Of the five match-ups in the BCS, perhaps the most interesting one is that which will take place between the Cincinnati Bearcats and the Florida Gators in the Sugar Bowl, January 1st at 8:30 PM Eastern time. For the first twelve games of the season, these two teams could not have been more different with the exception of their records. Florida was looking for their third national title in four years and Tim Tebow was looking for his second Heisman trophy, trying to become the second player ever to achieve that feat. On the other hand, Cincinnati has been struggling for the spotlight in the Big East, seen by many as one of the weaker Automatic Qualifying conferences. However, the biggest questions surrounding this game have nothing to do with x’s and o’s, offensive or defensive rankings, or Heisman finalists or snubs.
The biggest question about this game is motivation. On the side of Florida, there is the fact that before this game is even played, many consider this season a disappointment. Not that it needs to be said again but in the past three years, the Gators won two national titles, Tebow won the Heisman, and most importantly, Tebow and Brandon Spikes both came back for their senior years. The Gators returned 11 defensive starters from a team that throttled Oklahoma’s record setting offense in the National Title game a year ago. At this point, for this group of players, there is very little that they haven’t already done. For all the freshmen, they have three more years to make their own mark. Whether they win or lose the Sugar Bowl, the Florida squad’s place in history will be roughly the same.
For Cincinnati, the source of their distraction is the University of Notre Dame. Given the coverage in the media, it very much seemed as if Head Coach Brian Kelly was simply going to humor Notre Dame officials and was inevitably going to turn them down and try to maintain this level of success at Cincinnati. Whether it was the prestige of the Golden Dome, the challenge of bringing a winner to South Bend, Indiana, or simply the pocketbook of Notre Dame, something convinced Kelly to jump off of the Bearcats’ ship. The question is how will Cincinnati respond?
By the Numbers
This will be an interesting game because it will pit one of the best passing attacks in the country against one of the best overall defenses in the country.
For Cincinnati, everything hinges on their ability to pass the football. They ranked 65th in the country running the ball but were #6 in passing offense and had the best overall passing efficiency in the country at 166.19. The worry for the Bearcats isn’t their offense, it’s their defense. In the last four games alone, they’ve allowed 146 points and they haven’t faced any offenses as good as Florida this year.
For Florida, despite having Tim Tebow as their quarterback, this team lives and dies by its defense. This year the Gators defense allowed as many as 20 points just twice and against Mississippi State (who scored 19 points), two Tebow interceptions were returned for touchdowns. They finished 13th against the run, 3rd against the pass, 4th overall, 5th in passing efficiency allowed, and 3rd in points per game allowed. Despite their defensive prowess, you can’t forget that the Gators still were 13th in points scored, 12th in total offense, and 5th in passing efficiency.
Why the Bearcats Will Win
Cincinnati has two quarterbacks that are more than proficient at running this offense. If something happens to starter Tony Pike, “back-up” Zach Collaros had a 195.53 rating and averaged 11.6 yards per attempt. Over 10 or 20 attempts those numbers are good but over 124 attempts, those numbers are bordering on ridiculous. The other part that must be considered is the fact that when you have such a prolific passing attack, you are never truly out of a game. Playing on the road against a top 15 team in Pittsburgh, they were down 31-10 late in the first half. They proceeded to storm all the way back to a 38-38 tie and after Pitt scored the go-ahead touchdown with 1:36 remaining in the game, Tony Pike led the Bearcats 61 yards in just over a minute to win the game 45-44. They are a very dangerous team and probably the most potent offense that Florida has faced all year. They scored at least 40 points 6 times and if they can get into a shootout with Florida, that match-up favors the Bearcats.
Why the Gators Will Win
Reason number one is #15. This will be the last game of Tim Tebow’s historic career and he will want to go out on a much better note than that which was heard in the SEC Championship Game against Alabama. Tebow finished the season 8th in passing efficiency and despite the loss of Percy Harvin and Louis Murphy to the NFL; he still has plenty of playmakers to light up the scoreboard. Along with the offense, they boast perhaps the best man-for-man defense in the country and a great head coach in Urban Meyer.
The Verdict
If the Alabama Crimson Tide had beaten the Florida Gators in a close game in the SEC title game, I would say that the Gators are a lock to win this game. Considering that Cincinnati played a great 2nd half against Pittsburgh and that Florida was never really in the game against Alabama, it puts this game much more in play. I believe that the Gators will come out flat in the 1st quarter and the question is; can the Bearcats take advantage of that lapse? The answer is yes. The Gators are going to play like they have nothing to play for (which, compared to earlier this month, they don’t) and the Bearcats are going to play like they are lucky to be here (which they are). Tony Pike is going to come out of the gates hot and by the time the Gators catch their breath it will be too late because they lack the big play weapons in the passing game to come back from a deficit.
Cincinnati 30, Florida 24
Sunday, December 13, 2009
BCS Preview: Rose Bowl
The Bowl Championship Series this year starts with the granddaddy of them all, the Rose Bowl. This year’s edition matches the Big Ten Champion, the Ohio State Buckeyes, against the Pac-10 Champion, the Oregon Ducks. This game features two drastically contrasting styles of play and it is in those contrasts that this game may very well be decided.
By the Numbers
Ohio State under Jim Tressel relies on defense and special teams with just enough offense. While they scored 30 or more points 7 times, they broke 40 just once and their average (29.25) ranked 47th in the country. The only two games in which they failed to score 20, they lost. On the flipside of the coin, they allowed more than 20 points just three times and they won two of those games. Behind the strength of their 5th ranked defense, they allowed just 12.2 points per game.
The Ducks, on the other hand, scored 40 or more points 7 times and scored at least 30 in another 3 games. They like to move the ball up and down the field and because of that, they ranked very well in offense (6th in rushing, 25th in total offense), and relatively poorly on the defensive side of the ball. They were 38th against the run, 37th against the pass, and 32nd overall, allowing 23.6 points per game. Four times the Ducks allowed 30 or more points and Heisman Finalist Toby Gerhart and Stanford gashed the Oregon defense for 254 rushing yards (223 by Gerhart), 251 passing yards, and 51 points.
Why the Buckeyes Will Win
Jim Tressel is one of the best coaches in America. Ohio State boasts one of the best defenses in the country. Terrelle Pryor is one of the premier playmakers at the quarterback position, although still an unfinished product as a sophomore. One of their defensive strengths (against the run) matches up against Oregon’s offensive strength (running the ball). Lastly, the Buckeyes were 4th in the country in turnover margin.
Why the Ducks Will Win
It has been quite a while since Ohio State won a big game and even longer since they won a BCS Bowl. On the other side, the last time Oregon played in a BCS game, they beat up Colorado in the 2002 Rose Bowl 38-16. They fashioned themselves as a top-10 team and a national title contender earlier this year before they lost badly to Boise State (19-8) and then later to Stanford (51-42). All of this means they will have a chip on their shoulder and will come out gunning in an attempt to finish the season with some momentum and build towards another title run next year. LaMichael James stepped in for LaGarrette Blount after the Boise State game and rushed for 1,476 yards and 14 touchdowns but the key to this game for Oregon will be Jeremiah Masoli. The junior had a passer rating of 133.7 and did show that he could throw the ball when called upon (334 yards against Stanford) but the key will be his running ability. He rushed for 50 or more yards 7 times and if he is able to take pressure off of LaMichael James, the Ducks could fly to victory.
The Verdict
This game features a very tough match-up for the Buckeyes. They are going against a defense that I would categorize as “above average” to “good”. The Buckeyes need to stay disciplined and within their game plan. There is definitely the potential to look at the Ducks defense and their body of work and say “we can outscore them”. The problem is, the strength of the Ducks is their offense. The more you score, the more you give the ball to that high powered offense. Ohio State cannot get into a shootout or they will find themselves trailing and a ball control offense is not conducive to making comebacks. If they can keep the score in the teens or twenties, the Buckeyes will win. Anything past that and Oregon has a distinct advantage.
Oregon 31, Ohio State 21
By the Numbers
Ohio State under Jim Tressel relies on defense and special teams with just enough offense. While they scored 30 or more points 7 times, they broke 40 just once and their average (29.25) ranked 47th in the country. The only two games in which they failed to score 20, they lost. On the flipside of the coin, they allowed more than 20 points just three times and they won two of those games. Behind the strength of their 5th ranked defense, they allowed just 12.2 points per game.
The Ducks, on the other hand, scored 40 or more points 7 times and scored at least 30 in another 3 games. They like to move the ball up and down the field and because of that, they ranked very well in offense (6th in rushing, 25th in total offense), and relatively poorly on the defensive side of the ball. They were 38th against the run, 37th against the pass, and 32nd overall, allowing 23.6 points per game. Four times the Ducks allowed 30 or more points and Heisman Finalist Toby Gerhart and Stanford gashed the Oregon defense for 254 rushing yards (223 by Gerhart), 251 passing yards, and 51 points.
Why the Buckeyes Will Win
Jim Tressel is one of the best coaches in America. Ohio State boasts one of the best defenses in the country. Terrelle Pryor is one of the premier playmakers at the quarterback position, although still an unfinished product as a sophomore. One of their defensive strengths (against the run) matches up against Oregon’s offensive strength (running the ball). Lastly, the Buckeyes were 4th in the country in turnover margin.
Why the Ducks Will Win
It has been quite a while since Ohio State won a big game and even longer since they won a BCS Bowl. On the other side, the last time Oregon played in a BCS game, they beat up Colorado in the 2002 Rose Bowl 38-16. They fashioned themselves as a top-10 team and a national title contender earlier this year before they lost badly to Boise State (19-8) and then later to Stanford (51-42). All of this means they will have a chip on their shoulder and will come out gunning in an attempt to finish the season with some momentum and build towards another title run next year. LaMichael James stepped in for LaGarrette Blount after the Boise State game and rushed for 1,476 yards and 14 touchdowns but the key to this game for Oregon will be Jeremiah Masoli. The junior had a passer rating of 133.7 and did show that he could throw the ball when called upon (334 yards against Stanford) but the key will be his running ability. He rushed for 50 or more yards 7 times and if he is able to take pressure off of LaMichael James, the Ducks could fly to victory.
The Verdict
This game features a very tough match-up for the Buckeyes. They are going against a defense that I would categorize as “above average” to “good”. The Buckeyes need to stay disciplined and within their game plan. There is definitely the potential to look at the Ducks defense and their body of work and say “we can outscore them”. The problem is, the strength of the Ducks is their offense. The more you score, the more you give the ball to that high powered offense. Ohio State cannot get into a shootout or they will find themselves trailing and a ball control offense is not conducive to making comebacks. If they can keep the score in the teens or twenties, the Buckeyes will win. Anything past that and Oregon has a distinct advantage.
Oregon 31, Ohio State 21
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Winners and Losers of BCS '10
The BCS field is set and the countdown has begun until January 7th, when Alabama and Texas will meet to decide the champion for the 2009 season. With the regular season over and the bowl season to come, it is time to look back and determine the winners and the losers from the season.
First, the winners.
WINNERS
Non-Automatic Qualifying Conferences
The first “winners” are the little guys. For the first time in the 12 year history of the BCS, two teams from outside the AQ (automatic qualifying) conferences will play in a BCS bowl and bring a $12-15 million paycheck back to their conferences. Both Boise State and TCU benefited from the fact that perennial powers Oklahoma and USC both had down years at the same time. Had either of those schools performed to their 2008 level, one of the two, in all likelihood Boise State, would have been left out of the BCS party.
The SEC
For the second consecutive year, the SEC Championship Game was essentially a national semifinal game with the winner heading to the BCS National Championship Game. Last year it was #3 Florida beating #1 Alabama 31-20 and then winning the national title and this year, #2 Alabama manhandles #1 Florida 32-13 and will be playing for the national title. There is still the perception that while the rest of the SEC may be down and not playing its best football of the past decade, the conference is still loaded at the top. On top of that, when you take into account the incredible depth of young talent that Alabama has, the country may have traded one SEC juggernaut (Florida) for another.
The Fiesta Bowl
For the first time in the BCS era, two undefeated teams will square off in a game that will not determine the national champion. The Fiesta Bowl will feature #4 TCU (12-0) against #6 Boise State (13-0). We can only hope that the game lives up to their bowl meeting last year, one in which TCU pulled out a 17-16 victory.
Now, the flip side of the coin…
LOSERS
The Big XII
Coming into this year the storylines surrounding the Big XII were even better than those in the SEC. Two Heisman Trophy finalists (and one winner), the infamous tie-breaker situation last year, and two teams loaded and ready to compete for the division, the conference, and the crystal football. All of those expectations came crashing back down to earth in the first game of Oklahoma’s season, when they not only lost to BYU, but also lost Heisman winning quarterback Sam Bradford to a shoulder injury. He attempted to come back later in the season but played little before re-aggravating the injury and then being lost for the season, not to return to Norman, Oklahoma.
It’s hard to call a conference a loser when one of its teams is playing for the national title but compared to 2008, this season has been a disappointing one outside of Austin, Texas. After Oklahoma’s loss to BYU, it’s been a longshot for the Big XII to get two BCS berths. Towards the end of the season, it looked decent for Oklahoma State, but losing to the Sooners 27-0 in the regular season finale ended any of those thoughts. Last year, all people could talk about was which conference was better between the Big XII and the SEC and for most people, it came down to where you were from. This year it hasn’t been close and with the departure of Sam Bradford and Colt McCoy, the Big XII will need to reload to be relevant in that conversation again.
The Pac-10
The SEC may have been the best conference at the top but there is no question in my mind which conference was the best from top to bottom. Only one team lost fewer than 4 games (conference champion Oregon, at 10-2) but consider this. The lowest ranked strength of schedule in the Pac-10 was Arizona State, whose schedule was ranked 24th by Jeff Sagarin. Conference champion Oregon’s schedule was rated as the 4th toughest in the nation, easily the most difficult of the 10 BCS Bowl participants. This is mainly due to two things; tough out-of-conference scheduling and a tough conference. Put another way, below are the 8 conferences that will be participating in BCS bowls and their three toughest schedules this year according to Jeff Sagarin with their national ranks.
ACC – Florida State (3), Virginia (6), Virginia Tech (11)
Big East – West Virginia (33), Connecticut (36), Syracuse (39)
Big Ten – Minnesota (30), Illinois (38), Purdue (46)
Big XII – Oklahoma (31), Colorado (32), Baylor 34)
Mountain West – New Mexico (55), Wyoming (57), Colorado State (64)
Pac-10 – Washington State (1), Washington (2), Oregon (4)
SEC – Georgia (5), South Carolina (7), Mississippi State (8)
WAC – San Jose State (54), Utah State (65), Louisiana Tech (72)
How does this make the Pac-10 losers? Top heavy conferences produce undefeated records and send teams to the BCS bowls and maybe even the national title game. While a Rose Bowl bid goes to a very deserving Oregon team, there has never been any discussion of a second Pac-10 team in the BCS because they beat each other up in conference play. Only one team had fewer than 3 conference losses this year in the Pac-10. Last year, there were three Big XII teams with one loss and both last year and this year, two SEC teams finished their regular seasons undefeated. This helps because the Ducks will be favored in the Rose Bowl. This hurts because they’re the only ones playing the BCS.
Lastly, there in one winner and one loser that are so closely linked that they have to be separate from the rest of this discussion.
Automatic Qualifying Conferences (winner) and Non-Automatic Qualifying Conferences (loser)
Now, those of you who have been paying attention should have noticed that I’m sitting here saying that the Non-AQ conferences were both winners and losers. No, that’s not a typo, they were. Yes, they got two teams in. Yes, they had two teams beat up on inferior opponents; finish undefeated, and nearly put one in the National Championship Game. How can they also be losers? The Fiesta Bowl took them both. The Non-AQ conferences are on a very long quest for respect right now and they have not yet achieved their end goal. They took a big step forward last year when Utah raced out to a 21-0 lead and coasted to a 31-17 win over an Alabama team that was in the top 5 for most of the year and was considered a leading contender for the national title. This year, TCU and Boise State have both lost the opportunity Utah had last year because they play each other.
What the Non-AQ conferences needed was a pair of match-ups like Utah had last year. A perfect scenario would have been TCU vs. Texas (if they had lost the Big XII title game) and Boise State against Florida. If this scenario had played out and both had won, the case of the AQ conferences to keep the format the way it is would have been seriously weakened. As it is, no matter who wins, they can claim a share of the national title all they want and nobody will listen. TCU played the 84th hardest schedule and Boise State played the 98th toughest schedule. Any team worth its salt should go undefeated given those schedules. Even with a big win in the Fiesta Bowl, their resume won’t even compare with Cincinnati’s (assuming a Bearcats win) given their conference and their strength of schedule.
Both Boise State and TCU needed a signature victory upon which to build next year. If either of these teams had beaten #5 Florida in, say, the Sugar Bowl, I have little doubt they would have been ranked in the top ten preseason in 2010, poised for a run towards a national championship. The Fiesta Bowl prevented any of that from coming to pass.
The BCS bowls this year should be good, specifically the Fiesta Bowl and the National Championship game. There are many winners and losers but in my opinion, the positive aspects of this year’s BCS selections far outweigh the negatives.
Let the countdown begin!
Only 26 days left…
First, the winners.
WINNERS
Non-Automatic Qualifying Conferences
The first “winners” are the little guys. For the first time in the 12 year history of the BCS, two teams from outside the AQ (automatic qualifying) conferences will play in a BCS bowl and bring a $12-15 million paycheck back to their conferences. Both Boise State and TCU benefited from the fact that perennial powers Oklahoma and USC both had down years at the same time. Had either of those schools performed to their 2008 level, one of the two, in all likelihood Boise State, would have been left out of the BCS party.
The SEC
For the second consecutive year, the SEC Championship Game was essentially a national semifinal game with the winner heading to the BCS National Championship Game. Last year it was #3 Florida beating #1 Alabama 31-20 and then winning the national title and this year, #2 Alabama manhandles #1 Florida 32-13 and will be playing for the national title. There is still the perception that while the rest of the SEC may be down and not playing its best football of the past decade, the conference is still loaded at the top. On top of that, when you take into account the incredible depth of young talent that Alabama has, the country may have traded one SEC juggernaut (Florida) for another.
The Fiesta Bowl
For the first time in the BCS era, two undefeated teams will square off in a game that will not determine the national champion. The Fiesta Bowl will feature #4 TCU (12-0) against #6 Boise State (13-0). We can only hope that the game lives up to their bowl meeting last year, one in which TCU pulled out a 17-16 victory.
Now, the flip side of the coin…
LOSERS
The Big XII
Coming into this year the storylines surrounding the Big XII were even better than those in the SEC. Two Heisman Trophy finalists (and one winner), the infamous tie-breaker situation last year, and two teams loaded and ready to compete for the division, the conference, and the crystal football. All of those expectations came crashing back down to earth in the first game of Oklahoma’s season, when they not only lost to BYU, but also lost Heisman winning quarterback Sam Bradford to a shoulder injury. He attempted to come back later in the season but played little before re-aggravating the injury and then being lost for the season, not to return to Norman, Oklahoma.
It’s hard to call a conference a loser when one of its teams is playing for the national title but compared to 2008, this season has been a disappointing one outside of Austin, Texas. After Oklahoma’s loss to BYU, it’s been a longshot for the Big XII to get two BCS berths. Towards the end of the season, it looked decent for Oklahoma State, but losing to the Sooners 27-0 in the regular season finale ended any of those thoughts. Last year, all people could talk about was which conference was better between the Big XII and the SEC and for most people, it came down to where you were from. This year it hasn’t been close and with the departure of Sam Bradford and Colt McCoy, the Big XII will need to reload to be relevant in that conversation again.
The Pac-10
The SEC may have been the best conference at the top but there is no question in my mind which conference was the best from top to bottom. Only one team lost fewer than 4 games (conference champion Oregon, at 10-2) but consider this. The lowest ranked strength of schedule in the Pac-10 was Arizona State, whose schedule was ranked 24th by Jeff Sagarin. Conference champion Oregon’s schedule was rated as the 4th toughest in the nation, easily the most difficult of the 10 BCS Bowl participants. This is mainly due to two things; tough out-of-conference scheduling and a tough conference. Put another way, below are the 8 conferences that will be participating in BCS bowls and their three toughest schedules this year according to Jeff Sagarin with their national ranks.
ACC – Florida State (3), Virginia (6), Virginia Tech (11)
Big East – West Virginia (33), Connecticut (36), Syracuse (39)
Big Ten – Minnesota (30), Illinois (38), Purdue (46)
Big XII – Oklahoma (31), Colorado (32), Baylor 34)
Mountain West – New Mexico (55), Wyoming (57), Colorado State (64)
Pac-10 – Washington State (1), Washington (2), Oregon (4)
SEC – Georgia (5), South Carolina (7), Mississippi State (8)
WAC – San Jose State (54), Utah State (65), Louisiana Tech (72)
How does this make the Pac-10 losers? Top heavy conferences produce undefeated records and send teams to the BCS bowls and maybe even the national title game. While a Rose Bowl bid goes to a very deserving Oregon team, there has never been any discussion of a second Pac-10 team in the BCS because they beat each other up in conference play. Only one team had fewer than 3 conference losses this year in the Pac-10. Last year, there were three Big XII teams with one loss and both last year and this year, two SEC teams finished their regular seasons undefeated. This helps because the Ducks will be favored in the Rose Bowl. This hurts because they’re the only ones playing the BCS.
Lastly, there in one winner and one loser that are so closely linked that they have to be separate from the rest of this discussion.
Automatic Qualifying Conferences (winner) and Non-Automatic Qualifying Conferences (loser)
Now, those of you who have been paying attention should have noticed that I’m sitting here saying that the Non-AQ conferences were both winners and losers. No, that’s not a typo, they were. Yes, they got two teams in. Yes, they had two teams beat up on inferior opponents; finish undefeated, and nearly put one in the National Championship Game. How can they also be losers? The Fiesta Bowl took them both. The Non-AQ conferences are on a very long quest for respect right now and they have not yet achieved their end goal. They took a big step forward last year when Utah raced out to a 21-0 lead and coasted to a 31-17 win over an Alabama team that was in the top 5 for most of the year and was considered a leading contender for the national title. This year, TCU and Boise State have both lost the opportunity Utah had last year because they play each other.
What the Non-AQ conferences needed was a pair of match-ups like Utah had last year. A perfect scenario would have been TCU vs. Texas (if they had lost the Big XII title game) and Boise State against Florida. If this scenario had played out and both had won, the case of the AQ conferences to keep the format the way it is would have been seriously weakened. As it is, no matter who wins, they can claim a share of the national title all they want and nobody will listen. TCU played the 84th hardest schedule and Boise State played the 98th toughest schedule. Any team worth its salt should go undefeated given those schedules. Even with a big win in the Fiesta Bowl, their resume won’t even compare with Cincinnati’s (assuming a Bearcats win) given their conference and their strength of schedule.
Both Boise State and TCU needed a signature victory upon which to build next year. If either of these teams had beaten #5 Florida in, say, the Sugar Bowl, I have little doubt they would have been ranked in the top ten preseason in 2010, poised for a run towards a national championship. The Fiesta Bowl prevented any of that from coming to pass.
The BCS bowls this year should be good, specifically the Fiesta Bowl and the National Championship game. There are many winners and losers but in my opinion, the positive aspects of this year’s BCS selections far outweigh the negatives.
Let the countdown begin!
Only 26 days left…
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Who is the best QB in NFL history?
It is time once again to reopen one of the largest can of worms for all fans of the NFL; who is the greatest quarterback ever?
There are many ways to measure this so I attempted to come up with another method of determining who the best quarterback is. With all due respect to the many other guys who have played the quarterback position, I limited myself to 10 different players spanning the last 53 years of professional football.
Johnny Unitas
Roger Staubach
Terry Bradshaw
Joe Montana
John Elway
Dan Marino
Steve Young
Brett Favre
Tom Brady
Peyton Manning
One can easily argue that some people don’t belong on this list but this was a first pass. Essentially, I wanted to put together some preconceptions and see which of them held up to statistical scrutiny and which did not.
One of the tools I employed for this analysis I stole from baseball analysis. While OPS+ and ERA+ take into account park factors, my own normalized stats simply compare the rates of these QB’s against the league average over the course of their careers. The reason for this is simple; the game is changing and at the heart of this change are more efficient quarterbacks. In the 1960’s, the overall quarterback rating for the league was 66.4. In the 70’s, it regressed to 62.4, probably due to expansion and the AFL/NFL merger. However, since then, that number in the 80’s, 90, and 00’s has been 71.9, 75.2, and 79.2, respectively, reaching an all-time high of 82.0 last year.
There are many factors that go into that but the important thing is simply to keep in mind that the nature of playing quarterback has changed very much in the past 40 years. This was my first task in my analysis of these ten quarterbacks; normalizing their quarterback rating numbers (from now on, I will abbreviate quarterback rating as RTG). The answer I came up with was to simply compare them with the league averages and like OPS+ and ERA+, multiply them by 100. Therefore, a RTN+ of 100 means a league average quarterback, 125 is 25% better than the average, and 75 is 25% worse.
The results…
133 – Staubach
130 – Young
127 – Montana
122 – Unitas
121 – Manning
118 – Brady
117 – Marino
111 – Favre
109 – Bradshaw
108 – Elway
To me, by far the most surprising place on that list is #10, John Elway. According to this, throughout his career, his passer rating was only 8% better than the league average. Now, before citizens of Denver, CO, hunt me down (because I only live half an hour from downtown) let me say that my analysis tools don’t take into account intangibles or the ability (or lack thereof) to gain yards on the ground. There is no denying that John Elway was a great QB and definitely deserves to be in this discussion… however, when it comes to RTN+, he is #10, not #1.
I decided to use three other pieces to put together this puzzle and feel free to throw things at your computer when you read my choices because I’ll still be writing and you’ll be paying for another computer…
The other three were winning percentage, TD/INT ratio, and yards per game. A quick note in defense of this metrics. Football is a team game but quarterbacks have more influence than any other single player since they touch the ball on every offensive snap (excluding fakes or the recent limited adoption of the Wildcat formation). TD/INT ratio is the most easily defended since it measured a quarterback’s ability to make good decisions against questionable decisions. And, of course, there are exceptions. A pass was tipped at the line of scrimmage and was then intercepted. However, for those, there are also perfectly thrown balls that the defender just makes an extraordinary play in order to make an interception, so given a large enough sample size, these instances usually have a habit of evening themselves out. The last metric, yards per game, is also very much dependent upon the team these QB’s played for. However, many coaches are able to utilize the talent that they have and therefore, better quarterbacks will put up more yards on the stat sheets. I realize that this logic is far from 100% solid, but considering that it is only ¼ of the formula, I feel comfortable including it.
The results were quite interesting. Again, a league average QB would have received a “value”, if you will, of 100 once these metrics are averaged.
142.04 – Tom Brady
141.78 – Roger Staubach
141.03 – Joe Montana
137.37 – Steve Young
134.44 – Peyton Manning
128.00 – Dan Marino
124.15 – Johnny Unitas
118.79 – Brett Favre
115.84 – John Elway
115.51 – Terry Bradshaw
Now, of course, anyone looking to poke holes in my lovely little formula will point out how little wins and losses have to do with quarterback play. Obviously, it is the most important position on the field and has more to do with winning and losing than any other single position but it’s not as if a QB playing well guarantees a win or a QB playing poorly guarantees a loss. All but three of these 10 quarterbacks were helped by the teams that they played on. Only Steve Young, Dan Marino, and Peyton Manning had W%+ marks less than their overall marks shown above. So who benefited the most from playing on good teams? Terry Bradshaw was the runaway #1, followed by Tom Brady and then John Elway.
All of this manipulation of numbers is great but how does this answer the question; who is the best quarterback in NFL history? Before I render a final verdict, I absolutely don’t want to hear anything about “system quarterbacks”. Any good coach knows how to get good results out of his players. Joe Montana and Steve Young were perfect quarterbacks for the West Coast Offense and between the two of them; they won 5 Super Bowls as starters and have two of the highest quarterback ratings in league history. Bill Belichick is one of the best defensive minds in the history of football and I believe that any of these quarterbacks could succeed with him as a head coach.
If you keep the effects the team has on the quarterback (in other words, leave in the win percentage and the yards per game metrics) Tom Brady ranks number 1. However, if you only take into account quarterback rating and TD/INT ratio, Steve Young ranks number 1 and Tom Brady ranks number 4. The answer to this question depends entirely on what statistics you value the most. For me, quarterback rating is the best representation of how well a quarterback plays and the TD/INT ratio measures the ability of a quarterback to make good decisions and good throws versus bad ones. Therefore, the answer can only be Steve Young or Joe Montana. Granted, Young leads Montana by a few points but nobody is close to those two and between them, I have to go with the one that I’ve said for years and is one of the more cliché choices: Joe Montana.
There are many ways to measure this so I attempted to come up with another method of determining who the best quarterback is. With all due respect to the many other guys who have played the quarterback position, I limited myself to 10 different players spanning the last 53 years of professional football.
Johnny Unitas
Roger Staubach
Terry Bradshaw
Joe Montana
John Elway
Dan Marino
Steve Young
Brett Favre
Tom Brady
Peyton Manning
One can easily argue that some people don’t belong on this list but this was a first pass. Essentially, I wanted to put together some preconceptions and see which of them held up to statistical scrutiny and which did not.
One of the tools I employed for this analysis I stole from baseball analysis. While OPS+ and ERA+ take into account park factors, my own normalized stats simply compare the rates of these QB’s against the league average over the course of their careers. The reason for this is simple; the game is changing and at the heart of this change are more efficient quarterbacks. In the 1960’s, the overall quarterback rating for the league was 66.4. In the 70’s, it regressed to 62.4, probably due to expansion and the AFL/NFL merger. However, since then, that number in the 80’s, 90, and 00’s has been 71.9, 75.2, and 79.2, respectively, reaching an all-time high of 82.0 last year.
There are many factors that go into that but the important thing is simply to keep in mind that the nature of playing quarterback has changed very much in the past 40 years. This was my first task in my analysis of these ten quarterbacks; normalizing their quarterback rating numbers (from now on, I will abbreviate quarterback rating as RTG). The answer I came up with was to simply compare them with the league averages and like OPS+ and ERA+, multiply them by 100. Therefore, a RTN+ of 100 means a league average quarterback, 125 is 25% better than the average, and 75 is 25% worse.
The results…
133 – Staubach
130 – Young
127 – Montana
122 – Unitas
121 – Manning
118 – Brady
117 – Marino
111 – Favre
109 – Bradshaw
108 – Elway
To me, by far the most surprising place on that list is #10, John Elway. According to this, throughout his career, his passer rating was only 8% better than the league average. Now, before citizens of Denver, CO, hunt me down (because I only live half an hour from downtown) let me say that my analysis tools don’t take into account intangibles or the ability (or lack thereof) to gain yards on the ground. There is no denying that John Elway was a great QB and definitely deserves to be in this discussion… however, when it comes to RTN+, he is #10, not #1.
I decided to use three other pieces to put together this puzzle and feel free to throw things at your computer when you read my choices because I’ll still be writing and you’ll be paying for another computer…
The other three were winning percentage, TD/INT ratio, and yards per game. A quick note in defense of this metrics. Football is a team game but quarterbacks have more influence than any other single player since they touch the ball on every offensive snap (excluding fakes or the recent limited adoption of the Wildcat formation). TD/INT ratio is the most easily defended since it measured a quarterback’s ability to make good decisions against questionable decisions. And, of course, there are exceptions. A pass was tipped at the line of scrimmage and was then intercepted. However, for those, there are also perfectly thrown balls that the defender just makes an extraordinary play in order to make an interception, so given a large enough sample size, these instances usually have a habit of evening themselves out. The last metric, yards per game, is also very much dependent upon the team these QB’s played for. However, many coaches are able to utilize the talent that they have and therefore, better quarterbacks will put up more yards on the stat sheets. I realize that this logic is far from 100% solid, but considering that it is only ¼ of the formula, I feel comfortable including it.
The results were quite interesting. Again, a league average QB would have received a “value”, if you will, of 100 once these metrics are averaged.
142.04 – Tom Brady
141.78 – Roger Staubach
141.03 – Joe Montana
137.37 – Steve Young
134.44 – Peyton Manning
128.00 – Dan Marino
124.15 – Johnny Unitas
118.79 – Brett Favre
115.84 – John Elway
115.51 – Terry Bradshaw
Now, of course, anyone looking to poke holes in my lovely little formula will point out how little wins and losses have to do with quarterback play. Obviously, it is the most important position on the field and has more to do with winning and losing than any other single position but it’s not as if a QB playing well guarantees a win or a QB playing poorly guarantees a loss. All but three of these 10 quarterbacks were helped by the teams that they played on. Only Steve Young, Dan Marino, and Peyton Manning had W%+ marks less than their overall marks shown above. So who benefited the most from playing on good teams? Terry Bradshaw was the runaway #1, followed by Tom Brady and then John Elway.
All of this manipulation of numbers is great but how does this answer the question; who is the best quarterback in NFL history? Before I render a final verdict, I absolutely don’t want to hear anything about “system quarterbacks”. Any good coach knows how to get good results out of his players. Joe Montana and Steve Young were perfect quarterbacks for the West Coast Offense and between the two of them; they won 5 Super Bowls as starters and have two of the highest quarterback ratings in league history. Bill Belichick is one of the best defensive minds in the history of football and I believe that any of these quarterbacks could succeed with him as a head coach.
If you keep the effects the team has on the quarterback (in other words, leave in the win percentage and the yards per game metrics) Tom Brady ranks number 1. However, if you only take into account quarterback rating and TD/INT ratio, Steve Young ranks number 1 and Tom Brady ranks number 4. The answer to this question depends entirely on what statistics you value the most. For me, quarterback rating is the best representation of how well a quarterback plays and the TD/INT ratio measures the ability of a quarterback to make good decisions and good throws versus bad ones. Therefore, the answer can only be Steve Young or Joe Montana. Granted, Young leads Montana by a few points but nobody is close to those two and between them, I have to go with the one that I’ve said for years and is one of the more cliché choices: Joe Montana.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
BCS Busters: Do They Deserve a Shot?
Does Boise State and Utah deserve a seat at the table with the big boys?
Thankfully, the always muddled BCS conversation became a bit clearer with several weeks left in the regular season. Coming into this weekend, these were the teams in the conversation:
#1 Florida (8-0)
#2 Texas (8-0)
#3 Alabama (8-0)
#4 Iowa (9-0)
#5 Cincinnati (8-0)
#6 TCU (8-0)
#7 Boise State (8-0)
#8 Oregon (7-1)
#9 LSU (7-1)
Now that I write out that list, I had forgotten until now how many teams really are in the discussion, whether they deserve to be or not. However, the picture has cleared up a little bit.
#3 Alabama effectively ended LSU’s underdog bid for a third BCS Championship with their 24-15 victory on Saturday. If LSU had run the table, beating Alabama and then #1 Florida in the SEC title game, they would have made a compelling case for one of the top two spots, especially with their only loss coming to then #1 Florida. However, with current record of 7-2 and no berth in the SEC title game, none of that will happen. Still a 10-2 record (assuming they win out) with the only losses coming to #1 Florida and #3 Alabama is a strong resume.
#4 Iowa took a 10-0 lead against Northwestern and then allowed two touchdowns in the second quarter. Northwestern added a field goal in the fourth quarter to take home a 17-10 win. So, officially, unless the next three weeks prove to be crazier than any stretch run in recent history, a Big Ten team will not play for the national title. This loss by Iowa actually puts Ohio State on the inside track for the rose Bowl while the Hawkeyes probably won’t get an at-large bid in that scenario because of the teams at the top of the standings.
#5 Cincinnati and #7 Boise State were underwhelming against inferior opponents on Saturday and I believe that this is going to hurt them tonight when the next BCS standings are revealed. The Bearcats beat Connecticut 47-45 in a game in which they had larger leads but couldn’t put the Huskies away. This victory added to the general opinion that the Big East is a much weaker conference than the other BCS heavyweights could seriously hurt Cincy’s chances at a national title. Along the same lines, but without the automatic BCS berth (more on that later) are the Broncos of Boise State. They did play on the road but it was 3-5 Louisiana Tech and the margin of victory (45-35) wasn’t what you would expect from a #7 team in a conference like the WAC. Luckily for them, the two teams immediately below them, both potential 1-loss suitors for the BCS title game, both lost for the second time. The downside is that one of them was Oregon, the sole victory on Boise State’s schedule they can really hang their hat on. With Oregon out of the top ten and TCU still playing very well, Boise State may not have enough to garner an at-large bid.
This is how I think the BCS standings will shake out tonight:
#1 Florida (9-0)
#2 Alabama (9-0)
#3 Texas (9-0)
#4 TCU (9-0)
#5 Cincinnati (9-0)
#6 Boise State (9-0)
#7 Georgia Tech (9-1)
#8 Iowa (9-1)
#9 USC (7-2) or Oregon (7-2)
Unfortunately, six unbeaten teams will three or four games remaining doesn’t do very much to clear up the BCS situation and the playoff-shaped elephant in the room would get even bigger and louder if this is how the season ended. This is where we step from the world of fact and stray into the world of prediction…
First and foremost, either Florida or Alabama will most likely play for the national title. They both had to play good schedules in the SEC and will play each other in the SEC Championship game, giving one of them a huge quality win over a top opponent. Even a 12-1 SEC champion looks pretty good on paper.
Texas simply has to avoid losing. If they finish 13-0, they will play for the national title, it’s as simple as that and with their remaining schedule, even with the Big XII title game, their last tough game is now a week in the rearview mirror (Oklahoma State).
For the rest, things get really muddled. Realistically, TCU can finish undefeated and if this were a different year, I might say that they deserve a shot at the national title. I hate nitpicking when it comes to a team’s schedule but if we end up with 6 undefeated teams, we’ll have to. Wins at Virginia and Clemson look good. They went to BYU’s place and simply dismantled them and if they are able to do something similar to Utah next week, they will have a solid resume. Just not good enough.
BCS Busters
Ok, the subject can’t be avoided any longer. Why will TCU and Boise State be shut out of the biggest games this January? Indeed, it is possible and probable, that one of these teams will finish undefeated and finish outside the BCS. Is it fair? As much as I hate to say it, when all parties are taken into account, yes, it is.
I know it will take a lot of assumptions, but as of right now, these are the teams that will win the BCS conferences.
ACC – Georgia Tech
Big East – Cincinnati
Big Ten – Ohio State
Big XII – Texas
SEC – Florida
Pac-10 – Oregon
First of all, Alabama will be chosen as an at-large team. If Alabama wins the SEC, this first at-large spot will go to Florida. That leaves three spots open. TCU, under BCS rules, gets one of them. Based on their schedules, USC and LSU would be prime candidates for two of those three spots. And, shockingly, Boise State might just get in with that last at-large position, just don’t be shocked if they don’t.
So why is it that a team that has gone 55-9 in the past five years (better than Florida, LSU, and Oklahoma) has to go above and beyond simply to get people to pay attention to their blue turf? Quite simply, it’s because of the Western Athletic Conference as well as the history of small schools playing in the BCS bowls. Immediately, someone should point out that non-BCS schools have gone 3-1 in the BCS but that number is misleading. I say that record should be 1-1 and here’s why. The WAC and the Mountain West Conference want a piece of the BCS pie and they want to play with the big boys and eventually play for national titles. I have only ever seen one team that I think could compete on that level, the Utes of Utah last year.
In 2004, Utah became the first non-BCS school to get a BCS berth and they beat up an inferior Pittsburgh team 35-7. This is not evidence that they deserve to play for the biggest prize on the biggest stage. USC and Oklahoma were #1 and #2, respectively, from wire to wire for good reason. With apologies to Auburn fans, they were the two best teams all year and Utah would have been blown out against either one of them.
Example number two occurred two years later when Boise State beat Oklahoma 43-42 in one of the best Bowl games ever. However, this is still not the marquee win that the little guys needed. That Oklahoma team can in with a record of 11-2 and was ranked 10th in the country while Boise State came in ranked 8th. You can read all sorts of things into that alone but what it really comes down to is Boise State was the higher ranked team and needed two miracle plays to win this game. On top of that, they picked the one year, other than 2009, in the past ten where Oklahoma wasn’t a great team, just a good team.
The very next year, we got to see it again, this time with #10 Hawai’i playing #5 Georgia in the Sugar Bowl. This was the first true test of an undefeated team from a smaller conference playing against a powerful BCS opponent. There are many that would say, in the hectic finish to the 2007 season, that Georgia should have played for the national title. To put it simply, the Bulldogs embarrassed Hawai’i. The final score was 41-10 and Heisman finalist Colt Brennan looked awful against the Bulldogs defense. It would be easy to point out the fact that Hawai'i had to fly over 4,200 miles while Georgia had to go roughly 500. To anyone who would bring up the flight time or the venue, I’d like to simply say this. If you think of yourself as a top ten team and you have a month to prepare for a game, you have absolutely no excuse for not being ready.
Which finally brings us to last year, when #6 Utah was picked to play #4 Alabama, fresh off an SEC title game loss to Florida, who would win the national title. Alabama was a good team all year and many people, including myself, said this would not be an even game and the Tide would roll. Utah scored the first three touchdowns of the game and didn’t look back in their 31-17 win. In my opinion, this was the first time that a non-BCS team went up against a top tier BCS team and looked like it belonged.
So, that’s a win over an overmatched team, a miracle win, a blowout loss, and finally, a solid win. This is hardly the resume upon which to build your case that you deserve better representation in the BCS. But enough of the past, let’s focus for a moment on the present. If Boise State doesn’t make it into the BCS, they have only themselves to blame. They scheduled one team from a BCS conference. TCU could have gotten away with that because the Mountain West is widely viewed as stronger than the WAC (3 ranked teams against 1 for the WAC) and still they didn’t. TCU scheduled both Virginia and Clemson and while they haven’t been as good as Oregon (Boise State’s marquee game) both were on the road, whereas Oregon came to Boise.
In the last five years, Boise State has played 9 games against a top 25 opponent, 4 of which were against a top 10 team. Their record? 4-5 and 1-3 respectively. When you compare this with the cream of the Division I (FBS) crop, it doesn’t stack up at all. The four teams that have won a national title in the past five years (USC, Texas, LSU, and Florida) have played an average of 22 times against top 25 opponents and 10 times against top 10 opponents. What it adds up to is this. The past five national champions have played 33% of their games against ranked opponents and 14.7% against top ten teams. Those numbers for Boise State are 14.1% and 6.3%, respectively.
This is partially a product of the WAC and partially of Boise State’s scheduling. If you want to be treated as one of the big boys, you have to schedule better opponents. The perfect example in the earlier part of this decade was Fresno State. They wanted respect so badly that they would play anyone on any field on any day. This strategy finally culminated in 2005, when Fresno State was 8-1 and played on the road at #2 USC. In a shootout, USC finally prevailed 50-42 and the loss ultimately caused Fresno State to go from one of the most prominent mid-major football programs back to the rest of the pack chasing the BCS. The point is they were willing to go on the road to a place where the team was the two-time defending national champions. Quite simply, that is how you get respect on the national stage.
In the past five years, while Boise State has played Oregon State three times, Georgia once, BYU once, and Oregon once, they had also played Sacramento State, Portland State, Weber State, and Wyoming twice.
I’m not trying to jump all over mid-majors and say they’re not ready to play for the big prizes. All I’m saying is that if they really want the respect they’re clamoring for, they need to earn it. The way you earn it is by playing a tough schedule, tougher than you have to, and risking a loss or two. It would have been easy for Ohio State and Texas to schedule someone else in 2005 and 2006 or Ohio State and USC to schedule some hapless bottom dweller of the FBS in 2008 and 2009. Those programs know that you are considered one of the best by beating another member of the club. That’s how Boise State and Utah and TCU have to get into the club. Not by knocking down the door with media lobbying or congressional hearings or anti-trust lawsuits. You get in by beating the current members, not in the postseason, but in the regular season.
Until then, stop pretending the BCS is a bully that stole your lunch money because at the end of the day, all your conferences signed up to play along with the BCS back in 1998.
Thankfully, the always muddled BCS conversation became a bit clearer with several weeks left in the regular season. Coming into this weekend, these were the teams in the conversation:
#1 Florida (8-0)
#2 Texas (8-0)
#3 Alabama (8-0)
#4 Iowa (9-0)
#5 Cincinnati (8-0)
#6 TCU (8-0)
#7 Boise State (8-0)
#8 Oregon (7-1)
#9 LSU (7-1)
Now that I write out that list, I had forgotten until now how many teams really are in the discussion, whether they deserve to be or not. However, the picture has cleared up a little bit.
#3 Alabama effectively ended LSU’s underdog bid for a third BCS Championship with their 24-15 victory on Saturday. If LSU had run the table, beating Alabama and then #1 Florida in the SEC title game, they would have made a compelling case for one of the top two spots, especially with their only loss coming to then #1 Florida. However, with current record of 7-2 and no berth in the SEC title game, none of that will happen. Still a 10-2 record (assuming they win out) with the only losses coming to #1 Florida and #3 Alabama is a strong resume.
#4 Iowa took a 10-0 lead against Northwestern and then allowed two touchdowns in the second quarter. Northwestern added a field goal in the fourth quarter to take home a 17-10 win. So, officially, unless the next three weeks prove to be crazier than any stretch run in recent history, a Big Ten team will not play for the national title. This loss by Iowa actually puts Ohio State on the inside track for the rose Bowl while the Hawkeyes probably won’t get an at-large bid in that scenario because of the teams at the top of the standings.
#5 Cincinnati and #7 Boise State were underwhelming against inferior opponents on Saturday and I believe that this is going to hurt them tonight when the next BCS standings are revealed. The Bearcats beat Connecticut 47-45 in a game in which they had larger leads but couldn’t put the Huskies away. This victory added to the general opinion that the Big East is a much weaker conference than the other BCS heavyweights could seriously hurt Cincy’s chances at a national title. Along the same lines, but without the automatic BCS berth (more on that later) are the Broncos of Boise State. They did play on the road but it was 3-5 Louisiana Tech and the margin of victory (45-35) wasn’t what you would expect from a #7 team in a conference like the WAC. Luckily for them, the two teams immediately below them, both potential 1-loss suitors for the BCS title game, both lost for the second time. The downside is that one of them was Oregon, the sole victory on Boise State’s schedule they can really hang their hat on. With Oregon out of the top ten and TCU still playing very well, Boise State may not have enough to garner an at-large bid.
This is how I think the BCS standings will shake out tonight:
#1 Florida (9-0)
#2 Alabama (9-0)
#3 Texas (9-0)
#4 TCU (9-0)
#5 Cincinnati (9-0)
#6 Boise State (9-0)
#7 Georgia Tech (9-1)
#8 Iowa (9-1)
#9 USC (7-2) or Oregon (7-2)
Unfortunately, six unbeaten teams will three or four games remaining doesn’t do very much to clear up the BCS situation and the playoff-shaped elephant in the room would get even bigger and louder if this is how the season ended. This is where we step from the world of fact and stray into the world of prediction…
First and foremost, either Florida or Alabama will most likely play for the national title. They both had to play good schedules in the SEC and will play each other in the SEC Championship game, giving one of them a huge quality win over a top opponent. Even a 12-1 SEC champion looks pretty good on paper.
Texas simply has to avoid losing. If they finish 13-0, they will play for the national title, it’s as simple as that and with their remaining schedule, even with the Big XII title game, their last tough game is now a week in the rearview mirror (Oklahoma State).
For the rest, things get really muddled. Realistically, TCU can finish undefeated and if this were a different year, I might say that they deserve a shot at the national title. I hate nitpicking when it comes to a team’s schedule but if we end up with 6 undefeated teams, we’ll have to. Wins at Virginia and Clemson look good. They went to BYU’s place and simply dismantled them and if they are able to do something similar to Utah next week, they will have a solid resume. Just not good enough.
BCS Busters
Ok, the subject can’t be avoided any longer. Why will TCU and Boise State be shut out of the biggest games this January? Indeed, it is possible and probable, that one of these teams will finish undefeated and finish outside the BCS. Is it fair? As much as I hate to say it, when all parties are taken into account, yes, it is.
I know it will take a lot of assumptions, but as of right now, these are the teams that will win the BCS conferences.
ACC – Georgia Tech
Big East – Cincinnati
Big Ten – Ohio State
Big XII – Texas
SEC – Florida
Pac-10 – Oregon
First of all, Alabama will be chosen as an at-large team. If Alabama wins the SEC, this first at-large spot will go to Florida. That leaves three spots open. TCU, under BCS rules, gets one of them. Based on their schedules, USC and LSU would be prime candidates for two of those three spots. And, shockingly, Boise State might just get in with that last at-large position, just don’t be shocked if they don’t.
So why is it that a team that has gone 55-9 in the past five years (better than Florida, LSU, and Oklahoma) has to go above and beyond simply to get people to pay attention to their blue turf? Quite simply, it’s because of the Western Athletic Conference as well as the history of small schools playing in the BCS bowls. Immediately, someone should point out that non-BCS schools have gone 3-1 in the BCS but that number is misleading. I say that record should be 1-1 and here’s why. The WAC and the Mountain West Conference want a piece of the BCS pie and they want to play with the big boys and eventually play for national titles. I have only ever seen one team that I think could compete on that level, the Utes of Utah last year.
In 2004, Utah became the first non-BCS school to get a BCS berth and they beat up an inferior Pittsburgh team 35-7. This is not evidence that they deserve to play for the biggest prize on the biggest stage. USC and Oklahoma were #1 and #2, respectively, from wire to wire for good reason. With apologies to Auburn fans, they were the two best teams all year and Utah would have been blown out against either one of them.
Example number two occurred two years later when Boise State beat Oklahoma 43-42 in one of the best Bowl games ever. However, this is still not the marquee win that the little guys needed. That Oklahoma team can in with a record of 11-2 and was ranked 10th in the country while Boise State came in ranked 8th. You can read all sorts of things into that alone but what it really comes down to is Boise State was the higher ranked team and needed two miracle plays to win this game. On top of that, they picked the one year, other than 2009, in the past ten where Oklahoma wasn’t a great team, just a good team.
The very next year, we got to see it again, this time with #10 Hawai’i playing #5 Georgia in the Sugar Bowl. This was the first true test of an undefeated team from a smaller conference playing against a powerful BCS opponent. There are many that would say, in the hectic finish to the 2007 season, that Georgia should have played for the national title. To put it simply, the Bulldogs embarrassed Hawai’i. The final score was 41-10 and Heisman finalist Colt Brennan looked awful against the Bulldogs defense. It would be easy to point out the fact that Hawai'i had to fly over 4,200 miles while Georgia had to go roughly 500. To anyone who would bring up the flight time or the venue, I’d like to simply say this. If you think of yourself as a top ten team and you have a month to prepare for a game, you have absolutely no excuse for not being ready.
Which finally brings us to last year, when #6 Utah was picked to play #4 Alabama, fresh off an SEC title game loss to Florida, who would win the national title. Alabama was a good team all year and many people, including myself, said this would not be an even game and the Tide would roll. Utah scored the first three touchdowns of the game and didn’t look back in their 31-17 win. In my opinion, this was the first time that a non-BCS team went up against a top tier BCS team and looked like it belonged.
So, that’s a win over an overmatched team, a miracle win, a blowout loss, and finally, a solid win. This is hardly the resume upon which to build your case that you deserve better representation in the BCS. But enough of the past, let’s focus for a moment on the present. If Boise State doesn’t make it into the BCS, they have only themselves to blame. They scheduled one team from a BCS conference. TCU could have gotten away with that because the Mountain West is widely viewed as stronger than the WAC (3 ranked teams against 1 for the WAC) and still they didn’t. TCU scheduled both Virginia and Clemson and while they haven’t been as good as Oregon (Boise State’s marquee game) both were on the road, whereas Oregon came to Boise.
In the last five years, Boise State has played 9 games against a top 25 opponent, 4 of which were against a top 10 team. Their record? 4-5 and 1-3 respectively. When you compare this with the cream of the Division I (FBS) crop, it doesn’t stack up at all. The four teams that have won a national title in the past five years (USC, Texas, LSU, and Florida) have played an average of 22 times against top 25 opponents and 10 times against top 10 opponents. What it adds up to is this. The past five national champions have played 33% of their games against ranked opponents and 14.7% against top ten teams. Those numbers for Boise State are 14.1% and 6.3%, respectively.
This is partially a product of the WAC and partially of Boise State’s scheduling. If you want to be treated as one of the big boys, you have to schedule better opponents. The perfect example in the earlier part of this decade was Fresno State. They wanted respect so badly that they would play anyone on any field on any day. This strategy finally culminated in 2005, when Fresno State was 8-1 and played on the road at #2 USC. In a shootout, USC finally prevailed 50-42 and the loss ultimately caused Fresno State to go from one of the most prominent mid-major football programs back to the rest of the pack chasing the BCS. The point is they were willing to go on the road to a place where the team was the two-time defending national champions. Quite simply, that is how you get respect on the national stage.
In the past five years, while Boise State has played Oregon State three times, Georgia once, BYU once, and Oregon once, they had also played Sacramento State, Portland State, Weber State, and Wyoming twice.
I’m not trying to jump all over mid-majors and say they’re not ready to play for the big prizes. All I’m saying is that if they really want the respect they’re clamoring for, they need to earn it. The way you earn it is by playing a tough schedule, tougher than you have to, and risking a loss or two. It would have been easy for Ohio State and Texas to schedule someone else in 2005 and 2006 or Ohio State and USC to schedule some hapless bottom dweller of the FBS in 2008 and 2009. Those programs know that you are considered one of the best by beating another member of the club. That’s how Boise State and Utah and TCU have to get into the club. Not by knocking down the door with media lobbying or congressional hearings or anti-trust lawsuits. You get in by beating the current members, not in the postseason, but in the regular season.
Until then, stop pretending the BCS is a bully that stole your lunch money because at the end of the day, all your conferences signed up to play along with the BCS back in 1998.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
A Beginner's Guide to Rugby
We’re almost to the end of the first week of November which traditionally means baseball is at least a week and more like two weeks in the rearview mirror. Unfortunately, because of the postseason schedule (probably more on this later), the season ended on the 4th of November. Nevertheless, congratulations to the Yankees and Phillies on a (mostly) well played series, and to Hideki Matsui, who took home the World Series MVP award with absolutely stunning numbers.
However, this post (my first in a very long while) is a bit of a tangent. The other thing that November usually signifies is the BCS picture is beginning to clear and in the absence of clarity, debates over who deserves what are heating up.
Again, this is not going to be the subject of this post. On December 11th of this year, Invictus will open in theaters, starring Matt Damon and Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela. The movie will tell the story of the 1995 Rugby World Cup, which was hosted by South Africa, and the host team eventually went on to victory.
This movie piqued my interest because rugby is not a terribly popular sport in the United States but the final of the Rugby World Cup in 2007 (also won by South Africa) set the world record for largest viewership of any sporting event, ever. So in honor of this movie coming out in just over a month, this post will be dedicated to the great sport of rugby, basic rules, how it differs from one of America’s greatest obsessions (football), and why it may even be better than said obsession.
To make a broad sweeping generalization, rugby is what you would get if you combined soccer and football. More to the point, rugby exists after soccer and before football on the evolutionary scale of these particular sports. To the layperson, rugby is little more than chaos but in truth, it is far more organized than most people give it credit for. The perfect example is the use of the word “scrum” by commentators and sportscasters in America. Invariably, when they use the word scrum it is to describe a melee where there is a free-for-all in an attempt to acquire the ball, whether it is used to describe a loose ball in basketball or a fumble in football. This might lead one to believe that there is little or no organization or structure in a rugby scrum, which is entirely false. The scrum is, in fact, the most structured and most closely monitored aspect of any rugby match, as the scrum poses the largest risk of a serious injury to one of the players.
First of all, there are 15 players per side and traditionally, the starters wear the number of their position. For instance, #1 is the loose head prop and the starter at that position usually wears number 1. The rest of the positions are as follows:
#2 – Hooker
#3 – Tight Head Prop
#4 – Lock
#5 – Lock
#6 – Breakaway
#7 – Breakaway
#8 – 8-man
#9 – Scrum Half
#10 – Fly Half
#11 – Inside Center
#12 – Outside Center
#13 – Wing
#14 – Wing
#15 – Fullback
Positions 1-9 are the ones involved in the scrums and with the exception of the scrum half, they are called forwards. Positions 9-15 are called backs. If you were to draw a football analogy, the forwards are akin to the offensive and defensive linemen while the backs are more of the speedy players, wide receivers and running backs. However, to say that forwards can’t handle the ball well is a big mistake and oftentimes, they are instrumental in whether or not a team wins or loses.
Scoring
Scoring in rugby is similar to football. A “try” is worth five points and a player gets a try by placing the ball down in the try-zone (or end zone, if you prefer). You physically must “touch down” the ball to get these points and the play is not over until you control the ball to the ground (spiking the ball in the try zone before touching the ball to the ground would be a bad idea…).
Like in football there is a conversion attempt after a try. The twist is that you must kick the ball laterally from where the ball was placed down. For instance, if the ball was put down directly in the middle of the field, the kick must be taken from the middle of the field. Likewise, if the ball is placed down one yard from the sideline, the kick must be taken one yard from the sideline, and the kicker is allowed to move back as far as he wants. A conversion is worth 2 points.
When there is a penalty, you have two options. You can “kick to touch” or “kick for points”. Kick to touch involved kicking the ball out of bounds and will be covered later. If you are close to the uprights, you can try to kick for points. The other team is not allowed to attempt to block the kick and the kicker can take as long as he wants… and sometimes they take their sweet time. A kick is worth 3 points.
Lastly, there is a drop kick. If you are close enough to the goalposts, you may drop kick the ball through for 3 points. However, the ball must touch the ground before you kick it and this kick occurs in normal play so as you are lining up the kick, there’s probably a very large man attempting to take your head off. And don’t forget, there’s no blocking in rugby.
Advancing the Ball
Moving the ball forward in rugby is simple. You can run it forward and you can kick it forward. That is all. The former is simple enough. Run as far as you can before you get tackled. The latter is slightly more complicated.
Any player can punt the ball forward at any time. The main purpose of the punt is to move the ball from your defensive territory to your offensive territory. In rugby field position is much more important than in football because of the back and forth nature of the game, where rules of possession are much different. As far as punts are concerned, the rule of thumb is get behind the kicker. Once the ball is kicked, you either need to start behind the kicker or have the kicker pass you. Once this happens, the ball is live and whoever gets there first can take possession.
Sometimes the kick is simply utilized to clear the ball away from your defensive try zone but at others, it is used to take advantage of your momentum relative to the defender. Say, for instance, an offensive player is one on one out on the wing. He has a full head of steam going but the defender has the good angle of pursuit and is dug in and ready to make the tackle. If the wing is able to kick the ball over the defender’s head, just a few yards downfield, he can completely negate the good positioning. Firstly, and most importantly, you can’t hit a guy without the ball and as the kicker, your full momentum is going downfield while the defender is either standing still or is just starting to run downfield. Either way, the advantage is heavily in the offensive player’s favor, assuming a well placed and timed kick.
Many professional and international teams make heavy strategic use of the kicking game while at lower levels, not every team can find players who can kick the ball well. If done correctly, it can kill a defense’s will and if done improperly, it can lead to the other team scoring points in a hurry.
Penalties and officiating
One of the biggest differences between football and rugby, other than the pace of the game, is the way penalties are called. In football, penalties are called if they are seen, no matter the situation, no matter the down, no matter the distance. In rugby, this is not necessarily the case.
One of the most important jobs of the rugby referee is to keep the game moving. Penalties stop play. Now, if one player were to wind up and punch another player (from the other team, of course) play will stop and penalties and cards will be handed down. However, if a penalty occurs which is a minor penalty (offsides, for example) and the player that is committing the penalty is far away from the ball, the ref usually will not call it in the interest of keeping play moving. The football parallel of this would be something along the lines of an offensive player committing a holding penalty when the ball is all the way on the other side of the field. Yes, a penalty did occur, but it probably made no difference in the outcome of the play. In football, that would cost the offensive team 10 yards. In rugby, it wouldn’t make a difference.
Obviously, given a sport with as much contact as rugby, another job of the officials is to protect the players. Rules differ slightly depending on the level of rugby being played but referees will always put a stop to unsafe actions by any player that are outside the parameters of the game. Which brings us to the one aspect of rugby that can cause as much as two tons of human flesh and bone to go hurtling into each other…
What is the scrum?
There are certain penalties that call for a scrum but the most common cause of a scrum is when the ball gets tied up. The ball carrier is brought down and during the ruck (a contest for possession of the downed ball), several people collapse accidentally on top of the ball carrier and the tackler and nobody can extract the ball. It’s nobody’s fault, the play just died. Which brings us back to the scrum.
It begins with the forwards binding together into as tight a mass as they can. Their job, after the call of “engage” by the ref, is to stay as low and as tight together as they can. Losing even a single person out of 8 can cause a significant disadvantage.
The front row is where most of the action is since that is where one team actually engages the other. There are three players across the front row with two props flanking the hooker. The goal of the props is to (if possible) literally suspend the hooker so his feet are dangling beneath him. This isn’t always possible depending on your personnel but the hooker is the one player in the scrum who isn’t completely holding himself up. Behind those three in the second row composed of the two locks and on the outside of them, the two breakaways. The breakaways are usually some of the smaller forwards in the pack and are responsible for breaking out of the scrum quickly when the ball comes out. The locks are the main pushing force for each team and immediately behind them is the 8-man, the last man in the scrum.
When the ref calls for the two teams to engage, you can usually hear guttural sounds almost exclusively reserved for animals doing battle on the Discovery Channel. Once the initial contact has occurred and the scrum is fairly stable, both teams begin pushing in earnest in an attempt to drive the other team back. It is around that time that the aptly named scrum half introduces the ball to the scrum. He is supposed to roll the ball directly between the two sides on the ground. At that point, the hooker attempts to “hook” the ball towards his side of the scrum (no, he’s not morally promiscuous). The ball works its way back to the breakaway or the 8-man and one of two things can happen. Either the breakaway or 8-man can let go of the scrum, pick up the ball and start running, or they can control the ball with their feet until the scrum half comes back and picks it up. The advantage to the latter is there is no limit to how far you can drive your opponents and as long as the ball stays within the feet of your team, you can keep moving forward. It is possible to drive the other team the length of the field, all the way into their try zone, and then the 8-man can let go of the locks and fall on the ball for a try.
The moral of this story is this; scrums are very structured and very closely monitored by the refs. Risky behavior is punished and scrums are sometimes restarted three or four times because the initial contact wasn’t stable enough to maintain.
Rugby vs. Football
When it comes down to the difference between rugby and football, it is very much a case of to each his own. In football, you play offense or defense and within those teams, you have a very specialized skill set and job description. In rugby, substitutions are rare and at the highest level, they only happen because of injury or there is a substitution at halftime where one guy plays the first half and the other plays the second. The result of that is every player plays both offense and defense. Sooner or later, every player will handle the ball. Some guys run straight at the opponent, three yards and a cloud of dust, while others are the world class sprinter types that attempt to outrun their opponent.
The largest difference I’ve noticed in playing and watching both sports is the tackling. In rugby, you have to control a player to the ground. If you trip the ball carrier and he takes two more steps before falling to the ground, he’s going to get up and keep running. Because of this, tackling in rugby is very fundamentally sound. You have to get low, wrap up your opponent, and bring him to the ground. In football, you simply have to knock him over and in this era of video highlights, the bigger the hit the better. That strategy would simply not work in rugby.
The other part of that is the padding that you wear in football and don’t wear in rugby. Because your head and shoulders are so well protected in football, defenders use these body parts as weapons to get the ball carrier to the ground. In rugby, your head is mostly unprotected and because of that, it is more or less the last body part you want to lead with when tackling. Taking an elbow to the head playing football isn’t that big a deal. The same in rugby can put you on a stretcher.
As to which is better, I very much enjoy watching both. Rugby is continuous like soccer so players don’t get breathers between plays and have to always be alert. For that reason I think it requires more awareness to play rugby than most positions in football. The bottom line is that the sports are too different in what they require from each position to make a direct comparison but both are very entertaining.
As we get closer and closer to late summer of 2011, I’ll probably put more on here in preparation from the 2011 World Cup in New Zealand and with any luck, I’ll be there. For the meantime, I hope this was informative and I hope that Invictus proves to be a good movie as well as a good representation of the grand sport of rugby.
I leave you tonight with one simple instruction: HUG A RUGGER!
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Steroids in Baseball
One out, top of the 7th inning, runners on 1st and 3rd, and you are protecting a 6-4 lead with the lead-off hitter batting. How would you approach the at-bat as the reliever?
Much of this approach depends on the rest of the line-up and how confident you feel in the next two innings. If your bullpen is a good one, I would try to pitch to a ground ball to see if I could get a double play. However, with the leadoff hitter batting, a double play is far from assured. I still wouldn’t change that approach with a good bullpen because even if you can’t get a double play, you now have a 6-5 lead with two outs and a runner at 1st. On the flipside of that coin, if you don’t have confidence in the rest of your bullpen, you have to try to not allow another run. Therefore, you pitch to fly balls. There aren’t many leadoff men with an overabundance of power so pitching to fly balls has a lower risk of turning into a disaster.
Having said that, the best strategy is to pitch to a fly ball or strike out, so hard stuff up in the zone. Strike outs and fly balls are the surest way to get an out without allowing another run to score.
Espn.com recently released a list of notable baseball players that are either currently playing or have recently retired that have been linked to steroids by testimony, published books, the Mitchell Report, or drug tests (for the full article, click here). The list reads like a who’s-who of recent baseball at every position and I’m here to say this; enough already.
These are the players highlighted in that article: Barry Bonds, Bret Boone, Kevin Brown, Ken Caminiti, Jose Canseco, Roger Clemens, Lenny Dykstra, Chuck Finley, Eric Gagne, Jason Giambi, Troy Glaus, Juan Gonzalez, Wally Joyner, David Justice, Chuck Knoblauch, Mark McGwire, Magglio Ordonez, David Ortiz, Rafael Palmeiro, Any Pettitte, Manny Ramirez, Brian Roberts, Alex Rodriguez, Ivan Rodriguez, Benito Santiago, Gary Sheffield, Sammy Sosa, Miguel Tejada, Mo Vaughn, and Matt Williams.
Those players were revealed to be steroid users or were implicated as steroid users by a number of different media; some were named in Jose Canseco’s autobiography, some in the Mitchell Report, some in testimony before a grand jury, and some tested positive. A number of them were also involved in the voluntary survey in 2003 to see how many major league players were using performance enhancing drugs, the results of which were supposed to be anonymous.
This is obviously a very problematic situation. Not only do those 25 position players represent over 9,000 home runs and those 5 pitchers over 1,000 wins, but also 20 MVP awards, 8 Cy Young awards, 178 all-star game appearances, and perhaps the most disturbing number of all, a total of 23 World Series rings.
Also included on that list are 7 players with 500 career home runs and another 3 with 400 or more, a 300-win pitcher and three others with 200 or more, and the players who hold the top 6 home runs seasons of all time.
The first casualty of the “steroid era” as it is widely called, was innocence. It was put on life support in the summer of 1998, when Mark McGwire was repeatedly asked, not about Roger Maris’ home run record for a single season, but about androstene dione. He answered the questions very diplomatically, saying it was a workout supplement and also pointing out time and time again that it was not illegal in Major League Baseball.
Now, the list of players that were among the best of their generation and some of whom were among the best ever who will not be enshrined at Cooperstown is getting longer and longer. But that’s not the real problem. The fact that we don’t believe players when they say they’ve always been clean isn’t the problem.
The problem is that Americans fell in love with the home run and they fell hard. Commissioner Bud Selig has turned Major League Baseball into an organization whose revenue streams rival those of the NFL, arguably one of their biggest rivals for fans and dollars. He let the steroid issue go for many years because home run totals were starting to spiral up and up and it was bringing people back to the ballpark after a work stoppage (1994) that could have crippled the sport for decades. When public sentiment turned against performing enhancing drugs (and with congressional hearing looming), he helped institute baseball’s first drug testing policy.
America’s obsession with the home run runs so deep that I do not blame any of the thirty names on the aforementioned list for using steroids. In the case of some of them, I do blame them for lying about it and I hate hearing the excuses they’ve come up with for why they did. To the ones who say they never “knowingly” took steroids, if you don’t know what is in a supplement, you’re either stupid, or you don’t want to know for exactly this reason and either way, you shouldn’t get off the hook easily.
Another issue I’d like to address is the survey in 2003 in which over 100 players tested positive for performing enhancing drugs. The fact that the media and the fans are vilifying these players whose names become public is nothing short of despicable. The test was voluntary and people gave samples on the condition of anonymity. It was a bold gesture by the player’s union and the owners to say that if a problem was not present, drug testing isn’t needed at this point, but if a certain percentage of players are using, drug testing should be instituted.
In the court of public opinion, these players were forced to give evidence against themselves because the list fell into the wrong hands, something that if it happened in a real courtroom, would be banned by the 5th amendment to the constitution. The problem is the media and the fans don’t care about that because in their professions, they are protected by the actual 5th amendment and wouldn’t be required to take a drug test without proper cause. In that court of public opinion, these players were given a fifteen minute trial and then the maximum sentence was handed out. From now on, Barry Bonds, arguably one of the greatest all-around players to play the game, will forever be associated with the word “cheater”. Roger Clemens retired with 354 wins, 4,672 strike outs and 7 Cy Young awards, which ranked 8th, 2nd, and 1st all-time at the time (since, Greg Maddux has passed him in wins and Randy Johnson in strikeouts). Nobody cares anymore. He was juicing.
I’ll sum this up with one of the most difficult questions of this entire era of Major League Baseball; is it cheating if there is no rule against it? Morally there is the higher standard that we all like to think people strive for and try to adhere to, but in the real world, is that the case? My answer is no.
Here’s one more little tidbit before I sign off. The spitball has been banned for a very long time in baseball because it actually is in the rule book. You’re not allowed to put foreign substances (including spit) on the baseball. If you go back far enough, a batter was actually killed by a spitball. Gaylord Perry was one of the biggest offenders of that rule and everyone knew about it. Sometimes the opposing manager would say something and sometimes, he would get thrown out of the game. But Perry stayed in enough games and pitched well enough to win 314 games over his career. What’s the point of this? Gaylord Perry was enshrined in the Hall of Fame in 1991.
Two outs, bottom of the 8th inning, bases loaded, facing the #8 hitter in the opposing lineup and you are nursing a 7-5 lead.
Much of this approach depends on the rest of the line-up and how confident you feel in the next two innings. If your bullpen is a good one, I would try to pitch to a ground ball to see if I could get a double play. However, with the leadoff hitter batting, a double play is far from assured. I still wouldn’t change that approach with a good bullpen because even if you can’t get a double play, you now have a 6-5 lead with two outs and a runner at 1st. On the flipside of that coin, if you don’t have confidence in the rest of your bullpen, you have to try to not allow another run. Therefore, you pitch to fly balls. There aren’t many leadoff men with an overabundance of power so pitching to fly balls has a lower risk of turning into a disaster.
Having said that, the best strategy is to pitch to a fly ball or strike out, so hard stuff up in the zone. Strike outs and fly balls are the surest way to get an out without allowing another run to score.
Espn.com recently released a list of notable baseball players that are either currently playing or have recently retired that have been linked to steroids by testimony, published books, the Mitchell Report, or drug tests (for the full article, click here). The list reads like a who’s-who of recent baseball at every position and I’m here to say this; enough already.
These are the players highlighted in that article: Barry Bonds, Bret Boone, Kevin Brown, Ken Caminiti, Jose Canseco, Roger Clemens, Lenny Dykstra, Chuck Finley, Eric Gagne, Jason Giambi, Troy Glaus, Juan Gonzalez, Wally Joyner, David Justice, Chuck Knoblauch, Mark McGwire, Magglio Ordonez, David Ortiz, Rafael Palmeiro, Any Pettitte, Manny Ramirez, Brian Roberts, Alex Rodriguez, Ivan Rodriguez, Benito Santiago, Gary Sheffield, Sammy Sosa, Miguel Tejada, Mo Vaughn, and Matt Williams.
Those players were revealed to be steroid users or were implicated as steroid users by a number of different media; some were named in Jose Canseco’s autobiography, some in the Mitchell Report, some in testimony before a grand jury, and some tested positive. A number of them were also involved in the voluntary survey in 2003 to see how many major league players were using performance enhancing drugs, the results of which were supposed to be anonymous.
This is obviously a very problematic situation. Not only do those 25 position players represent over 9,000 home runs and those 5 pitchers over 1,000 wins, but also 20 MVP awards, 8 Cy Young awards, 178 all-star game appearances, and perhaps the most disturbing number of all, a total of 23 World Series rings.
Also included on that list are 7 players with 500 career home runs and another 3 with 400 or more, a 300-win pitcher and three others with 200 or more, and the players who hold the top 6 home runs seasons of all time.
The first casualty of the “steroid era” as it is widely called, was innocence. It was put on life support in the summer of 1998, when Mark McGwire was repeatedly asked, not about Roger Maris’ home run record for a single season, but about androstene dione. He answered the questions very diplomatically, saying it was a workout supplement and also pointing out time and time again that it was not illegal in Major League Baseball.
Now, the list of players that were among the best of their generation and some of whom were among the best ever who will not be enshrined at Cooperstown is getting longer and longer. But that’s not the real problem. The fact that we don’t believe players when they say they’ve always been clean isn’t the problem.
The problem is that Americans fell in love with the home run and they fell hard. Commissioner Bud Selig has turned Major League Baseball into an organization whose revenue streams rival those of the NFL, arguably one of their biggest rivals for fans and dollars. He let the steroid issue go for many years because home run totals were starting to spiral up and up and it was bringing people back to the ballpark after a work stoppage (1994) that could have crippled the sport for decades. When public sentiment turned against performing enhancing drugs (and with congressional hearing looming), he helped institute baseball’s first drug testing policy.
America’s obsession with the home run runs so deep that I do not blame any of the thirty names on the aforementioned list for using steroids. In the case of some of them, I do blame them for lying about it and I hate hearing the excuses they’ve come up with for why they did. To the ones who say they never “knowingly” took steroids, if you don’t know what is in a supplement, you’re either stupid, or you don’t want to know for exactly this reason and either way, you shouldn’t get off the hook easily.
Another issue I’d like to address is the survey in 2003 in which over 100 players tested positive for performing enhancing drugs. The fact that the media and the fans are vilifying these players whose names become public is nothing short of despicable. The test was voluntary and people gave samples on the condition of anonymity. It was a bold gesture by the player’s union and the owners to say that if a problem was not present, drug testing isn’t needed at this point, but if a certain percentage of players are using, drug testing should be instituted.
In the court of public opinion, these players were forced to give evidence against themselves because the list fell into the wrong hands, something that if it happened in a real courtroom, would be banned by the 5th amendment to the constitution. The problem is the media and the fans don’t care about that because in their professions, they are protected by the actual 5th amendment and wouldn’t be required to take a drug test without proper cause. In that court of public opinion, these players were given a fifteen minute trial and then the maximum sentence was handed out. From now on, Barry Bonds, arguably one of the greatest all-around players to play the game, will forever be associated with the word “cheater”. Roger Clemens retired with 354 wins, 4,672 strike outs and 7 Cy Young awards, which ranked 8th, 2nd, and 1st all-time at the time (since, Greg Maddux has passed him in wins and Randy Johnson in strikeouts). Nobody cares anymore. He was juicing.
I’ll sum this up with one of the most difficult questions of this entire era of Major League Baseball; is it cheating if there is no rule against it? Morally there is the higher standard that we all like to think people strive for and try to adhere to, but in the real world, is that the case? My answer is no.
Here’s one more little tidbit before I sign off. The spitball has been banned for a very long time in baseball because it actually is in the rule book. You’re not allowed to put foreign substances (including spit) on the baseball. If you go back far enough, a batter was actually killed by a spitball. Gaylord Perry was one of the biggest offenders of that rule and everyone knew about it. Sometimes the opposing manager would say something and sometimes, he would get thrown out of the game. But Perry stayed in enough games and pitched well enough to win 314 games over his career. What’s the point of this? Gaylord Perry was enshrined in the Hall of Fame in 1991.
Two outs, bottom of the 8th inning, bases loaded, facing the #8 hitter in the opposing lineup and you are nursing a 7-5 lead.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Is Strike 1 the Most Important Pitch?
Runners on second and third, nobody out, #3 hitter in the lineup is up, 0-0 score, 1st inning. How do you attack the batter and what is your aim for the at-bat?
The aim, first of all, is to get out of the inning without too much damage being done. In a situation like this, if you can hold your opponent to 1 run, you’ve done a very good job. In terms of the batter, the ideal situation is a strike-out, and if you can’t get that, a pop-up in the infield. Depending on the hitter and scouting report, I’d say the plan of attack should be the oldest that exists in baseball: hard stuff in, soft stuff away.
I’m willing to bet at some point, everyone who has listened to a baseball game on the radio or watched a game on TV has heard the announcers talk about the importance of throwing strike 1 on the first pitch of the at-bat. Before we delve too deeply into this, I should remind you that statistics can say nearly anything that a person wants them to say. Having gotten the disclaimer out of the way, let us resume our discussion.
First Pitch Strikes; the Argument in Favor
Throwing a strike on the first pitch has the potential to severely affect the entire confrontation. If a batter is trying to be patient and get a good pitch to hit, a first pitch strike signals to him that the pitcher is going to be around the plate and that his command might be good, thus not allowing him the level of patience he may have wanted. It also gives a boost of confidence to the pitcher at a position that is sometimes more about confidence than about ability.
In 2008 in Major League Baseball, when a pitcher started with strike 1, batters went on to hit .234 with an OPS of .635. When a pitcher started with ball 1, those numbers jumped to .277 and .843 respectively. There is definitely a large gap between the two. The numbers are skewed across the board in favor of the notion that starting with strike 1 is better than starting with ball 1. Batters walked 10% less and struck out 12% more after strike 1 than ball 1.
The question is, does a 0-1 count really give the pitcher that much more of an advantage than a 1-0 count?
The answer to that question is a very difficult one and cannot completely be measured by statistics and metrics. One of the reasons that these numbers are quite as skewed as they are is because of the era we live in. Even as little as 25 years ago, the approach to hitting was very different than it is today. In ages past, when a batter got two strikes, he shortened up and attempted to make contact at all costs. This should lead to lower power numbers but higher batting averages than if the approach isn’t change. Nowadays, batters don’t care what the count is; many of them are swinging just as hard with a 0-2 count as they are with a 2-0 count. Theoretically, this would lead to better power numbers but a ton more strike-outs.
So, is this the best approach to dissecting middle-of-at-bat results?
First Pitch Strikes; the Argument Against
The problem with making a goal of throwing first pitch strikes is this; what happens when you throw strike 1? You’ve met your goal for the at-bat. Now there is a let-down and you let a pitch get away from you and the next thing you know, you’re watching the ball sail into the outfield bleachers. There is definitely a difference between 1-0 and 0-1 but statistically speaking, it’s just not that big of an advantage. When the count was 0-1 last year, batters hit .315 with an OPS of .799, both well above the league average. If the pitcher just got ahead with the first pitch, why do batters all of a sudden hit above average? One reason is the aforementioned let-down following the attainment of a goal. Another possible reason is pitchers get a little greedy after getting ahead 0-1 and they want to get ahead 0-2 at the expense of a more effective pitch that may be called a ball.
Another problem with judging at-bats by their first pitch are the number of at-bats that actually only go one or two pitches. Last year in Major League Baseball, 28.1% of at-bats lasted 1 or 2 pitches. The argument can easily be made that once an at-bat goes three or four pitches deep, neither the batter nor the pitcher is still hung up on that first one.
In short, judging a pitcher’s performance by how he does on the first pitch is a decent barometer but is also far from perfect. The problem is everyone knows that pitchers are trying to get ahead in the count and batters are sitting on good pitches early in the count and if you don’t believe it, just consider this. Last year, there were just two players in the league who hit better than .337 (Chipper Jones hit .364 and Albert Pujols hit .357). However, the league batting average on the first pitch was .337. Basically, the point is that a questionable pitch on the corner that might be called a ball or a strike can be better than a meatball for the sake of not getting behind 1-0.
A New Approach
Tracking how often a pitcher starts a batter with strike one isn’t a bad gauge, but there are better ways to do it. At this point, I have to acknowledge one of the great pitching influences in my life who introduced me to this approach, Todd Naskedov, a pitching coach and then head coach of high school baseball in the state of Washington.
Basically, it groups plate appearances into three categories; those in which the pitcher was ahead, those in which he was behind, and those in which the batter swung the bat early in the count. For the ahead and behind categories, the magic cut-off point was two out of three. If the count started 2-0 or 2-1, those go in the “behind” column. 0-2 and 1-2 go in the “ahead” column and 0-0, 0-1, 1-0, and 1-1 go in the “early” column.
So what makes this one so much better than just looking at the first pitch? It’s a better tool for judging where a pitcher is struggling and where they are doing well. For instance, if the league batting average in the “early” column is .330, as it was in 2008, and a pitcher is allowing a batting average of .400 in those counts, then there is a problem. He’s trying to get ahead in the count at the expense of good pitches and he’s getting hit hard for them. To give another example, let’s say that the league average in the “ahead” column is .186 but a pitcher is allowing a .280 batting average in those at-bats. This points to the fact that the pitcher is getting ahead in the count just fine but he isn’t finishing off batters the way he needs to.
In a nutshell, you shouldn’t concern yourself with just the first pitch as a pitcher. When the average plate appearance lasts 3.8 pitches, you can’t focus on the first at the expense of the next three.
This time around, the situation will be that of a middle reliever. There is one out in the top of the 7th, runners at 1st and 3rd, and you are protecting a 6-4 lead with the leadoff hitter batting. Again, how would you approach the at-bat as that reliever?
The aim, first of all, is to get out of the inning without too much damage being done. In a situation like this, if you can hold your opponent to 1 run, you’ve done a very good job. In terms of the batter, the ideal situation is a strike-out, and if you can’t get that, a pop-up in the infield. Depending on the hitter and scouting report, I’d say the plan of attack should be the oldest that exists in baseball: hard stuff in, soft stuff away.
I’m willing to bet at some point, everyone who has listened to a baseball game on the radio or watched a game on TV has heard the announcers talk about the importance of throwing strike 1 on the first pitch of the at-bat. Before we delve too deeply into this, I should remind you that statistics can say nearly anything that a person wants them to say. Having gotten the disclaimer out of the way, let us resume our discussion.
First Pitch Strikes; the Argument in Favor
Throwing a strike on the first pitch has the potential to severely affect the entire confrontation. If a batter is trying to be patient and get a good pitch to hit, a first pitch strike signals to him that the pitcher is going to be around the plate and that his command might be good, thus not allowing him the level of patience he may have wanted. It also gives a boost of confidence to the pitcher at a position that is sometimes more about confidence than about ability.
In 2008 in Major League Baseball, when a pitcher started with strike 1, batters went on to hit .234 with an OPS of .635. When a pitcher started with ball 1, those numbers jumped to .277 and .843 respectively. There is definitely a large gap between the two. The numbers are skewed across the board in favor of the notion that starting with strike 1 is better than starting with ball 1. Batters walked 10% less and struck out 12% more after strike 1 than ball 1.
The question is, does a 0-1 count really give the pitcher that much more of an advantage than a 1-0 count?
The answer to that question is a very difficult one and cannot completely be measured by statistics and metrics. One of the reasons that these numbers are quite as skewed as they are is because of the era we live in. Even as little as 25 years ago, the approach to hitting was very different than it is today. In ages past, when a batter got two strikes, he shortened up and attempted to make contact at all costs. This should lead to lower power numbers but higher batting averages than if the approach isn’t change. Nowadays, batters don’t care what the count is; many of them are swinging just as hard with a 0-2 count as they are with a 2-0 count. Theoretically, this would lead to better power numbers but a ton more strike-outs.
So, is this the best approach to dissecting middle-of-at-bat results?
First Pitch Strikes; the Argument Against
The problem with making a goal of throwing first pitch strikes is this; what happens when you throw strike 1? You’ve met your goal for the at-bat. Now there is a let-down and you let a pitch get away from you and the next thing you know, you’re watching the ball sail into the outfield bleachers. There is definitely a difference between 1-0 and 0-1 but statistically speaking, it’s just not that big of an advantage. When the count was 0-1 last year, batters hit .315 with an OPS of .799, both well above the league average. If the pitcher just got ahead with the first pitch, why do batters all of a sudden hit above average? One reason is the aforementioned let-down following the attainment of a goal. Another possible reason is pitchers get a little greedy after getting ahead 0-1 and they want to get ahead 0-2 at the expense of a more effective pitch that may be called a ball.
Another problem with judging at-bats by their first pitch are the number of at-bats that actually only go one or two pitches. Last year in Major League Baseball, 28.1% of at-bats lasted 1 or 2 pitches. The argument can easily be made that once an at-bat goes three or four pitches deep, neither the batter nor the pitcher is still hung up on that first one.
In short, judging a pitcher’s performance by how he does on the first pitch is a decent barometer but is also far from perfect. The problem is everyone knows that pitchers are trying to get ahead in the count and batters are sitting on good pitches early in the count and if you don’t believe it, just consider this. Last year, there were just two players in the league who hit better than .337 (Chipper Jones hit .364 and Albert Pujols hit .357). However, the league batting average on the first pitch was .337. Basically, the point is that a questionable pitch on the corner that might be called a ball or a strike can be better than a meatball for the sake of not getting behind 1-0.
A New Approach
Tracking how often a pitcher starts a batter with strike one isn’t a bad gauge, but there are better ways to do it. At this point, I have to acknowledge one of the great pitching influences in my life who introduced me to this approach, Todd Naskedov, a pitching coach and then head coach of high school baseball in the state of Washington.
Basically, it groups plate appearances into three categories; those in which the pitcher was ahead, those in which he was behind, and those in which the batter swung the bat early in the count. For the ahead and behind categories, the magic cut-off point was two out of three. If the count started 2-0 or 2-1, those go in the “behind” column. 0-2 and 1-2 go in the “ahead” column and 0-0, 0-1, 1-0, and 1-1 go in the “early” column.
So what makes this one so much better than just looking at the first pitch? It’s a better tool for judging where a pitcher is struggling and where they are doing well. For instance, if the league batting average in the “early” column is .330, as it was in 2008, and a pitcher is allowing a batting average of .400 in those counts, then there is a problem. He’s trying to get ahead in the count at the expense of good pitches and he’s getting hit hard for them. To give another example, let’s say that the league average in the “ahead” column is .186 but a pitcher is allowing a .280 batting average in those at-bats. This points to the fact that the pitcher is getting ahead in the count just fine but he isn’t finishing off batters the way he needs to.
In a nutshell, you shouldn’t concern yourself with just the first pitch as a pitcher. When the average plate appearance lasts 3.8 pitches, you can’t focus on the first at the expense of the next three.
This time around, the situation will be that of a middle reliever. There is one out in the top of the 7th, runners at 1st and 3rd, and you are protecting a 6-4 lead with the leadoff hitter batting. Again, how would you approach the at-bat as that reliever?
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Statistics in Baseball
Statistics matter in every sport. On the rugby pitch, you need to track drop kicks, penalty kicks, tries, and conversions. However, all of those statistics simply come together to tell one the score and past that, there isn’t a lot of use of statistics in rugby. In its distant American cousin, football, statistics are much more widely used. Everything from first downs to time of possession to yards gained from scrimmage is tracked and pored over by analysts and the reason is simple. People no longer want to know who won; they want to know how they won. Yes, the Redskins played well on offense, piling up 467 yards of total offense but they committed seven turnovers, etc.
The other part of the statistical surge of the last decade is the desire to know who the best is. In football, the answer to this question is usually contained in raw statistics and the most basic of metrics. By the way, statistics are the raw data, such as attempts and completions, while metrics are calculated from those statistics, such as completion percentage. The most comprehensive metric in all of football is passer rating and while it is a reasonably good measure of a quarterback’s performance, there aren’t any other metrics to gauge the performance of just about any other position. And that brings us to the most statistically driven sport, the one that brilliant mathematicians have slaved countless hours to come up with numbers that answer that question about the best; baseball.
One of the reasons for baseball’s obsession with statistics and metrics is the face that the vast majority of confrontations are one on one. Another is the difference that you find when you compare one year to another. The game is played the same way but there are differences due to social changes or rule changes. For instance, Major League Baseball raised the height of the mound to 15 inches previous to the 1968 season and the result was the best pitching numbers the game has ever seen. The next year, the height of the mound was reduced to 10 inches tall, where it remains today. So how can you compare Bob Gibson’s simply ridiculous 1968 season (22-9, 1.12 ERA, 28 complete games and 13 shutouts in 34 starts) to Pedro Martinez’s unbelievable 2000 season (18-6, 1.74 ERA, 7 complete games and 4 shutouts in 29 starts)?
To answer that question, there are three basic methods with which to approach the problem. Each is valid, but some are hazier than others and leave out important details and the difference between the three is the underlying difference between people who look at raw data and others who look at the data and ask “what does it mean?”
The first approach is looking at the raw numbers. For the purposes of this diatribe, we’ll refer to this as the “NFL” approach.
GM W L CG SHO IP H R ER BB K HR
Gibson 34 22 9 28 13 304.2 198 49 38 62 268 11
Martinez 29 18 6 7 4 217 128 44 42 32 284 17
(GM = games pitched, W = wins, L = losses, CG = complete games, SHO = shutouts, IP = innings pitched, H = Hits allowed, R = runs allowed, ER = earned runs allowed, BB = bases on balls, K = strikeouts, HR = home runs allowed)
When we compare the raw statistics, it’s hard to truly distinguish between them. Bob Gibson pitched more games, threw more innings, and tripled the number of complete games and shutouts. Pedro Martinez walked fewer, struck out more and allowed fewer hits. This approach is good for the sake of direct comparison but it leaves much to be desired. This brings us to the next level which is the basic metrics.
ERA WHIP K/9IP BB/9IP OppBA OppOPS
Gibson 1.12 0.853 7.9 1.8 .184 .469
Martinez 1.74 0.737 11.8 1.3 .167 .473
(ERA = earned run average, WHIP = walks + hits per inning, K/9IP = strikeouts per 9 innings pitched, BB/9IP = walks per 9 innings pitched, OppBA = opponent’s batting average, OppOPS = opponent’s on-base + slugging)
When we look at these numbers, we can see that Bob Gibson had a significantly lower ERA but Pedro Martinez was better in every other category with the exception of OppOPS, which was close enough to call a tie. What these numbers say, combined with the raw statistics above, is that Bob Gibson’s season was incredible and one for the ages. They also say that Pedro Martinez’s 2000 season was ever so slightly better. There is one glaring problem with this comparison which brings us to the third level of statistical analysis. In 1968, the league average ERA was 2.98 and teams scored 3.42 runs per game. In 2000, the average ERA was 4.77 and teams scored 5.14 runs per game. Bob Gibson’s season came in the midst of the single greatest pitching season in the live-ball era (which baseball historians usually say started when Babe Ruth switched to the outfield full time in 1920). Pedro Martinez’s season came in the midst of the greatest hitter’s era the game has ever seen, two years after Mark McGwire hit 70 home runs in a season and a year before Barry Bonds hit 73.
Statisticians have tried over the past few years to come up with universal statistics that can be viewed in a vacuum. They have tried to take everything into account including the league averages and park effects. Most of these efforts are focused on creating a single comprehensive metric with which two players can be directly compared and a determination can be made about which was better. The most basic of these metrics is adjusted ERA+, which takes the earned run average and compares it to the league average as well as the ballpark they pitched in to find out who excelled the most over his competition. When we compare the two seasons listed above, Bob Gibson’s ERA+ comes out to 258 (where the league average is 100), which is the 7th best mark all-time and the 4th best of the live ball era. Pedro Martinez in 2000 had an ERA+ of 291, the 2nd best mark all time and the best mark since Tim Keefe in 1880.
So what does this all mean?
In a nutshell, statistics can tell you practically anything you want them to. When you look at a list of the best single-season ERA’s in baseball history, only two from the live ball era appear on the list; Bob Gibson’s 1.12 (ranked 4th) and Greg Maddux’s 1.56 ERA in 1994 (ranked 49th). He completed 82.3% of his starts in better than one out of every three starts, he threw a shutout. He was the most dominant pitcher in a year where pitchers dominated across the league. On the flip side of that coin is Pedro Martinez who is supported by most of the more advanced metrics. His complete games and shutouts don’t compare to Gibson’s but he pitches in an era where pitchers just don’t stay in the whole game. His ERA was significantly higher than Gibson’s but it was still one third of the league average and he allowed half as many baserunners per inning as the average pitcher in the league.
Allow this to serve as a cautionary tale. Adjusted ERA+ is just the tip of the iceberg and sabermatricians everywhere will pull their hair out because there’s no mention of VORP, win shares, win probability, and wins above replacement. There are even metrics that can give a rough estimate of how much a player is worth given his production. There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of these advanced metrics and they have gotten to the point that it doesn’t take a degree in applied mathematics to understand them. However, to inject a personal opinion, I don’t believe that a single number or metric is a good indication of a player’s value. These metrics are good for discussions of who is better but when it comes to making a decision about who you would rather have on your team, a single metric, no matter how comprehensive, is woefully inadequate.
To sum up, there is no right way and there is no wrong way to look at a discussion of who is the best amongst a group of players. Just realize that any good statistician can tweak the numbers to say whatever it is that he wants them to say.
This happens to by my first post on this blog and I want it to be mostly (if not entirely) about baseball. There will definitely be some random posts about whatever happens to be running through my mind, but seeing as how that’s baseball most of the time, you can bet much of the content will be baseball-oriented. I greatly appreciate comments and questions and will do my best to respond to each and every (appropriate) one of them. I’d like to sign off with a question to anyone who happens to read this. One of the things I love about baseball is there is no set rule of what to do when. The answer to every “what would you do in this situation?” is “it depends”. Simply put, I’m going to list a scenario and I’d like to hear reader’s thoughts about what either team should do. Don’t read too much into it and don’t ask who’s batting and who’s pitching, it doesn’t matter, it’s a hypothetical. I’m simply interested to hear what other people have to say. So, if you read this and you feel like leaving a comment about the scenario, please say what you would do and also your reasoning. So, for today…
Runners on second and third, nobody out, #3 hitter in the lineup is up, 0-0 score, 1st inning. How do you attack the batter and what is your aim for the at-bat?
The other part of the statistical surge of the last decade is the desire to know who the best is. In football, the answer to this question is usually contained in raw statistics and the most basic of metrics. By the way, statistics are the raw data, such as attempts and completions, while metrics are calculated from those statistics, such as completion percentage. The most comprehensive metric in all of football is passer rating and while it is a reasonably good measure of a quarterback’s performance, there aren’t any other metrics to gauge the performance of just about any other position. And that brings us to the most statistically driven sport, the one that brilliant mathematicians have slaved countless hours to come up with numbers that answer that question about the best; baseball.
One of the reasons for baseball’s obsession with statistics and metrics is the face that the vast majority of confrontations are one on one. Another is the difference that you find when you compare one year to another. The game is played the same way but there are differences due to social changes or rule changes. For instance, Major League Baseball raised the height of the mound to 15 inches previous to the 1968 season and the result was the best pitching numbers the game has ever seen. The next year, the height of the mound was reduced to 10 inches tall, where it remains today. So how can you compare Bob Gibson’s simply ridiculous 1968 season (22-9, 1.12 ERA, 28 complete games and 13 shutouts in 34 starts) to Pedro Martinez’s unbelievable 2000 season (18-6, 1.74 ERA, 7 complete games and 4 shutouts in 29 starts)?
To answer that question, there are three basic methods with which to approach the problem. Each is valid, but some are hazier than others and leave out important details and the difference between the three is the underlying difference between people who look at raw data and others who look at the data and ask “what does it mean?”
The first approach is looking at the raw numbers. For the purposes of this diatribe, we’ll refer to this as the “NFL” approach.
GM W L CG SHO IP H R ER BB K HR
Gibson 34 22 9 28 13 304.2 198 49 38 62 268 11
Martinez 29 18 6 7 4 217 128 44 42 32 284 17
(GM = games pitched, W = wins, L = losses, CG = complete games, SHO = shutouts, IP = innings pitched, H = Hits allowed, R = runs allowed, ER = earned runs allowed, BB = bases on balls, K = strikeouts, HR = home runs allowed)
When we compare the raw statistics, it’s hard to truly distinguish between them. Bob Gibson pitched more games, threw more innings, and tripled the number of complete games and shutouts. Pedro Martinez walked fewer, struck out more and allowed fewer hits. This approach is good for the sake of direct comparison but it leaves much to be desired. This brings us to the next level which is the basic metrics.
ERA WHIP K/9IP BB/9IP OppBA OppOPS
Gibson 1.12 0.853 7.9 1.8 .184 .469
Martinez 1.74 0.737 11.8 1.3 .167 .473
(ERA = earned run average, WHIP = walks + hits per inning, K/9IP = strikeouts per 9 innings pitched, BB/9IP = walks per 9 innings pitched, OppBA = opponent’s batting average, OppOPS = opponent’s on-base + slugging)
When we look at these numbers, we can see that Bob Gibson had a significantly lower ERA but Pedro Martinez was better in every other category with the exception of OppOPS, which was close enough to call a tie. What these numbers say, combined with the raw statistics above, is that Bob Gibson’s season was incredible and one for the ages. They also say that Pedro Martinez’s 2000 season was ever so slightly better. There is one glaring problem with this comparison which brings us to the third level of statistical analysis. In 1968, the league average ERA was 2.98 and teams scored 3.42 runs per game. In 2000, the average ERA was 4.77 and teams scored 5.14 runs per game. Bob Gibson’s season came in the midst of the single greatest pitching season in the live-ball era (which baseball historians usually say started when Babe Ruth switched to the outfield full time in 1920). Pedro Martinez’s season came in the midst of the greatest hitter’s era the game has ever seen, two years after Mark McGwire hit 70 home runs in a season and a year before Barry Bonds hit 73.
Statisticians have tried over the past few years to come up with universal statistics that can be viewed in a vacuum. They have tried to take everything into account including the league averages and park effects. Most of these efforts are focused on creating a single comprehensive metric with which two players can be directly compared and a determination can be made about which was better. The most basic of these metrics is adjusted ERA+, which takes the earned run average and compares it to the league average as well as the ballpark they pitched in to find out who excelled the most over his competition. When we compare the two seasons listed above, Bob Gibson’s ERA+ comes out to 258 (where the league average is 100), which is the 7th best mark all-time and the 4th best of the live ball era. Pedro Martinez in 2000 had an ERA+ of 291, the 2nd best mark all time and the best mark since Tim Keefe in 1880.
So what does this all mean?
In a nutshell, statistics can tell you practically anything you want them to. When you look at a list of the best single-season ERA’s in baseball history, only two from the live ball era appear on the list; Bob Gibson’s 1.12 (ranked 4th) and Greg Maddux’s 1.56 ERA in 1994 (ranked 49th). He completed 82.3% of his starts in better than one out of every three starts, he threw a shutout. He was the most dominant pitcher in a year where pitchers dominated across the league. On the flip side of that coin is Pedro Martinez who is supported by most of the more advanced metrics. His complete games and shutouts don’t compare to Gibson’s but he pitches in an era where pitchers just don’t stay in the whole game. His ERA was significantly higher than Gibson’s but it was still one third of the league average and he allowed half as many baserunners per inning as the average pitcher in the league.
Allow this to serve as a cautionary tale. Adjusted ERA+ is just the tip of the iceberg and sabermatricians everywhere will pull their hair out because there’s no mention of VORP, win shares, win probability, and wins above replacement. There are even metrics that can give a rough estimate of how much a player is worth given his production. There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of these advanced metrics and they have gotten to the point that it doesn’t take a degree in applied mathematics to understand them. However, to inject a personal opinion, I don’t believe that a single number or metric is a good indication of a player’s value. These metrics are good for discussions of who is better but when it comes to making a decision about who you would rather have on your team, a single metric, no matter how comprehensive, is woefully inadequate.
To sum up, there is no right way and there is no wrong way to look at a discussion of who is the best amongst a group of players. Just realize that any good statistician can tweak the numbers to say whatever it is that he wants them to say.
This happens to by my first post on this blog and I want it to be mostly (if not entirely) about baseball. There will definitely be some random posts about whatever happens to be running through my mind, but seeing as how that’s baseball most of the time, you can bet much of the content will be baseball-oriented. I greatly appreciate comments and questions and will do my best to respond to each and every (appropriate) one of them. I’d like to sign off with a question to anyone who happens to read this. One of the things I love about baseball is there is no set rule of what to do when. The answer to every “what would you do in this situation?” is “it depends”. Simply put, I’m going to list a scenario and I’d like to hear reader’s thoughts about what either team should do. Don’t read too much into it and don’t ask who’s batting and who’s pitching, it doesn’t matter, it’s a hypothetical. I’m simply interested to hear what other people have to say. So, if you read this and you feel like leaving a comment about the scenario, please say what you would do and also your reasoning. So, for today…
Runners on second and third, nobody out, #3 hitter in the lineup is up, 0-0 score, 1st inning. How do you attack the batter and what is your aim for the at-bat?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
