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.

Over the wall or down the line: Toughest plays in baseball (6-10)

I was mortified when espn's top play of the first half of 2006 was some hockey goal that I had never seen aired before, ever. The rest of the top 10 was rounded out by over 4 amazing catches by outfielders and an awkward play by a second baseman. Having read over a dozen Bill Simmons articles in the past week (work is exceedingly boring) and thanks to the provoking words of my buddy Unaiz I got to thinking about the toughest plays to be made in baseball. The infamous John Kruk believes that fielding is contagious and that players are always trying to “one up” their teammates. Well here’s a guide to determining just how much awe we should be showing for some of the tougher defensive plays in Baseball.

I’d also like to note that there are always exceptions to these rules. Anything done with bare hands or during the 9th inning (or any critical moment) gets extra bonus points. Also to be noted; I have no idea what bonus points are, just that they should be distributed them wisely.

We'll lead off with the 6-10:

10. Outfielder coming in
You've seen plenty of these plays on sportscenter or Baseball tonight, and they occur so often that you're only intrigued because it's always cool to see guy fly through the air. Frankly these plays aren't excessively hard. You are already charging, have a clear view of the ball, and have plenty of time to judge whether diving is necessary or not. The only danger is in allowing the ball to get passed you in your haste, which can lead to multiple extra bases for the hitter. These plays are equivalent to difficulty of leaping plays by infielders to snag line drives. A infielder merely requires a good vertical and an adequate sense of timing in order to rob a batter of a line drive single.

9. Ground ball to the right side
The second baseman and first baseman have the luxury of a short throw/run to first base. This play also applies to shortstops going up the middle who also benefit from their momentum carrying them in the direction of the throw. *One exception to this classification is the incredible play made by rookie Ozzie Smith (then with the Padres) who when diving to his left was caught off guard as the ball redirected itself (via rock). He reached back with his bare hand mid-dive and miraculously caught hold of the baseball. He then climbed to his feet and fired to first as if he had just fielded a simple grounder. Actually, anything Ozzie did defies all these rules, he was truly a spectacle to behold. Free Bonus Points for all Ozzie plays! (I’m remaining undecided as to whether Omar Vizquel deserves the same type of treatment.

8. Slow roller
Iguchi's tumbling play on a ball back up the middle cracked espn's top ten for this half year, as he threw the ball with his arm parallel to and only an inch above the ground. The more common version is seen on a bunt or nubber down the third base line that a third baseman must quickly field and hurl over to first. The best hot corner gunner that ever saw to exemplify this skill was Scott Brosius who never seemed to miss an opportunity to show off his big hands that would swoop down and cradle the ball before throwing the runner going running to first. Yea I know that sounded a little gay……I don’t care.

7. Line drive back at the pitcher
These pitchers are usually just trying to protect themselves let alone rob the hitter of a hit. To have the presence of mind to not only defend oneself but to knock down the ball and then throw out the hitter is something to be praised. The most memorable version of these plays is Terry Mulholland's impressive stab at a hard hit grounder back up the middle that proceeded to wedge itself within the webbing of his glove. Mulholland, quickly realizing his conundrum, jogged half way to first before lofting his entire glove to the first baseman for the out. Another amazing play was by Mike Stanton, (not the current lefty, but a 6'2" righty who only spent 7 brief seasons in the majors in the 80’s) who caught a line drive traveling a 100+ mph with his outstretched bare hand.

6. Outfielder to his side
These plays carry the equal risk of letting the ball get away and allowing the hitter a shot at a triple, but judging these shots is harder. From the crack of the bat you've got to decide whether to cut the ball off or risk going horizontally airborne in order to prevent the ball from reaching the outfielder fence. These plays are comparable to the diving plays made by infielders who have a shorter time to react but are not scorned if they miss because the result is often a single, or a double down the line at worst.

Page 2's Demise (Part 2): Scoop Jackson

The jury is still out on whether Scoop Jackson passed high school English.

Over a month ago Scoop Jackson wrote a phenomenal article detailing how Lebron James' experience w/the Pistons would help grow as both a player and as a person. The series was 2-0 at the time, and sure enough James and his crew battled (though ultimately unsuccessfully) and turned what was originally thought to be an easy sweep into one of the most entertaining series of the playoffs.

Since writing that article Jackson has spewed out multiple articles lacking any argumentative thesis or objective. He feels compelled to expand a one affirmative sentence statement into an entire page.

Following the James piece, Jackson wasted three pages of writing to essentially ask the question "who you wit?" to the general public in regards to whom they prefer of the dueling point guards: Steve Nash and Sam Cassell. Had he written on this matter before the start of the series I may have been able to accept this weak effort to forcibly establish a rivalry. Sadly Jackson was 4 games too late and anybody who hadn't been watching the series would not be roaming Page 2 for a play by play account of the point guards' accomplishments that could've easily been seen on sportscenter. Jackson then concludes his work by failing to provide the reader with any insight in to how the evidence he has provided should sway our leaning and who indeed has the upper edge. Not a single prediction or judgment is made, rather he ends with "Pick one. The choice is yours." Thanks Scoop I did that the moment I turned on TNT, I didn't need your assistance.

A little more than a week later Scoop began howling about the amazing finishes and struggles that we'd been witnesses to over the first 2 rounds of the playoffs. Jackson's entire article can be expressed in one sentence: "The playoffs have been thrilling so far and I hope the action doesn't slow down like it did after a many exciting rounds in the NCAA tournament." He sits around and says "what if" and "hopes". I'm sorry, but your petty little wishes are for discussions with your friends, and even during those arguments you would normally make some prediction? Perhaps you'd at least make it known whom you were rooting for? Nope, not Scoop.

On May 30th the sports gods cried as Page 2 published an article who's main topic was about Scoop Jackson's hair. His poor attempt to relate such an issue to rasheed and then to the Pistons failed miserably, as did his attempt to claim that he saw their collapse coming. "But after the Pistons' 89-78 loss, after they went down 3-1 in the Eastern Conference finals, I knew..." Was it really then? Not when the Pistons nearly blew a 2-0 deficit in the 2nd round to a team that didn't deserve to get out of the 1st. This man couldn't predict rain with a weather report.

"The Phoenix Suns either will not make the playoffs or finish seventh in the conference."
"The 76ers will win the Atlantic Division. The Kings will win the Pacific Division."
"The Detroit Pistons will finish fourth in the East."

Jackson finally grew a pair on June 7th when he engaged Eric Neel in a debate as to which team would win the NBA Finals. I felt Scoop had lost the debate, but the more important factor was that he had actually expressed his opinion for the first time in several months, and actually made a valid attempt to support his reasoning. Sadly five days later his Heat were down 2-0. So what does he do? Springs into support for the Mavs and writes another article that can be expressed in one sentence: "The Heat are in trouble because they've lost 2 games and Josh Howard hasn't scored 20 points yet, and we all know the Mavs are 23-0 when he does." Every word he typed I had heard 3 times on ABC's broadcast or in the daily boxscore.

It was only fitting that Howard score 20 in game 3, only to watch his D-Wade soar past him on his way to leading the Heat to their first victory in the series.

Frankly, I am tired of Scoop Jackson. I've only been watching basketball for two seasons and even I could have supplied better predictions for the playoffs and regular season. Page 2 needs to seriously reconsider their collection of writers. As for Scoop, he should be demoted to typing up game summaries for espn because that's essentially all he's doing. If you want to write for the most prestigious sports network in the world then do a couple of things: Learn how to write with a thesis, learn how to make an argument (and more importantly standby your view), don't switch topics mid-article without out sufficiently arguing the first, and stop dropping names and discussions you had with celebrities/sports stars to try and boost your credibility, cause in my mind, you have none.

The key to spotting busts in the MLB

Jerry Crasnick called out about half dozen so called "sluggers" today, all of whom are failing to produce the numbers expected of a cleanup hitter. These players include Jeromy Burnitz, Preston Wilson, Richie Sexson, Frank Thomas, Adrian Beltre, Cliff Floyd, and Rondell White. But are these disappointments really a surprise? Should we really be expecting better out of these players? GM's need to learn some basic rules about understanding statistics before throwing money at players that will ultimately fail to earn the millions dollars that they're getting.

Jeromy Burnitz:
I have detested this guy ever since the Mets made the move to get him. I'll give him credit, he can hit 30 home runs a year but that's the extent of his skills. He lacks any defensive skills and has minimal speed (don't quote me his 20 sb's in 97 cause he also got caught 13 times, and his sb/cs totals are an ugly 74/58). As for the hitting, never rely on a guy who can't consistently .260 and strikeouts out as often as he gets a hit. Players who lack the ability to put the ball in play will struggle far more often than contact hitters. DO NOT BUILD AROUND ALL OR NOTHING HITTERS (RULE #1).
Note: Everything I just said is applicable to Preston Wilson (except he actually can run) and Richie Sexson (who has slightly more power as a result of his 6-8 stature).


Franks Thomas:
I'll waste no time; DO NOT RELY ON INJURY RECOVERING VETERANS (RULE #2). This rule is even more important when the player is no longer physically fit (ie: Mo Vaughn). Thomas hasn't been a true offensive threat since 2000 and has battled through numerous injuries and significant weight gain since that time. Don't buy into this kind of player making a comeback, don't expect anything more than production you could just as easily get from one of your bench players.

Adrian Beltre:
A highly touted prospect who provided the dodgers with 5 and a half years of disappointment until what many obviously recognized as a fluke season in 2004. The Mariners sadly were not able to see through Beltre's facade and disobeyed RULE #3: DON'T MISTAKE A FLUKE SEASON FOR ACTUAL TALENT. Look for consistency in a player's performance, Beltre sudden transformation in after five years in the majors would clearly not last. Beltre's lack of talent was magnified when he moved from a hitters ballpark and division without pitching staffs, to a much larger park where he would have to face the aces of Oakland and Anaheim (not Los angeles or california or whatever district they are clinging to now) more than dozen times each.

Rondell White:
Never was a big hitter for the sole reason that he only had > 500 at bats twice in his career. The guy's various health problems make him the quintessential offensive tool off the bench. That being said, his numbers this season are shockingly poor, but the Twins should not be in a position where they are relying on aging player who is now on his 7th team in 8 years for big numbers. White's struggles reveal a trend more than a rule: When a player gets tossed around from team to team, and is unable to settle into any clubhouse or grove, his numbers will suffer. A player needs one hitting (or pitching, or bench, etc.) coach whispering in his ear, not half a dozen. Cliff Floyd sadly endured the same difficulties and his hoping from team to team (which was not his fault) may be the cause of his collapse.

Aramis Ramirez:
Frankly I don't understand this kid. His ability to hit one season but not the next is something I've never witnessed. Frankly, if a player's average is deviating over 20 points every year, you shouldn't be giving him more than 10 million dollars. (Rule #4) DON'T INVEST MAJOR MONEY UNLESS YOU ARE POSITIVE THE PLAYER WILL PERFORM ACCORDINGLY. Wanna know why the Cubs haven't made an effort to support their pitching staff or lineup in the past few off-seasons or possibly dedicated a little more money to the medical staff? Because they gave all their money to Ramirez, and now have to suffer while they watch him fail to fill the shows of Derek Lee.

They major message is to look for consistency in performance. If you wanna take a risk in a streaky player like Ramirez or White, don't make him the centerpiece of your offense and certainly don't sacrifice a significant portion of your budget to obtain him.

NBA Draft Analysis

Welcome welcome!
The 2006 NBA Draft class, much as I hate to say it, is currently projecting to be one of the weaker draft classes in recent memory. Not every draft can be 2003 of course, but this draft has little depth and suffers from the lack of talent that would be available if not for the latest early-entry draft rule. I am currently working on an extensive analysis of the 2006 draft, and I will ultimately reveal who I consider to be the top 60 talents available (regardless of position and team needs). For now, however, I will start by analyzing some of the most important players in this year's draft, based on how they produced for their college teams. Next to player names in parentheses I will include his stats scaled to 32 minutes and average team game pace (some teams play much slower or faster than others, skewing their players' statistics)

Tyrus Thomas, F, LSU (14.7 pts, 11 rbs, 3.7 blks, 1.2 stls, .608 fg%)
The word on Thomas is that he's raw, but with a lot of upside. Normally, this sort of language makes me wince, but in this case, it makes me fairly certain that Tyrus Thomas is a worthy #1 overall choice. Obviously, his great NCAA Tournament performance brought him into the national spotlight, and his impact on the tournament, especially on the defensive end, was certainly #1-pick worthy. If he was able to play so well on college basketball's biggest stage, can he really be considered undeveloped? I say he's already ready to play in the NBA. His surface numbers don't look amazing (12.3 ppg, 9.2 rpg), but one must remember that Thomas only played 25.9 minutes per game. Scaled to 32 minutes per game (non pace-adjusted), Thomas comes out with averages of 15.2 points, 11.4 rebounds, a whopping 3.8 blocks, a .608 field goal percentage, and 1.2 steals for good measure. Add in the fact that he's only 19 years old, and I feel very good about his future.

LaMarcus Aldridge, F, Texas (14.4 pts, 8.8 rbs, 2 blks, 1.4 stls, .569 fg%)
To me, Aldridge, despite supposedly having more of an offensive game than Thomas, is not anywhere near as far along. Aldridge is considered to be a talented player, but potentially soft, and his weak rebounding numbers seem to back that assertion up. The rebounding is definitely a concern as rebounding is the one statistic that has a very strong correlation between college and the NBA. If Aldridge is only able to average 6-7 rebounds a game in the NBA, as his numbers suggest, he will lose a lot of his potential value. He is only a sophomore, so is still worth a high pick for the benefits of his upside, but I don't feel that he has proven himself to be an elite college player as Thomas already has. As far as I'm concerned, Thomas basically has proven himself to be a better player than Aldridge in every way. Let's not forget that in their head-to-head matchup in the Elite 8, Thomas posted 21 points and 13 rebounds on 10-14 shooting, while Aldridge had 4 points on a woeful 2-14 shooting. One game is a small sample size, but Thomas clearly dominated all the same.

Adam Morrison, F, Gonzaga (24 pts, 4.7 rbs, 1.5 asts, .496 fg%, .428 3p%)
If Adam Morrison played for another West Coast Conference team like Pepperdine, instead of media darling Gonzaga, would he be considered anywhere near a top 3 pick? A lot of players have scored a lot in non-major conferences and not had much to show for it after their college careers were over. In Morrison's case, I do think that he is better than the average player who racks up big numbers against mediocre competition, because after all, he did have some of his biggest scoring nights against teams like Michigan State and Washington. Yet if one were to downgrade his numbers even a small amount for playing half his games against West Coast teams, he wouldn't have much going for him. I like to see versatility in college prospects, but his game consists solely of scoring. Subjectively, I think he's a player with a lot of heart and desire, and a player that will be able to find a role for himself on an NBA team, but his college numbers pale against those of the man he is often compared to, Larry Bird. Bird averaged 14.9 rebounds per game in college, as well as over 5 assists per game. That kind of versatility points to a star. A player like Morrison will have a much tougher going of it.

Brandon Roy, G, Washington (18.9 pts, 5.2 rbs, 3.8 asts, .508 fg%, .402 3p%)
Brandon Roy may be the best guard in this draft, and the reason is his versatility. Although he does not score as much as Morrison, his shooting percentages are excellent, he rebounds more (despite being a shooting guard), and also has great passing numbers. His actual numbers look even better than the stats I have listed (20.2 pts, 5.6 rbs, 4.1 asts), but Washington is one of the faster teams in the country. Although I don't necessarily forecast Roy to be a star, he is a polished, athletic guard who will be able to contribute to an NBA team in any number of ways, making him worth a top 5 pick in my book.

Rudy Gay, F, Connecticut (14.8 pts, 6.3 rbs, 1.6 blks, 1.8 stls, .461 fg%, .318 3p%)
What you hear about Rudy Gay is basically all true. Wildly talented, but hasn't shown an ability to dominate, to raise his game. His stats reveal a solid player, but not an outstanding one. He is still young (only a sophomore), but I would feel a lot better about his chances if he had shown any kind of ability to dominate the college game. What interests me about Gay is that he seems to be the quintessential 'upside trap' player, the player who never cashes in on his upside because he was never that great of a basketball player to begin with. Being an athlete and being a good NBA player ultimately are two different things. One helps the other, but I would still rather take a solid athlete who knows how to play good basketball than an outstanding athlete who is still learning the game. However, every analyst knows that Gay is an 'upside trap' player. Almost every article written about Gay says this, and all I'm doing is adding to the chorus If this is agreed upon, then why is he still considered to be a top 5 pick? To me, his inability to take over the college game is enough of a red flag that I wouldn't take him until at least after the first 10 picks.

JJ Redick, G, Duke (21.7 pts, 2.1 asts, 1.6 rbs, 1.1 stls, .470 fg%, .421 3p%)
I won't rag on JJ too much considering that his draft stock has fallen off quite a bit, but I don't really see him being anything more than a spot shooter in the NBA. He has zero versatility (look at his horrific rebounding in particular), and his scoring numbers don't look near as impressive if you adjust for the fact that he played 37 minutes per game for a fast-paced team. He may fall under the so-called Dukie curse, but most of the curse stems from the fact that a lot of Dukies' college exploits are overrated. What really interests me about JJ is that he was not the only big major-conference scorer in the NCAA this year, and his counterpart had a far better season, albeit for an also-ran. That player is:

Quincy Douby, G, Rutgers (23 pts, 2.5 asts, 3.9 rbs, 1.6 stls, .462 fg%, .401 3p%)
Douby quietly averaged 25.4 points per game this season, not far behind Redick's 26.8 number, and as shown in the stats line next to his name, he was actually a more potent scorer on a per possession basis. Yet despite scoring even more than Redick, he had superior numbers in terms of assists, rebounds (significantly so), and steals, and was only a little bit behind in terms of shooting percentages. To go even further, Douby is a year younger than Redick, and much as Tyrus Thomas was better than LaMarcus Aldridge in every way, Quincy Douby had a substantially better season than national player of the year JJ Redick.

Well, that's all for now. College numbers aren't a perfect predictor of NBA success, but they are more reliable than a lot of people suspect. The flaw in translating college success to pro success is usually not in the numbers, but in interpretation of the numbers. Better indicators of a player's skill than high scoring averages are his versatility (how he contributes in the triple-double categories) and blocks/steals rates (an indicator of athleticism). I will come back to this topic near NBA draft time in order to reveal my personal Big Board.

Page 2's demise

Page 2. I once revered this section as a comical delight. The writers provided a comedic twist on the sports world that was more daring than the generic breed of writers (that is not to say they were without restrictions but there was a sense of greater freedom). With the growing number of pieces restricted to insider, I've spent more time on Page 2, but have been supremely disappointed by the work of multiple writers.

Part 1: Patrick Hruby's assault on Bonds
I hate Bonds. Steroid user. Racist. Abusive figure that pretends to be a victim. When Page 2 responded to his 714th round tripper I was thrilled. They had done what every statisician dreams of doing in the wake of Bonds' outright cheating: determine Bonds' true home run total without the cream, gel, juice, and whatever other substances entered Barry's system.

Research with steroid and physics specialists, equations and numerical computations...Patrick Hruby was on his way to becoming my hero until numbers don't start matching up. He calls 16% and 22% "in the same ballpark" and somehow considers this massive discrepency negligible.

Then to validify his sub-totals, Hruby approaches Bonds' homers from an aging perspective as opposed to the strength and stamina angle. Surely his calculations will correspond and confirm the numbers that he is essentially deriving straight out of thin. Then out come the two totals: 69 and 83 which is "pretty close".

To utterly erase any shred of authority that article was clinging to, Hruby then pulls a number right out of his ass to signify the number of home runs that we generated as a result of the confidence boost Bonds' enjoyed while using steroids. 15 home runs should be erased (three per year) according to Hruby (who is an expert in what) and one scout's comments on confidence.

Hruby go back to your little useless daily dimes; you should leave the numbers to the big boys. Your statisical approach was abismal and ultimately was a disgrace to guys like Tim Kurkjian and Alan Schwarz, who aren't directly affiliated with any statisical organization but still successfully incoporate numbers into their articles on ESPN.