Essentially, my goal for this post is to simply weigh in on a few issues that I think are important that are going on in the NFL right now. It’s week 12 and with five weeks remaining in the regular season, there are currently 21 teams within two games of first place in their division and that doesn’t even include the 6-5 Dolphins who are three games behind the Jets and Patriots. Parity is ruling supreme as seven teams are either 9-2 or 8-3 and another four teams are 7-4. I am willing to bet that home field advantage is going to play a much bigger role this postseason than it has in the past few years. Currently, four teams are undefeated at home (the Chiefs, Ravens, and Patriots are 5-0 while the Falcons are 6-0) while only the New York Jets have yet to lose on the road (5-0), although the Steelers aren’t far behind at 5-1.
So what is troubling me this season? Who the MVP will be? Nope, Phillip Rivers has a fantastic inside track at that award given that the Chargers have begun their late season push and he’s putting up phenomenal numbers. Whether or not someone will pass for 5,085 yards? Not really. Rivers and Orton are both on pace to come close but as Rivers has shown in recent weeks, winning and huge passing numbers don’t necessarily go hand in hand. History has shown time and time again that the easiest way to have success in the NFL is with a balanced offense and a strong defense. Balanced usually does not equal record breaking.
VICK
One of the two issues I want to address is Michael Vick. He has been a feel good story for some this year and for others, he is still public enemy number one. Personally, I don’t care about the things that he has done personally to rehabilitate his image and get back in the good graces of the NFL, the numerous sponsors, and most importantly, the American criminal justice system. As the owner of one of the cutest, happiest 30 pound dogs that exists on the face of this earth, I will never forgive Vick for the things that he did and the things that he stood by and watched happen. The details of his case were sickening to me and thinking about those details while my puppy stared into my eyes happily, I was nearly brought to tears.
However, I do not believe that he should be kicked out of the NFL forever. In the eyes of the law, he is back to square one (at least I think he is, I’m not sure if he’s still on probation or anything like that). He has paid his debt to society and he is doing everything he can to become a functioning part of society once again so he can regain the fortune that he lost. My biggest issue anymore is that for the disgusting animal cruelty that he allowed to happen and participated in, I believe his sentence was far too light. This is not Michael Vick’s fault. It is the fault of the lawmakers and as I read somewhere, apparently 30 different laws have been passed making the penalties for dogfighting much more severe and because of the high profile nature of this case, apparently more reports of dogfighting are being received by police. If that’s the case, then maybe there is a silver lining that isn’t stained with the blood of defenseless dogs.
There is a flip side of the coin to all of this and that is Michael Vick the player. At some point in the last several years, something clicked. In his first 6 years in the National Football League, Vick completed just 53.7% of his passes with a quarterback rating of 75.9 and a win-loss record of 38-28-1, a good record by any mark but when you take out his 2004 season that record drops to 27-24-1. Maybe he is more mature now and realizes that in the long run his legs won’t be able to sustain him in this league as long as his arm will. Whatever clicked inside his head, it has made him into the player that defensive coordinators have always feared he would become; he is now a threat to throw as well as run.
Thus far this season, he has completed 63.4% of his passes and while that doesn’t rank amongst the league’s best (12th best in the NFL), it’s a huge step for a guy who has 419 rushing yards and is averaging 6.5 yards per carry. His QB rating of 106.0 is not among the league’s best; it is the league’s best. An even better indication of his maturity as a passer this year is the fact that he has thrown 13 touchdowns and has been intercepted just 1 time.
While I have very little respect for Michael Vick the person, I have gained an immense amount of respect for Michael Vick the player.
BLACK QB’S
On November 23rd, Jemele Hill wrote a nice piece (here is the link, definitely worth a read: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=hill/101123) about the role that race plays when it comes to quarterbacks in the NFL and it was a very well written, thought provoking piece. So much so that I feel the need to weigh in.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am Caucasian, or as Chuck Lorre once wrote on a vanity card, beige. I have tried very hard over the course of my life to be sensitive to issues of race while trying very hard to ignore them. It sounds like an interesting dichotomy but in the immortal words of Dr. King, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
At no point during this article does Hill imply that race had anything to do with fishy decisions to bench black quarterbacks that have all had varying degrees of success in their respective careers. I’m not saying that these benching were or were not racially motivated but I have a hard time believing they are so what I’m going to do is I’m going to put forth my opinions on them and take them with a grain of salt for the only information that I have is what is printed by the media.
#1 – Donovan McNabb
Benching McNabb in the fourth quarter of a game where the Redskins were trailing by less than a touchdown was very odd. Mike Shanahan’s explanations of the benching were even more mystifying. First he said he felt he had a better chance with Rex Grossman because of the better handle on the ‘Skin’s two minute offense (and if he had such a good handle on the two minute offense, wouldn’t he still be a starter in this league?) and then Shanahan called out McNabb’s fitness level. Yes, McNabb has to learn a new system after spending eleven years under Andy Reid and yes, it’s not the first time that his fitness has been called into question (though be careful believing whatever Terrell Owens says). It still seems odd to bench a guy that has a history of leading game-winning drives in the fourth quarter (as Hill points out).
My personal theory is that this league has become the ultimate example of “what have you done for me lately?” and Mike Shanahan took this way too far. In his career before this year, McNabb has a QB rating of 86.5 and he was coming off of a 2009 season where his rating was 92.9, the third highest of his career. So far this season with the Redskins, his rating has been 76.0, which would be the lowest of his career excluding his 216 attempt rookie season. He has posted a rating higher than 80.0 just twice this season while having four games below 70.0 and one below 60.0.
Is it possible that Shanahan is feeling a little frustrated that they brought in a guy they were hoping to be a franchise quarterback and so far, his passer rating is below the league average (83.8)? Is it possible that he is feeling so pressured to win games with “Chainsaw” Dan Snyder signing his paychecks that he’ll do anything to jumpstart his team to a victory? Absolutely. Is it possible that this decision was racially motivated? Of course it is, but while this is the one of these three benchings where that seems to be the most plausible explanation, I just don’t see it.
#2 – Jason Campbell
At first glance, this one makes very little sense. They gave up a draft pick to get Campbell and then they’ve turned to Bruce Gradkowski at a moment’s notice multiple times this year. However, this is the one that seems to me to be the least racially motivated.
Jason Campbell has been a solid starting quarterback in the NFL thus far but this year, he has been a complete Jekyll and Hyde. He’s had three games with a rating over 100.0 and he’s had two games where if he had let every pass fall incomplete, his rating would have been higher than what he actually did. His overall rating (75.8) isn’t too far off of his career mark (82.3) or at least it’s close enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.
However, I think that consistency is an extremely valuable asset in professional life, not just in professional sports. So which would you rather have, a quarterback that has a passer rating of 85.0 every single game or a quarterback who has a passer rating of 65.0 one game and 105.0 the next? Personally, I will always choose the former because that way, you can gameplan around him knowing that his performance will be on a fairly even keel. These have been Campbell’s passer ratings this year in games he’s played in (sorted by rating).
127.9
120.9
117.6
76.5
69.7
42.9
26.2
10.7
Three fantastic games, two below average games, one bad game, and two abysmal games. Is that what the Raiders were hoping for when they traded for him?
Which brings us to the other factor at work with Campbell; the Raiders. Last year, while JaMarcus Russell was having his worst professional season, Tom Cable started inserting Bruce Gradkowski in at quarterback and not only did he play well for a back-up (80.6 QB rating), the offense responded to him and they starting moving the ball down the field. So when Jason Campbell played horrifically against the Steelers (7-19 for 70 yards and two interceptions for a rating of 26.2) and the offense stagnated, was it completely unreasonable for Cable to think that perhaps Gradkowski could jumpstart the offense? Of course not because it had worked before.
While we’re on the subject of the Raiders, it’s also possible that Cable is open to just about anything because he’s not too worried about long term job security with Al Davis as the owner… I’m just saying. Hill also mentions that JaMarcus Russell was a black quarterback and received similar treatment from Cable and she only goes as far as saying that Russell was a “draft bust”.
His quarterback rating in his two full seasons was 66.2 and he went from 77.1 in his first full season to 50.0, a truly atrocious rating for any quarterback, and he wasn’t just any quarterback, he was a former #1 overall pick making millions of dollars. The league average for QB rating in those two years? 81.4.
#3 – Vince Young
This is by far the most intriguing because Young was not struggling as a quarterback this year. On his way to a QB rating of 98.6, he had shown flashes of brilliance with moderate struggles along the way. In other words, he was progressing as a passer, minimizing his mistakes while figuring out how to make plays. How you feel about this particular benching depends on what you think of Vince Young and what you think of Jeff Fisher. Was Vince Young playing well enough to remain the starting quarterback? Presumably, excluding the thumb injury that he suffered that eventually sidelined him for the rest of the season. Was Young mature enough to handle the starting job? That is the real question.
Hill brings up that Fisher has had contentious relationships with quarterbacks in the past and that he perhaps hasn’t shown the faith in Young for him to thrive at this level. Given the type of gameplan that Fisher puts forth, my guess is that he didn’t want a QB in Young’s mold and I don’t think race had anything to do with it. He wanted a game manager and his owner fell in love with the one of a kind playmaker and I think that is where a lot of friction originated. I really hate to say it quite this bluntly, but if that is the case I have only one message for Vince Young; grow up.
How many times has Peyton Manning’s shoulder pads ended up in the stands after being pulled from a game? I don’t think I need to answer that one. How many times has Tom Brady said, in front of teammates, that he was walking out on Bill Belichick, even though it’s no secret that one of Belichick’s trademarks is watching game film and serving out healthy portions of “humble pie” after a game, win or lose?
My point is that it seems to me that Young entered the NFL and expected to be a starting quarterback from the word go and hasn’t been able to adjust to actually having to work for the job. Maybe there is something going on behind the scenes that I don’t know about but maybe there isn’t. Jeff Fisher may be partially to blame but for Vince Young to accept no responsibility for his behavior would be astounding for a guy who has been in the NFL for five years.
It’s not the head coach’s job to stroke the ego of his young star. It’s his job to win games.
COMPARISONS
In her article, Hill compares these quarterbacks to one of the best QB’s of all time in Peyton Manning and I don’t find this to be a fair comparison to either Manning or any of the aforementioned quarterbacks.
Coming into this season, Donovan McNabb, Vince Young, and Jason Campbell had combined for a 138-94-1 record, 50,576 yards, 303 touchdowns, and 177 interceptions as starting quarterbacks in the NFL.
Peyton Manning, by himself, had a 131-61 record, 50,128 yards, 366 touchdowns, and 181 interceptions.
At the point of their benching (or in Manning’s case, right after his last drive and comeback killing interception against the Patriots), this is how these four quarterbacks had done.
Name
Rating
Completions-Attempts-Yards-TD-INT
Vince Young
107.6
12-16-165-0-0
Donovan McNabb
75.7
17-30-210-1-1
Jason Campbell
26.2
7-19-70-0-1
Peyton Manning
96.3
38-52-396-4-3
In other words, one quarterback wasn’t performing too well, one was performing terribly, one was potentially injured and then threw a tantrum, and the last had thrown for nearly 400 yards and four touchdowns and had brought his team to the brink of a victory after trailing 31-14. I just don’t see that comparison. Peyton Manning doesn’t get criticized as much by the media because he isn’t a controversial figure. He doesn’t take his shoulderpads off and throw them in the stands and if anything, he is more critical of the way he plays than anyone else is.
Is the NFL prejudiced against black quarterbacks? Possibly, but before you answer that, answer this. Who are the ten most polished quarterbacks in FBS football right now and how many of them are black? Not all that many, but that still isn’t where it starts. If you are a high school football coach and you have a world class black athlete who can play quarterback, is that necessarily the best use of his talent? Maybe, but if the average high school receivers can’t catch the balls he throws to them, you’re not getting the most of his physical ability. Instead, you have an average kid play quarterback and have your outstanding athlete play running back or wide receiver where he can make plays to compensate for the lack of physical ability in his teammates.
So at the age of 14 or 15, an outstanding athlete gets moved from quarterback to running back to help the team win games and it’s possible he never switches back to QB. Is that the NFL’s fault? Nope, it’s the same thing that keeps cropping up; our obsessive need to win.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
It Was a Bad Day to be a Democrat
The votes are in and counted (for the most part). The question now is; what happened?
If you look at the results of the day and compare them to where we stood as a nation yesterday, an easy conclusion to draw would be that a law was passed banning Democrats from the US House of Representatives. Another (more legal) conclusion to draw would be that the American public got tired of its Democratic leadership.
When the morning broke on this month of November, there were 257 Democratic Representatives and 178 Republicans. As of right now, the numbers in January for the 113th Congress will be 186 Democrats and 239 Republicans.
So what’s the big deal? Americans got fed up with the Democratic Party and after a six year run as a majority, they are back in the minority. Well, the problem lies in how it happened.
INSTANT MEDIA
In the past ten years, it seems that the American public has become in ever increasing need of instant gratification. This applies to their need for almost anything, be it food, entertainment, or most notably in this decade, information and results. Information is available now more than it ever has been quite literally in the history of the planet and all someone has to do is log on to the internet and all the information they could ever desire is just a click away. Unfortunately, this has only enflamed our insatiable need for instant gratification.
Applied to politics, people want what they want and they want it now. Political analysts always talk about FDR in the days leading up to a presidential election. They talk about how in his first 100 days in office, he set the pieces in motion that would help lead us out of the darkest economic times of this country’s history. Now, presidents are measured by what they are able to achieve in those first three months and change in office with absolutely no regard for a few simple facts.
- FDR was one of the best president’s this country has ever had according to any number of rankings.
- Starting in January 1933 (when he took office) he was supported by an overwhelming congressional majority (313-117) in the House of Representatives.
Add those together and you get a formula for getting a lot of things done. In fact, during his first six years in the White House, the Democrat’s margin in the House only grew (from 196 seats in 1932 to 244 seats in 1936).
When a president doesn’t do well in those first three months, citizens already start looking ahead to next time and to be honest, that’s pathetic.
2000-2010
In the year 2000 when George W. Bush was elected, the Republicans had a 9 vote margin in the House, a slim lead they had maintained throughout the Clinton administration. This lead held through Bush’s first term, but in his second term, public opinion started to sway violently. In 2004, when Bush was re-elected, Republicans held a 29 vote margin in the House, the largest majority they had had since 1946 when Truman was in the White House.
Two years later, the Democrats retook the majority with a 37 vote margin.
Two years later, the Democrats retook the White House and extended their margin in the House to 79 votes.
This year, Republicans retook the majority and now have a 53 vote margin.
In six short years, Republicans have gone from 29 votes up to 79 votes down back to 53 votes up. This year alone, the Democrats lost 71 seats. To give you a better idea of what that means, since the House expanded to 435 members, the Democratic party has lost 71 seats just one other time, in 1938, but that year they started with such an enormous majority that they still held a 93 vote margin.
Since the rough beginning of Republican/Democratic politics in Congress, the Democratic party has lost this large a chunk of the House seats only three other times and two of those were in the Civil War when there was a very successful and popular Republican president.
THE SPIN
So now that I’ve thrown a whole bunch of numbers at you, what does all that mean and why am I so riled up about all of this? For that, I have a relatively simple answer. There’s an old saying in baseball for the 162 regular season schedule. No matter what, you’re going to win 54 games and lose 54 games; it’s what you do with those last 54 games that really matters.
If you apply that to politics you can get a rough outline of our country. 33% of the people are hardcore Republicans and 33% are hardcore Democrats. The last third of the country might identify with one party more than another but they can be swayed by cunning campaigning. Indeed, every election is a dogfight for those 33% in the middle of the political spectrum and politicians are so advanced in their practice of persuasion that often it comes down to the middle 5-10% rather than 33%.
Here’s the part that irks me. In the second half of George W. Bush’s presidency, that middle third was flocking towards the left and for a minute, it almost looked like this country was going to undergo honest-to-god social change, perhaps shifting more to the left and away from the right. Now, just a scant few years later, America is shifting wildly back to the right.
In 2008, 62 Congressmen and women were elected for the first time; 24 Republicans and 38 Democrats. Of those 62 elected representatives, 27 of them, or 43.5%, will be looking for a new job come January. For the record, the party breakdown is indicative of what is going on around the country; 22 of 24 Republicans finishing their first term were re-elected while just 13 of 38 Democrats were similarly re-elected. How do we know that it was those 27 first time Representatives and not the 25 Representatives that have served for more than 30 years who are to blame for our current predicament?
In short, we don’t.
SOLUTION?
We, the people, of the United States of America, sent these men and women to Congress to do a job and instead of letting them complete that job, they were there for 6 months working and then 18 months campaigning and now we’re telling them we’re going to try someone else.
Is there a solution? Happier and more prosperous times, perhaps. The American people weren’t reshaping the face of the government every two years in the 90’s when the economy was booming and everyone had too much money to spend. So, true to form, the economy will stabilize once again and the sitting president and Congress will get all the credit despite having relatively little to do with the ultimate results.
Yes, this is a cynical way to view politics but don’t worry, I’ll be less cynical after the face changes itself once again…
730 days and counting…
Leon Kodak: You see, the country has mood swings.
Lewis Rothschild: Mood swings? Nineteen post-graduate degrees in mathematics, and your best explanation for going from a 63 to a 46 percent approval rating in five weeks is mood swings?
Leon Kodak: Well, I could explain it better, but I'd need charts, and graphs, and an easel.
American President (1995)
If you look at the results of the day and compare them to where we stood as a nation yesterday, an easy conclusion to draw would be that a law was passed banning Democrats from the US House of Representatives. Another (more legal) conclusion to draw would be that the American public got tired of its Democratic leadership.
When the morning broke on this month of November, there were 257 Democratic Representatives and 178 Republicans. As of right now, the numbers in January for the 113th Congress will be 186 Democrats and 239 Republicans.
So what’s the big deal? Americans got fed up with the Democratic Party and after a six year run as a majority, they are back in the minority. Well, the problem lies in how it happened.
INSTANT MEDIA
In the past ten years, it seems that the American public has become in ever increasing need of instant gratification. This applies to their need for almost anything, be it food, entertainment, or most notably in this decade, information and results. Information is available now more than it ever has been quite literally in the history of the planet and all someone has to do is log on to the internet and all the information they could ever desire is just a click away. Unfortunately, this has only enflamed our insatiable need for instant gratification.
Applied to politics, people want what they want and they want it now. Political analysts always talk about FDR in the days leading up to a presidential election. They talk about how in his first 100 days in office, he set the pieces in motion that would help lead us out of the darkest economic times of this country’s history. Now, presidents are measured by what they are able to achieve in those first three months and change in office with absolutely no regard for a few simple facts.
- FDR was one of the best president’s this country has ever had according to any number of rankings.
- Starting in January 1933 (when he took office) he was supported by an overwhelming congressional majority (313-117) in the House of Representatives.
Add those together and you get a formula for getting a lot of things done. In fact, during his first six years in the White House, the Democrat’s margin in the House only grew (from 196 seats in 1932 to 244 seats in 1936).
When a president doesn’t do well in those first three months, citizens already start looking ahead to next time and to be honest, that’s pathetic.
2000-2010
In the year 2000 when George W. Bush was elected, the Republicans had a 9 vote margin in the House, a slim lead they had maintained throughout the Clinton administration. This lead held through Bush’s first term, but in his second term, public opinion started to sway violently. In 2004, when Bush was re-elected, Republicans held a 29 vote margin in the House, the largest majority they had had since 1946 when Truman was in the White House.
Two years later, the Democrats retook the majority with a 37 vote margin.
Two years later, the Democrats retook the White House and extended their margin in the House to 79 votes.
This year, Republicans retook the majority and now have a 53 vote margin.
In six short years, Republicans have gone from 29 votes up to 79 votes down back to 53 votes up. This year alone, the Democrats lost 71 seats. To give you a better idea of what that means, since the House expanded to 435 members, the Democratic party has lost 71 seats just one other time, in 1938, but that year they started with such an enormous majority that they still held a 93 vote margin.
Since the rough beginning of Republican/Democratic politics in Congress, the Democratic party has lost this large a chunk of the House seats only three other times and two of those were in the Civil War when there was a very successful and popular Republican president.
THE SPIN
So now that I’ve thrown a whole bunch of numbers at you, what does all that mean and why am I so riled up about all of this? For that, I have a relatively simple answer. There’s an old saying in baseball for the 162 regular season schedule. No matter what, you’re going to win 54 games and lose 54 games; it’s what you do with those last 54 games that really matters.
If you apply that to politics you can get a rough outline of our country. 33% of the people are hardcore Republicans and 33% are hardcore Democrats. The last third of the country might identify with one party more than another but they can be swayed by cunning campaigning. Indeed, every election is a dogfight for those 33% in the middle of the political spectrum and politicians are so advanced in their practice of persuasion that often it comes down to the middle 5-10% rather than 33%.
Here’s the part that irks me. In the second half of George W. Bush’s presidency, that middle third was flocking towards the left and for a minute, it almost looked like this country was going to undergo honest-to-god social change, perhaps shifting more to the left and away from the right. Now, just a scant few years later, America is shifting wildly back to the right.
In 2008, 62 Congressmen and women were elected for the first time; 24 Republicans and 38 Democrats. Of those 62 elected representatives, 27 of them, or 43.5%, will be looking for a new job come January. For the record, the party breakdown is indicative of what is going on around the country; 22 of 24 Republicans finishing their first term were re-elected while just 13 of 38 Democrats were similarly re-elected. How do we know that it was those 27 first time Representatives and not the 25 Representatives that have served for more than 30 years who are to blame for our current predicament?
In short, we don’t.
SOLUTION?
We, the people, of the United States of America, sent these men and women to Congress to do a job and instead of letting them complete that job, they were there for 6 months working and then 18 months campaigning and now we’re telling them we’re going to try someone else.
Is there a solution? Happier and more prosperous times, perhaps. The American people weren’t reshaping the face of the government every two years in the 90’s when the economy was booming and everyone had too much money to spend. So, true to form, the economy will stabilize once again and the sitting president and Congress will get all the credit despite having relatively little to do with the ultimate results.
Yes, this is a cynical way to view politics but don’t worry, I’ll be less cynical after the face changes itself once again…
730 days and counting…
Leon Kodak: You see, the country has mood swings.
Lewis Rothschild: Mood swings? Nineteen post-graduate degrees in mathematics, and your best explanation for going from a 63 to a 46 percent approval rating in five weeks is mood swings?
Leon Kodak: Well, I could explain it better, but I'd need charts, and graphs, and an easel.
American President (1995)
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Giants Pitching Not Quite Historic... But Close
Just in case you’ve been living under a rock for the past month, the San Francisco Giants pitched their way through the playoffs, defeating the Atlanta Braves three games to one, the Philadelphia Phillies four games to two, and finally the Texas Rangers four games to one. They won their first World Series since 1954 and their first since moving to the state of California 52 years ago. They won the World Series despite a relatively unimpressive 92-70 regular season record and a lineup that hardly struck fear into opposing pitchers.
Aubrey Huff led the team with 26 home runs and 86 RBI and only one other hitter even managed 20 home runs and 80 RBI (Juan Uribe with 24 and 85). Buster Posey was the only batter who qualified for the batting title to hit better than .300 and even if you included everyone, only two guys hit better than Posey and they combined for 6 at-bats this year.
- As a team, they scored 4.3 runs per game, good for 17th in baseball.
- Their .729 OPS also ranked 17th in the league.
- They hit 162 home runs, tied for 10th in the league.
- They stole 55 bases all season, tied with the Cubs for dead last.
- They grounded into 158 double plays, one behind the Twins for the most in baseball.
All of this adds up to the fact that they were not an offensive juggernaut and from the title of this post, you should have guessed that we weren’t here to talk about hitting.
- Their 3.36 ERA led the league (San Diego was second at 3.41).
- Their 121 ERA+ was five points better than Oakland for the best in the league.
- They allowed the fewest hits in the league (1279) and the fifth fewest home runs (134).
- They did walk the 4th most batters (578) but struck out the most (1331) and posted the 9th best K/BB ratio.
As dominant as they were throughout the regular season, their pitching staff hit an entirely new level in September. Their 19-10 record wasn’t even the best record of any month this season (they went 20-8 in July) but their 1.91 ERA was by far the lowest of any month they had. Their WHIP (0.945) and K/BB ratio (3.70) were also the best of any month the pitching staff had and opponents managed a pathetic .189/.251/.292 batting line against them.
Believe it or not, they weren’t done yet. The quartet of Tim Lincecum, Matt Cain, Jonathon Sanchez, and Madison Bumgarner combined for a 49-36 record in the regular season but won 8 of the 11 games won by the Giants in the postseason (and Sanchez was 0-2 in the postseason).
The Giants’ pitching staff combined on an ERA of 2.47 while allowing a ridiculous 94 hits in 134.0 innings. They also walked 43 and struck out 133, including 12 by Lincecum and Brian Wilson in the World Series clinching Game 5.
At one point during the World Series broadcast, Tim McCarver commented that the postseason run by the Giants’ pitching staff might just be one of the best in history and it got me wondering where it would rank and so, I decided to check it out. Before I go into the results, however, I have to lay out some ground rules.
THE RULES
First, I only considered the playoff teams of the past 16 years, or the wild card era. The biggest reason for that cutoff is that starting with 1995, all teams had to win 11 games to win the World Series and therefore, their starting pitchers had to undergo more work (also, the smaller sample size made number crunching less time consuming).
Secondly, to judge the pitching of these teams, I turned to my old standby, Game Score. Now, I understand this is used for starting pitchers and not entire teams but it still provides a good indication of how well a team pitched. Teams still got penalized for allowing runs and were credited for recording strikeouts.
That’s about it for the rules…
THE RESULTS
Since 1995 there have been 112 postseason series and 97 of them (86.6%) have been won by the team with the higher GS. This isn’t terribly surprising since this version of the Game Score statistic takes into account all pitchers, not just the starters. To me, it is actually more interesting that 13.4% of teams had better overall pitching and yet failed to win the series.
Three such instances took place in the World Series. They are as follows:
1996
Atlanta Braves – 64.8
New York Yankees – 56.0 (4-2)
1997
Cleveland Indians – 49.6
Florida Marlins – 49.6 (4-2)
2003
New York Yankees – 67.5
Florida Marlins – 60.8 (4-2)
This is easily explained by the fact that they play up to seven games. In the 1996 World Series, Atlanta won their two games by a combined score of 16-1. New York, on the other hand, won their four games by a combined score of 17-10. Hence, the Braves actually pitched significantly better but New York, dragged down largely by a 12-1 Game 1 loss, still won the series.
So where does the 2010 San Francisco Giants’ pitching staff rank? Amongst teams that actually played in the World Series, their 2.47 ERA ranks 6th. The best mark of 1.89 belongs to the 1996 Braves who would have easily won back to back World Series titles if their offense had played better.
In average GS, however, the Giants jump up to second, behind only the 2001 Arizona Diamondbacks team. The Giants staff pitched their way to a mark of 70.1, while the D’Backs stand at 71.0. Those are the only two teams to go through an entire postseason, including the World Series, with an average GS over 70. Was the Giants’ run historic? Not quite… but very close.
THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY
This past postseason, the Phillies actually came just as close to making postseason pitching history as the Giants did, posting the second best GS of any team in any individual series. What follow are the best three series (according to GS) this postseason.
Team – GS
(opponent)
IP-H-R-ER-BB-K
Philadelphia Phillies – 81.7
(Cincinnati Reds)
9.0-3.7-1.3-1.0-1.3-8.0
San Francisco Giants – 78.3
(Atlanta Braves)
9.5-6.0-2.3-1.8-1.8-11.5
Atlanta Braves – 71.8
(San Francisco Giants)
9.3-7.0-2.8-2.0-3.3-10.8
And now, the five best series pitching performances of the wildcard era:
1998 ALDS
New York Yankees – 84.7
(Texas Rangers)
9.0-4.3-0.3-0.3-1.3-9.0
2010 NLDS
Philadelphia Phillies – 81.7
(Cincinnati Reds)
9.0-3.7-1.3-1.0-1.3-8.0
1996 NLDS
Atlanta Braves – 80.7
(Los Angeles Dodgers)
9.3-4.7-1.7-1.0-2.3-9.7
1999 ALDS
New York Yankees – 79.0
(Texas Rangers)
9.0-4.7-0.3-0.3-3.0-5.7
2010 NLDS
San Francisco Giants – 78.3
(Atlanta Braves)
9.5-6.0-2.3-1.8-1.8-11.5
The highest ranked LCS performance ranks 9th overall when the 1995 Braves swept the Reds while posting a GS of 75.0. The highest ranked World Series performance ranks 11th overall. The 2001 Diamondbacks had an average GS of 74.6 when they defeated the Yankees in 7 games.
TRIVIALITY
I’ll finish up here with some interesting tidbits regarding team GS marks and the past 16 seasons worth of playoffs.
Worst performance in a World Series?
31.3 by the 2007 Colorado Rockies
Worst performance while winning the World Series?
44.4 by the 2002 Anaheim Angels
Best performance in a World Series?
74.6 by the 2001 Arizona Diamondbacks
Best performance while losing a World Series?
67.5 by the 2003 New York Yankees
Worst performance in any series?
27.3 by the 2002 Yankees (ALDS vs. Anaheim Angels)
Worst performance while winning a series?
43.0 by the Anaheim Angels (ALDS vs. New York Yankees)
Best performance in any series?
84.7 by the New York Yankees (1998 ALDS vs. Texas Rangers)
Best performance while losing a series?
71.8 by the Atlanta Braves (2010 NLDS vs. San Francisco Giants)
Highest Combined GS (any series)?
150.0 by San Francisco Giants (78.25) and Atlanta Braves (71.75) in the 2010 NLDS
Lowest Combined GS (any series)?
70.3 by the Anaheim Angels (43.0) and New York Yankees (27.3) in the 2002 ALDS
Largest GS Disparity (any series)?
37.8 by the Boston Red Sox (69.0) and Colorado Rockies (31.3) in the 2007 World Series
Lowest GS Disparity (any series)?
0.8 by the Oakland Athletics (64.8) and the Boston Red Sox (64.0) in the 2003 ALDS
Highest Combined GS (World Series)?
131.6 by the Arizona Diamondbacks (74.6) and New York Yankees (57.0) in 2001
Lowest Combined GS (World Series)?
86.3 by the Anaheim Angels (44.4) and the San Francisco Giants (41.9) in 2002
Largest GS Disparity (World Series)?
37.8 by the Boston Red Sox (69.0) and Colorado Rockies (31.3) in 2007
Lowest GS Disparity (World Series)?
2.6 by the Anaheim Angels (44.4) and the San Francisco Giants (41.9) in 2002
If that isn’t too much information about MLB playoff history and pitching performances, I’m not sure what is!
It’s going to be a long cold winter with no baseball but as sure as the sun retreats to the south every fall, it will come back. The snow and ice will melt and in four short months, pitchers and catchers will report to spring training.
Until next time…
Aubrey Huff led the team with 26 home runs and 86 RBI and only one other hitter even managed 20 home runs and 80 RBI (Juan Uribe with 24 and 85). Buster Posey was the only batter who qualified for the batting title to hit better than .300 and even if you included everyone, only two guys hit better than Posey and they combined for 6 at-bats this year.
- As a team, they scored 4.3 runs per game, good for 17th in baseball.
- Their .729 OPS also ranked 17th in the league.
- They hit 162 home runs, tied for 10th in the league.
- They stole 55 bases all season, tied with the Cubs for dead last.
- They grounded into 158 double plays, one behind the Twins for the most in baseball.
All of this adds up to the fact that they were not an offensive juggernaut and from the title of this post, you should have guessed that we weren’t here to talk about hitting.
- Their 3.36 ERA led the league (San Diego was second at 3.41).
- Their 121 ERA+ was five points better than Oakland for the best in the league.
- They allowed the fewest hits in the league (1279) and the fifth fewest home runs (134).
- They did walk the 4th most batters (578) but struck out the most (1331) and posted the 9th best K/BB ratio.
As dominant as they were throughout the regular season, their pitching staff hit an entirely new level in September. Their 19-10 record wasn’t even the best record of any month this season (they went 20-8 in July) but their 1.91 ERA was by far the lowest of any month they had. Their WHIP (0.945) and K/BB ratio (3.70) were also the best of any month the pitching staff had and opponents managed a pathetic .189/.251/.292 batting line against them.
Believe it or not, they weren’t done yet. The quartet of Tim Lincecum, Matt Cain, Jonathon Sanchez, and Madison Bumgarner combined for a 49-36 record in the regular season but won 8 of the 11 games won by the Giants in the postseason (and Sanchez was 0-2 in the postseason).
The Giants’ pitching staff combined on an ERA of 2.47 while allowing a ridiculous 94 hits in 134.0 innings. They also walked 43 and struck out 133, including 12 by Lincecum and Brian Wilson in the World Series clinching Game 5.
At one point during the World Series broadcast, Tim McCarver commented that the postseason run by the Giants’ pitching staff might just be one of the best in history and it got me wondering where it would rank and so, I decided to check it out. Before I go into the results, however, I have to lay out some ground rules.
THE RULES
First, I only considered the playoff teams of the past 16 years, or the wild card era. The biggest reason for that cutoff is that starting with 1995, all teams had to win 11 games to win the World Series and therefore, their starting pitchers had to undergo more work (also, the smaller sample size made number crunching less time consuming).
Secondly, to judge the pitching of these teams, I turned to my old standby, Game Score. Now, I understand this is used for starting pitchers and not entire teams but it still provides a good indication of how well a team pitched. Teams still got penalized for allowing runs and were credited for recording strikeouts.
That’s about it for the rules…
THE RESULTS
Since 1995 there have been 112 postseason series and 97 of them (86.6%) have been won by the team with the higher GS. This isn’t terribly surprising since this version of the Game Score statistic takes into account all pitchers, not just the starters. To me, it is actually more interesting that 13.4% of teams had better overall pitching and yet failed to win the series.
Three such instances took place in the World Series. They are as follows:
1996
Atlanta Braves – 64.8
New York Yankees – 56.0 (4-2)
1997
Cleveland Indians – 49.6
Florida Marlins – 49.6 (4-2)
2003
New York Yankees – 67.5
Florida Marlins – 60.8 (4-2)
This is easily explained by the fact that they play up to seven games. In the 1996 World Series, Atlanta won their two games by a combined score of 16-1. New York, on the other hand, won their four games by a combined score of 17-10. Hence, the Braves actually pitched significantly better but New York, dragged down largely by a 12-1 Game 1 loss, still won the series.
So where does the 2010 San Francisco Giants’ pitching staff rank? Amongst teams that actually played in the World Series, their 2.47 ERA ranks 6th. The best mark of 1.89 belongs to the 1996 Braves who would have easily won back to back World Series titles if their offense had played better.
In average GS, however, the Giants jump up to second, behind only the 2001 Arizona Diamondbacks team. The Giants staff pitched their way to a mark of 70.1, while the D’Backs stand at 71.0. Those are the only two teams to go through an entire postseason, including the World Series, with an average GS over 70. Was the Giants’ run historic? Not quite… but very close.
THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY
This past postseason, the Phillies actually came just as close to making postseason pitching history as the Giants did, posting the second best GS of any team in any individual series. What follow are the best three series (according to GS) this postseason.
Team – GS
(opponent)
IP-H-R-ER-BB-K
Philadelphia Phillies – 81.7
(Cincinnati Reds)
9.0-3.7-1.3-1.0-1.3-8.0
San Francisco Giants – 78.3
(Atlanta Braves)
9.5-6.0-2.3-1.8-1.8-11.5
Atlanta Braves – 71.8
(San Francisco Giants)
9.3-7.0-2.8-2.0-3.3-10.8
And now, the five best series pitching performances of the wildcard era:
1998 ALDS
New York Yankees – 84.7
(Texas Rangers)
9.0-4.3-0.3-0.3-1.3-9.0
2010 NLDS
Philadelphia Phillies – 81.7
(Cincinnati Reds)
9.0-3.7-1.3-1.0-1.3-8.0
1996 NLDS
Atlanta Braves – 80.7
(Los Angeles Dodgers)
9.3-4.7-1.7-1.0-2.3-9.7
1999 ALDS
New York Yankees – 79.0
(Texas Rangers)
9.0-4.7-0.3-0.3-3.0-5.7
2010 NLDS
San Francisco Giants – 78.3
(Atlanta Braves)
9.5-6.0-2.3-1.8-1.8-11.5
The highest ranked LCS performance ranks 9th overall when the 1995 Braves swept the Reds while posting a GS of 75.0. The highest ranked World Series performance ranks 11th overall. The 2001 Diamondbacks had an average GS of 74.6 when they defeated the Yankees in 7 games.
TRIVIALITY
I’ll finish up here with some interesting tidbits regarding team GS marks and the past 16 seasons worth of playoffs.
Worst performance in a World Series?
31.3 by the 2007 Colorado Rockies
Worst performance while winning the World Series?
44.4 by the 2002 Anaheim Angels
Best performance in a World Series?
74.6 by the 2001 Arizona Diamondbacks
Best performance while losing a World Series?
67.5 by the 2003 New York Yankees
Worst performance in any series?
27.3 by the 2002 Yankees (ALDS vs. Anaheim Angels)
Worst performance while winning a series?
43.0 by the Anaheim Angels (ALDS vs. New York Yankees)
Best performance in any series?
84.7 by the New York Yankees (1998 ALDS vs. Texas Rangers)
Best performance while losing a series?
71.8 by the Atlanta Braves (2010 NLDS vs. San Francisco Giants)
Highest Combined GS (any series)?
150.0 by San Francisco Giants (78.25) and Atlanta Braves (71.75) in the 2010 NLDS
Lowest Combined GS (any series)?
70.3 by the Anaheim Angels (43.0) and New York Yankees (27.3) in the 2002 ALDS
Largest GS Disparity (any series)?
37.8 by the Boston Red Sox (69.0) and Colorado Rockies (31.3) in the 2007 World Series
Lowest GS Disparity (any series)?
0.8 by the Oakland Athletics (64.8) and the Boston Red Sox (64.0) in the 2003 ALDS
Highest Combined GS (World Series)?
131.6 by the Arizona Diamondbacks (74.6) and New York Yankees (57.0) in 2001
Lowest Combined GS (World Series)?
86.3 by the Anaheim Angels (44.4) and the San Francisco Giants (41.9) in 2002
Largest GS Disparity (World Series)?
37.8 by the Boston Red Sox (69.0) and Colorado Rockies (31.3) in 2007
Lowest GS Disparity (World Series)?
2.6 by the Anaheim Angels (44.4) and the San Francisco Giants (41.9) in 2002
If that isn’t too much information about MLB playoff history and pitching performances, I’m not sure what is!
It’s going to be a long cold winter with no baseball but as sure as the sun retreats to the south every fall, it will come back. The snow and ice will melt and in four short months, pitchers and catchers will report to spring training.
Until next time…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
