffs with the ninth best record in the Western Conference at 40-29. If put in the East standings, Phoenix would have the third best record in that conference. Dallas and Memphis sit just above the Suns. And despite each team's solid seasons, one of the three teams will be at home come the third weekend of April, barring some sort of massive collapse by Portland or Golden State, or an almighty hot streak by Minnesota.

Even though Phoenix has spent most of the season in the top eight, it bears reminding that they were predicted to have as many wins as Utah or Orlando at this point in the season. Their fast style of play and middling defensive aptitude would make for fun, late-night playoff viewing against Oklahoma City or San Antonio and a litany of 120-116-type games. Watching Goran Dragic run a pick-and-roll is one of the most artistically pleasing regular occurrences in an NBA season that has been very fun to watch in general. Gerald Green has finally found his destiny as a premier heat-check guy, and the front-court consists of several quality role players.

If Phoenix does miss the playoffs, a 2-7 stretch in late February and early March where it couldn't even guard teams like the Jazz and Cavs will be a big reason why. Memphis now holds the No. 8 spot in large part due consistency and defense after the New Year, and especially after the All-Star Break. The Grizzlies haven't lost consecutive games since the beginning of February, and have held opponents at or under a point per possession eight times in that span. That's a remarkable number when considering that the league at large is at 1.06 per possession this season.

There's almost a poetic element to the fact that one of Phoenix or Memphis could miss the playoffs, because each team is so diametrically opposed to the other. Where Phoenix likes to run, Memphis likes to walk the ball up, playing at the slowest pace in the league. Where Phoenix's strength is its backcourt, Memphis is anchored by Marc Gasol and Randolph. And where Phoenix is almost Houston-like in its penchant to shoot 3-pointers, Memphis attempts less of them than anyone.

Meanwhile, the Dallas Mavericks have been playing at a pretty high level all season, but have never created any separation between themselves and the playoff danger zone. However, the Mavs are currently in the midst of a season-long homestand that began last Monday and runs until April 1.

Dallas hasn't gotten enough credit league-wide this season for being an offensive juggernaut. The Mavs are only behind Portland, the Clippers and Miami for offensive efficiency. But on the other side of the coin, Dallas has the worst defense of any likely playoff team, ranking 23rd. Rebounding on both sides of the ball has also doomed them in many losses.

The NBA's schedule-makers could not have laid out the season's final week any better for the three West teams fighting for the last playoff spots in one of the most competitive conferences ever.

The Mavs close the season with a home game against the Suns and a road trip to Memphis. The Grizz have a game at Phoenix just before hosting that game against Dallas, and Phoenix's season-finale at Sacramento is immediately preceded by those aforementioned games against the other two playoff-bubble contenders. Each team plays about the same number of games against over-.500 and West foes, but Dallas has a definite advantage due to playing more home games.

Once Dallas, Memphis and/or Phoenix do make it into the playoffs, a very tough series against San Antonio or Oklahoma City will await. However, once all 82 games are played, the spread in records between first and eighth is likely to be less than 15 games, which is less than is historically the case. Whereas before, bottom seeds were disregarded, the current seventh- to ninth-placed teams in the West can take solace in recent NBA history.

Posted by Ross Lancaster at 5:07 PM | Comments (0)

March 20, 2014

The Expertly Un-Expert Tournament Bracket

Did the Selection Committee do a good job selecting and seeding the teams?

I don't know about actual humans, but the computer programs and simulators did a great job. Do we still need the Selection Committee? When ten old and crusty codgers lock themselves in a room for a day, there's only one addition that could make things better, and that's carbon monoxide.

Who is the tournament's most vulnerable No. 1 seed?

A lot of pundits say Wichita State, but that's ludicrous. The Shockers have made history, all right. They're the first team with an undefeated record and a Final Four trip the previous year to be underrated.

That leaves Virginia. It's certainly not because of head coach Tony Bennett, the NCAA's most dapper head coach. In fact, he was voted sexiest man alive by "Man-to-Man" magazine, and he's also a hot commodity on the dating site "Matchup Zone," which is endorsed by Jim Boeheim.

The Cavaliers won't lose to Coastal Carolina , but if they did, it would make for a great headline: "Coastal Goes Postal and Delivers."

Can Duke freshman Jabari Parker lead the Blue Devils to the Final Four?

Who cares? What's really important is that Parker names his first-born son "Kareem Abdul Jabari Parker."

Who will get dizziest, North Carolina's Roy Williams or Duke's Mike Krzyzewski?

That would be Williams. According to the DPI, Williams has a 36.9% chance of feeling woozy. Why? Because that number also represents North Carolina's free throw percentage.

Can Syracuse pull it together and make a Final Four tournament run?

Unlike their coach at Duke's Cameron Indoor Stadium on February 22nd, the Orange are not a threat to "go too far."

Can Oklahoma State challenge Arizona in a round of 32 contest (assuming the two teams advance)?

There's nothing scarier than seeing Cowboys point guard Marcus Smart coming at you (especially if you're a fan who just called him a "piece of trash"). Oklahoma State will challenge the Wildcats, but Arizona will advance.

Could there possibly be a Round Of 32 showdown between the North Carolina Tarheels and a certain team from Durham, North Carolina?

There could, but only if that "certain team" is the Eagles of North Carolina Central. They'd have to stun Iowa State, while the Heels would have to beat Providence, for this dream matchup to occur.

Speaking of NCCU, what about a NDSU versus SDSU matchup in the Round of 32?

It could happen, especially if SDSU can get by NMSU. NDSU would have to do their part and beat OU, which shares a state and a bracket with OKSU.

Can Creighton's Doug McDermott lead the Blue Jays to the Final Four?

The "'Creight' White Hope" is the nation's leading scorer, but taking his team to the Final Four is asking way too much.

South

This is Florida's region to lose. But they won't. Their stiffest competition is probably Syracuse and Kansas, two teams that may be out before the Gators even see them. Two games in Orlando make the Gators a lock to reach the Sweet 16.

Biggest upset: No. 12 Stephen F. Austin over No. 5 Virginia Commonwealth. It's hard to discount a team that hasn't lost since November and is 31-2 overall. As the school's founder is fond of saying: "Austin 31-2 says I just whipped you're ass!"

East

Team to beat: Michigan State. The Spartans are always a solid tournament team, and this region favors Tom Izzo's squad.

Dark horse: Connecticut. The Huskies have something to prove, especially since of the eight losses between the UConn men's and women's teams, the men have all of them. The Huskies won't "male" it in, and make it to the regional final before falling to Michigan State.

Biggest upset: No. 12 Harvard over No. 5 Cincinnati. Who's more likely to "pass a test?" The Ivy Leaguer's from Harvard, or those roughians from Cincinnati? The NCAA Tournament is all about moving on to the next round, or "graduating," if you will.

West

The West looks to be the most wide-open region. Arizona has to be the favorite, but Wisconsin, Creighton, and Oklahoma State can challenge them. And don't count out the winner of the Baylor/Nebraska game. Those two teams are dangerous, as well as dangerously capable of a quick flame out.

Biggest upset: No. 12 North Dakota State over No. 5 Oklahoma. The Bison are in Spokane to make a statement, and they will be "herd."

Midwest

Could there be another Duke-Louisville regional final on the horizon? If it's anything like last year's game, I'll be unable to watch. The Cardinals will hold up their end of the bargain, but the Blue Devils go down to Michigan in the Sweet 16.

Dark horse: Kentucky. If they're on their game, the Wildcats could make Wichita State "one and done."

Elite Eight

Florida, Syracuse, Michigan State, Connecticut, Arizona, Baylor, Louisville, Michigan

Final Four

Florida, Michigan State, Arizona, Louisville

Finals

Florida over Louisville

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

March 19, 2014

Contenders Face Early Exits in New NHL Playoff Format

If you're an NHL general manager in the Eastern Conference, you're probably looking at the potential playoff matchups and thanking your lucky stars that you're not dealing with the first-round dilemma facing teams on the other side of the continent.

As I write this, the top five teams in the Western Conference — St. Louis, Colorado, Chicago, Anaheim, and San Jose — could all be leading the Metropolitan division. In the Atlantic division, only the Boston Bruins would be in the mix.

To say there's a disparity in the quality of play between conferences is an understatement. And if the NHL decided to stick with the playoff system from previous years, the Western Conference seedings would be properly stacked, ensuring one heck of a 4 vs. 5 battle while the top three seeds faced the weaker siblings of the conference.

This year, however, things are different. Along with the league's realignment, the Stanley Cup playoffs have been reformatted into two divisional rounds, one conference round, and then the awarding of the Stanley Cup. Decades ago, the league played to a similar format, which may appease some traditionalists, but the problem is that the talent pool and the quantity of teams is far bigger. This format essentially punishes teams for being in a strong division.

Take the Central Division, for example. Let's say the playoff teams are, in order, St. Louis, Chicago, Colorado, and Dallas (wild card). In previous seasons, there would be a good chance that Chicago and Colorado faced weaker teams for a more predictable first round romp. This year, St. Louis pulls the easier draw while the Blackhawks and the Avalanche face each other. In the second round, the division champion is crowned. In the third round, the winners of the divisions face off in the conference final.

There are pros and cons to this system. On one hand, it lends a greater element of unpredictability to the second round, and teams that seem relatively poised for a strong postseason run can get squeezed out early. On the other hand, it feels like the gap between stronger and easier draws to the Stanley Cup might be a little bit too much.

The logistics of travel and time zones make geographical Western and Eastern conferences necessary for playoffs. But breaking things up into micro-divisions for two rounds of playoff action feels like it's too focused for its own good. In addition to saving on travel costs, the league is looking at pumping up divisional rivalries as a means to drum up regular season interest — and all of that makes sense from a business perspective. However, the potential lack of balance this throws into the first round each year doesn't seem to be a worthy trade off.

Nonetheless, this is what we're stuck with, at least for the foreseeable future. But with a strong possibility that two 100+ point teams will be knocked out in the first round, perhaps GMs will rethink whether or not the unbalanced format is worth the business benefits.

Posted by Mike Chen at 4:01 PM | Comments (0)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 4

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Brad Keselowski — Keselowski was in shape for a top-five finish before Kevin Harvick's blown engine littered the track with oil. Keselowski's No. 2 Miller Lite Ford rammed Jamie McMurray's No. 1 car, which had checked up. Keselowski still managed a 14th and took over the Sprint Cup points lead from Dale Earnhardt, Jr.

"That was quite a lot fluid on the track," Keselowski said. "At the 'Bull Ring,' that would be called 'Oil of Olé.'

"Harvick was 'on fire' at Phoenix, as well. The result was much different, however. He nearly burned the garage down after blowing his engine at Bristol, though. To sum it up, he went from 'distinguished' to 'extinguished.'"

2. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt suffered two blown tires and finished 24th, four laps down, at Bristol. He fell out of the lead in the points standings, and trails Brad Keselowski by 10.

"Tires notwithstanding" Earnhardt said, "it's been a 'Goodyear' for us so far.

"I find it hard to believe that someone accidentally hit a switch to make the caution lights come on. There have been rumors that there's a 'switch hitter' in NASCAR; maybe this is confirmation."

3. Jeff Gordon — Gordon finished seventh in the Food City 500, joining Hendrick Motorsports teammate Kasey Kahne in the top 10. This is the first time in his Sprint Cup career that Gordon has started the season with four top-10s.

"There's a first time for everything," Gordon said, "but apparently not a fifth time.

4. Carl Edwards — Edwards stayed out during a caution with 76 laps to go and assumed the lead, which he held to easily win the Food City 500, his first win of the year. Edwards held off Ricky Stenhouse, Jr. and Aric Almirola, and survived a mysterious caution with two laps to go, for the win.

"It was a long day," Edwards said, "but I was still able to perform my signature back flip. And speaking of 'flips,' someone accidentally 'flipped' a switch and turned on the caution lights with two laps to go. That sounds like 'B.S.' to me. Here in Bristol, that explanation had a 'bull ring' to it."

"I hear my former teammate Matt Kenseth is going to be a father again. I hear he's a great one. I bet he's amazing with a pacifier. That's probably why he's such a 'pacifist.'"

5. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson struggled at Bristol after blowing a right-front tire early in the race. He finished two laps down in 19th, his first finish outside the top 10 this season, and is now sixth in the points standings, 20 behind Brad Keselowski.

"After falling behind like that," Johnson said, "I just wanted to get the race over. But then there were weather delays. I felt like saying what everyone said after my fifth straight Cup title: 'Somebody stop this reign.' That's why they call Brad Keselowski, the driver that ended my five-year championship run, 'Reign delay.'"

6. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth was leading with about 100 laps remaining at Bristol, but nearly crashed when a rear tire went down. Kenseth kept the No. 20 Home Depot Toyota off the wall, and remained on the lead lap to eventually finished 13th. He is ninth in the point standings, 25 out of first.

"I nearly lost it," Kenseth said. "Hopefully, Toyota can 'find it' soon.

"As you might know, my wife and I are expecting a baby any minute now. I hope to be in the delivery room, but only under one condition: that Jeff Gordon is not in there with me. I absolutely don't want to be in the same room as Gordon at a time when everyone is yelling 'Push!'"

7. Joey Logano — Logano salvaged a 20th-place finish after early power steering problems sent him to the garage. He is now sixth in the point standings, 22 behind Brad Keselowski.

"Usually," Logano said, "I don't have steering 'problems' unless Denny Hamlin's in my way. There once was a 'wall' between us. But we've crashed through that wall. Luckily, no one suffered a back injury this time."

8. Denny Hamlin — Hamlin won the pole at Bristol and finished sixth, the top finisher among Joe Gibbs Racing cars. Hamlin is seventh in the points standings, 23 out of first.

"Caution lights 'accidentally' turned on," Hamlin said. "The NASCAR conspiracy theorists should have a field day with this. Ironically, NASCAR conspiracy theorists don't have a lot of light switches turning on in their heads.

9. Kevin Harvick — Harvick was leading on lap 450 when his engine blew, spewing oil along his path. Harvick guided his burning No. 4 Jimmy John's Chevy behind the pit wall, where it was doused.

"I really wanted to get out of that car," Harvick said. "I'm not even talking about the No. 4 car, but the No. 29 car.

"Everyone was talking after the race about 'Smoke.' That's because Tony Stewart finally posted a top-five finish. And where there's 'Smoke,' there's an ornery car owner with a bum leg who's still wondering how Kurt Busch ended up on his team."

10. Ricky Stenhouse, Jr. — Stenhouse trailed leader Carl Edwards when a phantom caution slowed the race with two laps remaining. The race ended that way, with Stenhouse taking second, his best finish of the year.

"I was hoping for another restart," Stenhouse said. "I was prepared to use my bumper, if need be, to get by Edwards. Of course, maybe it would not have been wise to do that. If Edwards gets his tail punted, I might get my tail kicked.

"My girlfriend Danica Patrick finished 18th, her best finish of the season. I asked her to verify where she finished. She said 18th. I just wanted to make sure she 'knew her place.'"

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 1:01 PM | Comments (0)

March 18, 2014

The Greatest NFL Triplets Ever

Almost exactly seven years ago, I wrote about the NFL’s best "Triplets" — quarterback, running back, and receiver on the same team — in history. I'm revisiting the topic now because some of my opinions have changed, but also because I think in my earlier column, I fundamentally addressed the topic the wrong way.

How do you compare the decade-long dominance of the 1990s Cowboys to the briefer brilliance of the Greatest Show on Turf? These years later, I still remember the hardest part of that project was figuring out how to weigh longevity.

This time, we'll look at the best triplets ever in a single season. The best over three seasons, five, seven. Compare like against like.

A quick note on the rules, then we'll get to the lists. All three players need to be great. "Tom Brady, Wes Welker, and anyone" isn't what we're looking for. And we want great players having great seasons, not just big names on the same team. No player appears more than once in a given time period or with the same trio. So for best three-year trios, I won't use Jim Kelly, Thurman Thomas, and Andre Reed from 1990-92 and Kelly, Thomas, and Reed from 1991-93. You won't see Terry Bradshaw and Franco Harris show up twice, once with Lynn Swann and once with John Stallworth. One go per team. Let's start with the best Triplets ever in a single season.

One Year

This is by far the hardest to narrow down, because so many Triplets have produced outstanding seasons. What's most surprising may be how many of the best single-season performances were by Triplets that were truly great, not just one-year wonders. I originally envisioned naming the best single season of all time, going over it in detail, and adding a few honorable mentions and close calls with less detail. That won't work. I can't with any degree of confidence distinguish one trio and declare it the best of all time. Let's just review the strongest of the Modern Era, by decade.

1940s

Chicago Bears, 1947: Sid Luckman, George McAfee, Jim Keane
Cleveland Browns, 1947: Otto Graham, Marion Motley, Mac Speedie
Philadelphia Eagles, 1948: Tommy Thompson, Steve Van Buren, Pete Pihos

Two members of each group are in the Hall in Fame. The best of these, if I had to pick one, is probably the Eagles, NFL champs in '48. No one really remembers Tommy Thompson these days, but other than Otto Graham and Sammy Baugh, he was probably the best QB of the late '40s.

1950s

Detroit Lions, 1950: Bobby Layne, Doak Walker, Cloyce Box
Los Angeles Rams, 1951: Bob Waterfield, Dan Towler, Crazy Legs Hirsch
San Francisco 49ers, 1954: Y.A. Tittle, Joe Perry, Billy Wilson
Baltimore Colts, 1958: Johnny Unitas, Lenny Moore, Raymond Berry
Los Angeles Rams, 1958: Billy Wade, Jon Arnett, Del Shofner

The Lions featured players named Ewell Doak Walker and Cloyce Kennedy Box. Walker was the last "Ewell" to play in the NFL, though a linebacker named Doak Field played seven games for the Cardinals in 1981. Box is the only man named "Cloyce" to play in the NFL.

Three of these are very famous teams. The '51 Rams, with Norm Van Brocklin and Waterfield splitting the QB duties, Deacon Dan Towler leading the Bull Elephant Backfield, and two Hall of Fame receivers, set a record for yards per game (450.8) that stood for 60 years. Hirsch's season is probably the most outstanding by any receiver in the history of professional football.

Tittle and Perry played in the Million Dollar Backfield, with fellow Hall of Famers Hugh McElhenny and John Henry Johnson. The '58 Colts won the most famous and most important game in history, The Greatest Game Ever Played, the 1958 NFL Championship. That year's Rams were nearly as good. Wade, Arnett, and Shofner all had career years. The best Triplets from this decade were probably the '58 Colts. The '51 Rams and '54 Niners had too many other star players, splitting the glory.

1960s

Houston Oilers, 1961: George Blanda, Billy Cannon, Charley Hennigan
Philadelphia Eagles, 1962: Sonny Jurgensen, Timmy Brown, Tommy McDonald
San Diego Chargers, 1965: John Hadl, Paul Lowe, Lance Alworth
Cleveland Browns, 1968: Bill Nelsen, Leroy Kelly, Paul Warfield

Vince Lombardi's Packer Dynasty never really featured a star receiver, so it doesn't belong in a Triplets discussion, but do you see what I mean about one-year wonders? Through three decades and 12 combinations, the only real fluke is the '58 Rams. Five of the 12 won championships, and of the 36 players so far, 21 are in the Hall of Fame. I actually passed up the dream combination, the '64 Browns, with Warfield and Jim Brown. But Kelly is a Hall of Famer, too, and this was his best season, maybe even a little better than Brown four years earlier.

In my estimation, all of these Triplets were equally great, or very close to it. Gun to my head, I guess I might go with the Browns.

1970s

Miami Dolphins, 1971: Bob Griese, Larry Csonka, Paul Warfield
Los Angeles Rams, 1973: John Hadl, Lawrence McCutcheon, Harold Jackson
Pittsburgh Steelers, 1975: Terry Bradshaw, Franco Harris, Lynn Swann
Baltimore Colts, 1976: Bert Jones, Lydell Mitchell, Roger Carr

Two of these are famous teams, with all three members in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. I went with the '71 Dolphins instead of '72 because Csonka and Warfield had better seasons, and to get Bob Griese instead of Earl Morrall. I believe they were the best Triplets from this decade. But everyone knows about the Dolphins and Steelers. The really interesting group here is the '73 Rams.

The 1972 Rams went 6-7-1. The 1973 team overhauled its personnel, especially the Triplets, and it worked: Los Angeles doubled its previous win total, going 12-2, and made the playoffs for the next eight seasons in a row, every year from 1973-80.

The '72 team had Roman Gabriel at quarterback, used running back by committee, and featured a mediocre group of receivers led by Jack Snow, who had 30 catches for 590 yards. The 1973 Rams replaced head coach Tommy Protho with Chuck Knox, traded Gabriel for Harold Jackson, and traded for John Hadl to fill the void at QB.

Knox doubled Jim Bertelsen's carries and took a chance on Lawrence McCutcheon, who rushed for 1,000 yards and led the NFC in rushing average. He and Bertelsen both made the Pro Bowl. Jackson led the league in receiving touchdowns and was a consensus All-Pro. Snow was still with the team, too, but he was reduced to role-player status, catching 16 passes for 252 yards. Hadl was first-team All-Pro and NFC Player of the Year.

1980s

San Diego Chargers, 1982: Dan Fouts, Chuck Muncie, Wes Chandler
Los Angeles Rams, 1988: Jim Everett, Greg Bell, Henry Ellard
San Francisco 49ers, 1989: Joe Montana, Roger Craig, Jerry Rice

The Chargers and Niners were the dominant Triplets of the decade, and both teams could easily make the list in other years. We'll revisit these teams when we look at longer time periods. The 1988 Bengals were very good. Boomer Esiason won NFL MVP, Ickey Woods became a household name, and Eddie Brown gained almost 1,300 yards. The Rams were even better. Bell led the NFL in TDs, Ellard led in receiving yards, and their schedule was harder than Cincinnati's.

1990s

Buffalo Bills, 1991: Jim Kelly, Thurman Thomas, Andre Reed
San Francisco 49ers, 1994: Steve Young, Ricky Watters, Jerry Rice
Dallas Cowboys, 1995: Troy Aikman, Emmitt Smith, Michael Irvin
Denver Broncos, 1998: John Elway, Terrell Davis, Rod Smith
St. Louis Rams, 1999: Kurt Warner, Marshall Faulk, Isaac Bruce

This was the decade that popularized "Triplets," and these are all famous groupings. All five played in the Super Bowl, and four of them won. Four of the five include a member who was named NFL MVP that season: Thomas, Young, Davis, and Warner. Emmitt Smith easily could have been MVP in '95, the best season of his career, but the award went to Brett Favre.

There's one more set of Triplets from this decade that deserves recognition; I sequestered them to keep the big guns together.

Detroit Lions, 1995: Scott Mitchell, Barry Sanders, Herman Moore

You know about Barry Sanders. He rushed for 1,500 yards, led the league in rushing average, and scored double-digit touchdowns. You may also remember that Herman Moore had a three-year stretch in which he was as good as any receiver besides Jerry Rice. In '95, Moore broke the single-season receptions record (123), with 1,686 yards and 14 TDs.

That leaves Scott Mitchell. He spent years as a punch-line, the epitome of the free-agent bust, but that's not really an accurate picture. Mitchell was mostly average, and he had one great season. In 1995, he ranked 2nd in passing yards and TDs, behind only league MVP Brett Favre, and he threw fewer interceptions than Favre. I'm not claiming that Scott Mitchell was a great player, but in '95 he passed for 32 TDs and only 12 INTs, with over 4,000 yards and a 92.3 rating. That's a terrific year. The Lions went 10-6 and made the playoffs.

The Bills and Cowboys were more famous, but for a single season, the best Triplets of the '90s were probably the Niners or Rams.

2000s

Minnesota Vikings, 2000: Daunte Culpepper, Robert Smith, Randy Moss
Indianapolis Colts, 2004: Peyton Manning, Edgerrin James, Marvin Harrison
Cincinnati Bengals, 2005: Carson Palmer, Rudi Johnson, Chad Johnson

One of the few decades in which it's pretty easy to identify the best Triplets. Colts.

2010s

Houston Texans, 2010: Matt Schaub, Arian Foster, Andre Johnson
Denver Broncos, 2013: Peyton Manning, Knowshon Moreno, Demaryius Thomas

I know everyone hates Matt Schaub right now, but he played very well in 2010. He passed for over 4,000 yards (470 ahead of MVP Tom Brady), with twice as many TDs as INTs, and he was Pro Bowl MVP. Foster and Johnson, of course, were terrific. The 2011 New Orleans Saints could rank here, too, if you count Darren Sproles (87 rush attempts) as a true running back. Drew Brees broke the record for passing yards, and Jimmy Graham had his first big year.

That's 30 sets of Triplets. Some are a little stronger than others, but for a single season, you wouldn't go wrong with any of them.

Back-to-Back

There are some great Triplets that didn't make the one-year list, and there are great trios that won't make the two-year list. But we're past the one-year wonders now, and it starts getting easier to separate the truly great players.

Baltimore Colts, 1958-59: Johnny Unitas, Lenny Moore, Raymond Berry

It's debatable whether these players should really count as Triplets. Lenny Moore was as much receiver as running back, and in these two seasons he averaged only seven rushes per game. That's a lot more than a true wide receiver — who averages one carry at the most — and someone who gains 1,000 rushing yards in two 12-game seasons is obviously a ball-carrier, but Moore gained 700 more yards as a receiver than he did as a rusher. Over these two seasons, Berry ranked 1st in the NFL in receptions, 3rd in receiving yards, and 1st in receiving TDs. Moore ranked 3rd in receptions, 2nd in yards, and 5th in TDs. Of course, Moore also ranked 12th in rushing.

And John Unitas stood alone. This was a legendary quarterback at the height of his powers, the seasons that made him famous. The comeback he led in the 1958 Championship Game is well-known, and the Colts repeated as champs in '59, but he was equally dominant in the regular season. Over these two seasons, Unitas passed for 59 TDs and 21 INTs. The next-best TD total belonged to Norm Van Brocklin, who threw 31 TDs and 34 INTs, followed by Billy Wade (30 TD, 39 INT) and Milt Plum (25 TD, 19 INT). Unitas was on another planet.

Even if you disallow Moore, the Colts would still rank among the top two-year Triplet teams, with Alan Ameche as the running back.

Next Five

San Francisco 49ers, 1953-54: Y.A. Tittle, Joe Perry, Billy Wilson
San Diego Chargers, 1981-82: Dan Fouts, Chuck Muncie, Kellen Winslow
Dallas Cowboys, 1992-93: Troy Aikman, Emmitt Smith, Michael Irvin
San Francisco 49ers, 1993-94: Steve Young, Ricky Watters, Jerry Rice
St. Louis Rams, 1999-2000: Kurt Warner, Marshall Faulk, Isaac Bruce

In each of these trios, there's one player who stands out, as clearly and undisputedly the best at his position. Joe Perry and Emmitt Smith led the NFL in rushing in both listed seasons. Dan Fouts led the NFL in passing yards, TDs, and net yards per attempt in both 1981 and '82. Steve Young was first-team All-Pro both seasons, with the most combined yards and TDs and by far the best passer rating. Marshall Faulk took over the league from 1999-2001, a strong MVP candidate all three years and the official winner in 2000.

Of course, none of these players was a weak link. If you don't want tight ends counted for Triplets, Wes Chandler or Charlie Joiner fills in for Winslow with minimal drop in production.

Honorable Mentions

Cleveland Browns, 1968-69: Bill Nelsen, Leroy Kelly, Paul Warfield
San Francisco 49ers, 1988-89: Joe Montana, Roger Craig, Jerry Rice
Buffalo Bills, 1990-91: Jim Kelly, Thurman Thomas, Andre Reed
Denver Broncos, 1997-98: John Elway, Terrell Davis, Rod Smith
Indianapolis Colts, 1999-2000: Peyton Manning, Edgerrin James, Marvin Harrison

Three Years

This is where the really dominant teams begin to separate themselves. A team like the '58 Rams, '95 Lions, or 2010 Texans can fluke into elite territory if the stars align and everyone has a career year at the right time. One star, like Barry Sanders or Andre Johnson, can carry his teammates to greatness when that best year hits. But to have three great seasons in a row requires genuinely special players, healthy and on the same team for a significant period of time.

Baltimore Colts, 1958-60: Johnny Unitas, Lenny Moore, Raymond Berry

The outstanding greatness of this trio makes this project less interesting than I had anticipated, but it's sort of awe-inspiring to consider the way these Triplets dominated professional football. If you had Peyton Manning, Shaun Alexander, and Randy Moss on the same team in the mid-2000s, or Dan Marino, Walter Payton, and Steve Largent in the mid-80s, that would be roughly the equivalent.

Unitas and Berry were clearly and without any controversy the best players at their positions. That makes Lenny Moore the weakest link in this group. Moore is a Hall of Famer, and these years represented his prime. From 1958-60, Jim Brown was the best running back in pro football, but Moore was a clear second. Top threes, 1958-60:

Yards From Scrimmage

1. Jim Brown, 4645
2. Lenny Moore, 4114
3. John David Crow, 3110

Yards Per Carry

1. Bobby Mitchell, 5.43
2. Jim Brown, 5.40
3. Lenny Moore, 5.26

Touchdowns

1. Jim Brown, 43
2. Lenny Moore, 35
3. Raymond Berry, 33

If you limit the list to RBs, Bobby Mitchell would rank third (28).

Next Five

San Francisco 49ers, 1953-55
Y.A. Tittle, Joe Perry, Billy Wilson

Tittle and Perry are Hall of Famers, but Wilson is less known. For the decade of the 1950s, Wilson ranked 3rd in receiving yards, 2nd in receiving TDs, and 1st in receptions. He made six consecutive Pro Bowls, from 1954-59. That doesn't include the 1953 season, when Wilson ranked 4th in receiving yardage and led the NFL in receiving touchdowns. He led the NFL in receptions three times and is tied for the most Pro Bowl selections of any wide receiver prior to the 1970 AFL merger, with Hall of Famers Ray Berry, Tommy McDonald, and Pete Pihos.

San Diego Chargers, 1980-82
Dan Fouts, Chuck Muncie, Kellen Winslow

Chuck Muncie was traded from New Orleans four games into the 1980 season, so he didn't miss much time with his new team. In case you don't believe tight ends count for Triplets, Charlie Joiner ranked 5th in the NFL in receiving yardage over these seasons — and 4th among WRs, since Winslow ranked ahead of him.

Dallas Cowboys, 1991-93
Troy Aikman, Emmitt Smith, Michael Irvin

Fans have been arguing for 20 years now whether Barry Sanders or Emmitt Smith was the best RB of the 1990s. Barry was always the more breath-taking of the two, and his best seasons came after this, but when this three-year block was wrapping up, Emmitt sure looked like the better player. From 1991-93, Smith had more rushing yards (+747), a better rushing average (+.18), more rushing TDs (+11), more receptions (+59), more receiving yards (+270), more receiving TDs (+1), more total yards (+1,017) and TDs (+12) ... Emmitt had better blockers, sure, but it looked like Sanders was slowing down and Smith was just getting started. We were right about the second part, at least.

San Francisco 49ers, 1992-94
Steve Young, Ricky Watters, Jerry Rice

If Watters hadn't left in free agency after the 1994 season, this group would be legendary — and the Niners might have another Super Bowl victory. Young was by far the NFL's best QB during this period, winning league MVP in 1992 and '94. In '93, he passed for over 4,000 yards, led the NFL in TDs and passer rating, and was named first-team All-Pro. Rice had double-digit TDs each season and twice led the league in receiving yards. Watters, a rushing and receiving threat, scored more than 10 TDs every season he played in San Francisco. In fact, the Niners had two of the top five TD scorers in the NFL over these years, Rice (3rd) and Watters (5th).

St. Louis Rams, 1999-2001
Kurt Warner, Marshall Faulk, Isaac Bruce

The Greatest Show on Turf. In all three seasons, St. Louis topped the NFL in both yards and points. Each year, the Rams led the NFL in both passing yards and passer rating, and they ranked either first or second in yards per carry. Faulk's 5.45 three-year rushing average is the best since Jim Brown (min. 600 att.). Warner and Faulk combined to win NFL MVP all three seasons.

Honorable Mentions

Cleveland Browns, 1947-49: Otto Graham, Marion Motley, Mac Speedie
Dallas Cowboys, 1977-79: Roger Staubach, Tony Dorsett, Drew Pearson
San Francisco 49ers, 1987-89: Joe Montana, Roger Craig, Jerry Rice
Buffalo Bills, 1989-91: Jim Kelly, Thurman Thomas, Andre Reed
Indianapolis Colts, 2003-05: Peyton Manning, Edgerrin James, Marvin Harrison

Five Years

The four-year list is pretty similar to the three- and five-year lists. The John Unitas Colts are at the top (1957-60). But many of the best three-year Triplets fell apart after that. The Air Coryell Chargers don't have a trio without Muncie. Ricky Watters left the 49ers in free agency. Kurt Warner fell apart after 2001, and Marshall Faulk couldn't stay healthy. Staubach and Dorsett only played together for three seasons. Thus, it's at five years that dynasties begin to re-emerge. One bad season — an injury to a single player — can keep a team off the three-year list, because the standard stays so high. But very few teams maintain that excellence for five seasons, so some great players and legendary groupings show up over this time frame. The best, though, is unchanged.

Baltimore Colts, 1957-61: Johnny Unitas, Lenny Moore, Raymond Berry

Over these seasons, Unitas was the best QB, Berry was the best WR, and Moore was a clear second to Jim Brown at RB. Let's do top threes again:

Passing Yards

1. John Unitas, 13,545
2. Norm Van Brocklin, 9602
3. Milt Plum, 8914

Passing TDs

1. John Unitas, 116
2. Norm Van Brocklin, 75
3. Milt Plum, 66

Unitas isn't just number one, he's light years ahead of anyone else.

Yards From Scrimmage

1. Jim Brown, 10,039
2. Lenny Moore, 8229
3. Bobby Mitchell, 5363

Moore is behind Brown, but he's nearly 3,000 yards — 53% — ahead of third place. He ranks 7th in rushing yardage.

Yards Per Carry

1. Lenny Moore, 5.56
2. Bobby Mitchell, 5.43
3. Jim Brown, 5.09

Moore averaged over seven yards per attempt in '58 and '61.

Receptions

1. Raymond Berry, 318
2. Lenny Moore, 231
3. Red Phillips, 202

Berry has 57% more catches than anyone but his teammate Moore.

Receiving Yards

1. Raymond Berry, 4724
2. Lenny Moore, 4135
3. Tommy McDonald, 3622

Moore is the only player within 1,000 yards of Berry.

Touchdowns

1. Jim Brown, 63
2. Lenny Moore, 61
3. Tommy McDonald, 48

Berry is fourth, with 39 TDs.

The 1956-60 Colts, with Alan Ameche in place of Moore, would still rank among the top five, but probably not number one.

Next Five

Cleveland Browns, 1946-50
Otto Graham, Marion Motley, Mac Speedie

Over these five seasons, the Browns won their league championship every year. They won all four titles in the All-America Football Conference (1946-49) before a partial merger brought the Browns, Colts, and 49ers to the NFL. The 1950 season began with a matchup between the AAFC's Browns and the two-time defending NFL champion Eagles. The media billed the contest as "The World Series of Pro Football," and the game was moved to a Saturday night and a larger stadium, where it drew a bigger crowd than the first Super Bowl. The Eagles were heavily favored, but Cleveland won the game 35-10. The Browns went on to win the NFL Championship, and NFL Commissioner Bert Bell called them "the greatest team to ever play football."

San Francisco 49ers, 1953-57
Y.A. Tittle, Joe Perry, Billy Wilson

Hugh McElhenny was a brilliant runner, but 1952 was by far his best season. Tittle and Wilson were better during these years, and without '52, Perry has to rank ahead of the King. For those who don't know, Perry was called Joe the Jet, and McElhenny was nicknamed The King — three years before Elvis Presley. Y.A. stood for Yelberton Abraham, and teammates often called him Yat (the phonetic pronunciation of his initials).

San Francisco 49ers, 1985-89
Joe Montana, Roger Craig, Jerry Rice

We weren't using the term "Triplets" yet in the late '80s, but this was as famous a trio as the sport has seen in the Super Bowl Era. Montana and Rice are often cited as the best players ever at their respective positions. Craig is not in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, though he could be. In 1985, Craig became the first player in history to gain 1,000 yards rushing and 1,000 receiving in the same season. In '88, he rushed for over 1,500 yards, with 500 receiving, and was named Offensive Player of the Year.

Buffalo Bills, 1989-93
Jim Kelly, Thurman Thomas, Andre Reed

Along with Jimmy Johnson's Cowboys, the inspiration for the widespread use of the name "Triplets" to refer to a quarterback, running back, and wide receiver. This group went to four consecutive Super Bowls and made a collective 13 Pro Bowls in these five seasons: Thomas and Reed every year, Kelly from 1990-92.

Thurman Thomas has been treated unfairly by history. Because Barry Sanders and Emmitt Smith had such great careers, few people remember that in the early '90s, Thomas was in that same group, and it was not obvious which player was the best. Smith didn't turn pro until 1990, so the chart below treats him a little unfairly. 1989-93:

Thomas was named NFL MVP in 1991.

Dallas Cowboys, 1991-95
Troy Aikman, Emmitt Smith, Michael Irvin

All elite triplets since have been compared to these Cowboys.

Honorable Mentions

Los Angeles Rams, 1950-54: Norm Van Brocklin, Dan Towler, Crazy Legs Hirsch
Miami Dolphins, 1970-1974: Bob Griese, Larry Csonka, Paul Warfield
Pittsburgh Steelers, 1975-79: Terry Bradshaw, Franco Harris, Lynn Swann
St. Louis Rams, 1999-2003: Kurt Warner, Marshall Faulk, Torry Holt
Indianapolis Colts, 2001-05: Peyton Manning, Edgerrin James, Marvin Harrison

Seven Years

This is the last time period we'll examine, since very few teammates stay together longer than this — and even when they do, it's usually not as productive players any longer. We respect longevity and consistency, though, and these are some of the most celebrated groups of teammates in the history of professional football.

Baltimore Colts, 1956-62: Johnny Unitas, Lenny Moore, Raymond Berry

I don't want to spend a lot more space on these guys, and I swear I won't post any more Top Three lists. Instead, let's expand on their finest season, 1958, which I effectively skipped over in the one-year section. The '58 Colts led the league in both yardage and scoring. Their running game, led by Alan Ameche (791 yards, 4.6 average) and Moore (598 yards, 7.3 average), ranked second in the NFL. The passing game was equally strong, ranking sixth in yardage and first in efficiency. Unitas had more TD passes and fewer interceptions than any other starting quarterback in the league. Berry led the league in both receptions and receiving touchdowns. Moore had more touchdowns and yards from scrimmage than anyone but Brown. Unitas, Moore, and Berry were all first-team All-Pros, and the Colts won the championship. No Triplets have had a better season than that.

Next Five

Cleveland Browns
1946-52: Otto Graham, Marion Motley, Mac Speedie

Every time this team shows up, I've listed Mac Speedie as the receiver. Speedie is not in the Hall of Fame, but his teammate Dante Lavelli is. So why Speedie?

Speedie didn't get along with head coach Paul Brown, and he quit the team after '52 to play in the CFL. Lavelli was a questionable choice for Canton, and he had two of his best seasons after Motley retired. During the listed years, Speedie was the more productive receiver. He was first team All-AAFC each of his first four years, and All-Pro in '50 and '52.

San Francisco 49ers, 1952-58
Y.A. Tittle, Hugh McElhenny, Billy Wilson

With '52 included, should McElhenny replace Perry as the running back in this trio? Statistically, it's a close call.

Jet: 5,225 yds, 5.14 avg, 6,207 net yds, 43 TDs
King: 3,874 yds, 5.07 avg, 6,097 net yds, 46 TDs

You might lean toward Perry based on the numbers, but by reputation, it's definitely McElhenny, the Barry Sanders of his era. He is commonly described as the greatest broken-field runner in history. In a 1957 playoff game, McElhenny scored a 47-yard TD on a short pass, but film breakdown showed that he ran over 100 yards on the play. In 1999, Paul Zimmerman named McElhenny to his All-Century Team. "Hugh McElhenny, the King, could turn a short pass into a crazy-legged, broken-field adventure."

Buffalo Bills, 1989-95
Jim Kelly, Thurman Thomas, Andre Reed

Reed was elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame this year, putting all three members of this trio in the PFHOF. How many Triplets played together for at least seven seasons and all got the call to Canton? So far, five: the 1946-53 Browns (Graham, Motley, Lavelli), 1956-66 Colts (Unitas, Moore, Berry), 1974-1982 Pittsburgh Steelers (Bradshaw, Harris, Swann/John Stallworth), 1990-99 Cowboys (Aikman, Smith, Irvin), and the 1988-96 Bills.

Dallas Cowboys, 1991-97
Troy Aikman, Emmitt Smith, Michael Irvin

They played together for a decade, but declined quickly after their last Super Bowl in 1995. Per-season averages:

Troy Aikman, 1991-95: 3,056 passing yards, 16 TDs, 10 INTs, 90.9 passer rating
Troy Aikman, 1996-97: 3,205 passing yards, 16 TDs, 13 INTs, 79.0 passer rating

Emmitt Smith, 1991-95: 1,604 rushing yards, 4.54 per carry, 18 TDs
Emmitt Smith, 1996-97: 1,139 rushing yards, 3.87 per carry, 9.5 TDs

Michael Irvin, 1991-95: 90 receptions, 1,419 receiving yards, 7.5 TDs
Michael Irvin, 1996-97: 70 receptions, 1,071 receiving yards, 5.5 TDs

It's not that they were bad players after '95, but they weren't special any more. Troy Aikman was the only one to make a Pro Bowl in the '96 and '97 seasons, and that was largely because the NFC was low on QBs. Gus Frerotte made the Pro Bowl that year, too.

Indianapolis Colts, 1999-2005
Peyton Manning, Edgerrin James, Marvin Harrison

These three would rate much more highly if we allowed non-consecutive seasons. James was injured in 2001, ineffective in '02, and not all the way back in '03. But from 1999-2000 and 2004-05, these Triplets ruled the NFL. In 1999 and 2000, Manning was second-team All-Pro both seasons. James led the NFL in rushing, adding over 500 receiving yards each year. Harrison had over 100 receptions both years, with a combined 3,076 yards and 26 TDs, tied with Randy Moss for the most receiving touchdowns in the NFL.

From 2004-05, Manning was by far the best QB in the NFL. He was first-team All-Pro both years, including unanimous selection in '04, when he was also named NFL MVP. James rushed for over 1,500 yards both seasons, while Harrison's 27 receiving TDs led the league.

That doesn't even include Harrison's record-breaking '02 (143 receptions, a record that has never been approached) or Manning's MVP-winning '03.

Honorable Mentions

Los Angeles Rams, 1951-57: Norm Van Brocklin, Tank Younger, Crazy Legs Hirsch
Green Bay Packers, 1959-65: Bart Starr, Jim Taylor, Max McGee
Pittsburgh Steelers, 1975-81: Terry Bradshaw, Franco Harris, Lynn Swann
Seattle Seahawks, 1983-89: Dave Krieg, Curt Warner, Steve Largent
Cincinnati Bengals, 1985-91: Boomer Esiason, James Brooks, Eddie Brown

Best Triplets By Year

1946 — Cleveland Browns [Otto Graham, Marion Motley, Dante Lavelli]
1947 — Cleveland Browns [Otto Graham, Marion Motley, Mac Speedie]
1948 — Philadelphia Eagles [Tommy Thompson, Steve Van Buren, Pete Pihos]
1949 — Cleveland Browns [Otto Graham, Marion Motley, Mac Speedie]
1950 — Detroit Lions [Bobby Layne, Doak Walker, Cloyce Box]
1951 — Los Angeles Rams [Bob Waterfield, Dan Towler, Elroy Hirsch]
1952 — Cleveland Browns [Otto Graham, Marion Motley, Mac Speedie]
1953 — San Francisco 49ers [Y.A. Tittle, Joe Perry, Billy Wilson]
1954 — San Francisco 49ers [Y.A. Tittle, Joe Perry, Billy Wilson]
1955 — Cleveland Browns [Otto Graham, Curly Morrison, Ray Renfro]
1956 — Chicago Bears [Ed Brown, Rick Casares, Harlon Hill]
1957 — Baltimore Colts [John Unitas, Lenny Moore, Raymond Berry]
1958 — Baltimore Colts [John Unitas, Lenny Moore, Raymond Berry]
1959 — Baltimore Colts [John Unitas, Lenny Moore, Raymond Berry]
1960 — Baltimore Colts [John Unitas, Lenny Moore, Raymond Berry]
1961 — Houston Oilers [George Blanda, Billy Cannon, Charley Hennigan]
1962 — Philadelphia Eagles [Sonny Jurgensen, Timmy Brown, Tommy McDonald]
1963 — San Diego Chargers [Tobin Rote, Keith Lincoln, Lance Alworth]
1964 — Cleveland Browns [Frank Ryan, Jim Brown, Paul Warfield]
1965 — San Diego Chargers [John Hadl, Paul Lowe, Lance Alworth]
1966 — Cleveland Browns [Bill Nelsen, Leroy Kelly, Paul Warfield]
1967 — Kansas City Chiefs [Len Dawson, Mike Garrett, Otis Taylor]
1968 — Cleveland Browns [Bill Nelsen, Leroy Kelly, Paul Warfield]
1969 — Washington [Sonny Jurgensen, Larry Brown, Charley Taylor]
1970 — Washington [Sonny Jurgensen, Larry Brown, Charley Taylor]
1971 — Miami Dolphins [Bob Griese, Larry Csonka, Paul Warfield]
1972 — Miami Dolphins [Earl Morrall, Mercury Morris, Paul Warfield]
1973 — Los Angeles Rams [John Hadl, Lawrence McCutcheon, Harold Jackson]
1974 — St. Louis Cardinals [Jim Hart, Terry Metcalf, Mel Gray]
1975 — Pittsburgh Steelers [Terry Bradshaw, Franco Harris, Lynn Swann]
1976 — Baltimore Colts [Bert Jones, Lydell Mitchell, Roger Carr]
1977 — Dallas Cowboys [Roger Staubach, Tony Dorsett, Drew Pearson]
1978 — Dallas Cowboys [Roger Staubach, Tony Dorsett, Tony Hill]
1979 — Pittsburgh Steelers [Terry Bradshaw, Franco Harris, John Stallworth]
1980 — San Diego Chargers [Dan Fouts, Chuck Muncie, John Jefferson]
1981 — San Diego Chargers [Dan Fouts, Chuck Muncie, Kellen Winslow]
1982 — San Diego Chargers [Dan Fouts, Chuck Muncie, Wes Chandler]
1983 — Washington [Joe Theismann, John Riggins, Charlie Brown]
1984 — Miami Dolphins [Dan Marino, Tony Nathan, Mark Clayton]
1985 — San Francisco 49ers [Joe Montana, Roger Craig, Dwight Clark]
1986 — Miami Dolphins [Dan Marino, Lorenzo Hampton, Mark Duper]
1987 — San Francisco 49ers [Joe Montana, Roger Craig, Jerry Rice]
1988 — Los Angeles Rams [Jim Everett, Greg Bell, Henry Ellard]
1989 — San Francisco 49ers [Joe Montana, Roger Craig, Jerry Rice]
1990 — Buffalo Bills [Jim Kelly, Thurman Thomas, Andre Reed]
1991 — Buffalo Bills [Jim Kelly, Thurman Thomas, Andre Reed]
1992 — Dallas Cowboys [Troy Aikman, Emmitt Smith, Michael Irvin]
1993 — San Francisco 49ers [Steve Young, Ricky Watters, Jerry Rice]
1994 — San Francisco 49ers [Steve Young, Ricky Watters, Jerry Rice]
1995 — Dallas Cowboys [Troy Aikman, Emmitt Smith, Michael Irvin]
1996 — Denver Broncos [John Elway, Terrell Davis, Shannon Sharpe]
1997 — Denver Broncos [John Elway, Terrell Davis, Rod Smith]
1998 — Denver Broncos [John Elway, Terrell Davis, Rod Smith]
1999 — St. Louis Rams [Kurt Warner, Marshall Faulk, Isaac Bruce]
2000 — Minnesota Vikings [Daunte Culpepper, Robert Smith, Randy Moss]
2001 — St. Louis Rams [Kurt Warner, Marshall Faulk, Torry Holt]
2002 — Oakland Raiders [Rich Gannon, Charlie Garner, Jerry Rice]
2003 — Indianapolis Colts [Peyton Manning, Edgerrin James, Marvin Harrison]
2004 — Indianapolis Colts [Peyton Manning, Edgerrin James, Marvin Harrison]
2005 — Indianapolis Colts [Peyton Manning, Edgerrin James, Marvin Harrison]
2006 — Indianapolis Colts [Peyton Manning, Joseph Addai, Reggie Wayne]
2007 — Indianapolis Colts [Peyton Manning, Joseph Addai, Reggie Wayne]
2008 — Atlanta Falcons [Matt Ryan, Michael Turner, Roddy White]
2009 — Minnesota Vikings [Brett Favre, Adrian Peterson, Sidney Rice]
2010 — Houston Texans [Matt Schaub, Arian Foster, Andre Johnson]
2011 — New Orleans Saints [Drew Brees, Darren Sproles, Jimmy Graham]
2012 — New England Patriots [Tom Brady, Stevan Ridley, Wes Welker]
2013 — Denver Broncos [Peyton Manning, Knowshon Moreno, Demaryius Thomas]

Best Triplets By Team

49ers: Joe Montana, Roger Craig, Jerry Rice
Bears: Sid Luckman, George McAfee, Ken Kavanaugh
Bengals: Boomer Esiason, James Brooks, Eddie Brown
Bills: Jim Kelly, Thurman Thomas, Andre Reed
Broncos: John Elway, Terrell Davis, Rod Smith
Browns: Otto Graham, Marion Motley, Mac Speedie
Buccaneers: Brad Johnson, Mike Alstott, Keyshawn Johnson
Cardinals: Jim Hart, Terry Metcalf, Mel Gray
Chargers: Dan Fouts, Chuck Muncie, Kellen Winslow
Chiefs: Len Dawson, Mike Garrett, Otis Taylor
Colts: Johnny Unitas, Lenny Moore, Raymond Berry
Cowboys: Troy Aikman, Emmitt Smith, Michael Irvin
Dolphins: Bob Griese, Larry Csonka, Paul Warfield
Eagles: Tommy Thompson, Steve Van Buren, Pete Pihos
Falcons: Matt Ryan, Michael Turner, Roddy White
Giants: Y.A. Tittle, Alex Webster, Del Shofner
Jaguars: Mark Brunell, Fred Taylor, Jimmy Smith
Jets: Joe Namath, Matt Snell, Don Maynard
Lions: Bobby Layne, Doak Walker, Cloyce Box
Packers: Arnie Herber, Clarke Hinkle, Don Hutson
Panthers: Cam Newton, DeAngelo Williams, Steve Smith
Patriots: Tom Brady, Kevin Faulk, Wes Welker
Raiders: Tom Flores, Clem Daniels, Art Powell
Rams: Norm Van Brocklin, Dan Towler, Crazy Legs Hirsch
Ravens: Joe Flacco, Ray Rice, Anquan Boldin
Saints: Drew Brees, Pierre Thomas, Marques Colston
Seahawks: Dave Krieg, Curt Warner, Steve Largent
Steelers: Terry Bradshaw, Franco Harris, Lynn Swann
Texans: Matt Schaub, Arian Foster, Andre Johnson
Titans: Warren Moon, Lorenzo White, Ernest Givins
Vikings: Fran Tarkenton, Chuck Foreman, John Gilliam
Washington: Joe Theismann, John Riggins, Art Monk

Posted by Brad Oremland at 2:20 PM | Comments (0)

March 17, 2014

Questions and Answers

Last week, Grantland.com posted its third installment in a series of videos documenting Steve Nash's recovery from injuries that have derailed his Laker career. They're beautifully shot, remarkably current, and hauntingly honest ... maybe too honest for some.

In the last two videos, Nash has addressed the awkward reality that his contract is an albatross to a sputtering franchise. But one comment in particular from last week's video caught my attention and many others' (6:20 in episode three):

"I'm not going to retire because I want the money. That's honest. We want honest athletes, but at the same time, you're going to have people out there that are like, 'Oh man, he's so greedy.' ... I have to take that last little bit. I'm sorry if that is frustrating to some, but if they were in my shoes, they would do exactly the same thing."

Many times, I read and hear interviews that are eventually judged "controversial" in the news cycle without coming to the same conclusion. But this was different.

The first time I heard Nash admit part of his motivation for returning was to collect all of his salary I stopped the video and replayed that soundbite. For fans long brainwashed by the meaningless platitudes of jock-speak, this was a startling admission that I knew would draw attention. It felt something like a Saturday Night Live parody where a likable famous person plays the opposite role and says something clashingly terrible.

But as I reeled in the comment, I found myself unable to answer one simple question: What exactly is wrong with this answer?

Nash's answer is not only completely logical, it's exactly the kind of honesty we claim to want from our athletes.

The history of bland athlete interviews is now decades old. Anecdotally, Michael Jordan established a capitalist justification for saying little while talking a lot: Republicans buy sneakers, too. If taking a divisive stand meant a significant financial hit, why do it, Jordan reasoned.

But Nash's honesty went a step further and ruffled some feathers because it pulled back the curtain on our sports fantasies. Sure, when enormous contract figures bounce around the sports page like Angry Birds, we can accept it. We see those figures in black and white with such regularity that the pure mercenary nature of the transaction is hidden. But when Nash admits he wants to come back to earn his salary, even if his best effort is limited, it feels different. The sports myths of unchecked competitive fire and child-like passion quickly dissolve. We only see a guy with an opportunity to make a ridiculous amount of money for a year of work that might not be up to what his employer bargained for.

And this brings us to Allen Iverson.

Like Nash, Iverson was an iconic point guard for some good-if-not-great teams in the past two decades. And like Nash, Iverson had his own soundbite kerfluffle, though you probably already know about this one.

In 2002, Iverson answered queries about his practice habits by questioning who really cares what happens outside of games and, in the process, said the word "practice" about 9,608 times. I will admit that discussions of Iverson carry enough baggage to ground a commercial airliner, but in this particular case, the contemporary gripe was that Iverson seemed above the grunt work we assumed was necessary to his success.

Where Nash's sin was admitting he wanted to come back regardless of his peak ability, Iverson was guilty of bringing less than complete enthusiasm to parts of his athlete lifestyle.

Sports are different from most consumer businesses in how fanatically involved the customers become emotionally. When we go to the grocery store, we want quality products and service because we surrender our hard-earned money for them, but we can understand the tedium and wage frustration that come along with some of the associated work.

But this isn't true of sports. Not only do professional athletes make highly public fortunes, they do so in an industry many of us choose as a primary leisure activity.

At some point, sports fans have to grow up. Maybe our athletes lose a little mystique when they get bored with the less interesting parts of their jobs or openly pay attention to maximizing their incomes because that's what the rest of us do.

There's a reason sports are consumed much differently from scripted entertainment. We don't like to DVR games and we love watching them in social situations, both virtual and real. On some level, we must understand that these are humans, wildly talented humans, who sometimes worry about money and sometimes aren't model citizens. No matter how much we fool ourselves, it's their job.

And the games are more interesting for it.

Posted by Corrie Trouw at 11:40 AM | Comments (0)

March 14, 2014

Foul Territory: Free Agent Frenzy

* He Got Kicked to the Curb, Which is Where He Did Business in Belle Glade, Florida, or He Left With More Baggage Than He Came With — The New York Jets cut wide receiver Santonio Holmes on Monday, ending his four-year run with the team. Holmes said he understood the economics of the move, but said he would much rather be handed rolling papers as opposed to walking papers.

* I Quit This, Rich, or There's No "Hall" in This Future — Former Steelers and Cardinals running back Rashard Mendenhall retired at the age of 26. Mendenhall said he now hopes to travel, write, and finally be compared to Barry Sanders.

* Some Are Calling it the Second Coming of Wayne Chrebet, or Big Deck In Town — The New York Jets signed wide receiver Eric Decker to a five-year, $36.25 million offer on Wednesday, and he is expected to boost what was at times a stagnant Jets offense. The Jets ranked 31st in passing offense last year, so apparently money isn't the only thing they have to throw around.

* The San Francisco Cheat, or Jose Canseco Probably Predicted This, or Now He'll Also Be Known as a Performance-Enhancer — Barry Bonds is back with the San Francisco Giants, this time as a roving instructor for the team in spring training. The new job will necessitate a complete redefinition of the term "giving pointers" for Bonds.

* Mutiny of the Bounty — The Buccaneers signed free agent defensive end Michael Johnson to a five-year, $43.75 million contract on Tuesday. Johnson recorded just 3.5 sacks for the Bengals in 2013, but is 6'7", 260 pounds and has a near-seven foot wingspan, which means both Johnson and the Bucs can be accused of "reaching."

* The 49ers "Took a Flyer," and So Did Gabbert, to San Francisco — The Jacksonville Jaguars traded Blaine Gabbert to the 49ers for a sixth-round pick this year's draft and a conditional pick in 2015. Gabbert will serve as an "insurance" policy, in that his presence will insure Colin Kaepernick that he absolutely cannot get injured.

* He Shoots, They Score — The Broncos signed free agent cornerback Aqib Talib to a six-year, $57 million deal on Tuesday, an addition that immediately improves the Denver defense. Talib celebrated by putting his gun on "waivers."

* He's Already Accused Dirty Harry of Harassment — The Dolphins traded Jonathan Martin to the 49ers for an undisclosed 2015 draft choice. Martin feels like a change of scenery will be good, although he does have some apprehension about the haze in San Francisco Bay.

* Island Hopper, or Revis-ionist History — The New England Patriots signed cornerback Darrelle Revis to a one-year, $12 million contract on Wednesday. Revis now wants to play badly against the Jets, whereas before he played badly for the Jets.

* Boy, Does that Succ(ulent), or Foot Fault, or the Home Plate Umpire Called a "Stalk" — Milwaukee Brewers reliever Francisco Rodriguez stepped barefoot on a cactus earlier this week and missed his spring training debut on Thursday. Former slugger Mark McGwire said he's never seen so many needles, before quickly clarifying "in someone's foot."

* He'll Put it on Him, Not in Him — Ryan Braun signed an endorsement deal with baseball footwear and apparel company 3n2. Many are skeptical that Braun will actually use 3n2 merchandise. However, Braun said that wouldn't be a problem, because he's got experience using a product and lying about it.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 7:26 PM | Comments (0)

Frank Jobe, RIP: Elbow and Shoulder Above the Rest

Tommy John dropped quietly off the Baseball Writers Association of America ballots after polling 31.7 percent of the vote needed to go into the Hall of Fame. That vote percentage was the highest of his life on the ballots. But if you combine his borderline Hall of Fame pitching career with what he was able to do after undergoing the surgery bearing his name since, John probably should be in the Hall of Fame — as much in the pioneer category as any other. And so should the physician who developed and performed that surgery.

Dr. Frank Jobe, who died March 6 at 88, got his chance with Tommy John after John himself pushed Dodger medical personnel to find a way to save him, after a ligament in his left elbow snapped while throwing a pitch. Taking a cue from prior hand surgeries and joint surgeries on polio patients, Jobe conceived the then-radical idea of transferring a tendon from John's non-throwing arm and using it to repair what had never been done: a pitcher's elbow, on which the torque of throwing a baseball is as violent as a field battle.

John was 31 when the elbow ligament snapped, with 124 wins on his resume, a career ERA of 3.00+, and had just led the National League in winning percentage in back-to-back seasons. He'd been a good pitcher before the surgery. He became an above average one after it.

He pitched 12 major league seasons before the surgery; he pitched 14 after taking 1975 off to recuperate and rehabilitate. His best won-lost record before the surgery was 16-7 in 1973; he was a three-time 20-game winner after. His best ERA before the surgery, not counting the Year of the Pitcher in 1968, was 1974's 2.59; his best after it in any uninterrupted season (he compiled a 2.63 during strike-disrupted 1981) was 2.78 in 1977, the year he finished second in the National League's Cy Young Award voting.

That would be the first of two Cy Young runner-up finishes for John after the surgery, not to mention that he made three all-star teams and pitched in three World Series. Any way you look at it, Tommy John was a good pitcher before and after the surgery bearing his name, and damn near pitched his way to the Hall of Fame. (He retired twelve wins short of the magic 300 mark.) "I know they had to give Tommy John a new arm," Pete Rose once cracked. "But did they have to give him Sandy Koufax's?"

John didn't pitch quite that far off the charts following the surgery but he won 164 games after it. And he almost didn't make it back. It took slow throwing activity (playing catch with his wife at first) and a second surgery (moving the ulnar nerve in the newly-repaired elbow to the back of it), not to mention John taking the rehab seriously, just to get John back to where Jobe predicted he'd have a one in one hundred chance of returning.

Jobe chose a medical career in the first place after serving as a medical supplier with the 101st Airborne in World War II and being impressed with the nervy courage of front-line Army doctors. He eventually earned his medical degrees and, after falling into a friendship during his residency, became a willing assistant and teammate to Dr. Robert Kerlan, the legendary Dodgers' team physician who specialized in orthopedics and, among other things, managed to keep Sandy Koufax pitching through barely-treatable elbow arthritis for his final two, off-the-planet seasons.

Kerlan and Jobe opened their own clinic in 1965. A year earlier, Jobe made a name for himself in baseball circles when veteran Johnny Podres developed chips in his pitching elbow. Jobe removed the chips and allowed Podres to pitch two more seasons before his retirement. A decade later, he went from name to immortal by way of Tommy John, though Jobe by most accounts was modest about his own fame, if not what he accomplished.

Tommy John himself to one side, who were the best pitchers otherwise following Tommy John surgery?

David Wells — Tommy John surgery, just the third in the history of the procedure, in 1985. (Brent Strom, now the Astros' pitching coach, was the second, but his was a mediocre career at best before and after.) He had it in the Toronto system at age 22. Won 239 games including a perfect game in 1998; a three-time all-star and a two-time World Series champion. Retired with 53.5 WAR.

John Smoltz — With one Cy Young Award on his belt and helping anchor the great Atlanta rotation of the 1990s, Smoltz had Tommy John surgery before the 2000 season. He returned in 2001, became a closer, and made an All-Star team in that role before returning to the rotation in 2004 and pitching until he was 42. Very likely a Hall of Famer in waiting, too, and it would make him the first Hall of Famer to have undergone the procedure with a successful aftermath.

Kerry Wood — Tommy John surgery in 1999, right after he was the National League's Rookie of the Year and had that impeccable 20-strikeout game in his fifth major league start. After recuperating, Wood would make All-Star teams as a starter and reliever; he didn't quite live up to what his rookie season promised but he did manage to have a respectable if injury-addled career from there. Wood retired, in fact, with a lifetime 10.3 strikeouts-per-nine-innings rate — the second best rate in baseball history among pitchers with a thousand innings or more worth of work.

Chris Carpenter — The recently-retired Carpenter had the surgery in 2007; he returned to lead the National League in ERA in 2009 and came in second in the Cy Young voting. (He won the award in 2005, two years before his surgery.) He was a three-time all-star and led the league in games started in 2010 and 2011 while also helping the Cardinals to a World Series ring in 2011 by beating the Rangers twice and compiling a 2.84 ERA for that Series. Retired with 35.5 WAR.

Anibal Sanchez — Like Wells, Sanchez had Tommy John surgery before he reached the majors. Threw a no-hitter as a rookie in 2006; climbed the ladder steadily until his breakout 2013 in which he led the American League in ERA (2.57) and the lowest home runs per nine innings rate. (0.4.) 21.2 lifetime WAR as of this writing.

Too soon to call — Jordan Zimmermann, Stephen Strasburg, Matt Harvey.

"It's one of the reasons I'm so adamant about the mechanics, we have a better understanding now of why this happens," Strom told Ultimate Astros writer Evan Drelich. "So we try and do things to help eliminate that. Now medical (advancements) allow Tommy John surgeries — I hate to use the word routine — but it's a lot easier to work on an elbow with this than it is a shoulder. Shoulders are more difficult."

Orel Hershiser can tell you about difficult shoulders and Frank Jobe's hand in those, too. Hershiser developed cartilage and ligament displacement in his shoulder in 1990, two years after he was a Cy Young Award winner and World Series conquerer. The available surgeries of the time otherwise would have left Hershiser unable to throw even if he could use his arm serviceably day by day.

Jobe developed a procedure to repair the shoulder without damaging shoulder muscles, splitting the muscle instead of detaching it and securing ligaments to the shoulder bone. The procedure was so radical that Hershiser himself didn't dare let his rehab go public until he could actually throw again. It paid off: Hershiser pitched another ten seasons. He won 105 games after the Jobe procedure; he'd won 99 before it. Twice his ERA went below 3.00 before the procedure; he'd never again compile an ERA below 3.50 after it. He'd had seven full seasons before the procedure; he'd have 10 after it.

Hershiser retired with 51.7 WAR before becoming a pitching coach, front-office advisor, and broadcaster, first with ESPN and this season for SportsNet LA, working most road games with veteran Charley Steiner. He fell well enough short of a Hall of Fame career. But at least Frank Jobe let him, as he let many other pitchers, continue to have one.

Posted by Jeff Kallman at 11:27 AM | Comments (0)

March 13, 2014

Thoughts on Old Announcers Being Sent to Pasture

I've waxed nostalgic about old announcers that I grew up listening to in my column many times before, but one lifelong sports voice that I do not have a particular affinity for is Brent Musberger. He says "folks" too much, I don't find is catch phrases as pleasing as other announcers', and he just grates on me sometimes.

Nonetheless, I recognize his contributions to the sports broadcasting world, and when guys like Musberger get up in years, I want them to go out on a high. In NFL player terms, I'd rather see them retire like John Elway (if possible), a Super Bowl MVP in his last game, and not like Emmitt Smith, an Arizona Cardinal.

That doesn't seem to happen often, though, in broadcasting. Musberger will no longer be the voice of ABC Saturday Night Football (and with apologies to CBS and ABC-owned ESPN, that's still the biggest game in town). Instead, he will be the new voice of the upstart SEC Network, which is also affiliated with ABC/ESPN/Disney.

The new network is not going to significantly shake up network game priorities. For the SEC (it's slightly more complicated than this, but here is the gist), CBS still gets the first choice each week, and ESPN gets second choice.

So no longer are you going to see Musberger call top-flight games. Instead you will see him doing games like Wake Forest at Vanderbilt, or whatever. It doesn't seem right for a man of Musberger's pedigree. He is also not from nor does he reside (as best as I can figure out) in SEC country. I don't see any obvious ties with Musberger and the SEC.

Sometimes a network feels their hand is forced as broadcasters get up in years and their booth performance suffers. I see two flaws with that, however.

One, and less controversially: Musberger is still as sharp as a tack. He's 74, but I don't think his performance has declined in the last 20-30 years at all, nor do I see many others saying that.

Two, and more controversially: in these days of DVRs and information overload, nostalgia is more important than occasional lapses in accuracy.

But the way Musberger is getting jobbed seems to be typical of the national TV landscape. Let's look at some examples:

Do you remember Mike Patrick? Here's a man who doesn't get his due in the sports broadcasting pantheon. He was formerly ESPN's No. 1 college football voice, as well as their play-by-play man for NFL's Sunday Night Football for many years. Now, judging by his assignments, he gets ESPN/ABC's fourth or fifth best game each week. Why? His age does not seem to be publicly offered, but he started his broadcasting career in the '70s.

Pat Summerall is probably my favorite announcer ever. Towards the end of his career, after retiring and unretiring, he was paired with Brian Baldinger on FOX and covered mostly Cowboys and Texans games on a regional basis only.

Was that at his request? Possibly. But possibly not, since he was happy to fill in for Mike Patrick on Sunday Night Football when the latter had heart surgery in 2004.

Keith Jackson may be the exception to the rule. He did absolutely request less travel in his twilight years, which meant only covering Pac-10 (at the time) games for ABC.

Barry Tompkins is another one I find vastly underrated. He was for several years FOX Sports Regional Network's main play-by-play man, covering bit Pac-10 games. But then he inexplicably downshifted to the little-seen WAC Sports Network (not an actual network, but a syndicate). Now he calls WCC basketball games.

Compare this to local broadcasting heroes. Harry Caray was at it for the Cubs until the day he died, and I don't think anyone would have it any other way even though his performance did suffer in his later years.

Vin Scully is 86 (!) and still is the main man for Dodgers radio and TV for all home games and road games close to Los Angeles, although he shares innings with Charley Steiner. If he wanted to do more than that, no one would stand in his way.

We see here that local markets tend to be more generous with heralded announcers than national markets. But there's no reason it should be that way. If Scully is venerated by millions of Dodger fans, then Musberger is venerated by tens of millions of college football fans the country over, and that ought to be the bottom line.

Posted by Kevin Beane at 2:50 PM | Comments (0)

March 12, 2014

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 3

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt's engine sputtered on the final lap at Las Vegas, allowing Brad Keselowski to pass for the win as fuel mileage cost the No. 88 its second win of the year. Still, Earnhardt has a win and two runner-ups, and leads Keselowski in the points standings by 1.

"We took a gamble,"Earnhardt said. "Some would call it 'rolling the dice.' That would be inaccurate. We only rolled one, because my engine 'die'd.' And Junior Nation is not a happy bunch. 'MPG' has moved to the top of the Nation's list of most-hated three-letter acronyms, right above 'DWI' and 'STD.'

"If only my gas tank was as big as expectations, we would have won the race handily."

2. Brad Keselowski — Keselowski raced by Dale Earnhardt, Jr.'s fuel-compromised Chevy on the final lap to win the Kobalt 400 at Las Vegas Motor Speedway. Keselowski also won Saturday's Nationwide race, giving him his first weekend sweep.

"The No. 2 Miller Lite Ford was exceptional," Keselowski said. "It's hard to lose when you're traveling at the speed of 'Lite.' This win has certainly sent our confidence sky-high. You could say we have a collective 'brews'd ego.'

"It was a great week for Roger Penske. Not only did Penske Racing post two wins, Roger aced No. 4 at Augusta National golf course. Roger carries nothing but drivers in his bag. He's not a member at Augusta, but he wears a green jacket nonetheless — it's made of money."

3. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson led 34 laps and finished sixth at Las Vegas, giving him three top 10s in all three races this season. He is third in the Sprint Cup points standings, 16 out of first.

"Brad Keselowski was awarded a giant wrench for winning the Kobalt 400," Johnson said. "It may not have been a symbolic win, but it was a symbolic trophy. And he can have it. I'm not into symbolic trophies, but I am into symbolic 'Cups.'

4. Joey Logano — Logano won the pole at Las Vegas, beating out teammate Brad Keselowski, as Penske Racing again swept the front row in qualifying. Logano finished fourth, while Keselowski notched the win.

"Brad and I love the new qualifying format," Logano said. "Knockout qualifying has made us 'qualifying knockouts.' Roger put Penske on the map; we put Penske on the grid."

5. Jeff Gordon — Gordon finished ninth in the Kobalt 400 as Hendrick Motorsports placed four drivers in the top 10, led by Dale Earnhardt, Jr.'s runner-up. Gordon is fifth in the points standings, 18 behind Earnhardt.

"I liked Junior's decision to gamble," Gordon said, "despite the fact that it didn't work out. He went 'all in,' and ended up 'all out.'

"Earnhardt, Jimmie Johnson, and I all have three top-10 finishes to start the season, so it's safe to say we're all threats to win the Sprint Cup championship. But don't forget about Kasey Kahne. As I've been saying for the last 13 years, you should be on the lookout for 'No. 5.'"

6. Carl Edwards — Like Dale Earnhardt, Jr., Edwards and the No. 99 team gambled on fuel mileage and came up just short. Edwards still managed to finish fifth, and vaulted two spots in the Sprint Cup points standings to sixth.

"We had a car capable of winning," Edwards said, "but Lady Luck was not on our side. And let's face it, she's the only female, save for Miss Sprint Cup, worth having around in NASCAR."

7. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth was the lone Toyota driver in the top 10 at Las Vegas, finishing 10th in the Kobalt 400. He moved up one spot to sixth in the points, where he trails Dale Earnhardt, Jr. by 28.

"The Toyota's didn't quite have the speed to keep up with the Fords and Chevys," Kenseth said. "I'm not worried. Toyota's won 13 times last season. It's just a matter of time before the Toyota's re-'Orient' themselves at the front of the pack."

8. Ryan Newman — Newman posted his second top-10 result of the year with a seventh at Las Vegas. He jumped six spots to ninth in the points standings, 36 out of first.

"I really feel comfortable in the Richard Childress Racing No. 31 car," Newman said. "It's a car that fans most associate with Jeff Burton. Sometimes, it seems like Jeff's in the car with me. When that happens, I just do my best Richard Childress impression and tell him to leave."

9. Kyle Busch — Busch finished 11th at Las Vegas, as Joe Gibbs Racing cars took the 10, 11, and 12 spots. Busch is now tenth in the Sprint Cup points standings, 36 out of first.

"Congratulations to Brad Keselowski's fuel tank for getting him the win," Busch said. "Much like Brad, it was full of it.

"My brother Kurt is planning to race in both the Indianapolis 500 and Coca Cola 600 on Sunday, May 25th. This will be historic. The last time Kurt said 'Make it a double,' he was talking to his plastic surgeon about his ears."

10. Kevin Harvick — Harvick led 23 laps at Las Vegas before a broken wheel hub sent him to the garage. He eventually finished 41st, 30 laps down.

"It was a shaky day for Stewart Haas Racing," Harvick said. "Danica Patrick was our top finisher with a 21st. Danica said that's the highest she's been in months, which could possibly trigger a test under NASCAR's drug policy."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 12:41 PM | Comments (0)

New Rule and Replay Won’t Reduce Controversy

Over the century and a half of Major League Baseball history, many a conversation has been started and continued from a blown call here and there. Others have centered on football-type collisions at home plate. MLB, with its new replay experiment and home plate safety rule, is trying to do away with both.

The new home plate rule is understandable, as MLB jumps on the bandwagon of player safety already captained by the NFL. As the new rule stands, a runner is only allowed to steamroll a catcher if said catcher is blocking the plate with ball in hand. Otherwise, he's off limits and the runner will be out if he makes contact with him, especially if the runner lowers his shoulder or pushes through the catcher with his upper extremities. There are a few exceptions, such as the catcher having to move into the basepath to field a thrown ball, or if the runner slides.

Just as football fans of yesteryear get a little giddy watching highlight films of Ray Nitschke, Dick Butkus and Lawrence Taylor tearing the face off of a ballcarrier and exclaim, "Now that's football!", old-time baseball fans will soon do the same with similar footage of Pete Rose demolishing Ray Fosse in the 1971 All-Star Game: "Yep, those were the days when men were men and boys carried the bats back to the dugout."

Here's the kicker, though. With limited replay also coming into effect this season, just figuring out if the catcher and runner were in the right place at the right time on a contact play at the plate could create more discussion than a good ol' bone-cruncher at the dish. Try this scenario on for size.

Albert Pujols lines a shot into the right-center field gap with Mike Trout on second base. Trout motors around third as Shane Victorino quickly gets to the ball and fires toward home. A.J. Pierzynski waits in his designated spot just in front of home plate on the third-base side. As Trout nears home, he decides it's best to make a head-first dive while Victorino's throw comes in on a hop. To catch the bounce, Pierzynski takes a step back which places his left leg right in front of home plate. WHAM! When the dust clears, Trout's hand is on the dish and the ball is lying in the dirt next to a sprawled Pierzynski.

But the plate ump initially calls Trout out for making contact with Pierzynski. Trout blows a gasket and argues that Pierzynski was illegally blocking the plate because he didn't have the ball when he stepped in front of the plate.

That gets Mike Scioscia out of the dugout because although Trout clearly made contact with Pierzynski, he didn't lower his shoulder, extend his arms or deviate from the basepath toward Pierzynski, which is legal under the new rule. Pierzynski, on the other hand, stepped into the basepath only to field a thrown ball, unintentionally blocking the plate, which is also allowed by the rule. That's the rebuttal of John Farrell as he joins the discussion.

Scioscia challenges the call, and now the replay umpires back in New York have to watch the video to determine if one player or the other was in violation of the rule. Was Trout entitled to the plate because Pierzynski was not in possession of the ball when he stepped into the basepath? Or should Trout have slid into home since there clearly was going to be a play at the plate? Was Pierzynski entitled to the plate because he made a move to field a thrown ball that carried him into the basepath? And if not, did the ball actually come into his possession before, during or after the motion of stepping backward?

See how complicated this could end up being? How much time will it take for the replay umps to split hairs in determining the right call? What if this is Game 7 of the ALCS and Trout is the potential game-winning run? Which replay official wants to call the home plate umpire and say, "Uh, no, Trout was actually safe. Game over. Angels go to the World Series."

MLB is potentially opening a Pandora's Box with the combination of the new home plate rule and replay, and the controversies most likely won't be reduced as intended. Besides, baseball is certain to eventually follow the NFL's lead and make even more stringent restrictions on home plate collisions — maybe even outlawing them altogether. If that happens, then making that call at the plate will be as simple as Little League rules: you don't slide, you're out — no replay necessary.

Posted by Adam Russell at 11:28 AM | Comments (0)

March 11, 2014

Problems With NFL All-Pro Voting

For the last month, I've been writing about Super Bowl quarterbacks (and related subjects), but I wanted to respond to Chase Stuart's critique of the Associated Press All-Pro voting process.

I agree with Chase's premise (as I understand it) that the second-team All-Pro selections are often ridiculous, and that there is a better, more accurate, more fair way to choose those positions: "Simply naming the second vote getter (or third and fourth vote getters at positions with two starters) as the second-team All-Pro(s) invites significant abuses of the system." We see this almost every year, where there's a ridiculous vote at a near-unanimous position so that the writer's favorite player can be an All-Pro.

Chase is a smart guy, and he and I share an interest in getting these things "right" and honoring the most deserving players. Many of his criticisms are on-point, including one I'm jealous I didn't think of first. But there are also several instances where I disagree with him, and I hope to explain why. Chase organized his article by position, so I'll do the same, going through each one, highlighting instances where he and I see eye-to-eye, and the few where we don't. As a point of reference, here's a link to my own 2013 All-Pro Team.

Quarterback — Peyton Manning, Denver, 50

Okay, maybe we don't need to address every position.

Running Back — LeSean McCoy, Philadelphia, 48; Jamaal Charles, Kansas City, 47; Adrian Peterson, Minnesota, 1; Eddie Lacy, Green Bay, 1

Most people seem to agree that Matt Forte had the best season outside of Charles and McCoy, but the AP All-Pro Team suggests that Adrian Peterson and Eddie Lacy were the third- and fourth-best RBs in the NFL last season. All it took was a single voter getting away from the obvious to grant Peterson and Lacy Second-Team All-Pro status. This is a perfect illustration of Chase's point.

Fullback — Mike Tolbert, Carolina, 31; Marcel Reece, Oakland, 8; Anthony Sherman, Kansas City, 5; Bruce Miller, San Francisco, 4; John Kuhn, Green Bay, 1

Here, Chase wrote, "Anyone want to offer me 49:1 odds that the AP voter who selected Kuhn also selected Lacy?"

Here's the thing: I also picked Kuhn, and not because of some Wisconsin bias. The fullback position is nearing extinction in the NFL, and there was no obvious choice this year because no one really stood out. I doubt Chase would want to present an argument for Mike Tolbert and Marcel Reece as deserving All-Pro status. This isn't about the AP voting process, it's about the inanity of selecting an All-Pro at a position that doesn't exist.

Because I am a tedious pedant, I actually wrote seven paragraphs about this in my All-Pro column.

Tight End — Jimmy Graham, New Orleans, 49; Vernon Davis, San Francisco, 1

Chase felt that Graham should have been a unanimous pick, and had a big problem with that one vote for Vernon Davis. "We all know what happened here: some voter decided that he wanted Davis to get some love, and figured he could ensure such accolades by placing Davis on the 2nd team by casting just one vote for him."

Chase takes for granted that Graham should be evaluated as a tight end. I disagree, and I'm frustrated that Davis didn't get more votes. Graham is listed as a TE because he's huge and it might save the Saints some money in contract negotiations. Graham is a great player, but he's purely a receiver, and shouldn't be compared to true tight ends.

Wide Receivers — Calvin Johnson, Detroit, 42; Josh Gordon, Cleveland, 28; A.J. Green, Cincinnati, 12; Demaryius Thomas, Denver, 6; Antonio Brown, Pittsburgh, 6; Brandon Marshall, Chicago, 5; Alshon Jeffery, Chicago, 1

Since I'm already writing about disagreements with people I respect ... Gregg Rosenthal does fine work for NFL.com, but he was incensed about Gordon's First-Team selection: "No one would take him as a complete player compared to Green ... This was a fantasy football pick."

I think one of the great things about the explosion of fantasy football is that it's basically objective: a guy either has the numbers, or he doesn't. Rosenthal's "fantasy football pick" line is effective, but at a certain point, you have to acknowledge the numbers. Gordon averaged 117.6 receiving yards per game, compared to 89.1 for Green. The All-Pro Team recognizes the best players in football over the course of a single season, and when that single season is 2013, I think you have to concede that Gordon, who out-gained Green by almost 30 yards a game, had the better year.

Tackles — Joe Thomas, Cleveland, 28; Jason Peters, Philadelphia, 25; Joe Staley, San Francisco, 16; Tyron Smith, Dallas, 14; Zach Strief, New Orleans, 4; Orlando Franklin, Denver, 3; Jordan Gross, Carolina, 2; Gosder Cherilus, Indianapolis, 1; Andrew Whitworth, Cincinnati, 1; Jermaine Bushrod, Chicago, 1; Demar Dotson, Tampa Bay, 1; Trent Williams, Washington, 1; Branden Albert, Kansas City, 1; Jake Long, St. Louis, 1; Phil Loadholt, Minnesota, 1

Clear separation here between First Team and Second, Second Team and “others receiving votes.” But one of those others stands out to me in a way that emphasizes Chase's point. If voters were asked to submit an ordered ballot, or participate in a second round of voting after the First Team was chosen, I suspect Trent Williams would have risen to fifth or sixth in the vote count. Only one voter picked him as one of the top two offensive tackles in 2013, but I imagine he would have made a lot more top fours and fives than Cherilus, Whitworth, Bushrod, Dotson, Albert, Long, and Loadholt.

Guards — Louis Vasquez, Denver, 22; Evan Mathis, Philadelphia, 18; Jahri Evans, New Orleans, 14; Josh Sitton, Green Bay, 13; Mike Iupati, San Francisco, 12; Logan Mankins, New England, 12; Larry Warford, Detroit, 3; Marshal Yanda, Baltimore, 3; Andrew Whitworth, Cincinnati, 1; Andy Levitre, Tennessee, 1

Chase points out that AP appears to have made a math error here ... there are only 99 votes listed (instead of 100) and Mankins was shown on the Second Team and tied with Sitton in the initial press release. I don't understand why AP was so secretive with the vote totals this year; even Rosenthal, who works for the league, didn't have immediate access to them.

Center — Ryan Kalil, Carolina, 26; Alex Mack, Cleveland, 9; Jason Kelce, Philadelphia, 4; Max Unger, Seattle, 4; Manny Ramirez, Denver, 2; John Sullivan, Minnesota, 2; Mike Pouncey, Miami, 1; Dominic Raiola, Detroit, 1; Nick Hardwick, San Diego, 1

Chase wrote, "No place is it safer to file your homer votes than on the interior line," and I think that's accurate; no one is likely to brook much criticism on these. At the same time, I think he's got the wrong idea. He assumes that guys get one or two votes out of bias rather than ignorance. But most of these aren't homer votes, they're guesses. Many of the AP voters don't know how to analyze offensive line play, so they're guessing here. Honestly, I can relate. I do know how to analyze offensive line play, but it's hard work and I see a limited number of games. At the stat positions, you can use numbers as a guide to help sort things out, but that doesn't really apply to guards and centers.

More specifically, I doubt Pouncey, Raiola, and Hardwick were selected due to bias. Hardwick had a nice year, and was a reasonable choice. Pouncey has name recognition and he played very well the year before, in 2012. That's a classic formula for the AP voters; I'm surprised he didn't get more votes. Raiola I have a little more trouble explaining, but he's a respected veteran on an above-average offense. In a year when no one really stood out, that's not an unforgivable vote.

Placekicker — Justin Tucker, Baltimore, 38; Matt Prater, Denver, 7; Stephen Gostkowski, New England, 3; Steven Hauschka, Seattle, 1; Phil Dawson, San Francisco, 1

I'm still disappointed that Tucker was chosen over Gostkowski. Their field goal numbers were basically identical, but Gostkowski plays in tougher weather, made more extra points, and was better on kickoffs. Tucker had his two biggest games on Thanksgiving and MNF, so he got 13 times as many votes. That's narrative, not analysis.

Kick Returner — Cordarrelle Patterson, Minnesota, 36; Dexter McCluster, Kansas City, 8; Dwayne Harris, Dallas, 2; Devin Hester, Chicago, 2; Trindon Holliday, Denver, 1; Antonio Brown, Pittsburgh, 1

Here, Chase went into semantics about McCluster not returning kickoffs. AP doesn't use separate categories for kickoff returner and punt returner; they're both grouped into this one position. And is it really such a crime that none of the H guys made the Second Team? The argument against McCluster actually runs contrary to Chase's larger point, because he's trading in a clear Second Teamer for a soup of four guys with one or two votes apiece.

Whoever voted for Trindon Holliday needs to watch some Broncos games. I've never seen a returner make so many mistakes.

Defensive Ends — Robert Quinn, St. Louis, 46; J.J. Watt, Houston, 28; Greg Hardy, Carolina, 14; Mario Williams, Buffalo, 5; Muhammad Wilkerson, New York Jets, 1; Cameron Jordan, New Orleans, 1; Carlos Dunlap, Cincinnati, 1; Charles Johnson, Carolina, 1; Kyle Williams, Buffalo, 1; Chandler Jones, New England, 1

Defensive Tackles — Gerald McCoy, Tampa Bay, 28; Ndamukong Suh, Detroit, 19; Dontari Poe, Kansas City, 13; Justin Smith, San Francisco, 8; Jurrell Casey, Tennessee, 8; Muhammad Wilkerson, New York Jets, 8; Kyle Williams, Buffalo, 6; J.J. Watt, Houston, 3; Jason Hatcher, Dallas, 3; Sheldon Richardson, New York Jets, 2; Brandon Mebane, Seattle, 1; Marcell Dareus, Buffalo, 1

J.J. Watt, Muhammad Wilkerson, and Kyle Williams all received votes at both defensive line positions. As recently as last year, Justin Smith was named Second-Team All-Pro defensive tackle and Second-Team All-Pro defensive end. Perhaps AP should ask teams to submit their rosters with a single position listed for each defensive player. That's not a burden for any team, and it could help players like Wilkerson and Williams receive All-Pro designation. I can understand some confusion at the defensive line positions, because the strengths and responsibilities of a 3-4 defensive end are very much like those of a 4-3 defensive tackle, and it makes sense to compare those players with each other. Misunderstandings at linebacker are harder to justify.

Outside Linebackers — Robert Mathis, Indianapolis, 49; Lavonte David, Tampa Bay, 22; Tamba Hali, Kansas City, 10; Ahmad Brooks, San Francisco, 5; Vontaze Burfict, Cincinnati, 4; Justin Houston, Kansas City, 4; Terrell Suggs, Baltimore, 3; John Abraham, Arizona, 2; Thomas Davis, Carolina, 1

Inside Linebackers — Luke Kuechly, Carolina, 45; NaVorro Bowman, San Francisco, 39; Vontaze Burfict, Cincinnati, 7; Karlos Dansby, Arizona, 4; Patrick Willis, San Francisco, 2; Derrick Johnson, Kansas City, 2; Thomas Davis, Carolina, 1

What Chase wrote here was superb, and I wish I had thought to approach the subject this way:

We have one category for “Outside Linebackers” and one category for “Inside Linebackers.” These categories are NOT labeled “Pass Rushers” and “Tacklers.” Vontaze Burfict led the NFL in tackles and was a “second-team All-Pro” at inside linebacker. But Burfict is an outside linebacker. Rey Maualuga plays on the inside in Cincinnati, and Vincent Rey replaced him when Maualuga was injured. According to Pro Football Focus, Burfict spent 306 snaps as an inside linebacker, 18 snaps deep, 22 covering the slot or lined up out wide, and roughly 700 snaps as an outside linebacker.

This is not a new problem, and it gets worse every year. David's selection notwithstanding, the OLB position is basically set aside for pass-rush specialists. The Associated Press selected two pass rush specialists as its First-Team outside backers every year from 2006-12. Four of those years, the Second-Team OLBs were both pass rushers, as well.

Thus, Burfict is an All-Pro inside linebacker, and pass rushers get 73 of the 100 OLB votes, while Detroit's DeAndre Levy (who made 85 solo tackles and 6 INTs) somehow receives zero votes. Lance Briggs was injured in 2013 and not an All-Pro candidate, but he and DeMarcus Ware are the best OLBs of this generation. Briggs has never been First-Team All-Pro, and Second-Team only once. Half the teams in the league play a 4-3 defense, and some of them have very good linebackers. You would hope the AP voters might recognize that.

Cornerbacks — Richard Sherman, Seattle, 48; Patrick Peterson, Arizona, 28; Aqib Talib, New England, 8; Alterraun Verner, Tennessee, 6; Joe Haden, Cleveland, 6; Brent Grimes, Miami, 4

Pretty reasonable choices here.

Safeties — Earl Thomas, Seattle, 47; Eric Berry, Kansas City, 32; Eric Weddle, San Diego, 10; Jairus Byrd, Buffalo, 2; T.J. Ward, Cleveland, 2; Devin McCourty, New England, 2; Antrel Rolle, New York Giants, 2; Kam Chancellor, Seattle, 2; Tyrann Mathieu, Arizona, 1

Six safeties were named Second-Team All-Pro. That's a lot. It's silly, really. I wonder if it would help to ask the voters to select one strong safety and one free safety. Then you've got Weddle as the obvious Second-Team free safety, and I suspect Ward or Chancellor would edge ahead as the Second-Team strong safety.

Punter — Johnny Hekker, St. Louis, 23; Brandon Fields, Miami, 20; Shane Lechler, Houston, 3; Jon Ryan, Seattle, 2; Bryan Anger, Jacksonville, 1; Andy Lee, San Francisco, 1

The three people who voted for Shane Lechler obviously do not take their votes seriously, and should be immediately removed as All-Pro voters. Playing most of his games indoors, Lechler led the league in ... nothing, while booting too many touchbacks and allowing too many long returns. The votes for Lee and Anger weren't really any better, but at least they had high averages. Lechler was in the middle of the pack. He wasn't terrible, but there was literally nothing he did well this year and no earthly reason to vote for him.

The Hekker vote ... Hekker led the NFL in net average, by a lot, almost two yards. This year, Hekker had four touchbacks and 19 punts down inside the 20-yard line, a total of 23 kicks near the end zone. Those 23 punts represent 29.5% of his total punts. League-wide, punters average 42% of their punts near the end zone. Punting in that area kills your average, because there's a fixed limit on how far your punt can go, and shorter kicks, down at the eight- or 10-yard line, are better than those that roll in for a touchback. Hekker also plays in a domed stadium, which boosts averages.

Compare Hekker to, say, Thomas Morstead from the Saints. Both play their home games in domes. The chart below shows number of punts, net average, punts down inside the 20, touchbacks, and Short Field Percentage: I-20 plus touchbacks, divided by total punts.

Hekker had 55 punts where he could bomb away and use the whole field, compared to 31 for Morstead. If you gave Morstead another 24 punts where he didn't have to worry about the end zone, would he have added two yards to his average? Yes, very likely. An even stronger case can be made for Mike Scifres, whose net average was only 40.0 (the same as Lechler), but had a 55.4 SF% and only one touchback all season.

Awards

Chase didn't write about the big Associated Press awards like MVP, but those aren't much better. The most ridiculous, almost every season, is Offensive Player of the Year. This year, Peyton Manning won easily, with 33 of the 50 votes, far ahead of second-place LeSean McCoy, 10. But Manning had a historic season, one that earned him unanimous All-Pro selection and 49 of the 50 MVP votes. He broke the single-season records for passing yardage and touchdowns. Yet a third of the voters chose someone else as OPOY. I've been wondering ever since, what more could Manning have done to earn their votes?

In 2010, Tom Brady was a unanimous selection for both All-Pro quarterback and NFL MVP, 50 votes out of 50. He got 21 out of 50 OPOY votes, splitting the vote with five other players, including three QBs. That doesn't make sense. The true standard for nonsense, though, was set in 2011. Below are that year's vote totals for All-Pro quarterback, Offensive Player of the Year, and Most Valuable Player:

Keep in mind, all three awards are chosen by the same people. They overwhelmingly, almost unanimously, picked Aaron Rodgers as All-Pro QB and MVP, but nearly everyone selected Brees as OPOY. Maybe there's a bigger distinction between those awards than I'm able to understand, and obviously some voters felt they just had to vote for Brees somewhere, but this is 90% of the group, casting their votes alike. Evidently some mentality links the writers together, but I don't understand it. I'm not sure they do, either.

Addressing the Problem

Although my opinion differs from Chase's on a few specific players, he and I are essentially are on the same page with regard to All-Pro voting. Chase proposed a simple solution to help create an All-Pro Second Team that makes a little more sense: "the voters should actually vote for both a first and second team." He's probably right that we'd get more fair selections that way, and many fewer ties. I think it's a good step. In my opinion, though, the main problem isn't the voting process — it's the voters.

Some of the AP voters are everything you could ask for: knowledgeable, unbiased, and serious about selecting the best players — for an honor that can shape contracts and legacies. Others, however, don't understand football well, don't understand how to interpret statistics, vote for undeserving players from their local teams, vote for undeserving players whom they like personally, or are simply lazy and put no effort into their selections.

Laziness is most visible outside of the offensive glory positions. The same offensive linemen are selected year after year, based on draft status or prior performance. Ray Lewis continued to get votes when he was years past his prime. Shane Lechler drew votes in 2013, from voters who obviously never gave the matter any consideration. If you ask these voters to select more players, or to submit a second round of choices after the First Team is chosen, how much will that really improve the selections? Some of them can't be bothered with a one-part process; I shudder to think how they'd handle a two-part selection.

If we aim to improve the All-Pro selections, a better voting process like the one Chase suggests is a good start, but we'll keep seeing bad choices until we have more selectors who understand the game and cast thoughtful votes. I would trust Chase Stuart's personal All-Pro team, or Gregg Rosenthal's, more than I would the AP voters, and the sooner we have guys like them making the selections, the better.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 1:46 PM | Comments (1)

March 10, 2014

The Winds of Change

How long does the "honeymoon" phase of a new coaching tenure take? I figure that the first year is well within that timeframe. Depending on the circumstances, a new coach will either have to implement a new style of play, infuse a new lot of talent, or overhaul an entire culture. But, sometimes, you get a situation that could give a new voice the "ready-made" opportunity to thrive.

Sixty-eight teams made the NCAA tournament in March of 2013. Of those participants, 62 kept their coaches around as they headed into November of 2013. In other words, six tournament teams from a year ago have a different leader now. But are these programs better off as we enter March of 2014?

Four of the teams in this unique situation had little choice. Their coaches either rode off into the sunset or were hired away.

The retirement of Bob Thomason left Pacific University with a big hole to fill in their athletic department. The man who led the Tigers' program to nine NCAA appearances moved aside after a quarter-century on the sidelines. But that wasn't the only change, as seven seniors dropped off of the roster in Ron Verlin's first season at the helm. It also didn't help that the program moved from the Big West to the West Coast Conference.

In Indianapolis, it appears that the recent consistency of movement has finally caught up with Butler . Two seasons after leaving the Horizon League for the Atlantic-10, and (now) one season after leaving the A-10 for the new Big East, the Bulldogs had a drop-off. Of course, who knows what would have happened had Brad Stevens stayed instead of getting his own shot at the NBA.

The Bulldogs lost Andrew Smith, Chase Stigall, and Rotnei Clarke to graduation. However, there were returnees (Khyle Marshall, Roosevelt Jones, Alex Barlow, Kellen Dunham) who played significant minutes on a team that was one basket from their third Sweet 16 in four years. Now, with the postseason a long, long shot, we'll find out how much former assistant Brandon Miller learned while under Stevens' tutelage.

When you hear a discussion about New Mexico's basketball program, the first thing that may come to mind is where the Lobos play (it did host the famed 1983 Final Four). However, the Lobos themselves sustained a winning consistency under former coach Steve Alford. During his six-year run in Albuquerque, Alford's teams went to three NCAA tourneys (earning two 3-seeds and a 5-seed). And even though the majority of the team's talent returned from last season's Mountain West champions, you had to wonder how long-time assistant Craig Neal would handle the promotion. So far, seeing as how the Lobos were in a dogfight to defend their conference title until late Saturday night, so good.

A year ago, we all started to learn the name of a team that took the "directional school" moniker to a whole new level. Little did we know that Florida Gulf Coast would raise not only their game, but their national profile in a previously unheard-of march to the Sweet 16. Coach Andy Enfield introduced us all to "Dunk City," engineered upsets of Georgetown and San Diego State, and made most of us wonder why we never thought of heading to Fort Myers for college. (Hey, I'm young-ish enough to go back to grad school.) Enfield parlayed that magical run into a job in Los Angeles, but he didn't leave the cupboard completely empty. New coach Joe Dooley has taken advantage of returning talents, including Brett Comer and Chase Fieler. The Eagles got themselves on the precipice of another tourney bid, but a loss to Mercer in the Atlantic Sun Championship denied us fans an encore on the biggest stage.

While the previous four programs had to make due with "out-of-their-hands" situations, two schools that ironically met in last year's tournament made a statement of their own.

UCLA has lofty standards, but that's what happens when you coach at the school with the most NCAA men's basketball titles. Ben Howland went to three straight Final Fours. However, it wasn't enough. The Bruins won last season's Pac-12 regular season title. But that wasn't enough. The team then bowed out in their first game of the 2013 tourney. That was enough. Falling short of the lofty expectations (along with a scandalous photo and a frivolous NCAA scandal) appeared to be enough to push Howland out the door.

Enter Alford, who worked his way back up to the highest levels of college basketball after some time in the mid-majors (he did spend some time leading Iowa in the Big Ten). He basically has the same roster as last season, save Shabazz Muhammed. But the results aren't that much better (23-8, to this point, and compared to 25-10 over all last season). This team has the opportunity to make some more postseason inroads. However, the jury is still out on the Bruins.

The team that beat UCLA in the 2013 tournament ... Minnesota. Tubby Smith did not have nearly the success here in Minneapolis that Howland did in Westwood. He took the Gophers to the NCAAs three times in his six years at the helm, and that victory over the Bruins was the program's first official one in the Dance since 1990. But that wasn't enough. A yearly letdown during the conference schedule, as well as a change in athletic director, spurred the change on the sidelines.

New coach Richard Pitino inherited a similar situation to the one at UCLA. Even with starters Trevor Mbakwe and Rodney Williams losing eligibility, quite a bit of talent returned from the squad Smith left behind. Although the style of play has changed for the Gophers, the results are steady as both teams enter(ed) the Big Ten tournament (this year: 19-12, 8-10 conference; last year: 20-11, 8-10 conference). We'll find out next weekend if Pitino the younger will be afforded the same chance as Smith was to prove his NCAA mettle.

For me, it's just interesting to take stock in how success leads to change, which leads to hope for more sustained success. However, as with most things, time will provide the ultimate answer to whether these "honeymoon" periods will turn into "matches made in heaven" or "messy divorces."

Posted by Jonathan Lowe at 3:34 PM | Comments (2)

March 6, 2014

Early Tennis Season Notes of 2014

The 2014 season has begun with several unexpected events that set the stage for a terrific year in tennis. The Australian Open, although by now it seems to be a distant memory, provided a number of spectacular matches and ended with a surprise women's final in which Li Na captured her second Slam and her first Australian Open titles, defeating Dominika Cibulková in the finals. She also went through the draw without facing a single top-10 opponent.

On the men's side, Stanislas Wawrinka did a couple of things that he has never done in the previous 12 meetings against Rafael Nadal: win a set and then win the match. He also defeated the world No. 1 Novak Djokovic en route to the title. His win was overshadowed by Nadal's injury in the second set, which caused the Spaniard to play the rest of the match at less than 100 percent; however, it should take nothing away from the Swiss' well-deserved title, especially considering that he was dominating the match when Nadal injured his back in the second set.

On the one hand, Djokovic's early form produced a couple of disappointing losses and no titles, putting question marks next to the Nole/Boris Becker collaboration that began two months ago. I find it premature to question the partnership based on two losses to two in-form players, Stanislas Wawrinka and Roger Federer. While Nole has not necessarily looked to be in top form à-la-2011, he has certainly not played poorly, either. The Indian Wells and Miami tournaments should shed more light on the direction of the partnership.

On the other hand, Federer seems to have found his good form. He played better in the Australian Open, even in his semifinal loss against Nadal, than he has played throughout 2013, and performed impeccably in the Dubai tournament, especially in the third sets against Nole in the semifinals and against Thomas Berdych in the finals, before capturing his 78th career tournament victory.

Like Djokovic, Serena Williams has suffered couple of unexpected losses, first to Ana Ivanovic at the Australian Open, then to Alize Cornet in the semifinals of the Dubai tournament. Unfortunately, her after-match comments following her loss to Cornet once again showed the stunningly wide gap between the amounts of class that exist amongst the elite of men's tennis and that of women's. John Isner pointed out after his victory against Juan Martin Del Potro in Cincinnati several months ago that the top guys in men's tennis were all class acts, and it shows in their comments about each other in the post-match conferences as well as how they handle the fans and the media.

What do the elite women have to show in comparison? It's a bunch of players who never talk to each other, who do not acknowledge some of the lower-ranked players in the locker room, and who, like Serena did following her loss to a lesser-ranked opponent, cannot find the magnanimity to simply say "my opponent was better than me today, all the credit goes to her." Instead, Serena sarcastically chuckled and laughed through the questions saying how embarrassed she was to have lost and that she has not played that poorly since three or four years ago. There is no need to wonder why women's tennis is losing audience while men's tennis is flourishing: if I were the WTA, I would desperately search for ways to make the top faces of the tour more identifiable to fans. There is more to being a "complete" player on the tour than shrieking on the court as loud as possible and grimacing as if it was a miracle when an opponent hits a good shot.

Davis Cup also produced the unexpected so far, with Spain, minus Nadal and David Ferrer, losing to Germany, and Serbia, minus Nole, losing to Switzerland that featured both Wawrinka and Federer. With teams like Kazakhstan, Japan, and Great Britain in the quarterfinals, the last one making it to this stage for the first time since 1986, the weekend of April 4-6 promises to be an exciting weekend. If Andy Murray plays, the tie between Italy and Great Britain in Naples, Italy, looks to be the most compelling tie of the quarterfinals.

I close this article with an "I told you so” anecdote. For years, I have been saying that I found it disingenuous that the players constantly complained about the length of the season and argued that the season should be cut shorter so that they could have time to recuperate from a grueling season of tennis. I did not believe in their candidness at the time because many of them scheduled exhibition matches, and traded trips and days in the hotel to pocket more money instead of resting and staying home like they claimed they desired to do.

Now the hypocrisy is official. The International Tennis Premier League (ITPL) is set to begin its first year of competition at the end of this year, and just about every top player in women's and men's fields, as well as some legends such as Andre Agassi and Pete Sampras, have signed up for the event that will occupy half of the period of the so-called seven weeks of rest following the WTA and ATP year-ending championships.

The competition will take place in Asia, putting players like Nadal, Djokovic, and Williams in traveling mode and hotels for over three weeks at a time that they supposedly need their rest. Yes, the matches are supposed to be one set only per match, and yes maybe the intensity may not be what it is in the Slam tournaments, but when there is money to be made, you can bet that the competition will not be taken lightly either. It will certainly require an intensity level that is higher than that of an exhibition match.

I am simply curious to see how Nadal, Nole, Murray, Williams, Victoria Azarenka, and Caroline Wozniacki will answer the tough questions by the press about the need for "rest.” If Roger Federer were to win the 2015 Australian Open, and Maria Sharapova and Li Na were to play in the women's finals, I will certainly not want to hear about how well-rested those three were because they chose not to participate in the ITPL. The "worn-out” excuse will not carry much weight at that time.

Posted by Mert Ertunga at 12:18 PM | Comments (0)

March 5, 2014

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 2

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt finished second at Phoenix and maintained the Sprint Cup points lead. He leads Brad Keselowski by 6.

"It easily could have been my second win this year," Earnhardt said. "And two consecutive wins would have sent Junior Nation into a frenzy, which is another word for 'alcohol-induced coma.'

"But I'm really pleased with our start to the season. This could be the year that I finally fulfill my destiny and win the Sprint Cup championship. I'm hoping fate can lead me there, because no one else has been able to."

2. Kevin Harvick — Harvick led 224 of 312 laps in winning the Profit For CNBC 500 at Phoenix, his second consecutive spring win in the desert. Harvick kept his challengers at bay on a number of restarts in the final 50 laps.

"It was great to celebrate in Victory Lane with Miss Sprint Cup," Harvick said. "Richard Childress is not a woman, but you can call him 'Misses Kevin Harvick' anyway.

"And speaking of the 'misses,' I celebrated my 13th wedding anniversary. After 13 years, my wife DeLana has assured me that she has no intentions of replacing me with Austin Dillon."

3. Brad Keselowski — Keselowski won the pole and finished third, leading a strong Penske Racing at Phoenix. Teammate Joey Logano started alongside Keselowski and came home fourth.

"I won the pole in NASCAR's first knockout qualifying session," Keselowski said. "In my book, that's called a 'BKO.'

"And congratulations to my crew chief Paul Wolfe. He missed the race to be by his wife's side for the birth of their first son. I've already bought little Caden a gift. It's a Kyle Busch driver's suit he can wear on Halloween. That way, he'll be a 'Wolfe in sheep's clothing.'"

4. Jeff Gordon — Gordon finished fifth in the Profit For CNBC 500 as Hendrick Motorsports again placed three drivers in the top 10, duplicating their feat from Daytona. Gordon is fourth in the point standings, ten behind Dale Earnhardt, Jr.

"Most importantly," Gordon said, "I finished eight spots ahead of Clint Bowyer. That was weird, because I always feel like Clint is only two steps behind me."

5. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson posted his second top-10 result with a sixth at Phoenix, following a fifth at Daytona. The six-time Sprint Cup champ is fifth in the points standings, 12 behind Dale Earnhardt, Jr.

"Have you heard?" Johnson said. "Texas Speedway president Eddie Gossage is upset that Formula 1 has a race scheduled in Austin on the same day in November that NASCAR is in Fort Worth. I'm not sure what Eddie stands to gain. Of course, it's not the first time NASCAR has been accused of 'running in circles' where Formula 1 is concerned."

6. Joey Logano — Logano finished fourth at in The Profit On CNBC 500, joining Penske teammate Brad Keselowski, in third, in the top five. Logano is sixth in the points standings, 15 out of first.

"In case you didn't know," Logano said, "'The Profit' is a show on CNBC. It's only slightly more informative than Michael Waltrip's pre-race walk through the pit lane on Fox. But you've got to commend Michael. He's not afraid to ask to tough questions. Heck, he asked if he could kiss 50 Cent at Daytona. And I don't even think it was a rhetorical question."

7. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth finished seventh in the Joe Gibbs Racing No. 20 Home Depot car, posting his first top-10 of the season. He is seventh in the Sprint Cup points standings, 20 out of first.

"That car was made famous by Tony Stewart," Kenseth said. "What else has been made famous by Tony Stewart? This Danica Patrick/Richard Petty feud. One would think that after starting his own race team, Tony would learn to mind his own business.

"Personally, I would love to see Patrick and Petty in a race. It could be huge. All that's needed is a pay-per-view audience, Stewart to continue his role as hype man, and a catchy slogan, like 'The King and Eye (Candy),' or 'Age Before Beauty?,' 'Is This Really Necessary?'"

8. Denny Hamlin — Hamlin followed up his second-place run at Daytona with a disappointing 19th at Phoenix. Hamlin pitted during a late caution while most of the leaders stayed out, costing him track position which he could not recover.

"The No. 11 FedEx Toyota dealt with handling issues all day long," Hamlin said. "I can't tell you how many pit stops we made. Luckily, with the race being in Arizona, I wasn't denied service based on my sexuality."

9. Carl Edwards — Edwards led the Roush Fenway Racing contingent at Phoenix, scoring an eighth-place finish in the Profit For CNBC 500. He is ninth in the points standings, 25 out of first.

"What a performance by Kevin Harvick," Edwards said. "He was so much better than everyone else, especially on restarts. Just ask Richard Childress — when Kevin says 'goodbye,' he means it."

10. Ryan Newman — Newman posted a seventh at Phoenix, leading the way for Richard Childress Racing as former RCR driver Kevin Harvick won easily.

"I'm driving the No. 31 car formerly piloted by Jeff Burton," Newman said. "But I'm not your typical RCR driver. Two things to remember: I'm not Richard Childress' grandson, and Wadd Button is not my brother."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 12:07 PM | Comments (0)

March 4, 2014

Give WAR a Chance

Mike Trout is only 22 years old, and he is the best baseball player in the world. The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim recently signed Trout to a one-year, $1 million contract, and are expected to announce later this Spring that they have signed Trout to a long-term deal that makes him the highest-paid player, per season, in the history of Major League Baseball.

Each of the last two seasons, Trout has finished second in AL MVP voting, behind Miguel Cabrera. Because both players had terrific seasons, disagreements arose about who was the more deserving candidate. Cabrera's greatness was easier for fans to understand, because of the way it showed up in the statistics. Stats are about simplification: we can organize a 162-game season into a few numbers whose meanings we understand. Analytic fans have taken that one step further, with an all-in-one stat called Wins Above Replacement, or WAR. Many fans and journalists are skeptical of WAR, preferring traditional stats, but I'll explain why WAR makes sense.

Say you have two MVP candidates. One of them batted .310, with 45 home runs and 120 runs batted in. The other hit .325, with 40 HR and 110 RBI. Those are both great seasons. How do you balance one player's advantage in batting average with the other's edge in HR and RBI? But let's say one of those players stole 40 bases. Okay, now we've got a winner. But wait. The other guy hit 50 doubles and walked 100 times. Suppose one of them was a shortstop, or a Gold Glover? What if one of them plays in Colorado? There are actually a lot of variables we should consider. It gets to be a lot of work, taking everything into account.

WAR is one number. You don't have to do the math, because it's done. You just need a system you can trust. I'm going to explain why you can trust WAR. I'll use Trout and Cabrera as examples.

2012 Season

In 2012, Miguel Cabrera won the American League's Triple Crown. He batted .330/.393/.606, with 44 HR and 139 RBI. Mike Trout, a rookie who wasn't called up until a month into the season, hit .326/.399/.564, with 30 HR and 83 RBI. Three basic factors pushed Trout's WAR ahead of Cabrera's: park effects, baserunning, and defense.

1. Park Effects

Anaheim is a pitcher's park. If you take out the homefield and just look at road games, Trout's batting average, on-base percentage, and slugging percentage were all better than Cabrera's:

2. Baserunning

In 2012, Miguel Cabrera stole 4 bases. Mike Trout stole 49. When you consider taking an extra base as a runner, things like going first-to-third on a single, Trout has another 23 bases up on Cabrera. Beating the throw to first on a double play opportunity, Trout's advantage is 18-21 bases, depending on whether you count FC (+18) or GIDP (+21). Altogether, that's at least 86 bases Trout advanced that Cabrera didn't.

3. Defense

Cabrera was not a good defensive third baseman. Mike Trout is a very good defensive outfielder, and in 2012 he was one of the best center fielders in baseball. Trout's four home run robberies led the majors.

The biggest misconception about WAR is that it's trying to tell you something new. It's not. Rather, WAR organizes and simplifies what we already know. You don't need any help from Bill James to understand basic stuff like home/road splits, speed on the basepaths, or fielding. Fans and managers understood those ideas a century ago. WAR just puts it all together so that you don't need to compute park effects or look up baserunning stats.

The home/road data — and our knowledge of park factors — show that the only significant difference between Trout and Cabrera at the plate was playing time. Their averages were nearly equal, but Trout spent April in AAA. Trout had a significant baserunning advantage, worth roughly 10-15 runs, or about 1-1.5 WAR. The defensive valuations favor Trout by a little more than 20 runs, or roughly 2 WAR. I think most fans would agree that 20 runs seems roughly in line with their estimation of the difference between a good center fielder and a below-average third baseman — or more specifically, the defensive difference between Trout and Cabrera in 2012. Every individual component of the formula is fairly intuitive.

The WAR computation from Baseball Reference, rWAR, showed Trout with 10.9 WAR and Cabrera with 7.3. FanGraphs placed Trout at 10.0 fWAR and Cabrera at 6.8. Those are excellent numbers for both players, but both systems show Trout with a clear and decisive edge. The glossary at FanGraphs does an especially good job of spelling out how their formula works.

I'm not suggesting that all we need to know about a ballplayer is his WAR, but it does what every good stat should do: it simplifies a long season into a number that makes sense. Trout didn't deserve the MVP because his WAR was higher than Cabrera's; he deserved the MVP because of all the individual factors — things we all understand, like baserunning and fielding — that contributed to his higher WAR.

2013 Season

This year isn't quite as simple, because Cabrera's batting advantage was larger and Trout was less sensational in the field. We'll do this one in more detail, starting at the plate.

At the most fundamental level, a batter's job is to produce runs: to put himself and his teammates in scoring position. Breaking this down a little, hitters should get on base, advance on the bases, advance their teammates on the bases, and avoid making outs. You already know this; it's Baseball 101. Let's look at Trout and Cabrera, and let's start with getting on base.

I will warn you that this section is pretty stat-heavy — but it's not sabermetrics, it's stuff we all know about.

Getting on Base

Trout reached base 320 times last season: 190 hits, 110 walks, 9 hit by pitch, and 11 times reached on error. Some fans will want to discount those last 11, when the opponent was charged with an error, but Trout's speed allows him to reach base on plays where other batters would be thrown out, and it may even pressure the defense into misplays and poor throws. However he reached base, those 11 plays helped his team: Trout was on base and he didn't make an out. Cabrera reached base 289 times, which is also quite good, 2nd in the AL.

There's something unfair here working in Trout's favor, but we'll come back to that later. For now he's ahead by 31 times on base.

Advancing on the Basepaths

Much of the excitement of a game comes from baserunning, both on stolen base attempts and balls in play. The chart below shows not only steals, but also Bases Taken (on fly balls, wild pitches, etc.), advancing from first to third on a single, scoring from first on a double, and scoring from second on a single. All this data is available at Baseball-Reference.com.

That's 49 bases for Cabrera, and 100 for Trout. The main differences are stolen bases (+30) and first-to-third (+21). The other aspect of advancement is extra-base hits.

Trout ranked 2nd in the AL in XBH, and Cabrera ranked 4th, both excellent, but Cabrera's home run lead provided 22 more bases than Trout's doubles and triples. Trout's base-advancement edge isn't really +51, it's +29.

Advancing Teammates on the Basepaths

The simplest way to drive in runs or move your teammates up on the bases is with a hit, especially extra-base hits, and in particular home runs. If there's a man on first, walks and HBP advance him as well. Let's look at hits, plus unintentional walks and HBP.

The numbers are pretty similar, but Cabrera's ahead by 25 total bases. However, Trout had 100 non-IBB walks and 9 HBP — a total of 109 — compared to 71 unintentional walks and 5 HBP for Cabrera, a total of 76. That's an advantage of 33 for Trout. Sabermetric research shows a walk is worth about 65% of a hit, so let's drop Trout's +33 to +22. Cabrera's ahead by three, 25 to 22.

Avoiding Outs

I mentioned earlier that the numbers we're working with unfairly favor Mike Trout. That's because we haven't yet addressed outs. Trout made 719 plate appearances in 2013, compared to 652 for Cabrera. Trout had more opportunities to compile stats. So let's look at the equalizer: outs. I've broken them down into at-bats, double plays grounded into, and outs on the basepaths. Outs in the first category (AB) include sacrifices and fielder's choice, but not reached on error. Baserunning outs include caught stealing, pickoffs, and other assorted outs (like tagging up and getting caught in a rundown), but not force-outs.

Cabrera's double plays and Trout's outs on the basepaths effectively cancel each other out.

Summary

I've implied some really horrendous statistical equivalencies above, and I'm sure any sabermetricians reading this are tearing their hair out. FanGraphs offers an explanation that is far more precise (a double is worth 42% more than a single!), but in the meantime, the numbers above show Trout at +31 times on base, +29 bases advanced, -3 advancing teammates, and using 35 more outs. This undersells the value of Cabrera's home runs, but it also is not adjusted for park effects. The road numbers do favor Cabrera this year: he was a better hitter, not just in raw numbers but in context.

The difference, effectively, is slugging. But Cabrera's power advantage is neutralized by Trout's speed, and Trout made many more plate appearances. While both were excellent offensive players, Trout was excellent more times — 67 more. Remember, Cabrera only had 25 more total bases than Trout, but Trout took 51 more bases as a runner and reached base 31 extra times. Between his greater workload and his baserunning, Trout's offense edges Cabrera's, and his defensive advantage for 2013 was estimated at about 10 runs, or 1 Win Above Replacement. Trout's 2013 was graded at 9.2 rWAR and 10.4 fWAR, versus Cabrera's 7.2 rWAR and 7.6 fWAR. Once again, I'm not saying that Trout was better because his WAR was higher. I'm saying that his WAR was higher because he was better.

Why Go To WAR?

I've gone through a lot of numbers here, to show why Trout's contributions, many of which don't show up in the Triple Crown stats, were more valuable than Cabrera's. But the beauty of WAR is that you don't need to comb through doubles and triples and caught stealing and hit by pitch, because they're all accounted for. According to FanGraphs, 2012 wOBA values were .88 runs for a single, 1.26 for a double, 1.59 for a triple, and 2.06 for a home run. Those numbers reflect extensive research, and they should make sense to most fans. WAR adds in walks and GIDP and all that, adjusts all the numbers for park effects, compares them to replacement level — which might be a free agent or a player in AAA, someone a team could easily plug in — and produces a single number to reflect offensive value.

The defensive valuations vary a little more between rWAR and fWAR, as do their pitching calculations, but they usually line up pretty closely. You don't need to memorize any formulas or learn any acronyms to benefit from sabermetric analysis. You just learn enough about the system to decide whether the formula makes sense, whether you trust it. And if you ever doubt its conclusions, you look at the details to see why it makes sense. The Trout/Cabrera debate is a great example. People who don't understand sabermetrics have looked at the batting statistics, looked at Trout's WAR, and concluded that the statisticians must be doing some shady maneuvering to manipulate the number, but that's not the case at all.

The biggest gap between WAR and public perception comes from four factors:

1. Park Effects

Most fans apply a radical adjustment for Colorado Rockies batting stats, but no adjustment for any other ballparks.

2. Defense

Traditional fielding statistics aren't very useful, sabermetric fielding statistics aren't very accessible, and the eye test is sometimes wildly misleading. Since it's hard to gauge these things, most of us simply don't do it. Some of us apply subjective adjustments — usually too small, and occasionally much too large — while others simply expect center fielders and shortstops to hit like corner outfielders and first basemen.

I should acknowledge that sabermetric fielding analysis is not perfect, and not terribly reliable in a one-year sample. It's still better to make an informed guess than to ignore an important part of the game. With regard to Trout and Cabrera specifically, no one doubts that Trout is a more valuable defensive asset, and one or two wins per year seems like a conservative estimate.

3. "Small Stats"

These are stats that you can find in the box score, but most of us skip over. The more important include doubles, triples, walks, HBP, and GIDP. The really small stats are mostly baserunning, like going first-to-third on a single. Traditional analysis ignore most of these, except in extreme cases, but WAR accounts for all of it, and sometimes it radically changes our evaluation of a player. For Trout and Cabrera in 2013, just the first five "small stats" I mentioned add up to a huge advantage for Trout: +13 doubles, +8 triples, +20 walks, +4 HBP, and -11 GIDP.

The wOBA numbers we saw earlier show that Trout's doubles and triples were worth about the same as 14 home runs. His BB and HBP were approximately as valuable as 19 singles. If we refigure their batting averages by giving Trout 19 singles and Cabrera 11 outs, you find Trout batting .336 with 41 HR, and Cabrera at .341 with 44 HR. Add in park factors, baserunning, and defense, and it's clear why Trout's ahead. That's the beauty of WAR: every step of the calculations make sense.

We usually don't pay much attention to these stats, but they matter. And despite my use of the wOBA formula, this isn't serious sabermetrics here. You already know that doubles and triples matter, you know that grounding into double plays hurts the team. It's just hard to organize all these numbers in a way we can process. That's what WAR is good for.

4. Overrated Stats

This is mostly RBI. We're all tired of arguing about using on-base percentage rather than batting average, and I already counted walks as a "small stat" above, so let's focus on ribbies. Dave Cameron once described RBI as a team stat masquerading as an individual stat. RBI are mostly a function of runners on base. The stat under-represents leadoff men, players on bad offensive teams, and players in pitcher's parks. We have much better ways to measure clutch hitting, but it's a familiar stat that supposedly measures what many fans and sportswriters want to believe.

WAR: What Is It Good For?

We want our sports statistics to be simple. WAR is a little weird because it's simultaneously very simple (one number) and very complex (includes fielding, baserunning, and every aspect of batting). Ultimately, I like WAR because it's a time-saver. You can look at this one stat to get an idea of who the best players are, then research specifics from there if you're so inclined. It's a great starting point. It's also a lot easier to say that Player A had a better WAR than Player B, rather than going through the minutiae of triples and HBP and sac flies and so forth.

There are a lot of important stats that it's too much work to evaluate individually; that's what WAR is useful for: providing an overall picture of a player's value. All I am saying is give WAR a chance.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 12:16 PM | Comments (0)

March 3, 2014

Doubting the Shockers? Don't

You've probably heard: Wichita State is 31-0.

And yet, few teams, if any, are as underrated as the Shockers are.

Sure, Wichita is undefeated and ranked second in the country. They've also had to endure nonstop criticism from those who feel Wichita is simply a farce.

Their conference is weak.
They haven't played anyone.
Kansas or Syracuse could go undefeated playing Wichita's schedule.

Go ahead. Doubt the Shockers.

Doubt a team that reached the Final Four last year and gave the eventual national champions their toughest game of the season. They didn't play any blockbuster non-conference games last year, yet there they were in Atlanta when it was all said and done. Ask Rick Pitino which hurdle was the toughest during Louisville's title run last year. Then realize what Wichita has done is simply demonstrate that last year wasn't a fluke.

Doubt a team that plays a deep bench. Nine Shockers average over 12 minutes a game. Of the current top 10 teams in the AP poll, only Louisville can match that statistic.

Doubt their schedule. Doubt a team that's faced everyone's best shot, that's been the circled date by nearly everyone they've faced. Everyone has a clunker game. Syracuse lost to Boston College. Michigan State laid a complete egg against Illinois. Wichita had one too. The Shockers were down 19 in the second half to Missouri State. When adversity hit them though, they hit back and prevailed in the end.

No team has carried a target on their backs for more games this season than Wichita State. They're the only undefeated team left. Doesn't that demand respect? Shouldn't that lock a top seed? Why was there any discussion? Say Kansas played Wichita's schedule. Say Duke played it. Would they be favored every game? Definitely. But Kansas also inexplicably lost last season to TCU. Duke bowed out of the Big Dance to Lehigh just a few years ago. Upsets happen. The Shockers fought through it.

Doubt Gregg Marshall; who didn't branch off from a successful coaching tree. He's had to do it from scratch. Winthrop took a chance on him and he answered by bringing them their first seven trips to the Big Dance. Then the Shockers called. He struggled during his first couple of seasons while he recruited and built his foundation. The results speak for themselves.

Doubt Ron Baker. He was good last year during their March run. Since then, he's only become a better all-around shooter and now averages in double digits. His assist to turnover ratio has soared. He's stolen the ball more this season while fouling less.

Doubt Fred VanVleet. Given huge shoes to fill with the departure of Malcolm Armstead, VanVleet rose to the occasion, so much so that he's a finalist for the Naismith Award. Since last year, VanVleet has doubled his minutes while nearly tripling his points per game. His field goal percentage is better. He shoots over 40 percent from three-point range. Last year, he was a 72 percent free throw shooter. This year? 83 percent. His assist to turnover ratio? Last year: 2.3:1.2. This year? 5.3:1:3. Insane growth in very little time.

In 1994, Arkansas was a one seed in the Midwest Regional. They were ranked at the top for most of the season and were closely followed by President Clinton. Yet, Nolan Richardson was able to convince his squad that they weren't being respected. They won the national title.

Wichita State may not win the national title. They may be out in the Sweet 16. But, as a final thought, that same theme of no respect is being delivered to an undefeated team, coming off a Final Four season last year, with the reputation of "playing angry."

Doubt the Shockers? I won't.

Posted by Jean Neuberger at 11:47 AM | Comments (0)