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.
Monday, August 21, 2006
Wednesday, August 09, 2006
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)
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)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)