Reading Beneath the Numbers

In the wake of the decision to allow the seizing of steroid test results by the FBI, whispers have arisen as to which players will be found upon the list of the supposed 100 who were found guilty of steroid use. Like the testimony of Jason Grimsley, this information will eventually be leaked so that judgment may be passed by angered and heartbroken fans alike. Unlike the names revealed by Grimsley—which have somehow been swept underneath the rug as if his words were never spoken or put upon paper—these findings are non-debatable. These test results provide hard evidence—substantial proof—that these players in fact cheated.

While many writers feel uneasy labeling various players as steroid users despite blatant signs that the players were undoubtedly using some variety of performance enhancing substance(s), these findings will quell their doubt. While these results are only from the 2003 testing period, and therefore cannot be used to identify culprits from the beginnings of the “steroid era”, they provide a fingerprint as to the source and direction of steroids throughout baseball. This evidence will not only solidify the cases against those upon the list, but create additional circumstantial evidence against ballplayers associated with those caught cheating.

You will not see Mark McGwire on the list—he had retired two years earlier—though names like Sosa, Giambi, and Sheffield are real possibilities. Still, if these names are not found amongst the 100, how will the public react? I fear that people will falsely believe that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and therefore find it even harder to accuse those that have clearly been deceiving us.

It’s naïve of people to turn their heads the other way and ignore the mounds of circumstantial evidence surrounding not only these players, but many others. This idea that if we put the steroid label upon McGwire we must put other greats like Maddux and Gwynn under the scope is absurd. While I do not believe that every player who rose to fame or excelled during the steroid era is guilty of using illegal substances—true it wasn’t explicitly illegal back then but does that mean you wouldn’t frown upon my shooting of someone in the leg in international waters just because there are no laws against it—there are ways of differentiating between possible cheaters and those who were simply great athletes.

It would be too easy and far too foolhardy to believe that every player between the mid-90’s and today who had sudden emergence of skill—one that either didn’t fit the development curve of a normal player or one that exceeded the perceived bounds of improvement over the off-season—were using some form of steroids. To ask every player to validate their newfound success—akin to asking for an alibi—would be scrupulous and unnecessary. The cops do not interrogate every person living within a one-mile radius of a crime scene, but when coincidences pile up, questions must be asked.

What happens when accusations from former or current teammates coincide with distorted numbers? Can we not then at least find some reason to consider the possibility that this player may be in fact cheating? Our country does insist that all are innocent until proven guilty and I am not opposing such a tradition. Yet, there is a threshold beyond which a player should have to for answer growing concerns, suspicions, and evidence that indicate that the player is in fact using illegal substances.

So what would be the procedure for conducting such testing? My own suspicions arise when there is both testimony and corroborating statistical evidence that support a player’s usage, yet these criteria could be problematic. Players could simply begin pointing fingers at those who had irregular statistical performances and thereby turn the players union into colossal free-for-all wherein everyone feels obligated to accuse another in order to protect their own credibility.

Still, I hold my own inklings regarding various players in Major League Baseball. Though I would by no means call these men criminals, I eagerly await evidence to support or nullify my growing suspicions. I will withhold the names for now, but will follow this passage up with another article regarding possible the usage of steroids in a particular team’s clubhouse in recent years.

As always, I would suggest keeping an open mind regarding steroids in Major League Baseball. Though it may feel as if players like Rafael Palmeiro—a man once loved for the consistent effort and air of respectability that he brought to the game—are unfairly turned into pariahs, compare this treatment to that of steroid users in the National Football League.

While writing this article I witnessed the words “great player” uttered with respect to Shawne Merriman, a confirmed steroid user in the NFL. His treatment compared to those found guilty in the Major League Baseball is cause for great concern and will undoubtedly be addressed in the near future by either myself or co-writer Jeremiah.

The State of Baseball in Chicago

The Cubs and White Sox are repairing their organizations after each had disappointing seasons in 2006. Despite sharing one of the largest media markets, neither has been able to harness the advantages associated with playing in a major metropolis. This off-season though, the Cubs are trying to break their tradition of watching the other large market teams (i.e.: Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers) monopolize the free agent and trading markets. The Cubs have spent an incredibly large sum of money in hopes of capturing a division title while their southern brethren have taken a far different approach.

The Cubs have signed five new free agents and have renegotiated contracts for four players already on their roster. The largest contract handed out by the White Sox this off-season, other than the exercising of their team options on Mark Buerhle and Jermaine Dye, was a two-year deal to backup catcher Toby Hall. Instead of handing out the big bucks, the Sox have actually been dealing several pieces of their pitching staff in an attempt to not only shed a little payroll, but to get a little younger as well.

Here's a breakdown of the moves made by each of the Chicago-based teams and how these decisions should play out over the course of the 2007 season and beyond:

Chicago Cubs:
Alfonso Soriano ($16 million/year for 8 years) – There's no doubt that the newest member of the illustrious yet tainted 40-40 club is a joy to watch and is unlike any player on the field today. Still, his unique skill set is what leads to his downfall as a player and detracts from his overall worth. We are all aware of his defensive inefficiencies, but his ability to compensate at the plate is dulled when playing in the National League. If you bat him in the heart of the order his batting average—in his career performances—drops by more than 20 points. The more troubling problem is then that you lose the ability to properly capitalize on his speed now that he is lumped behind slower runners. Yet if he bats first, he fails to adequately get on base a sufficient number of times to make him a “great” leadoff man (note that he did in fact double season walk total in Washington this past season; it’ll be interesting to see if he can maintain this improved walking rate while lowering his strikeout rate back down to his already high average). The other qualm with leading him off is that in the National League, he often is forced to bat with the bases empty, in a non-critical situation where he can’t drive in runs. Nearly 2/3 of his home runs came with no one on base, preventing him from recording 100 RBI’s despite having more than 40 home runs and 40 doubles. These factors make him far less valuable than one would initially believe by skimming his statistics. While the $16 million per year may be a daunting figure, the scarier thought is that Soriano will be 38 during the final year of this nearly decade-long deal. Soriano will certainly be sold as the new centerpiece of this franchise, but how long will it be before the Cubs fans turn on him as quickly as they did on Sammy Sosa for not living up to their monumental expectations.

Ted Lilly ($10 million/year for 4 years) – A decent #4 starter who’s been just good enough to avoid being called a disappointment. Expect his ERA and WHIP to drop now that he’ll be escaping the most ferocious division for pitchers and entering the comforts of the National League. Still be weary of his home run totals, Lilly is a flyball pitcher who may be hurt by the friendly and often windy confines of Wrigley Field. All in all, the signing was a smart one for the Cubs, seeing as they need a starter other than Zambrano to give them 25+ starts (something Lilly’s done in all of his previous four seasons).

Jason Marquis ($7 million/year for 3 years) – Seven million dollars a year for a guy who couldn’t make the postseason rotation for a team that had only two starters with an ERA under 4.20?

Mark Derosa ($4.3 million/year for 3 years) – The guy did hit .296 with 40 doubles and can play an array of positions. This is the same guy who strikes out twice as often as he walks, is 32, and is a below-average fielder at nearly all the positions he plays.

Aramis Ramirez (Resigned for $14.6 million/year for 5 years) – Has greatly improved his bat control since arriving from Pittsburgh and his numbers reflect it. Just 28 years old and could easily improve those numbers with the return of Lee and addition Soriano to the lineup.

Chicago White Sox:
Mark Buerhle and Jermaine Dye options ($9.5 and $6.75 million respectively) – Buerhle barely evaded a 5.00 ERA last year but the five previous seasons all point to his ability to rebound. At $9.5 million Buerhle is bargain for a guy who has been one of the most consistent and reliable starters in the AL. Dye, the comeback story of the year, may not be able to reproduce his stunning numbers of 2006 but at his price even a drop off to .280-30-100 would still make him a cheap sign considering the current market.

Freddy Garcia dealt for Gavin Floyd and Gio Gonzalez – One of the best deals this summer in that it solved problems for both sides. The White Sox, loaded with middle of the rotation quality starters, could afford to gamble on young arms while the Phillies needed a veteran starter to anchor their young staff. Gavin Floyd has been hyped since being drafted as the #4 overall pick in 2001, but hasn’t yet lived up to it. His problems have supposedly been more mental than physical and it will prove interesting to see how the White Sox’s unorthodox clubhouse accommodates the young gun. Ken Williams didn’t bank the trade’s worth solely on Floyd’s success, he smartly acquired Gio Gonzalez. A good Double-A prospect who’s only limiting factor may be his erratic control—a skill easily improved as he matures through the system (he’s still just 21). Still, I’m surprised to see the White Sox give up such a quality arm for two inconsistent prospects.

Brandon McCarthy to Rangers – A deal that caught the entire baseball world off-guard given Ken Williams’ high demands for one of the more highly touted pitching arms. Confident that they’d have a sufficient number of players to fill the current rotation, Williams once again went for a younger crowd. The deal didn’t net the Sox a whole lot and considering the number of teams interested in McCarthy, you wonder if they could have negotiated for more. John Danks is a top-tier prospect and could fit into the rotation—if there’s any room—midway through 2007, turning all the other White Sox starters into enticing trade bait come late July should they need to fill various holes in their squad. Nick Masset is a good pitcher who will be able to provide bullpen depth and the other pitcher acquired by the White Sox Jacob Rasner is a useless player who is struggling mightily in Single-A. Still the White Sox had to give up Venezuelan outfielder David Paisano, who tore through rookie ball and just turned 19 a month ago. If his frame ever fills out (just 165lbs despite being 6’1”) he may add some pop to his bat and turn himself into a quality prospect. I see Danks and McCarthy on the same skill level, just on different platforms in their age development so the deal essentially boils down to Masset for Paisano, which benefits the Sox but not by an incredible margin.

Cubs & Sox:
Neal Cotts for David Aardsma and Carloz Vasquez – Cotts regressed back to the hard throwing yet hittable relief pitcher in 2006 and I’d be surprised if he were able to summon his dominance again. Aardsma may have been a disappointment considering he was a 1st-round pick back in the day, but he held batters to a .214 batting average last season in his stint as a reliever for the Cubs. His sudden success at the age of 25 may prove to be a fluke, but he’s certainly a better bet then Cotts. In addition the White Sox acquired Vasquez, who should make the Triple-A squad next season and despite being 25 as well will give the Sox yet another option for bullpen help. The Sox pulled a fast one here, getting two pitchers for the price of one—that one being more inconsistent and eligible for arbitration far sooner than the other two.


All things considered, you wonder how two franchises—even given that they finished in starkly different positions—could still take such drastically different approaches to improving their squads.

The White Sox are in a good position to rebound and contend in the newer, tougher AL Central. They’re clearly planning to remain competitive not only in 2007, but beyond; yet considering the hoard of pitching they had stashed the Sox kept their objectives conservative. Rather than furbish their farm system with a collection of high-quality prospects, Williams opted to merely restock their ailing bullpen.

Jim Hendry, general manager of the Chicago Cubs, has clearly anticipated the need to surround new coach Piniella with high-caliber players but may have sacrificed his team’s financial future in the process. I would hope that these recent acquisitions are in no way related to the Tribune Co. possibly looking to sell the team—which would warrant the purchasing of top-tier players in order to raise the franchise’s value since a new stadium (the best way to improve a team’s overall value) is out of the question. Still, this team’s success on the field relies on the healing bodies of Prior, Lee, and Wood and should they not come through, this franchise may be in for a long series of disappointing seasons.


Statistics and other relevant information for this article were found at mlb.com, milb.com, and baseball-reference.com.

Steroids in Baseball

Maybe I'm expecting too much from ESPN, but do they have to keep printing articles where the sole point is to make ridiculous arguments and rub people the wrong way? I have a problem with a lot of ESPN opinion columns, where the authors have no fear of having to craft arguments that stand up to any kind of scrutiny, and thus can espouse any belief they want without any kind of evidence.
I'm prompted to write this post thanks to the latest column by Gene Wojciechowski, which is nothing short of atrocious. The set-up is his own "GNC/Balco" wing of the Hall of Fame. At first glance, it doesn't seem like you should take it seriously. But as the dialogue progresses, Wojciechowski unfurls his prejudice in great glory. It becomes clear that he truly despises Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro, and Barry Bonds. And in venting this hatred, he at times becomes downright mean. This is what he wishes for Sammy Sosa: “Spent remaining years of life staring at silent cell phone.” This is what he wishes for Barry Bonds: “Bonds and his legal team insisted that the 28 dingers he hit at the rec yard of the Lompoc Federal Correctional Complex should count toward the record” For McGwire, he paints a fairy tale picture of a world where in seven years McGwire goes from a wash-out who hits .201 with 22 home runs to a 70 home run season thanks to the steroids he was using and no one else (besides Sammy Sosa) must have been taking. Funny how to make a point, Wojciechowski neglects to point out that in the 4 seasons before his admittedly miserable 1991 season, McGwire hit 49, 32, 33, and 39 home runs, and in the season after, he hit 42. Rafael Palmeiro gets what Wojciechowski probably sees as the ultimate insult, a comparison to Bill Clinton!
After reading this article, I'm left wondering why Wojciechowski hates these four men so much. I've noticed the lack of contempt from columnists over the numerous players who have been caught in the last year or so taking steroids. Who was the one player to get spat upon? Rafael Palmeiro. Why? Because he had the misfortune of being a superstar. In the NFL, Shawne Merriman was caught and suspended for four games for testing positive for steroids. Nonetheless, the hype machine is still going strong for Merriman, who some think should win Defensive Player of the Year. It seems even the star players in the NFL are forgiven with the blink of an eye.
What it comes down to for baseball writers, I think, is the sense of being fooled, and the perceived sacredness of the MLB Hall of Fame. There is a natural feeling of outrage that arises when it appears that the record-setting home run seasons of McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds were nothing more than a sham. This feeling becomes multiplied with the fear that they may tarnish the sacred shrine of baseball, the Hall of Fame. Yet, under the current system in the MLB, had any one of them tested positive during this run, they would have been subject to nothing more than a 50-game suspension. After all the hubbub about steroids, these are the rules that MLB has set for itself. The way these four men are treated in the media, it is as if they should be permanently banned from baseball. For what, not getting caught before they hit 60+ home runs? The only reason Gene Wojciechowski hates these men is because they happened to be the one who set records, who achieved great fame and fortune. Dozens of other players used steroids, but for most, none will ever care or know, besides themselves. Should these four men be in the Hall of Fame? I would say not. But do they deserve to be spat upon for having had the misfortune to excel unlike numerous other cheaters? I would also say not.

A game for the ages...

Normally I avoid discussing in detail the "hot topics" of the week or day because we can usually get our fill of Ohio vs. Michigan highlights or updates on Soriano's absurd contract (this contract may in fact deserve it's own column). In this case, I'm going to make an exception because I was privileged enough to watch one of the most entertaining and absolutely hilarious endings to a football game in my short history on this earth.

The game was Chargers at Broncos, the Sunday night matchup televised on NBC. While I'm sure watching Tomlinson score an unprecedented four times for the second week in a row was thrilling (especially for those fantasy owners lucky enough to have him), the true fun began with a little over three minutes left when Plummer threw an interception on 4th and 4 and the Broncos already down by one. (Side note: That had to be one of the ugliest picks ever because frankly, I don't think Plummer could even see his receiver given the corner back was standing literally right in between the two.)

Chargers, now with possession, are undoubtedly going to give the ball to LT so that they can both run down the clock and hopefully extend the lead. On LT's second run he tries to cut through the hole between the left guard and tackle but is confronted by six defenders. None of them make that tackle. That's right, if you watch the replay six defenders come within a foot of him (more than half got a hand or body part on him) and he still escaped for a 1st down. O but this is just the beginning my friend…

After some smart runs that allowed San Diego to run the clock down a little more, LT pounded the ball in from the one for his fourth score. On the extra point Denver was charged with 15 yards on the kickoff because of unnecessary roughness. My friends and I balked at the stupidity of this play.....that is until less than a minute later when another Denver player was hit with an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty before they even kicked off, pushing them back 15 yards further.

My eyes opened wide and my mouth went parch. 30 yard bonus on the kickoff!!! The Chargers were kicking from the Broncos 40 yard line! I had always dreamed of such an event on Madden where I could then kick the ball straight up and have it land within the 20 (optimally within the 5) and have my defenders inches away from the return man as soon as he caught it. Well Denver had two options: Try my crazy stunt or try and kick the ball out of the stadium considering their incredible field position and the thin air of Denver.

Marty Shottenheimer has a tendency to be overly conservative (watch their game in week 4 against the Ravens) but has also done some crazy shit (oddly enough you can see both sides of bipolar Marty in that very game against the Ravens) so I'm on the edge of my seat waiting for the kickoff.

Sure enough up in the air goes the ball in an arch that lands it one yard deep into the end zone...touchback....right? No! A Denver returner stumbles to catch the ball and falls to the ground at the two yard line. What motivated him to make such a completely illogical play I don't know (Current hypothesizes include: having unyielding fetish to catch football, not loved as a child, and possible brain tumor). Either way, the play sent me jumping in the air laughing and nearly falling over my common room couch. I have by no means any affiliation with the Chargers (or Broncos for that matter) but I applauded San Diego's sneaky tactics that evidently worked on a Broncos team that in the past two minutes had shown the decision making ability equivalent to Britney Spears with a BAC>.20.

Sure enough Denver wasn't finished, committing a penalty on their first play and gaining a total of 4 yards in the next two plays, forcing a 4th and long within their own 10 yard line. Then, it was if the Broncos sneezed upon the Chargers and thereby transferred the disease of stupidity to their opponents.

28 yard pass to Javon Walker followed by an immediate spiking of the ball. As the ball was being spiked Denver's center stumbled forward in a pathetic attempt to pretend as if he were blocking San Diego's defensive tackle, Olshansky. The move was pointless but it succeeded in making Olshansky stutter step and nearly fall over and for some reason that was enough to provoke Olshansky to punch Denver's center in the head! That's right; they showed it on replay multiple times as Olshansky completely over reacts and nails the center with his forearm as if it were a hammer. Suddenly I felt like we were watching the WWE…except better…cause it was real…and there weren’t half naked men jumping on each other…and…cause it was real!

Of course the next series of shots were equally amusing as Shottenheimer goes John Gibbons on Olshansky, getting in his face and calling him out in the middle of the field on national television. Though Shottenheimer didn’t challenge his player to a fight like the uber-macho Gibbons, I still gave him credit for yelling his head off at a guy who looked capable of eating someone’s children. My friends were ecstatic and I had begun laughing hysterically and clapping my hands like a monkey with cymbals. Truly we were watching history!

After a successful pass, this one for about 15 yards, San Diego gets penalized for delay of game. Sure enough, on a quick replay we see the San Diego cornerback throwing the ball 5 yards from the spot after making the tackle.

Unbelievable.

Denver was now on San Diego's 32 yard line with 3-4 legitimate chances to hurl the ball into the end zone. On the next play though, Plummer fumbles on a sack and though Denver recovers (after one of those sequences where multiple players fall on the ball and it inexplicably escapes there grasps...those are always fun to watch) there is too little time left to run another play. The recovering lineman could've knocked the ball out of bounds instead of falling on it to stop the clock but by now we had realized that the game had deteriorated to Pee-Wee level and that we were just two plays away from seeing a player randomly run off the field to their mother because they got a “boo-boo”.

Despite the lack of a thrilling hail-mary pass, the game was certainly a bright spot in an otherwise uneventful Sunday Night. Truly we witnessed a game for the record books and hopefully LT's 4 td's (including his 100th total) will vault this game onto ESPN Classic so that we can experience the debauchery all over again.

The Top 25, Week 12

1. Ohio State	12	0
2. USC	9	1
3. Florida	10	1
4. Michigan	11	1
5. Arkansas	10	1
6. Notre Dame	10	1
7. Louisville	9	1
8. West Virginia	9	1
9. Wisconsin	11	1
10. Virginia Tech	9	2
11. Oklahoma	9	2
12. LSU	9	2
13. Boise State	11	0
14. Boston College	9	2
15. Texas	9	2
16. BYU	9	2
17. Rutgers	9	1
18. Auburn	10	2
19. Georgia Tech	9	2
20. Tennessee	8	3
21. California	8	3
22. Hawaii	9	2
23. Wake Forest	9	2
24. Clemson	8	3
25. Nebraska	8	3

Finally, the national championship picture begins to clarify itself. It's down to USC and Florida, hopefully, since even if I don't think either team will beat Ohio State, they may hold their own, unlike Notre Dame or Arkansas. I think Michigan is still the second best team in the country, but I will drop them to #4 to make room for other championship contenders. USC ranks over Florida right now with an impressive beatdown of Cal. However, if both teams win out, one of them is going to rightfully feel gypped.
Notre Dame ranks sixth, because I don't really consider them to be a strong championship contender. Their biggest wins are against Georgia Tech and Penn State, which aren't much to write home about given the profiles of the other contenders. Even Arkansas has blowout wins over Auburn and Tennessee. They nearly lost to mediocre teams in Michigan State and UCLA and were exposed, to say the least, by Michigan. Even if Notre Dame knocks off USC, I don't see how you could rank them above a team with the same record who beat them 47-21. I have a lot of qualms about Arkansas too, whose 50-14 loss to USC may not concern a lot of analysts, but concerns me. What teams have walked away from a season-opening blowout loss of that magnitude and gone on to be legit national championship contenders? Arkansas actually has more of a shot than Notre Dame, as if they beat LSU and Florida, and Notre Dame beats USC, they could be ranked ahead of USC, given that they would at least have a better win-loss record. But would the pollsters give them the bid over Notre Dame in that scenario? Notre Dame really should have no better shot at the title than 11-1 Wisconsin, who at least gave Michigan more of a game than the Fighting Irish. Alright, I exaggerate a little bit, given Wisconsin's soft non-conference schedule. But I certainly feel that Notre Dame is much closer in quality to Wisconsin than it is to Ohio State or Michigan.
As for the rest of my poll, I want to give props to Virginia Tech and Oklahoma, who rank among the hottest teams in college football, yet are being slightly ignored due to the hubbub over Ohio State-Michigan and the title picture in general. Virginia Tech has blown out Clemson (24-7) and Wake Forest (27-6), and Oklahoma rides a 6-game winning streak. I rank Oklahoma ahead of Texas despite the head-to-head result between the teams, as this poll is more of a power poll anyways.
Further credit to BYU and Hawaii, who are absolutely steamrolling the Mountain West and WAC respectively. BYU is certainly a legit team, as Boston College will attest to (30-23 overtime victors).

Expectations Set Too High

We all knew Dusty Baker had to go. Though injuries have battered this team's performance over the past few seasons, Baker has been absolutely incapable of salvaging a team that never seems to have a Plan B. Since turning around the team in 2003 (when he then proceeded to let the team implode in the playoffs), Baker has idly stood by as his team won 20 less games than they did two years ago.

But enough about the past, clearly today's focus is on the future. While America blatantly ignores the NLCS (ratings have continued to drop despite having a team from the largest media market in the country and the other in one of the most baseball dedicated cities) Lou Piniella's peculiar decision to return to the dugout has temporarily captured the spotlight.

Frankly I don't understand Piniella's decision at all. Sure, he pulled a struggling Mariners team out of the depths of sub-.500 but that was an entirely different team. The Cubs don't have a bevy of prospects or significant financial freedom to lean upon should things go awry (and they probably will).

Despite playing in a major city the Cubs are incredibly restricted financially because of their home field. Wrigley field is the 2nd smallest and 2nd oldest park, and despite recent renovations it still has very few luxury box seats (the main source of income from ticket sales). Considering all these factors and that the Cubs already have the 7th highest payroll in the MLB, they don't have much wiggle room. Furthermore, they will not be able to get away with paying Prior and Zambrano $10 million a year combined. Zambrano and Prior are both eligible for arbitration again this season and Zambrano will be a free agent in a year, Prior in 2.

Derek Lee will be returning, but nobody can attempt to estimate the range of numbers he will produce in 200 and I'm sure Piniella's zen-like patience and well natured attitude will prevent any additional problems should Lee, or any other injury recovering player, not return at full strength. (Insert extreme sarcasm here)

I apologize for turning this analysis of Piniella's decision into a rant on the Cubs' problems, but that's just the atmosphere that Lou will be entering into. The 3-year contract was smart from both perspectives considering Lou's necessity to win now and he will undoubtedly turn sour if the team and management don't play along the lines that he sees fit.

I never understood players rallying behind managers who mocked and berated them, but maybe that's what the Cubs need. Maybe the fans' passion hasn't been fully transferred into the hearts of the players. Maybe the Cubs rebound to .500 record, I just don't see it happening. Players may respond to intimidation but injuries and the front office certainly don't.

The Top 25 Teams in College Football, Week 6

Let's list and then discuss:

1. Ohio State

2. Michigan

3. Florida

4. USC

5. West Virginia

6. Louisville

7. Texas

8. Tennessee

9. California

10. Clemson

11. Notre Dame

12. Arkansas

13. Auburn

14. Boise State

15. Missouri

16. LSU

17. Georgia Tech

18. Iowa

19. Georgia

20. Oregon

21. Oklahoma

22. Virginia Tech

23. Rutgers

24. Wisconsin

25. Boston College

After some thought, I'm keeping Michigan as my #2 team, if only because I think Michigan has a better chance of going unbeaten than Florida does. The Top 25 is starting to separate itself into tiers more clearly after the events of last weekend. What makes is it easier is that nearly all the big games provided statement victories for the winning team. The top 6 teams right now, in my mind, are the true national championship contenders. I'm unconvinced by West Virginia and Louisville to some extent, but if the winner of their contest goes undefeated throughout the regular season, they would have to make it to the title game in my mind, assuming there weren't 2 or more other undefeated teams.
The second tier of teams (7-13) are one-loss teams, most on the upswing, and one of them reeling (Auburn). Should I have included Arkansas this highly? Well, why not? I didn't have them ranked at all last week, but they beat Auburn handily enough that they ought to be ranked ahead of them. And do I really feel like I'm injusticing teams like Georgia Tech and Iowa? The short answer is no. I'm trying to provide more of a 'power poll' approach, so there's bound to be some fluctuation.
Along those lines, I want to give credit to teams that may not have name value, thus relatively high rankings for undefeated Boise State and Missouri. 6-0 is good enough for the Top 15 in my book. In fact, I'm more worried about not ranking them 7th and 8th. But the fact is, I suspect they are worse than many one-loss teams (as do most observers, I imagine), and I don't consider either to be legitimate championship contenders. This all goes doubly for Rutgers, who is going to linger at the bottom of this list forever unless they go and beat West Virginia or something.

I think it's time to retire TEAMS TO WATCH and replace it with UPSET OF THE WEEK!!!
This week's upset of the week is:

Syracuse 27, West Virginia 21

Do I really think Syracuse will win? Maybe not. Do I think they can put in a scare? Sure!

The Top 25 Teams in College Football, Week 5

Another week passes in college football with little change in my Top 10 (no change, in fact).
However, despite the lack of upsets, this may have been the most exultant week of football for me in three years or more. My beloved Fighting Illini wandered into East Lansing 26-point underdogs and came out 23-20 victors. If you follow the Big 10, you will by now have heard a-plenty how John L. Smith has lost his team, about how MSU played with no fire. Well, let's not discredit the Illini. After 3 years of ineptitude, mainstream football commentators, who always seem to latch onto a trend just when it ends, began to spew all kinds of verbal vomit in Illinois' direction this season. Even after their victory Saturday, I watched in disgust as Craig James stated that MSU had lost to what he had called last week "the worst team in America." I won't deny that Illinois got off to a less-than-stellar start this season, but the fact is, this is clearly a team on the upswing. They earned their victory over MSU, and they took MSU out of the game early themselves. The Spartans came out firing, but Illinois forced a key fumble on one drive, held them to a field goal on the next, and then took the lead on a 69 yard TD pass. These were the events that silenced Michigan State, not the hangover from their blown game against Notre Dame.

1. Ohio State
I'm praying for an OSU-Michigan game between two 11-0 squads, to decide who goes to the national championship game.
2. Michigan
As a Big 10 fan, I'm not very excited about a lot of the other teams. My dream game may become a reality.
3. USC
On paper, you'd think their offense would be more potent. We're hearing a lot about John David Booty, but he's not putting up the points just yet. The running game may be more to blame.
4. Auburn
Definitely not making it through the SEC unscathed.
5. Florida
Ditto. Will in fact, lose next week against LSU.
6. West Virginia
7. Louisville
8. Texas
9. LSU
10. Clemson
11. Oregon
This doesn't have much to do with Oregon, but Arizona State is awful. Everyone should have seen it coming when they struggled against Northern Arizona to start the year. I don't blame Dirk Koetter for causing a 'quarterback controversy,' however. Obviously, he handled it in the wrong way, by changing his mind, but I think the negative effects of a quarterback controversy are largely a self-fulfilling prophecy. No one balks about a cornerback controversy or a right guard controversy. Obviously, the quarterback is the team leader, but I think more teams would benefit from being less rigid about who lines up under center (see the Leak-Tebow arrangement). And even with Rudy Carpenter's struggles, in my mind, there's no way you can pass on a guy who completed 68% of his passes and led the country in pass efficiency as a freshman.
12. Notre Dame
Put the lid on a bad 4-0 Purdue team.
13. Oklahoma
14. Georgia
So what's so great about this Matthew Stafford again?
15. Florida State
16. Tennessee
17. Georgia Tech
Proved me damn right for putting them in my Top 25. I only wish I'd ranked them higher.
18. California
19. Virginia Tech
20. Iowa
I'm not dropping them much because they performed about how I expected. Sorry.
21. Boise State
An impressive win, and obviously, they replace TCU as the mid-major team to watch.
22. Penn State
23. TCU
24. Rutgers
5-0, and ready to face WVU in a few weeks.
25. Missouri
Another 5-0 sleeper.

Fallen out:
New Hampshire
I was having a more and more difficult time justifying keeping a 1-AA team in the rankings to myself, and a 52-49 win over Delaware (admittedly, a tough 1-AA opponent) is reason enough to drop them out. I supposed I ranked them so highly to point out how the elite 1-AA teams are underrated, but they're certainly not good enough to hang with the Top 25 in Division 1-A.

Nebraska
I was willing to keep them around for awhile, but I still don't have any evidence that they've turned the corner.

Team to watch:

So far, all of my teams to watch have performed ably. Rutgers and Missouri have each moved to 5-0, earning a spot in my Top 25. Houston, although they lost last week, very nearly got Larry Coker fired early, and have a good chance to steamroll C-USA. So who this week's sleeper?

Wisconsin (4-1)

After playing Michigan closer than expected, the Badgers hung 52 on Indiana by the 3rd quarter. Obviously, Indiana is a doormat, but blowout victories of that nature are still impressive. Best of all, they have 3 home games coming up against Northwestern, Minnesota, and Illinois, and a road game against a defenseless Purdue. They should be favored in all 4, and barring an upset, will be 8-1 heading into a key stretch with a home game against Penn State and then going on the road against Iowa.

The Top 25 Teams in College Football, Week 4

After another thrilling day of football (although teams ranked in the Top 25 almost invariably came out on top), I am proud to unveil Week 4's Top 25 teams. Although I didn't make any predictions per se in last week's edition, some of my comments proved themselves to be somewhat significant nuggets of wisdom. I pointed out my concerns with Georgia's offense under the hands of Matthew Stafford, and they of course found themselves in a 13-0 hole against winless Colorado. I suggested that Arizona State would break hard if they played anyone decent, and they also proved me right in a 49-21 blowout loss to Cal. Correspondingly, Cal will make a return to my Top 25 in their place. Along with ASU, Boston College also falls out of the Top 25 this week. Their 4th close game in a row saw them losing unimpressively to NC State. They may have beaten a Clemson team that I like a lot, but their other performances have been less than stellar.

1. Ohio State
The performance of Ohio State and other top teams today, even in wins, suggested to me that we may not see any undefeated squads by season's end. No one is looking dominant like USC and Texas could last year.
2. Michigan
Michigan tentatively holds the #2 spot this week, as they only pulled away late against Wisconsin, and saw their Notre Dame win somewhat cheapened by the Irish's performance against Michigan St.
3. USC
After a 20-3 win, this is clearly a new breed of USC team, but they may be just as dominant.
4. Auburn
5. Florida
6. West Virginia
Unlike the official polls, I don't hesitate to move teams down even in wins. WVU has to show me more than this.
7. Louisville
8. Texas
9. LSU
10. Clemson
I may be totally jumping the gun on this one, but despite a loss to now-unranked-by-me BC just 2 weeks ago, I really think Clemson is the team to beat in the ACC. They seem solid in all areas of play, especially on the offensive line. I also am unimpressed by a lot of the teams I jumped them over this week, which helps their cause.
11. Georgia
We'll see if Joe Cox can finally get the offense going, but Georgia was lucky to escape today, and they've got a long way to go towards being a national championship contender.
12. Virginia Tech
I just feel bad for a scrappy Cincinnati team that gamely battled both Ohio State and Virginia Tech on the road before falling apart in each game around the fourth quarter.
13. Oregon
14. Notre Dame
I may have given a positive word about their defense too soon. Only MSU's conservative playcalling in the second half (all runs, really?) let Notre Dame back in the game.
15. TCU
16. Oklahoma
For the first time in awhile, Oklahoma looked dominant again. Sure, it was against Middle Tennessee, but the Sooners didn't play like this against UAB.
17. Florida State
18. Tennessee
19. Iowa
Being a depressed fan of the Fighting Illini, I watched all of today's Iowa-Illinois match. Although Iowa took control of the game late in the second quarter, I am still skeptical as to how good Iowa is. I have a lot of faith in Drew Tate, but he is not going to be able to lead a weak supporting cast against Ohio State next weekend.
20. Penn State
Lost 28-6, but of course, the game was much closer than the score. I'm moving them up this week because I've never understood the logic of dropping a team that gives the #1 team a good fight.
21. Nebraska
I don't know if many people will notice this, but Nebraska just pounded the same Troy team that nearly beat Florida St. 56-0. Perhaps Bill Callahan is onto something this year.
22. California
I'm not totally sold yet, but I think I gave them a bad rub by not including them at all in last week's top 25. They could win a lot of games in the Pac-10.
23. Georgia Tech
24. New Hampshire
I'm going to stick to my guns on this one as long as NH stays dominant. And dominating they were this weekend, dropping Dartmouth 56-14.
25. Rutgers
The second new team in the Top 25 this week, I think they could play spoiler in the WVU-Louisville race for the Big East.

Team to Watch:

Houston (4-0)

I first noticed this team when I was playing NCAA Football 2007, and saw they were rated surprisingly well. They started the season without much aplomb, beating lowly Rice by just 1 point, but were led by star senior quarterback Kevin Kolb's 314 passing yards to a 34-25 victory over Oklahoma State today. With a win over a Big 12 team now under their belt, they look like an early favorite to win Conference USA. My one qualm is that they play at Miami next week, who will be hungry for any kind of win at 1-2. At the very least, the game will let us know just how far Miami has fallen.

The Top 25 Teams in College Football, Week 3

Alright, time to flex my evaluative muscles. With great gusto, I unveil my first weekly Top 25 College Football Poll. Unlike certain other polls, I have waited a few games to evaluate teams before releasing my decisions, although I still am influenced by general perceptions of team strength naturally. The preseason polls generally do contain the best teams in the country, after all. At any rate, on with the show!

1. Ohio State
Ohio State didn't look great against Cincinnati at first, but I think their ability to pull away for a big win said a lot about them.
2. Michigan
I'm ranking them #2 simply because they have a marquee blowout win to their credit. It could change, or maybe not.
3. USC
USC's defense may have improved over last year, and their offense isn't going to slouch all that much with John David Booty at QB.
4. Auburn
I'm not giving them as much marquee win credit as I did for Michigan, because I'm not at all impressed by their offense. You can't always win a 7-3 game.
5. West Virginia
Much as I suspect they might get killed by a true powerhouse team, you can't help but pull for them.
6. Florida
Big win over Tennessee, but I still think they have to prove themselves. Chris Leak is criminally underrated.
7. Georgia
Their defense impresses me hugely, but like Auburn, I don't see where their offense is going. Heavily hyped Matthew Stafford has been unimpressive at QB.
8. Louisville
Although they are clearly a better team than Miami this year, it was still a big deal for them to win by such a margin. It is perhaps the game that cements an unprecedented rise from mid-major school to national power. I think they can beat mediocre opponents without Brohm or Bush, but the lack of Bush (and possibly Brohm) could kill them against WVU.
9. Texas
I'm guessing Texas will settle in to become quite a strong football team this year, but we don't know anything about them yet.
10. LSU
Came out on the wrong side of a 7-3 battle. It will be a low-scoring year in the SEC.
11. Notre Dame
Obviously, commentators were too quick to praise Notre Dame's defense. Why? Well, if Notre Dame's defense were as bad as it were made out, they wouldn't have been ranked in the Top 5 in the first place. The defense was supposed to be the weak link to a national championship run, and indeed it was. Doesn't mean it's not good enough to shut down lesser opponents.
12. Virginia Tech
Haven't really played anyone yet, but have looked good doing it.
13. Oregon
Controversial win, and not really a legit title contender, but still a solid football team.
14. TCU
Get on the mid-major bandwagon! Who holds Texas Tech to 3 points??
15. Tennessee
Tennessee looks like they might have an up and down year, but they have certainly rebounded from their 5-6 campaign in style.
16. Clemson
I feel like Clemson was unjustly punished in the polls for a close loss to Boston College. This isn't a great team, but it's a good one.
17. Oklahoma
Played pretty well against Oregon, but for whatever reason, they seem to have fallen off more than temporarily from their lofty heights of the early 2000s.
18. Florida State
Is there any logic at all to having an 80-year old be the coach of your football team? I suspect his coordinators do all the coaching these days (witness the program's dropoff), but still.
19. Iowa
I don't even think Iowa is all that good, but Drew Tate is a hell of a quarterback, and the bottom parts of the Top 25 are filled with questionable teams anyways.
20. Boston College
3-0, but with so many close wins, it's some kind of courageous fluke. Nonetheless, they've eked out enough close wins already that they could easily wind up with a gaudy win-loss record.
21. Nebraska
We'll see on this team yet. I didn't expect them to do anything against USC, and they didn't, but they still may have something to say in the Big 12.
22. Georgia Tech
I thought Tech looked pretty good against Notre Dame. They at least have an exciting defense and a gamebreaking wideout (Calvin Johnson). No love in the polls, though.
23. Penn State
See Bowden, Bobby. I guess Bowden and Paterno have earned the right to stick around as long as they want, but I'm just saying, I don't trust the elderly with decisions.
24. Arizona State
3-0, and I love Rudy Carpenter, but they will break hard if they play anyone decent.
25. New Hampshire
Got to give some love to Division 1-AA, and although New Hampshire is ranked behind Appalachian State in the 1-AA polls, they certainly have the most impressive 1-AA win this year (35-17 over Northwestern). Also beat Stony Brook 62-7 this weekend, if anyone cares.

Teams to watch:

Missouri (3-0)
Rutgers (3-0)

Neither of these teams have wins important enough to get them into the Top 25, but each have chances to get off to hot starts. Missouri has home games against Ohio and Colorado, which could get them to 5-0 before a crucial road game against Texas Tech. Rutgers will most likely trip up on an upcoming 3-game road stand but it is believable that they could be 8-0 going into a home game against Louisville.

Limitations Meant To Protect Us

You must be "this tall" to ride the rollercoaster or drive a go kart.

I always thought those restrictions were dumb growing up, especially considering that I commonly found myself a couple inches below the margin. I could control my stomach on 50ft drop or a 20 mph racecar round u-turn far better than some of the other children permitted to ride, but still it was a safety hazard, and today I understand why. For every 14 year old kid who hadn't hit a growth spurt there were ten times as many immature and unprepared 10 year olds who would be allowed to ride if the limits were lowered to accommodate those like myself. Ten times as many injured children because they didn't buckle correctly or were utterly unprepared to handle a motorized vehicle.

Until recently the NBA had let the youngsters run wild and free, and why not? Kobe, Garnett, and McGrady had all emerged straight out of high school and when Lebron entered the picture no fan would've even imagined raising the age requirements. But what the fans weren't seeing were the dozens, even hundreds of kids who had staked their lives on the draft only to be disappointed. They had punched their ticket to the NBA and had recklessly disregarded every other option, and once again why not?

No other profession allows you to utterly skip college and go directly from third period Calculus to multi-million dollar contracts in a matter of months. The students had been sold on the whisperings of greedy agents, overly biased coaches, and vicarious parents.

So what happens if they don't get drafted? ESPN finally dedicated 30 minutes on Outside the Lines to follow the life of a teenager who went through the tragic process of aiming for the NBA and landing a minimum wage job where he is now stuck for the rest of his life. The story was riveting but was buried at mid-day and midnight time slots while draft predictions aired every 15 minutes on sportscenter. Still, there are more kids (I prefer kids to "young adults" because it’s hard to expect any 18 year old to maintain a professional and educated composure in these scenarios) ignoring college scholarships and high school academics to focus on basketball every year. Or at least there were.

David Stern made the bold move to finally install an age requirement last year and not surprisingly received harsh criticism. Analysts and fans howled at the change, claiming that "The quality of players in the draft will be diluted and high school phenoms will become extinct". Their words were far harsher and less objective than the paraphrased sentence above, but still their opinion was clear.

I have strongly supported Stern’s decision since the instatement of the rule, but was only provoked to vocalize my opinion after Skip Bayless wrote yet another atrocious article for ESPN's Page 2. The article's purpose is to blame the NFL's draft eligibility requirements for Maurice Clarett's array of problems. In the process of building his case Bayless blatantly disregards the future of all the young athletes, asserting that "Some [18 year olds] have no interest or business in college."

Bayless' whole argument hinges on his claim that Clarett would have been a stud had he been allowed to enter the NFL at a premature age. And yet, he openly admits that Clarett was (and is) "a kid without much of a work ethic" and needed to land with the "the right coach and system". Clarett's attitude was his fatal flaw, but the NFL's regulations offered him an escape. Rather than bounce in and then out of professional football directly from high school, he was given the opportunity to mature and further pursue an education in college (sadly he failed to grow on both accounts). Yes it is tragic to see such potential wasted, but the age limits gave Clarett a shot at a future, they didn’t restrict it. The same is true for all other college athletes.

Our attention will always be shifted towards the rags to riches miracles or the apocalyptic collapses, but we should always remember those caught in the middle ground. Thanks to the new rule, how many NBA driven teenagers will find themselves in a college class room instead of at McDonalds after missing the draft? How many will get a chance to grow athletically and mentally after disaster strikes on draft day, and potentially get another shot at their dream? Think about those kids and their lives before you start complaining that your team won't get the best possible draft options. Maybe a couple million people can suffer a little less thrill and excitement if it means the futures of hundreds of kids grows exponentially.


The quotations included above were taken from Skip Bayless' article published on ESPN's website on August 11th.

Changing How We View And Score Earned Runs

There are two outs and runners on second and third when the batter hits a groundball down the first-base line. The ball bounces right through the wickets of the 1st baseman allowing a run to score and the trailing runner to advance to third. Clearly the run was not the fault of the pitcher and therefore will be marked down as an unearned run in his statistics.

The next batter makes the error all the more costly by launching a shot into the left field bleachers to score three additional runs all of which will go unearned because if the pitcher had received perfection from his defense, he would be sitting in the dugout calmly instead of storming around the mound angrily. But why is the pitcher being given such leniency? None of these runs will count towards his precious ERA, and yet he’s the one who threw the meatball now cradled safely in a 10-year old’s glove 372ft from home plate.

Should the pitcher surrender an additional two runs before finally escaping the inning he would not be faulted for those mistakes either. Does this scenario seem fair? The rule that allows such an event to occur was installed because when that groundball rolled down the line it was supposed to be fielded and put out. Inning over. Bases cleared. All players reset. But that ball found it’s way into right field, so the pitcher now has two runners who shouldn’t exist. Clearly he shouldn’t be docked for their presence, so if they cross home plate they are not counted against his statistics; similar to a reliever who enters the game with runners already on.

Yet the man now standing at home is unaffected but the error. Yes, the pitcher must be weary of two runners on base, and yes he should’ve faced this hitter from the windup and not the stretch in the following inning, but the at-bat is independent of the error. The 1st baseman’s poor glove work is not aiding the hitter’s ability to distinguish between the pitcher’s fastball and slider, the match up is just a battle between hitter and pitcher, like any other at-bat. If the pitcher fails to record an out against the next four or five men it’s because his “stuff” isn’t good enough to get them out. But instead we scapegoat the 1st baseman.

Therefore I am proposing that the rules regarding earned runs be altered (not totally revamped, just tinkered with). When that third out should have been made remove all the current runners’ (including those who may have scored on the play) ability to score an earned run, but stop there. If the next batter eventually crosses home-plate because of the pitcher’s ineptitude to record a single out in the following procession of hitters it is his fault, and he will be punished accordingly.

I listed earlier two excuses that some fans and all pitchers will use: The pitcher is pitching under pressure that he shouldn’t be forced to compensate for and he is (at least in this scenario) forced to pitch from the stretch instead of the windup (for some pitchers this difference can be severely damaging). To these objections I point to the role that middle relievers and setup men play multiple times during the season.

Say that the ball had not traveled through the legs of the 1st baseman, but instead been a line drive well out of his reach. The run would be earned and perhaps the manager would have quickly made the call for relief. The man entering from the right field bullpen is now subjected to the exact same conditions that the previous pitcher was forced to suffer through and yet if the next pitch he throws is lifted out of the park, he’s not getting any statistical sympathy.

All of these various scenarios sound rare and they were obviously crafted to illustrate a specific point. Unearned runs though, are not at all uncommon and they derive from situations not too different from the one described above. In 2005 teams averaged over 57 unearned runs over the course of the season (1713 total), resulting in more than 0.7 unearned runs per game. While we are unable to differentiate between which runs would have been relabeled as earned without reading through every play by play transcript we can assume that a significant portion of these runs would fall into the new category of earned runs.

Even Bill James has experienced difficulty in working with unearned runs because in many cases the pitcher contributed (to a varying degree) to the runs scoring. In his creation of Win Shares James reluctantly faults pitchers for 50% of unearned runs that they allow. His choice is unsupported numerically but he couldn’t possibly allow pitchers to evade any blame for unearned runs, citing an extreme example involving Doc Gooden. If we were to make such a change to earned runs rule his dilemma would be solved and the specific situation he quotes would fall under the new definition. (The passage from his book Win Shares is attached at the end of the article).

Pitchers are escaping with lower ERA’s, dulling the statistic’s ability to accurately represent a pitcher’s performance. This statistic is the most widely used tool to comprehensively judge a pitcher (save the stubborn writers and fans who cling to Wins) and if it’s integrity is compromised than so is its utility. A statistic is only as valuable as its validity; henceforth if its inputs are flawed or distorted than the statistic is worthless to us. Therefore it is in the best interest of all statisticians and fans to change this rule so that we can get an accurate and true representation of pitchers and their abilities.


“Why 50%? Well, we’re not explaining the system right now, not defending it, but the other option would be to excuse the pitcher from responsibility for unearned runs. This is absurd, since, in almost all cases, the pitcher has contributed to the run. Doc Gooden had an inning when he was a rookie in which he gave up as I recall, 2 hits and 3 walks, committed a balk and hit a batter, five runs scored, but all of the runs resulting were un-earned because of one error. That’s absurd to say that one error caused ALL of the runs. It may be true that, without the error, the runs would not have scored, but it is also true that, without the walks, hits, and hit batsmen, they wouldn’t have scored, either."

"This is an extreme example, but it is almost always true that when an un-earned run scores, the pitcher has contributed to it somehow. Lacking better details, we value a pitcher’s contribution at 50%, the fielder’s at 50%.”

The preceding passage were taken from the following source:
James, Bill. Win Shares. Morton Grove: STATS Publishing Inc., 2002 (p. 34)

If at first your don't succeed...

Try try again? And again? And......

When John Hart resigned as the Rangers' general manager following the 2005 season, the job was handed over to his incredibly young (only 28 at the time) protégé Jon Daniels. Hart had focused his efforts to improve the team's offense rather than the pitching ever since he arrived in Texas in 2001. Even before then Hart had always hungered for offense, building his previous franchise, the Cleveland Indians, around the theory that you could ignore pitching and merely outscore the opposition every time.

Well, his theory worked…to an extent. His dual trips to the World Series gave him the confidence to maintain that mentality when he changed franchises and to implore Daniels to do the same afterward he resigned.

Daniels learned well, keeping the team in a competitive state where they are well within reach of a playoff birth (something they haven’t seen since 1999). His recent acquisition of Carlos Lee has stirred the baseball world, as it is the first transaction involving a major player in the final weeks of the trading portion of the season. Yes he has added one of the more potent available bats to an already strong offense, but once again the Rangers are without any sort of pitching.

Padilla and Millwood are the only two starters with an ERA under 5.00 and are undoubtedly the weakest 1-2 combo of any team within reasonable playoff contention. There bullpen has been dodging bullets all season, the only bright spot has been Otsuka's emergence as a reliable closer. In fact other than Otsuka and Padilla no other pitcher has a WHIP under 1.30 (for those unfamiliar with the stat, 1.25 is considered decent).

Surely the Rangers could just slug there way to playoffs and then....

Well that's where the fairy tale ends because the Ranges have tried this style of play before. The offense has been the center point of the team's meager success for over a decade. Though they did capture 3 division titles over the 10 year span, the team also holds a collective 1-9 record once reaching the October spotlight and it's because they lacked pitching. The Rangers have not had a starter with an ERA under 4.00 for a decade, other than occasional appearances by a man called Rogers (Kenny seems it necessary to play for the Rangers every couple of seasons just to give the appearance that the franchise is focusing on building a legitimate staff).

Daniels even went to the effort of signing Kevin Millwood you say? Millwood has been shaky 2 or 3 starter and is not the man to be harnessing the reigns of a staff in a historically hitter's ballpark. He's not the man that'll lead you to a title, and while many would argue that Daniels was merely building a team to make the playoffs, not the World Series, why on earth did he just trade for a 2 month rental at the cost to his bullpen and possible future of his outfield? (Actually that's not fair because Laynce Nix is a bust, Mench is mediocre, but not great, and Cordero's mechanics are so disrupted that he shouldn't be expected to return to his previous until at least the beginning of next season).

The Indians did it! They trampled teams in their wake to two AL Pennants! We could just keep adding offense and be true tribute to John Hart!

Yes they did, but even they had three mediocre starters (Orel Hershiser, Dennis Martinez, and Charles Nagy) who were better than Rangers' two man tandem. The Indians had also assembled one of the most potent offenses this half century has ever seen. In 1995 they EIGHT players hit above .300 and two years later they had a 3-4-5 combo that all had at least a .320 average and 20 home runs. Eddie Murray, Manny Ramirez, Kenny Lofton, David Justice, Jim Thome, Randy Alomar, Sandy Alomar Jr., Matt Williams, and Carlos Baerga all started in the Indians' array of lethal lineups throughout the 90's. Hell Richie Sexson and Brian Giles were on the bench!

When that kind of hitting can't get you a championship I don't know why any general manager or owner would believe they could do it in an era that has suddenly begun to swing back to an age of pitching. All of the previous championships teams have structured their teams around an aspect of their pitching: The White Sox' starting staff, the Red Sox' Schilling/Martinez (+ an incredibly underrated bullpen), the Marlins' young guns, the Angels’ untouchable pen, Schilling/Johnson in Arizona, and the Yankees' dynasty could not have existed without a bevy of veteran starters and the greatest closer in baseball.

One must one wonder how long it will take Daniels and other GM's to finally listen to cliché saying that still rings true: Good Pitching Always Beats Good Hitting (especially in a seven game series).

Joe Morgan is an Absolute Embarassment

Billy Beane: Sometimes Joe doesn't like facts to get in the way of his opinions.

I don't expect every major leaguer to welcome the new onslaught of numbers and statistics into "their" game with open arms, but at the very least I'd appreciate an open mind. Players like Reggie Jackson and Derek Jeter oppose the controversial destruction of the concept of clutch hitting, but that is not surprising considering their pasts. Joe Morgan is also skeptical of the conclusions drawn from numerous calculations but is far more vocal about his opinion (the custom in MLB is that if you strongly object to a statisitcal calculation that you can't refute effectively, just remain quite unless questioned about it).

On multiple occurrences Morgan has berated Michael Lewis' Moneyball, though he has the misguided view that Beane wrote the book despite constant attempts to inform him otherwise. While the book is clearly biased in its presentation of a new outlook on baseball, one must give it credit for introducing a revolutionary scheme. Morgan abhors the new statistical discoveries to such a large degree that he has not even read the book that he claims is completely devoid of worth.

Sadly, not only has Morgan's rash disregard for reason not tarnished his public reputation, it hasn't slowed down his announcing career either. Morgan carries his misguided beliefs into the booth every time he works for espn who has ironically paired him with one of the more passive, but quality, play by play announcers in the business, Jon Miller. On several occasions have I listened to Morgan's stupidity run unchecked on national television and I am becoming increasingly frustrated with Morgan's pure idiocy.

Last year Cubs manager Dusty Baker opted not to pinch hit for one of his scrawnier hitters (the Cubs are filled with scrappy mid-infielders and I apologizing for not remembering the collection of junk the Cubs are forced to use) in a bases loaded situation trailing by two. Morgan repeatedly belittled Baker for not pinch hitting, claiming that the batter "didn't drive in runs, he only scored them". On the third pitch the little man launched the ball into the right field bleachers, giving the Cubs the lead. Before he could get to second Baker blurted out "You know I've been talking to Dusty lately about how this kid has really turned his hitting ability around and made himself a better player." I nearly jumped through a window. I wish I had been sitting in the booth to replay the previous 3 minutes where Morgan would not shut up about Baker's foolishness to Morgan himself.

On July 2nd, the Yankees responded to the Mets' early 4 run lead with an offensive explosion in the 3rd inning. After the Mets were already down three runs (they'd eventually end the inning down 9-4) Morgan decided it was time to use the clarity hindsight to blame Randolph for the sudden turn events. "He should've pulled Soler earlier and brought in Darren Oliver!" screamed Morgan multiple times before his co-worker Jon Miller interjected with an obvious flaw in Morgan's proposition, "But with an 11 game lead in the division, wouldn't you prefer to not put a strain on your bullpen and suffer possible repercussions down the rest of the season?" Miller's qualm was a result of Pedro's recent injury and the Mets were preparing to start Oliver the following day in his place. "You can't worry bout the 11 game lead, you have to win today. All you have to worry about is winning this game, I don't care about how far ahead you are in the division." countered Morgan.

0 games as a manager
0 games as a bench coach
0 games as any type of hitting, pitching or fielding instructor
0 games as a base coach
0 games as an affiliate of an major league organization in an influential position

There lies the managing career of Joe Morgan after his retirement in 1984.

1.5 years as manager of New York Mets.
1 year as Yankee bench coach
10 years as Yankee third base coach

Randolph played a coaching role in 4 world championship teams and has turned an underachieving team into the NL's strongest.

For the following 2 innings Morgan assaulted Randolph's move (or lack thereof) until Miller finally conceded his numerous attempts to reason with his counter part with basic baseball logic. Sure enough the Mets, hindered by lack of available arms, needed Oliver in the next game.

A week later, on ESPN's Sunday Night Baseball game, Morgan was present at the NL Central showdown between the Astros and Cardinals. The Cardinals had gotten leadoff man Eckstein on trailing 2-0 on the top of the eighth. Morgan insisted that Spiezio should bunt despite the fact that St. Louis needed two runs, not one. Instead of listening to Morgan, Larussa smartly put the hit and run on and Spiezio delivered with a single that advanced Eckstein to third. Morgan's comment: "See, now that's a lot better than a bunt." Needless to say the Cardinals proceeded to score five runs that inning, and after several misuses of their fatigued bullpen they allowed the Astros to tie the game and send it into extra innings. In the twelfth the Cards once again had Eckstein on 1st with nobody out, but this time with Iguchi at the plate. Not surprisingly Morgan strongly advocated the bunt (though to his credit the Cards did need just one run to take the lead) but Miller caught him off guard, "Yes but if you bunt, you're taking the bat out of the hands of your best clutch Albert Pujols" referring to Phil Garner's predictable decision to intentionally walk Pujols with 1st base open. Morgan's response (word for word) "Yes, but you want to score runs!"

Silence. Miller didn't understand and frankly no one else ever will understand the thought process that occurs in Joe Morgan's head.

Over the wall or down the line: Toughest plays in baseball (1-5)

5. Into the Stands
There comes a time when every infielder must make that scary transition from the security of the playing fields into the chaotic, and sometimes hostile, atmosphere of the stands. Failure results only in a foul ball, but a real player will put his body on the line to make a crucial out any day of the week. These plays are as equally challenging and scary as catchers and other infielders who wander into dugouts and camera booths; neither have been designed for the safety of a man charging over 3-4 the foot wall.

4. Shortstop in the hole
Patented by Derek Jeter, but before he was leading the Yankees to titles a skinny man named Omar was making ridiculous off-balanced throws of his own. While Vizquel has alwats taken heat for not being an offensive threat (and at times even a liability) he has on countless occasions tracked a ball down to his right and all the while anticipating the need to make the difficult throw to first. Both of these men excel at what they do and have inspired countless youngsters to continually practice making the play from the outfield grass in left.

3. Third baseman down the line
Not to be out done says Scott Rolen! Once compaired to the other great Phillie 3B, Mike Schmidt (who never receives enough recognition for his work with his glove), Rolen perfectly executes the "run, backhand the hard groundball, then hurl it in the exact opposite direction in which you are going" play. Sometimes a player will have enough time to plant his feet and fire but its far more entertaining to watch a third baseman do a spin/leap/catapult-esque throw that is just in time to catch the startled hitter who was probably already thinking double. A combination of arm strength and an above average ability to make a quick ball transfer (essential for most infield plays) are required to make this challenging and aesthetically pleasing play.

2. Over the wall
...and through the padding, to sportscenter's top 10 we go. Sorry, got carried away there. Ever heard of a man called Fred Lynn? Well way before Gary Matthew's robbery of Mike Lamb (which can only be matched by the play where the Japanese guy literally climbs the 10 foot high wall), Lynn was crashing into posts and teammates as he robbed countless hitters of home runs and extra base hits. For our purposes "running into wall at full speed" can be considered a lesser, but still significant subset of this category of plays. But the toughest part is the not the danger, its the perfection of timing. After running your ass off to get to the wall, you must now jump at precisely the right moment to snag that ball before its out of reach.

1. Over the shoulder
If you don't have one of those "o shit i got to catch this cause nobody else will" moments as soon as this ball is hit, you're not going to grab it. Frankly these plays are not as fun to watch but they are the most difficult play to make by an player on the fielder. These plays are usually witnessed in centerfield, either by a SS or 2B tracking down a flare (these balls are sometimes down the line too) or a centerfielder just flat out showing off. The only time I've seen a first baseman make this play was by Donny baseball (Don Mattingly) who went straight up the line, made the catch and then immediately turned around to find the runner on third trying to sneak home (needless to say Mattingly threw him out at the plate). So why exactly is this play so hard? You have to run at full throttle while watching a ball that's behind your back and then be able to either stop running or dive at precisely the right moment (there's no time to spin around, you've gotta make this play with your back to the catcher).

Top 3 plays involving going behind the back (no order):
Jim Edmonds: This guy has made this play so many fucking times I'm ready to get down and start worshiping him. (Ok maybe that's a little far, but he's still damn good at what he does) The most spectatular play was when he went straight back and flung his body parallel to the ground and amazingly caught the ball. How the hell he pulled that play off I'll never know.
David Wright: The barehand play is raved about by every Met fan I have ever met (and even some non-Shea lovers). Sadly I have never seen this play in its entirety, only snipits from several of sportscenter's montage. I will allow this play in merely because it combines this style of catch with the barehand clause, but if you are reading this and have seen the play PLEASE FIND ME A COPY!
Willie Mays: "The Catch" will forever be remembered as the first (and possibly greatest) Web Gem caught on video. Take Mattingly's play: put in the outfield, double the distance he had to run, double the distance he had to throw the ball back in, and then infinitely increase the magnitude of the catch because of the setting.

One final play I want to discuss (because I'm a Yankees fan and because I was at this game): Derek Jeter's "play of the year" (awarded by Baseball Tonight) in 2005 was the greatest play I have ever witnessed live and I am still amazed when I see it from all the other camera angles. This play gets the half-credit point for over the back, full credit for in the stands, and further points for the timing of the play: 12th inning of a game against the Red Sox in a pennant race.

The Running of the Bulls

During the 2006 NBA regular season, fate seemed to be heavily favoring the Detroit Pistons. Fresh off two straight appearances in the NBA finals, they roared to a 37-5 start, causing many observers to coronate them as the 2006 NBA champions halfway through the year. Although they went just 27-13 after this point, that was still a respectable record, and there wasn't much for them to compete for anyways. Yet as we all know, they had a miserable playoff run, barely getting past a mediocre Cleveland team (which in my mind, didn't even play that well), and were put out of their misery by the surging Heat in the Eastern Conference Finals. The momentum that they had been building under Joe Dumars had suddenly come to a crashing halt.
The Chicago Bulls, on the other hand, were out of playoff contention nearly the entire year, before a late-season surge that brought them to 41-41 earned them the seventh seed and a tough first-round series with the Miami Heat. The Bulls looked surprisingly game in this series against the team that would eventually claim the NBA Finals by the same margin that they defeated the Bulls (4-2) by. One of the youngest teams in the NBA, it could certainly have been said after their first-round exit that they would be a team to watch in the coming years.
As America now knows, these two teams are now forever connected, with the Bulls having signed Ben Wallace, considered to be the rock of the Pistons, to a four-year, $60 million contract. This begs the question: Have the Bulls now passed the Pistons as the Heat’s primary contender for the 2007 Eastern Conference crown?
Subjectively, the fit seems to be great for Chicago. Scott Skiles is a tough, defensive-minded coach, and Ben Wallace is commonly regarded as the best defensive player in the NBA today. However, I wish to go beyond first impressions, and undertake a more thorough analysis of the impact a player like Ben Wallace can have on the Bulls (and what his loss could mean to the Pistons).
Since standard defensive stats often don’t capture the true talent of a star defender (although Ben Wallace does block more than his fair share of shots), a fuller appreciation of Ben Wallace’s impact on the defensive end can be garnered by examining the plus/minus statistics provided at www.82games.com. In the 2005-06 season, the Pistons defense played 10.6 points per 100 possessions better with Wallace on the court as compared to off the court. Although such a high number is probably a fluke due to small sample size and a weak bench, his positive effect has been consistent: the defense was 3.5 points better in 2004-05, 3.0 points better in 2003-04, and 3.1 points better in 2002-03. Based on this, I make a rough estimate that Ben Wallace has improved the Pistons’ defense by 3-4 points per hundred possessions during his tenure in Detroit. This may sound like a small number, but in fact improves the team by about 7 to 10 wins per year, if he has in fact improved the defense that significantly. Obviously, there are other factors, but this is probably a reasonable ballpark estimate of Wallace’s impact defensively. If you subtract 7 wins from the Pistons’ expected win total from 2006 (calculated using Pythagorean winning percentage), you get a 53-29 team. If you add 7 wins to the Bulls’ expected win total from 2006, you get a 50-32 team. Suddenly the difference between a 41-41 team (43-39 expected) and a 64-18 team (60-22 expected) is reduced to almost nothing.
However, I would have forecasted the Bulls for significant improvement even without the addition of Ben Wallace and the reason is one of the youngest rosters in the league. Shooting guard Ben Gordon will be 23, point guard Kirk Hinrich 26, forward Luol Deng 21, forward Andres Nocioni 27, guard Chris Duhon 24, center Tyson Chandler 24 (although he may be traded). Ben Wallace will be 32, but hasn’t shown any sign of slipping yet, even if he could be a risk by the time he hits the last year of his contract and will be 35. I also feel that 20 year old first-round draft pick Tyrus Thomas has the chance to be the best player in the 2006 NBA draft, as he was able to play at a very high level in the NCAA despite only being a freshman, dominating the NCAA tournament defensively and on the glass. Even if he is not ready to contribute offensively, signs point to him being able to contribute defensively right away, helping to make the Bulls a potentially dominant defensive team.
I also feel that there may be a bit of a delay factor working in favor of the Bulls. Often times, a team is slated for great things in an upcoming season only to apparently underachieve. This allows them to be forgotten the following season, and I have seen many teams succeed at this point, revealing the hype to have come a year early. This scenario no longer applies to the Bulls perfectly, as they will hardly be forgotten with the addition of Wallace, but keep in mind that they were seen to have underachieved this season after a surprising 47-35 campaign the year before. However, natural regression to the mean took place, and most of the Bulls’ young players (who may have overachieved the year before) didn't make significant strides. Their expected win-loss record only dropped by 1 win however, and it is not unreasonable to suggest that after a year of stalled development, the Bulls’ youngsters are if anything, safer bets to have break out seasons. Players like Ben Gordon and Luol Deng have star potential given their youth and what they have accomplished so far. The more young players who break out offensively, the more powerful the Bulls will be, given that with the addition of Ben Wallace and Tyrus Thomas, they may now possess the best defense in the NBA. Chad Ford’s summation of the trade on espn.com laments how the Bulls will be imbalanced towards defense, but I would point out that there’s no such thing as too good of a defense, and if your defense is the best in the NBA, even a mediocre offense can take you pretty far. More importantly, with so many young players, it is not hard to imagine the Bulls taking sizable strides on offense as well.
However, even with the rise of the Bulls, the Pistons do not need to hit the panic button. With a little defensive depth added to the roster, they shouldn’t drop below the 50-55 win level. Since the team played so much worse without Ben Wallace on the court this season, this may be an indication that his substitutes were huge negatives on the basketball court. A glance at the roster shows that Detroit had no frontcourt players behind the Wallaces in the frontcourt besides Antonio McDyess, which would probably explain why the team faltered so badly in Ben’s absence. The writers at ESPN seem to think that Detroit may address their needs by adding Joel Przybilla or Nazr Mohammed, but I would caution Detroit from spending a lot of money on a player like Przybilla, who would be on the roster not to replace Wallace, but to keep the team from falling apart. However, looking through the available free agents, there certainly seems to be a dearth of big men who could contribute defensively, so perhaps the Pistons’ hand will be forced in this regard. To address ESPN one last time, Chad Ford suggests that the Pistons could re-cast themselves as a more running, up-tempo team to fit into the new NBA (which would involve playing McDyess at PF and Rasheed Wallace at C). He seems to envision them as being a more offensive-minded team, but this makes little sense, since it wouldn’t address the team’s defensive concerns whatsoever, and the team already ranked 4th in the NBA in offensive efficiency (1 place higher than their defensive ranking!) in 2006. Whether Ford’s plan fits into the new “style” of the NBA or not, it would be a hard argument to make that a simple roster shift could turn the Pistons into such an offensive juggernaut so as to offset their pending defensive decline. Ford overreacts to the lackluster offensive performance the Pistons put on in the playoffs, ignoring that the Pistons did not play like that for over 90 games until Game 3 of the Cleveland series. In my opinion, the Pistons do not need to be shifted around to improve their offense, as the offense will hardly suffer from the loss of Wallace. The potential defensive problem absolutely cannot be ignored, however.
In closing, I would also recommend that the Pistons try and find someone who can coach their team, as Flip Saunders has proven time and time again that he cannot coach beyond the regular season. My fellow statistically-oriented analysts always made the argument that none of Saunders’ Minnesota teams performed under expectations in the playoffs, as they were always the underdog, yet this argument only seems to hold up if you assume that the favorite always wins in a 7-game series. Yes, none of those Minnesota teams were going to win the NBA title or anything with a different coach (excluding perhaps the 2004 version), but you would have to think that they should have won a series or two between 1997 and 2003, instead of bowing out in the first round in seven consecutive appearances. Moreover, Flip Saunders has now had his chances to coach a favorite in the playoffs twice, and failed to make the NBA Finals both times. Do I even need to mention that the friction between him and Ben Wallace may have been one of the impetuses for Ben Wallace’s eventual departure? In conclusion, the addition of Ben Wallace and the corresponding improvement of the Bulls may turn out to be perfect timing in terms of returning the Bulls to the sort of win-loss records that they posted in the Jordan years. The Pistons, in their current state, do not really have a full roster, so they will certainly need to address their issues of depth via free agency or trades.