"Due to a quirk in the NFL schedule this year, the AFC West is playing the AFC East. And the NFC West is playing the NFC East. So far, it hasn't worked out well for the road teams. The visitors in the series are 3-11, losing by a combined 12.5 points. Interestingly, the only three road wins were by East Coast teams traveling west: the Panthers won in San Diego, and the Eagles and the Patriots won in San Francisco. No West Coast team has won on the east yet this season."
The number of things wrong with this statement form a recent ESPN article is large. Like, I'm not going to say a googol, but it wouldn't be much of a stretch. Do they even employ editors at ESPN? For one thing, it is not a "quirk" in the NFL schedule that the AFC West is playing the AFC East. It happens once every three years. Not only is it not a quirk, it is relatively common. Also, the visitors in the series did not lose by a "combined" 12.5 points, they lost by an average of 12.5 points. How do I know the writer meant to say average and not combined? Because they don't give out half points in the... (I'm looking at you Jaws!) NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE.
And don't get me started on Chris Mortenson. Every time this guy "reports" something, I either knew it three weeks ago or it involves a third string special teams player. I expect this report from Chris sometime in the near future:
"This just in out of New England: Tom Brady has a torn ACL. Now, among NFL insiders it is well known that the Patriots aren't doing as well this year as some had expected, and some believe Tom Brady's injury might have something to do with this. Scouts point to his 50 touchdown performance of a year ago as evidence that his loss might be detrimental to the team's overall performance. The Patriots are optimistic that he could return sometime before next season, and they really want him back because having injured players hurts your team's chance of success.
Other tidbits:A presidential election is currently underway in the United States. Some experts indicate that this election could be won by either John McCain or Barack Obama...
A little known conflict in the Middle East has gained some attention this year, as a few pundits are positing the notion that the U.S should not have invaded a relatively anonymous country called Iraq...
Apparently, Russia still exists, and has invaded a country recently. Some say the Russkies invaded Georgia, but insiders and experts and pundits and those-in-the-know say this might not be true, because Russia would never invade a state with so many peaches...
Apple launched an advertising campaign some industry experts predict could be succesful in reaching out to young, so call "hip" people. It has to do with a PC, a Mac, and two people who pretend to portray them...
Well that's all for the Mort Report this week, check in next week when we may or may not have information from insiders and experts on the possible outcome of Super Bowl XXV"
Now I have myself excited. If Mortenson ever DID 'report' real news instead of just sports news... I might wet myself out of anticipation. That would be amazing.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Wednesday, August 06, 2008
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Joe Morgan and oncology.
I have long inveighed against the uselessness of “chemistry” in baseball. Actually, I have long railed against the very term itself, since chemistry has no more to do with team camaraderie and interaction than physics, geology or oncology (and in fact, given the rampant use of the term “cancer” for players of bad repute, you would think good oncology just as important as chemistry in today’s sports). But in particular, my argument was always one of seemingly sound logic: unless Derek Jeter begins refusing to throw to the first basemen, who cares about chemistry?
In particular, I would objurgate those foolish among us who might imply that the Yankees of ‘96-’00 won because they had better chemistry. They didn’t win because they had better chemistry. They won because they were flat out better.
And while I maintain that “chemistry” is still a stupid term and is invoked far too often in defense of teams who simply aren’t that good, I have softened my stance a bit. I still believe the current Yankees lineup is overrated because it contains names of players who used to be good, but there might be another reason contributing to this team’s inability to win in October. Who convinced me? Joe Morgan. Yeah, I know, they should start buying skis in Hell. This coming on the heels of Steve Philips actually impressing me with his wit (though it actually was pretty funny—you should ask the Sports Maunderer about it sometime, when he isn’t procrastinating).
In totally unrelated news that, using my sharp acumen and unmatched cognitive skill I will soon connect in ways unimaginable and completely unforeseeable: the Yankees are quite possibly a .500 team. They might be better—it is hard to tell at this incipient stage of the season. But if they do fail to break the win-one-lose-one routine, it WILL NOT (oh yeah, I just broke out the capital letters) be because of their pitching. It will be due to their mercurial hitting and all-too frequent inability to score runs.
Among the many myths of the Yankees dominance for the latter half of the 90s is the myth that they were great because they had the best pitching in the league. Removing the 1998 team from the equation simply because that team was a dynasty within a dynasty within a dynasty (I defy anyone to find me a team better than that one, including the ’27 Yankees. Quite simply, the ’98 Yankees were better than everyone at everything), the three other years they won the title, they clearly did not have the best starting pitching. In ’96, the Braves had Maddux/Glavine/Smoltz, three Hall of Famers, each in their prime. In ’99 and ’00, you know who had the best team ERA in the league? You guessed it: the Red Sox (thanks in large part to Pedro, smack in the middle the most dominating two year stretch of pitching in modern baseball history). Of course, neither of those teams won. The Yankees did.
The Yankees, assuredly, had Mariano Rivera, but they still have Rivera, and haven’t won in eight years. So what is the difference? Obviously, their pitching is not quite as good as it once was, but it still isn’t horrid (I mean, we are talking about a 1996 pitching staff that gave up four hundred bajillion runs to the Braves in games 1 and 2 of the series, and another six in game four). They didn’t lose the series to Cleveland last year due to bad pitching. They lost due to gnats. But that is beyond the point. The point is that those teams of yesteryear had great lineups.
While the volume of runs scored over 162 games may not be more impressive than the current scenario of flailing hitters up and down the order, the timing of the runs scored was quite different. This team hits home runs, but goodness knows when and how and why and with how many men on base they will do it. They literally come to the plate with a percent chance equivalent to their batting average of doing well—they don’t adapt, they don’t move to the ball, they don’t seem to care who is pitching or what he might throw. The old Yankees were never a threat to hit 250 home runs in a season, but with a runner on second and two outs, they were going to be extremely difficult to get out. They went after the ball instead of swinging where they hoped it would go. They seemed to have a genuine idea of where the pitcher liked to throw, speeds he had, et al.
And even in the case of pitchers, what has happened? The Yankees don’t have all terrible pitchers. They have good ones and terrible ones. Why not more good ones?
Strangely enough, the answer might lie in the nebulous, intangible science of chemistry (though I don’t recall any baseball discussion in general chem. Maybe they don’t get to it until organic?) Joe Morgan made the point in a recent Yankees broadcast that teams with players who like each other, enjoy each other, talk to each other, tend to do better. Why? Because when a hitter strikes out, he doesn’t go into the dugout, sulk, and stare into space with alien eyes that scream “withdrawal!” (I’m looking at you, Jason). He talks to other players and before you know it, the whole team has an idea of what to expect before they even get to the plate.
Joe also made the point that this matters even more with pitchers. He didn’t explain why, but hey, he was on a roll so I took him at his word. All of the sudden, everything makes sense. The camaraderie on this current Yankees team does suck. Th camaraderie on the World Series teams did not. I mean, does anyone see Johnny Damon walking into the dugout and confabulating with Hideki Matsui? And Damon is the most outgoing player on the team. Is Mike Mussina really helping Ian Kennedy (otherwise known as the guy who stole his job last year) become a better pitcher? I wouldn’t bet a bagel on it.
This also makes sense when you think about the fact that, despite all of these “great hitters”, they don’t seem to score as often as they should in the first place. It seems that being a “great hitter” is almost synonymous with blowing it in the clutch, because “great hitters” hit home runs.
Ya know, maybe I was right all along. The Yankees problem is likely just the fact that none of their players are that good. A-Rod hits a lot of home runs, but to hit home runs you need to swing for the fences. Which means you probably will strike out. Which means you aren’t that good of a hitter. By the time he is done, A-Rod might have 800 home runs. But how many of them will have mattered?
Well, if you add strontium hydroxide to magnesium nitrate, you get a precipitate; shouldn’t that tell us something?
~The Sports Maunderer~
In particular, I would objurgate those foolish among us who might imply that the Yankees of ‘96-’00 won because they had better chemistry. They didn’t win because they had better chemistry. They won because they were flat out better.
And while I maintain that “chemistry” is still a stupid term and is invoked far too often in defense of teams who simply aren’t that good, I have softened my stance a bit. I still believe the current Yankees lineup is overrated because it contains names of players who used to be good, but there might be another reason contributing to this team’s inability to win in October. Who convinced me? Joe Morgan. Yeah, I know, they should start buying skis in Hell. This coming on the heels of Steve Philips actually impressing me with his wit (though it actually was pretty funny—you should ask the Sports Maunderer about it sometime, when he isn’t procrastinating).
In totally unrelated news that, using my sharp acumen and unmatched cognitive skill I will soon connect in ways unimaginable and completely unforeseeable: the Yankees are quite possibly a .500 team. They might be better—it is hard to tell at this incipient stage of the season. But if they do fail to break the win-one-lose-one routine, it WILL NOT (oh yeah, I just broke out the capital letters) be because of their pitching. It will be due to their mercurial hitting and all-too frequent inability to score runs.
Among the many myths of the Yankees dominance for the latter half of the 90s is the myth that they were great because they had the best pitching in the league. Removing the 1998 team from the equation simply because that team was a dynasty within a dynasty within a dynasty (I defy anyone to find me a team better than that one, including the ’27 Yankees. Quite simply, the ’98 Yankees were better than everyone at everything), the three other years they won the title, they clearly did not have the best starting pitching. In ’96, the Braves had Maddux/Glavine/Smoltz, three Hall of Famers, each in their prime. In ’99 and ’00, you know who had the best team ERA in the league? You guessed it: the Red Sox (thanks in large part to Pedro, smack in the middle the most dominating two year stretch of pitching in modern baseball history). Of course, neither of those teams won. The Yankees did.
The Yankees, assuredly, had Mariano Rivera, but they still have Rivera, and haven’t won in eight years. So what is the difference? Obviously, their pitching is not quite as good as it once was, but it still isn’t horrid (I mean, we are talking about a 1996 pitching staff that gave up four hundred bajillion runs to the Braves in games 1 and 2 of the series, and another six in game four). They didn’t lose the series to Cleveland last year due to bad pitching. They lost due to gnats. But that is beyond the point. The point is that those teams of yesteryear had great lineups.
While the volume of runs scored over 162 games may not be more impressive than the current scenario of flailing hitters up and down the order, the timing of the runs scored was quite different. This team hits home runs, but goodness knows when and how and why and with how many men on base they will do it. They literally come to the plate with a percent chance equivalent to their batting average of doing well—they don’t adapt, they don’t move to the ball, they don’t seem to care who is pitching or what he might throw. The old Yankees were never a threat to hit 250 home runs in a season, but with a runner on second and two outs, they were going to be extremely difficult to get out. They went after the ball instead of swinging where they hoped it would go. They seemed to have a genuine idea of where the pitcher liked to throw, speeds he had, et al.
And even in the case of pitchers, what has happened? The Yankees don’t have all terrible pitchers. They have good ones and terrible ones. Why not more good ones?
Strangely enough, the answer might lie in the nebulous, intangible science of chemistry (though I don’t recall any baseball discussion in general chem. Maybe they don’t get to it until organic?) Joe Morgan made the point in a recent Yankees broadcast that teams with players who like each other, enjoy each other, talk to each other, tend to do better. Why? Because when a hitter strikes out, he doesn’t go into the dugout, sulk, and stare into space with alien eyes that scream “withdrawal!” (I’m looking at you, Jason). He talks to other players and before you know it, the whole team has an idea of what to expect before they even get to the plate.
Joe also made the point that this matters even more with pitchers. He didn’t explain why, but hey, he was on a roll so I took him at his word. All of the sudden, everything makes sense. The camaraderie on this current Yankees team does suck. Th camaraderie on the World Series teams did not. I mean, does anyone see Johnny Damon walking into the dugout and confabulating with Hideki Matsui? And Damon is the most outgoing player on the team. Is Mike Mussina really helping Ian Kennedy (otherwise known as the guy who stole his job last year) become a better pitcher? I wouldn’t bet a bagel on it.
This also makes sense when you think about the fact that, despite all of these “great hitters”, they don’t seem to score as often as they should in the first place. It seems that being a “great hitter” is almost synonymous with blowing it in the clutch, because “great hitters” hit home runs.
Ya know, maybe I was right all along. The Yankees problem is likely just the fact that none of their players are that good. A-Rod hits a lot of home runs, but to hit home runs you need to swing for the fences. Which means you probably will strike out. Which means you aren’t that good of a hitter. By the time he is done, A-Rod might have 800 home runs. But how many of them will have mattered?
Well, if you add strontium hydroxide to magnesium nitrate, you get a precipitate; shouldn’t that tell us something?
~The Sports Maunderer~
Monday, February 04, 2008
The Patriots are the best team in history...
...to not win the Super bowl.
Oh, and it's time to send Tiki a T-shirt.
~The Sports Maunderer~
Oh, and it's time to send Tiki a T-shirt.
~The Sports Maunderer~
Sunday, January 13, 2008
My Argument is Perfect. To Prove it...
Tautologies are a common fact of life. People argue from their argument.
"This food is better than that food because it has sausage in it."
"Oh yeah? Well this one has pepperoni!"
"Yes, but since my food is better than yours, clearly sausage is better than pepperoni!"
"Oh well of course, I hadn't thought of that."
But seriously, have we grown so logically lazy as a viewing/reading public that we don't spot the problem with made-up statistics? Case in point:John Hollinger.
He is a statistical madman, creating and inventing statistical measures left and right. Then, when he is arguing for a player, he says "See, look, he is so high on my very own invented statistical formula!!!!"Here is PER. Scroll down a bit for the formula. Not only is it nuts, but its John Hollinger's determination of how much everything is worth. It's absurd.
The very thing itself should need to be argued for or against, and yet he uses it like a real measuring stick. He thinks Yao Ming will be the best player in the NBA because his projected PER (yes, not even his actual PER, his "projected" PER) for this season was higher than anyone else's.
This despite the fact that Yao Ming is a stick figure who can't guard anyone, rebound against guys a foot shorter than him, or attack the basket, and who singlehandedly lost Houston the series against Utah last postseason. Now if you want to make a case for Yao, go ahead. But don't do it by creating your own nonsensical formula and then acting as if said formula is an axiom. It isn't. Know how I know? I asked Spock, that's how.
Moving on, with football season one big string left to be played out (where does this highly non-intuitive phrase come from?) thanks to the super team in New England, (get it? Super bowl, super team? Get it? Get it?) we need to find something else interesting. NBA is never interesting at this time of year thanks to the fact that the NBA has exactly the system that people have been clamoring for in college football. And so, instead of enjoying a regular season where the Spurs' insouciance actually matters, the Celtics' prodigious start is actually newsworthy, or the Lakers surprising ability to win games elicits some fun, we know that none of it matters whatsoever, for the playoffs let everyone and their grandmother in, and then the Spurs, Mavs, Suns, Pistons and Celtics will be the only contenders, and they will all be back to square one, and 82 games worth of regulars season will mean--I descend into Vonnegutism--doodly-squat.
Gee, don't you wish college football had something that exciting?!
Then USC/Stanford would have meant... NOTHING! And Pitt/WVU would have meant... NOTHING! And LSU/Kentucky would have meant... NOTHING!
Look, I am all for reducing (drastically) the number of Bowl games. There should be somewhere on the order of ten bowl games, not 32 or whatever there is currently. But a playoff system will just destroy the inherent advantage of meaningful regular season games that college football has.
But what about college basketball, you say? First off, March Madness is a unique beast. College football could not replicate it even if it tried. Second... doesn't March Madness completely invalidate the regular season? Yes! The simple fact of the matter is that for all the "upsets" we hear about in March, the team that is supposed to win... usually does. Florida won last year, and the year before that they capitalized on a rare field of no one being very good. UNC beat everyone when they were supposed to, and you can continue going further back. This is not to say March Madness is unenjoyable. But the College football regular season is a vertiable March madness on its own--lose and you have a very good shot of being out. Normally, you ARE out. This year was a weird year, sure, but does anyone doubt that LSU was the best team in the country? Well, okay, I do. But here is the point: the only challengers would be Georgia and USC; Georgia didn't even win their division, so they have no beef. USC lost to Stanford, so they have no beef.
Really, the only problem with the BCS is that it still recognizes the Big Ten as a BCS conference. The Big Ten is pathetic. It is a step above Conference USA. Maybe. I mean, the ACC is hardly a powerhouse and the ACC is way better than the Big Ten. The Big East blows the Big Ten out of the water. The Pac-10 and SEC are tantamount to pro-level leagues compared to the Big Ten (see: Rose Bowl and BCS title game). The Big Ten should just be abolished.
Yes, that is slightly hyperbolic.
Anyway, the Patriots continue their reign as the team most likely to be picked against in the history of the league for being so dang good. The Jags were the trendy pick this week because they could run the ball. For 80 yards, apparently. 31-20 and it wasn't even that close. The Patriots never punted (except for the garbage time punt when the game was over). Never Punted. So much for Jacksonville's vaunted defense.
Of course, now the Patriots are really hoping the Chargers win. I mean, seriously, Bill Belichick could win against Norv Turner if he was coaching a Big Ten team, much less when he clearly has the superior force. Tony Dungy is not quite so hapless. Either way, SuperBowl XVII will be played two weeks before the commercials come on.
Speaking of the NFC, how about we just get rid of half of the NFC teams? Seattle is perennially exposed once they have to play non-NFC West teams (btw, the NFC West, according to Emmitt Smith, is "one of" the worst conferences in the NFC!!!! No, don't laugh at Emmitt. You are trying to make him an "escape goat". Plus, Emitt brings you useful info all the time. For instance, did you know that Tony Romo not only broke the NFC East record for TD passes, he also broke the Cowboys franchise record?!?!?), Tampa Bay just isn't good, Washington ditto, and while the Giants, Cowboys and Packers are all decent, does the fact that a conference has three good teams make up for the fact that the other conference has way more better teams (I like that phrasing... way more better...)? I say we send the NFC and the Big Ten off to Hawaii to live in peace.
Speaking of Hawaii... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Who didn't see that coming.
Amazing how the press coverage of Hawaii getting pwned was limited on ESPN. It didn't fit in with ESPN's master plan of brainwashing the country to believe that playing against San Jose State is the same as playing against Florida, Arkansas, LSU etc. on a regular basis. Hawaii proved once again that the BCS conferences are simply too good for the non-BCS conferences. Appalachian State helped prove the Big Ten is not a BCS conference by winning at Michigan. My syllogism is impeccable.
Anyway, thanks to a faulty cursor, this post was delayed for many a moon. But don't worry, the Sports Maunderer will be back before the apocalypse comes, and his next post will be way more better.
Until then,
~The Sports Maunderer~
"This food is better than that food because it has sausage in it."
"Oh yeah? Well this one has pepperoni!"
"Yes, but since my food is better than yours, clearly sausage is better than pepperoni!"
"Oh well of course, I hadn't thought of that."
But seriously, have we grown so logically lazy as a viewing/reading public that we don't spot the problem with made-up statistics? Case in point:John Hollinger.
He is a statistical madman, creating and inventing statistical measures left and right. Then, when he is arguing for a player, he says "See, look, he is so high on my very own invented statistical formula!!!!"Here is PER. Scroll down a bit for the formula. Not only is it nuts, but its John Hollinger's determination of how much everything is worth. It's absurd.
The very thing itself should need to be argued for or against, and yet he uses it like a real measuring stick. He thinks Yao Ming will be the best player in the NBA because his projected PER (yes, not even his actual PER, his "projected" PER) for this season was higher than anyone else's.
This despite the fact that Yao Ming is a stick figure who can't guard anyone, rebound against guys a foot shorter than him, or attack the basket, and who singlehandedly lost Houston the series against Utah last postseason. Now if you want to make a case for Yao, go ahead. But don't do it by creating your own nonsensical formula and then acting as if said formula is an axiom. It isn't. Know how I know? I asked Spock, that's how.
Moving on, with football season one big string left to be played out (where does this highly non-intuitive phrase come from?) thanks to the super team in New England, (get it? Super bowl, super team? Get it? Get it?) we need to find something else interesting. NBA is never interesting at this time of year thanks to the fact that the NBA has exactly the system that people have been clamoring for in college football. And so, instead of enjoying a regular season where the Spurs' insouciance actually matters, the Celtics' prodigious start is actually newsworthy, or the Lakers surprising ability to win games elicits some fun, we know that none of it matters whatsoever, for the playoffs let everyone and their grandmother in, and then the Spurs, Mavs, Suns, Pistons and Celtics will be the only contenders, and they will all be back to square one, and 82 games worth of regulars season will mean--I descend into Vonnegutism--doodly-squat.
Gee, don't you wish college football had something that exciting?!
Then USC/Stanford would have meant... NOTHING! And Pitt/WVU would have meant... NOTHING! And LSU/Kentucky would have meant... NOTHING!
Look, I am all for reducing (drastically) the number of Bowl games. There should be somewhere on the order of ten bowl games, not 32 or whatever there is currently. But a playoff system will just destroy the inherent advantage of meaningful regular season games that college football has.
But what about college basketball, you say? First off, March Madness is a unique beast. College football could not replicate it even if it tried. Second... doesn't March Madness completely invalidate the regular season? Yes! The simple fact of the matter is that for all the "upsets" we hear about in March, the team that is supposed to win... usually does. Florida won last year, and the year before that they capitalized on a rare field of no one being very good. UNC beat everyone when they were supposed to, and you can continue going further back. This is not to say March Madness is unenjoyable. But the College football regular season is a vertiable March madness on its own--lose and you have a very good shot of being out. Normally, you ARE out. This year was a weird year, sure, but does anyone doubt that LSU was the best team in the country? Well, okay, I do. But here is the point: the only challengers would be Georgia and USC; Georgia didn't even win their division, so they have no beef. USC lost to Stanford, so they have no beef.
Really, the only problem with the BCS is that it still recognizes the Big Ten as a BCS conference. The Big Ten is pathetic. It is a step above Conference USA. Maybe. I mean, the ACC is hardly a powerhouse and the ACC is way better than the Big Ten. The Big East blows the Big Ten out of the water. The Pac-10 and SEC are tantamount to pro-level leagues compared to the Big Ten (see: Rose Bowl and BCS title game). The Big Ten should just be abolished.
Yes, that is slightly hyperbolic.
Anyway, the Patriots continue their reign as the team most likely to be picked against in the history of the league for being so dang good. The Jags were the trendy pick this week because they could run the ball. For 80 yards, apparently. 31-20 and it wasn't even that close. The Patriots never punted (except for the garbage time punt when the game was over). Never Punted. So much for Jacksonville's vaunted defense.
Of course, now the Patriots are really hoping the Chargers win. I mean, seriously, Bill Belichick could win against Norv Turner if he was coaching a Big Ten team, much less when he clearly has the superior force. Tony Dungy is not quite so hapless. Either way, SuperBowl XVII will be played two weeks before the commercials come on.
Speaking of the NFC, how about we just get rid of half of the NFC teams? Seattle is perennially exposed once they have to play non-NFC West teams (btw, the NFC West, according to Emmitt Smith, is "one of" the worst conferences in the NFC!!!! No, don't laugh at Emmitt. You are trying to make him an "escape goat". Plus, Emitt brings you useful info all the time. For instance, did you know that Tony Romo not only broke the NFC East record for TD passes, he also broke the Cowboys franchise record?!?!?), Tampa Bay just isn't good, Washington ditto, and while the Giants, Cowboys and Packers are all decent, does the fact that a conference has three good teams make up for the fact that the other conference has way more better teams (I like that phrasing... way more better...)? I say we send the NFC and the Big Ten off to Hawaii to live in peace.
Speaking of Hawaii... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Who didn't see that coming.
Amazing how the press coverage of Hawaii getting pwned was limited on ESPN. It didn't fit in with ESPN's master plan of brainwashing the country to believe that playing against San Jose State is the same as playing against Florida, Arkansas, LSU etc. on a regular basis. Hawaii proved once again that the BCS conferences are simply too good for the non-BCS conferences. Appalachian State helped prove the Big Ten is not a BCS conference by winning at Michigan. My syllogism is impeccable.
Anyway, thanks to a faulty cursor, this post was delayed for many a moon. But don't worry, the Sports Maunderer will be back before the apocalypse comes, and his next post will be way more better.
Until then,
~The Sports Maunderer~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)