Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Why Does MLB Reward the Wild Card?

I am not the "Baseball Guy" that Slut is, but this is one issue that has really irked me for a while.

Can someone tell me why the fuck MLB does not allow a Wild Card team to play the team with the best record when they are from the same division? Anyone? For some godforsaken reason, the powers that be at MLB have decreed that teams from the same division cannot play in the Divisional Series.

Yes, those teams would have played each other more than they have played the other teams in the playoffs, but why should that prevent them from playing in the Divisional Series?

For this year's playoffs the Cubs finished with the best record in the National League. They have earned the right to play the Wild Card team, the Milwaukee Brewers. But the Cubs do not get to play the Brewers, they get to play the Los Angeles Dodgers because the Brewers and Cubs are both in the Central Division. OK, in this year's case, the NL West winning Dodgers have a worse record (84-78) than the Brewers (90-72). But this rant is not the the Cubs have to play the Dodgers. My rant is that the Brewers get a break from playing the team with the best record and get to play the #2 team, the Philadelphia Phillies.

The same thing happened in last year's playoffs. The Colorado Rockies won the Wild Card playoff game against San Diego and since the Arizona Diamondbacks finished with the best record in the NL, the Rockies got to face the Phillies instead. The Rockies still beat the D'backs in the NLCS and went to the World Series. The results may not have been any different if the Rockies had to face the D'backs in the NLDS first, but they should have played the best team first!

At least one Wild Card team has made it to the World Series each of the past six years and eight out of the 13 years, with four of them winning the Series. Of those Wild Card teams that made it to the World Series, six of those were a Wild Card from the same division as the team with the best record. Here is a listing of the Wild Card teams that made it to the World Series and the results since the inception of the Wild Card in '95.

2007 - Colorado Rockies* - Lost
2006 - Detroit Tigers - Lost
2005 - Houston Astros* - Lost
2004 - Boston Red Sox* - Won
2003 - Florida Marlins* - Won
2002 - Anaheim Angels* - Won; San Francisco Giants - Lost
2001 - None
2000 - New York Mets - Lost
1999 - None
1998 - None
1997 - Florida Marlins* - Won
1996 - None
1995 - None

* - Wild Card from same division as team with best record in league.

Please note that the four teams that won the World Series were all Wild Cards teams that got to play the second-best team in the Divisional Series.

Yes, once you make the playoffs it is a whole new season and it is more of a matter which team is hotter or better at that time. Does this necessarily mean that the Wild Card teams have an easier path to the Series? The results seem to show this could be true, but obviously there are other factors that affect the results. But why do we give the Wild Card team a reward of the second-best team in their league and sometimes punish the team with the best records with the #3 team?

Can you imagine the NFL having a rule stating that during the Wild Card playoff round that the #3 team cannot play the #6 team if they are from the same division and would have to play the #5 team instead? Fuck no! The #3 team earned the right to play the #6 team. Who cares if they are from the same fucking division.

Come on, people! If baseball can actually institute instant replay into baseball may they can take there heads out of their asses again long enough to have the Wild Card play the team with the best record.

Labels: , ,

Monday, September 29, 2008

Why Kornheiser Sucks

It's week 4 of the NFL season, yet Tony Kornheiser has somehow gone unscathed on this blog. You know Tony Kornheiser, right? He's the extra guy in the Monday Night Football booth on ESPN, joining Mike Tirico and Ron Jaworski.

It's pretty much understood that anyone who pays attention to such things thinks Kornheiser sucks (who would actually pay attention to such things?). In his two-plus seasons of being the third wheel in the MNF booth, Kornheiser has told unfunny and pointless jokes, been confused about the game he was watching, and has not understood how real play-by-play people get and use background information for the game.

Tonight's Kornheiser moment involves the third example. In the first quarter of the Ravens/Steelers game, Kornheiser tried to interject some background info about Steelers rookie running back Rashard Mendenhall by saying, "I think this is right--Mendenhall is the first running back taken in the first round by the Steelers in something like 19 years."

This statement is correct--I knew without having to look it up. Why did I know? Because as he was finishing the sentence, the ESPN on-screen graphic showed the exact same statistic.

Normally, not much of an issue, except the same thing happened last week during the Chargers/Jets game: after Favre threw his first touchdown pass, Kornheiser threw this in: "I don't want to get this wrong, but I think that was Favre's 95th touchdown pass of less than 5 yards, which is an NFL record." Again, just as he was finishing the statement, the on-screen graphic showed the same stat.

What to make of this? It seems pretty obvious to me that Kornheiser is too lazy to either a) do this research himself, like he's supposed to do, or b) write everything down in a usable form to quickly and reliably access on the air. I think Kornheiser is cherry-picking his stats from a producer or spotter; basically, that person does all the prep work and Kornheiser just picks one stat and copies it. The tip-off is Kornheiser's preface each time he uses something: if he had done the research himself and prepared relevant notes, he'd know the stat was a good one. I mean, for something like $1.8 million a year, preparation would be the least the fucktard could do, yes?

More Kornheiser fun from the same game: late in the first half, the Steelers faithful voiced their displeasure over the poor offensive showing by booing (not just a few boos--a full chorus). Kornheiser's observation: "Those are boos you're hearing, folks." Ah, great analysis there.

At least he's consistent. And by consistent, I mean a piece of poo.


P.S. And if I hear Chris Berman fucking quote "Maggie May" one more time on ESPN during NFL highlights, I will kill something.

Labels: , , , , ,

Sunday, September 28, 2008

When In Doubt, Shut Up

You may or may not be familiar with what Matt Bryant has had to deal with this week. Bryant is the kicker for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and his 3-month old son died earlier this week. Obviously, it's a terrible tragedy, and our thoughts go out to Matt and his wife.

Bryant played today in the Bucs' game against Green Bay. With Tampa trailing late in the game, Bryant hit a field goal to put the Bucs up 23-21. Color analyst Daryl Johnston, doing the game for Fox, had this to say:

"Hollywood couldn't write a better story. To deal with this type of adversity and overcome it is just tremendous."

Look, I think it's commendable that Bryant played and was able to play well. I'm sure it was difficult for him. But I don't think that playing well today is "overcoming adversity" in the sense that it's not really what Bryant was concentrating on. I mean, is it going to change his life all that much for the better? Clearly, he has more important things to think about and deal with right now. I'm sure football is a welcome diversion, but probably isn't his biggest priority. His hitting the field goal wasn't as much a triumph for him as it was a way for him to have some distraction from his grief (if that's possible).

And what kind of Hollywood story would this be? His son is still gone. Would anyone want to see a movie where a kicker loses his son, but then kicks a field goal in a week 4 regular season game? Is that a happy ending? I don't think so. The most important thing here is not Bryant making the field goal, obviously--it's the loss of his son.

I know Johnston was trying to be supportive. But if announcers insist on using stupid cliches, they should at least think a little bit before they open their mouths. While this wasn't the most insensitive thing Johnston could have said, it's shows how announcers overstate things--in this case, the importance of the field goal versus the events happening off the field.

Bryant's story speaks for itself. Perhaps Johnston should have let it.

Labels: , ,

John Kruk Has a Walnut-sized Brain

As the major-league baseball regular season comes to a close (one make-up game notwithstanding), we are treated to a special edition of Baseball Tonight on ESPN. At one point when I flipped over from the Bears/Eagles game (during a commercial, of course), John Kruk had this to say about Carlos Zambrano of the Cubs (I'm paraphrasing):

What I can't believe is the Cubs let Zambrano complete the no-hitter against the Astros. He was only scheduled to throw 80 pitches that night, but because of the no-hitter, he ended up throwing something like 120 pitches. I don't understand why the Cubs put the individual before the team. He shouldn't have been allowed to stay in that game--he hasn't been the same pitcher since then.

First off, this story quotes Cubs' manager Lou Piniella as saying he planned on using Zambrano for 90 pitches or so. Zambrano finished with exactly 110 pitches. So, Krukkie, if you're going to make this point, at least start by getting your facts straight.

The main issue with Kruk's statement is the idea that Zambrano "hasn't been the same pitcher" since the no-hitter. Zambrano threw the no-hitter on Sept. 14. Because of some arm soreness, he was held out of a start and hadn't pitched in 12 days. So there has been legitimate concern about Zambrano's health.

But in the case of Zambrano "not being the same pitcher," he actually has been the same pitcher. In his two starts before the no-hitter, Zambrano's combined stats are 9.3 IP, 13 H, 9 ER, 7 BB, and an 8.68 ERA. In other words, he was shelled like Iwo Jima. In his two starts after the no-hitter: 6.3 IP, 9 H, 13 ER, 7 BB, 18.57 ERA. In those starts, he was recreating the "shock and awe" campaign in 2003 Baghdad.

My point is that Zambrano has been exactly the same pitcher since the no-hitter as he was in the starts leading up to it. And remember that the no-hitter came against the Houston Astros, in a game moved to Milwaukee because of Hurricane Ike. It wasn't decided that the game would be played there until the day before; as a result, the Astros didn't get in to Milwaukee until early in the morning of the game. Add to this the stress the players were feeling about the hurricane and their families' safety, and it's possible that I may have been able to toss a few scoreless innings against them.

The idea that Zambrano throwing 110 pitches instead of a scheduled 90 in the no-hitter has made him a bad pitcher late in the season is just silly. Zambrano had his problems before the no-hitter, and he seems to still have those problems. That doesn't bode well for the Cubs as they enter the playoffs, but Zambrano's no-hitter has nothing to do with it. Of course, Kruk needed something to talk about concerning Zambrano, so he said the first thing that he could think of.

Actually, it was probably the second thing he thought of. The first was, "me like candy."

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, September 27, 2008

Sometimes It's Just Too Easy

An old article from our good friend, Murray Chass (and by good friend, I mean douchebag):

Rays Feeling A Red Sox Rush
By Murray Chass

I love that on a blog entitled "Murray Chass On Baseball," Murray feels it necessary to add a byline to his posts, even though he's the only one who writes for his OWN blog.

By now, you should realize that the Red Sox are going to win the American League East title and finish in first place for a second successive season for the first time since 1916.

Yes, of course--I'm sure you're right.

Or not.

Let me be fair. The main point of this post is not to point out a prediction that Chass got wrong in an article written two weeks ago (though that is fun). There is some other garbage in the article, too. We'll get to that. I am, however, going to make fun of his prediction a little more.

The Tampa Bay Rays have waged a scrappy, valiant fight for first, occupying the top spot since June 28 except for five days around the All-Star break and only one day when they played a game. It would be nice to have them rewarded for a surprising, stupendous season, but even after beating the Red Sox twice this week they seem to be ready to have Boston overtake them.

For fuck's sake--what a shitty sentence. "...occupying the top spot since June 28 except for five days around the All-Star break and only one day when they played a game." It's like a five year-old trying to make an argument: "...mom said I could go outside and get some ice cream and climb on a ladder and go over to Harold's house and look at his dad's dirty magazines and watch reruns of Bosom Buddies and then come home and have a cookie."

Okay, maybe it's an argument for someone a little older than five. Maybe six.
And what the fuck does "they seem ready to have Boston overtake them" mean? At the time, the Rays were holding their own against the Red Sox. Perhaps this is what Chass imagined:
Rays clubhouse after a game. Manager Joe Maddon has called his team in for a meeting.
Maddon: "Guys, we've done a great job all year. Our pitching's been great, we've had enough hitting to win games, the younger players have done very well. Now I think we're ready to take that next step--to have Boston overtake us in the standings. We've been waiting for just the right moment, and since we've been in first place since June 28 except for five days around the All-Star break and only one day when we've played a game, I think now is the time. We're ready."
B.J. Upton: "But coach, shouldn't we keep trying to win?"
Maddon: "No, we're ready to have Boston overtake us. That means we have to start losing."
Carlos Pena: "We just beat Boston. We're still in first. We can actually win the division!"
Maddon: "You guys don't get it. We're not just playing for us; we're playing for Murray Chass. And he says we're ready to have Boston overtake us. He's right--we weren't ready in August when we had the big lead. NOW we're ready. So stop winning."
(Maddon leaves room, goes to his office to look at dirty magazines).

By now, you should also realize that the Yankees aren’t going to make the playoffs for the first time since 1993, their 13-year American League record run going down in flames. Unlike the Red Sox, the Yankees haven’t stayed close enough to the Rays to overtake them for the wild card.

No, because the Yankees would have had to overtake the Red Sox for the wild card, not the Rays. The Rays were ahead of the Red Sox at the time.

Chass got it right about the Yankees, but even Anne Frank could see that by the time this article was written.

As the Red Sox and the Yankees have shown, a team can make up a 5½-game deficit in the last month of the season (see 1978).

Fuck the heck? Are you kidding me? We need to go all the way back to 1978 to see an example of a team making up a 5 1/2-game deficit in the final month??? Just because it was the Yankees overtaking the Red Sox? Is that the only fucking time this has happened? Gosh, I can't think of any other time--oh, wait--last goddamn year it happened twice: the Phillies erased a 7-game deficit to overtake the Mets in the final 17 days, while the Rockies won something like 1463 games in a row at the end of the season to make the playoffs (note: I may be exaggerating the number of games the Rockies won in a row, but I'm sure I'm within 1450 of the actual number).

Again, do we really have to go back 30 years for the best example? How about 1987, when the Blue Jays lost seven in a row in the final week to lose the division to the Tigers? How about 1995, when the Angels blew a 9 game division lead and an 11 game lead in the wild card over the final five weeks of the season?

Why does Chass use 1978? Because it involved the Red Sox and Yankees, so therefore it was more meaningful than the other collapses. Presumably, every one cares about the AL East and the Red Sox/Yankees rivalry more than anything else regarding baseball.

I'm using Chass as the example, but he's hardly alone here. Most of the national media ram the Boston/New York thing down our throats all season. When the Red Sox and Yankees play, forget seeing anybody else on Sunday Night Baseball--in fact, the first series they play in a season, ESPN usually shows two out of three games, with the Saturday game being the national game on FOX (assuming it's a weekend series).

This was never more evident than last Sunday night's Yankee Stadium Lovefest on ESPN. Despite neither team being in playoff contention, ESPN chose to air the final game at Yankee Stadium (Yanks/Orioles) rather than a game with playoff implications. Obviously, the network chose to do this because it was the last regular season game at the Stadium. I suppose that makes sense. However, ESPN went way over the top with it. It's true--because of all the championships and the legendary players (Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle, DiMaggio), Yankee Stadium does have the richest history of any ballpark. It's closing is a huge story. But on a night after a full day of NFL games and some good pennant-race baseball matchups, the lead on SportsCenter was the closing of Yankee Stadium! This, right after the game had aired for 4 hours on the channel! As much as I appreciate baseball history (which is quite a bit), this was unwarranted given the other sports news that happened Sunday.

I get that the Yankees and Red Sox get higher ratings on ESPN, so we'll see them more often. I understand the business of it and the myopic view TV programmers get when making decisions. The one thing that ESPN programmers don't factor in to their decisions is that some of the higher rating for the Red Sox/Yankees is inflated because that's all ESPN ever shows. If ESPN would do a better job of exposing some of the other teams in baseball on a regular basis, that would help fans in other areas of the country get to know those teams. Of course, that doesn't mean that ESPN should show a game between two last place teams just to get them on the air. But a Tampa Bay/Minnesota matchup would have been very appropriate this year, given that they were both at or near the top of their respective divisions all year. However, ESPN is on the east coast, and they want the short term ratings boost. So no small-market teams, and more Yankees/Red Sox.

The rest of the Chass article (yes, I was critiquing an article, remember?) is just a poorly-written look at why Boston would end up in first place. For an article that mentions the Rays in the headline, he hardly talks about them at all. But he does go on to write more about the Yankees, even though the headline seems to indicate the article isn't about them.

It seems that Chass, like many others who cover baseball, just can't see past the Red Sox and Yankees--even when the story of the year is standing right in front him.

Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Friday, September 26, 2008

USC + OSU + MSNBC = WRONG

Always remember to save when you update your work. And if you update your work, make sure the final version is correct! From the headlines on MSNBC at 1:30 am:


USC's run to the BCS championship game hits a major roadblock with a loss to unranked Oregon State, 27-14.



And from the Sports section further down the page:

USC's run to the BCS championship game just hit a major roadblock. The No. 1 ranked Trojans were stunned by unranked Oregon State, 27-14, on Thursday.
As we all know at this point, Oregon State defeated USC 27-21 last night! Did we update the headline and forget to update the score? The linked articles are reference the correct scores, but those are from the AP, not MSNBC.

If you want to screw up, at least do it in a BIG way. I'm sure this will be corrected by morning, so most of the world will not realize how stupid and lazy they are. I guess there are no editors at MSNBC overnights. Or they may be hiring some soon?

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

50 is the new 40!

Wow, our 50th post! Who would have thought our little idea would turn into this?

For our little milestone, I am calling back to Kringlebert's first post regarding the egregious error put upon us by the Colts Indianapolis in both the former RCA Dome and now in the brand-spanking new Lucas Oil Stadium. I have checked the layout for each stadium and here are the results. (Yes, I evidently did have too much time on my hands at work today.)

Team - Left End Zone - Right End Zone (as seen on TV)
1. Jacksonville - Jacksonville Jaguars - Jacksonville Jaguars
2. Tennessee - Titans - Titans
3. Houston - Texans - Texans
4. New England - Patriots - Patriots
5. Miami - Dolphins - Dolphins
6. NY Jets - Jets - Jets
7. Buffalo - Bills - Bills
8. Pittsburgh - None - None
9. Denver - Broncos - Broncos
10. Whale's Vagina - San Diego - Chargers
11. Oakland - Oakland - Raiders
12. Kansas City - Chiefs - Chefs (Great Googly Moogly!)
13. Dallas - Cowboys - Cowboys
14. Philadelphia - Eagles - Eagles
15. NY Giants - Giants - Giants
16. Washington - Redskins - Redskins
17. Green Bay - None - None
18. Detroit - Lions - Lions
19. Minnesota - Vikings - Vikings
20. Chicago - Chicago - Bears
21. Tampa Bay - Buccaneers - Buccaneers
22. Carolina - Carolina - Panthers
23. Atlanta - Falcons - Falcons
24. New Orleans - Saints - Saints
25. San Francisco - 49ers - 49ers
26. St. Louis - Rams - Rams
27. Seattle - Seahawks - Seahawks
28. Arizona - Arizona - Cardinals
29. Baltimore - Ravens - Ravens
30. Cleveland - Browns - Browns
31. Cincinnati - Bengals - Bengals
32. Indianapolis - Colts - Indianapolis!!!!!!!!!

Kringlebert was correct in that every other team in NFL has either the City - Team Name, the Team Name in both end zones or, in the case of Pittsburgh and Green Bay, nothing. It really makes sense to do it that way, don't you think?

All I can think of is that Jim Irsay's suite is on the opposite side of the field and he likes to read Indianapolis Colts from that side of the stadium. No? Maybe they just wanted to different? Or, maybe they thought the TV cameras were going to be on the other side of the stadium?

No, I think it is just plain ol' Hoosier stupidity at work here. We "hicks" ain't into that there grammar stuff. Hell, we couldn't build anything in Indianapolis taller than the monument on Monument Circle until what, the 70's?

Let's fucking get it right, people!

Oh, and by the way, Kringlebert, it's OK to fucking curse on this website...unless you think your mom will be reading this.

Labels: , ,

Tuesday, September 23, 2008

XL Error

I enjoy rooting for the underdog a lot of the time. Since WFNI 1070 am started as a all-sports radio station, my XL 950 am sports station is a distant third for sports radio stations in a medium-sized market. I think they have a much better afternoon show (The Zone with Rake & Woch) than 1070's Kravitz and Eddie, but that just my personal opinion.

However, they are not doing themselves any favors on their website with little blurbs like this one:

Crunch Time

The Indiana Fever forced a Game 3 with a thrilling 98-92 overtime win in Detroit on Sunday. They'll have to repeat that feat tonight if they want to continue playing basketball this season. The deciding game of the best-of-three WNBA Playoff series between the Shock and Fever takes place tonight from the Palace. Detroit has knocked Indiana out of the playoffs the last two seasons. The winner of tonight's game will advance to take on Connecticut in the Eastern Conference Finals.

Nothing really wrong with this paragraph. It gives me all of the pieces of information I needed to know - Game 2 score, forcing a Game 3, the fact Detroit has knocked the Fever out the past two seasons, etc. There is only one, small problem with this blurb.

THE CONNECTICUT SUN ARE NOT IN THE WNBA EASTERN CONFERENCE FINALS!!!!

The Sun were knocked out last night by the New York Liberty, you 'tards! I'm not a real fan of the WNBA, but I do passively root for the home team. Just by parsing through the sports pages online I was able to notice that the Sun lost last night and were eliminated from the playoffs.

You work at a sports-centric job. How the hell do you make this error? I think I know who maintains the website and this person is from Connecticut. I'm guessing he was asleep at the wheel while writing this.

I was hoping my guys would be able to keep themselves off our site, but I can't give them a pass on this one.

Labels: , , ,

Monday, September 22, 2008

The Objective Is To Be Objective

There has been a lot of attention given lately to NFL officiating. Last week, we had the now infamous Ed Hochuli blown incomplete pass call in the San Diego/Denver game. This past Sunday, there were a few questionable calls in the Indianapolis/Jacksonville game.

The call getting the most attention was made late in the game. Facing 4th and 1 with :28 seconds left, Jacksonville QB David Garrard threw a short pass that went incomplete. However, Colts LB Freddy Keiaho was called for pass interference. You can see the call at the 1:57 mark of the video below:




In breaking down the call, Keiaho makes contact with Williams after the ball was thrown (and more than five yards from the line of scrimmage, but that's actually a moot point). Williams was making a play on the ball; Keiaho was not. That, by all definitions, is pass interference. Period. If Keiaho was somehow making a play on the ball when contact had happened, it would not have been interference. But he wasn’t, and it was.

Almost all members of the Indianapolis media have been crying bloody murder over the call. Bobby Kravitz calls it a "garbage call," Anthony Calhoun and the knuckle-dragger doing analysis on Sunday night's WISH-TV Sportslocker implied the officials made the call despite knowing it was wrong, and WRTV-6's Dave Furst and Kip Lewis both questioned what the officials were looking at. And none of them used any kind of reasonable analysis to argue why it was a bad call; it was simply a bad call because it went against the Colts.

How can all of the sports media people in Indianapolis think it's a bad call, when other media analysts think it was a good call? It's easy: the Indianapolis sports media allow their rooting for the home team to get in the way of their objectivity. That's unacceptable.

This isn't about rooting for your team. You can root for a team and still be objective in your analysis of your team's play or of the officiating. As a fan, it would be ideal to not let your enthusiasm get in the way of objectivity when it comes to officials' calls, but that's probably too much to ask of the normal fan. And that's okay--we're fans, after all.

But sports anchors and reporters shouldn't be rooting for the home teams to begin with. I understand why they do it (ratings), but it really brings their credibility into question when their biases prevent them from doing any meaningful analysis. This goes beyond the games themselves--what happens when the story becomes more like real news (for example, Ed Johnson's arrest and subsequent release)? How can you take a reporter seriously when he or she can't be objective about a relatively simple call in a football game?

That being said, the biggest issue though is just simple accuracy. A reporter's main goal--whether he or she focuses on news or sports--should be getting the story right. And the Indianapolis sports media have failed in this by allowing their misinformed opinions to get in the way of accuracy.

And to conclude, in my opinion the interception returned for a touchdown by Rashean Mathis earlier in the game was definitely pass interference. Replays clearly showed Mathis grabbing Marvin Harrison's jersey, which helped in making the play. Those in the media who have used the replay as evidence on this bad "no call" are doing exactly what they should be doing. They just need to apply that standard to good calls that don't go the Colts' way.

Labels: , , , , ,

It's Not the Team, It's Your Writing

Sadly, the Dolts lost yesterday. Doubly sad, we have another Bob Kravitz article to read today. Oh well. I’ll make myself happy by letting Bobby know his writing is crappier than the Colts performances this year.

It's not the call that should worry fans; it's the team

There will be crying and moaning about the late pass interference call, justifiable crying and moaning about a penalty flag that was thrown several seconds after the alleged offense.

Mostly from you, I imagine. I can remember a few dozen instances when it has taken a few seconds for a flag to be thrown by an official. Maybe he just couldn’t his hand on it.

Yes, it was a garbage call. Yes, the NFL owes the Indianapolis Colts an explanation, something the yellow-dog officials Sunday wouldn't do no matter how many times Colts coach Tony Dungy requested an audience during timeouts.

It was not a garbage call, but I would agree it was the wrong call, but we’ll get into that later. Ed Hochuli is one of the few officials who seem to be willing to admit he was wrong.

That said, the Colts didn't deserve to win this game. They just didn't. And the Colts, 23-21 losers to the Jacksonville Jaguars, knew the ugly truth better than anyone.

Win this game?


Well, the Colts were a “Steve Perry” psyche-out away from winning the game. You could also argue that the Colts should not have won last week either, and yet, they did.

Not when the defense gives up 236 yards rushing. The Jaguars didn't even try subterfuge; they simply lined up, told the Colts they were running and then ran through them.

The Colts have given up 200+ yards rushing in a game and still won. The 236 yards rushing is not the biggest problem. It was the 2nd half time of possession in which the Jaguars had the ball for 26 minutes while the Colts had it for only four minutes. FOUR FUCKING MINUTES!!!!!!

No wonder the Jaguars were running all over us. The defense practically lived on the field.

The Colts didn't tackle. They didn't wrap up. On one run, Fred Taylor, who's at least 60 years old by now, broke no less than four tackles on an ESPY-worthy run. They didn't "win their gaps,'' in the parlance of NFL defenses. The defensive linemen got pushed around, and the linebackers and secondary looked hapless against Jacksonville's runners.

Win this game?

Sadly, this has been an ongoing problem with the Colts for many years and it always seems to flare up when Bob Sanders is not on the field. We have a “speedy” but undersized D-line. It can work great for passing offenses, but many run-based offenses just seem to run over us. The draw play kills us too many times every game and then still send Freeney and Mathis every time.

Not when Peyton Manning throws two interceptions, including one that was returned for a touchdown. On that play, the Colts had a case that Jacksonville's Rashean Mathis grabbed Marvin Harrison's jersey before making the pickoff. On the other interception, though, it was all on Manning, a bad decision and a bad throw.

Win this game?

Peyton has had eight games in the past four seasons where he has had two or more interceptions. Amazingly, the Colts have won four of those eight, including the 15-6 victory over the Baltimore Ravens en route to the Super Bowl. I’m sure Kravitz had no way of looking up that information. Hell, the Colts nearly beat the Chargers last year after Peyton threw six interceptions in a game.

Not when the defense is giving up 8-of-14 third-down conversions, an obscene number against an offensively challenged team. With or without All-Pro safety Bob Sanders, that can't happen.

Win this game?


The Colts defense was lacking again with a 57% third-down conversion rate. But the Colts offense was 5 of 9 in third downs or 55%. That’s pretty close if you ask me. It’s not good when you allow a team to convert that many third downs, but since we were statistically that close, it is not inconceivable that we could not have won.

Not when the Colts offense had a chance to bleed the clock, or at least force Jacksonville to burn timeouts, with first-and-goal at the Jacksonville 2-yard line with 1:23 remaining. The Colts passed twice before giving it to Joseph Addai for a touchdown run.

I’ve had the luxury of hearing some comments from players on this that Kravitz may not have had…even though he has the ability to interview players or discuss with another Star writer who interviewed the players. I’m a huge, HUGE fan of running a quick run play up the middle immediately after a long pass play. Yet, when the Jaguars lined up with two linebackers in the middle, Peyton decided to check and run a passing play. Manning is trying to get the team into the end zone and hopefully eat some of the clock at the same time. What if the pass play on first down had resulted in a touchdown? Are you still going to blame Peyton for scoring too quickly?
Yes, the incomplete pass resulted in stopping the clock. I would have preferred to have run more time off the clock, but the ultimate goal is to score the touchdown. Our goal line offense has been piss-poor this year. I’m not going to fault Peyton for believing that a pass play has more chances for success that a running play at this point.

Manning and the offense did what they needed to do. They gave the Colts the lead and put the game in the hands of the defense.

They didn't deserve to win, but they deserve an explanation from the league. The phone lines between team president Bill Polian's office and the NFL will be burning up this afternoon.

In which the NFL will probably say your right. Tough shit, you still lose the game.

"What was your view of the late pass interference call on Freddy Keiaho?'' Polian was asked in the locker room..

"I can't comment on that, according to the league rules,'' he said, still shaking in anger. "I'll let the league know how I feel.''

And the non-calls involving Harrison and Mathis?

"I'll let the league know how I feel,'' he said.

You know he cannot comment unless he wants to dig into his pocketbook and pay a nice fine to Roger Goodell.

After the game, Keiaho was still trying to figure out what happened.

"I don't know. We were in a cover-3, I was just running to my drop and I never even saw him (receiver Reggie Williams),'' Keiaho said. "He just ran into me. I thought the game was over. I wasn't even trying to hit him. Then the flag came out late. I thought we were getting called for excessive celebration or something.''

The NFL rules on pass interference state that it is NOT defensive pass interference if the contact is incidental AND neither player is looking for the ball. I have looked at the replays (since I was on my way back from a Cubs game and could not watch the game) and neither Keiaho nor Reggie Williams seem to be looking for the ball. By the rule, that is not pass interference. Although it looks like it was supposed to be a timing route that Kieaho got in the way off.

He paused. "Still, a defense lives to be put in a position like we were, where we could win the game and close it out, and we didn't do it. It's as simple as that.''

Correct.

The Colts weren't going to cry, but the refusal of officials to talk with Dungy left the Colts coach uncharacteristically livid.

"I'm not going to get into blaming the officials for games,'' Dungy said. "We've got to play better.''
Similar to the Broncos-Chargers game last week, a bad call may have cost a team the game. And just like last week, the defensive team still had chances to keep their opponent from scoring.
By now, we know better than to lay blame to the Colts' defensive scheme. What Dungy and his staff do on defense works. We saw that in 2006, when many of us were calling for changes in the team's defensive philosophy. Then they pulled themselves together and rode the defense to the Super Bowl.


It obviously helped to get Bob Sanders back for the playoffs in 2006. Yes, part of the Colts sub-par performances are due to injuries, retirements and rookies. Most of it is due to just poor performances. If you can’t block or tackle or catch, you are going to make it pretty tough to win games.

It is also not inconceivable that the Colts can still make the playoffs and win the Super Bowl. More fantasy at this point, but still possible.

Here's the real question: Are they good enough to do the things they're supposed to do? Do they have the personnel? Clearly, they miss defensive lineman Ed Johnson, who smoked his way off the team. They even miss Quinn Pitcock, the defensive tackle who quit the game in the preseason.

The problem is, there's not much Polian can do about it. There are no Pro Bowl defensive tackles on the market.

No shit, Sherlock.

Now comes the bye week, which suddenly seems to be at precisely the right time. The Colts need to take stock, and understand they are this close to being 0-3. One call didn't beat them Sunday. Several calls didn't beat them Sunday. Jacksonville beat them. And pummeled them. And embarrassed them.

I don't think the Colts were "embarrassed" by the Jags. I’m sure the Colts know how close to 0-3 they are. I’m also sure the Colts know how close to 2-1 they could have been. Change a couple of plays in the Bears game and the Colts could have been 3-0, possibly.

No excuses.

Correct, Bob. There are no excuses for your shitty writing.

Labels: , , ,

Sports Witticisms Gone Awry

I listen to a lot of sports and sports talk radio, most of it of the local variety, but most stations have the national affiliate sports updates as well as the local updates. I can understand that networks may want to make the updates more lively than just giving scores, news and playing soundbites. When I listen to update, I am looking for the scores and other news tidbits in the one-two minutes they have to fill me in. I do not listen to hear bad puns or bad analogies.

While listening to the Westwood One broadcast of the Dallas-Green Bay game last night on the way back from the Cubs final home game of the season, Slut and I were presented with the following during an sports update by Tommy Tighe of the Westwood One Network:

"Thinking about their game in shark-infested waters, the Dolphins played with a porpoise."

Had I been driving, I would have gone of the road. Slut nearly did. We were staring in disbelief at what we just heard.

I can just picture Tommy Tighe in his radio booth, salivating over his little pun just waiting to broadcast it worldwide.

Unfortunately, it was a shitty pun with a shitty witticism.

If the Dolphins were playing a team with "Sharks" in their name or even a team remotely related to water or something living in the water, then the first part could be relevant or even funny. But the Dolphins were playing the Patriots. To me, that is fairly far removed from anything relating to water.

The "Dolphins played with a porpoise" just plain sucks. I'm sure someone, somewhere may have found that funny. I hope most of us shouted at the radio at what a fucktardish statement that was.

If you want to try and be funny, become a comedian. If you want to be a broadcaster, then broadcast the sports, dammit!

Labels: , , ,

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Whisper To a Scream

For as much as we rag on sports columnists on this blog (and for good reason), we do understand that one of the ideas behind writing a sports column is to sometimes be controversial. Columnists can express their opinions--in fact, they should express their opinions--and as long as they are fair, they can take a controversial position or stance.

Or, you can take a passive-aggressive approach, as per one Bobby Kravitz.

Whispers starting about Harrison

Is Marvin Harrison done? Or at least reaching the point where he can see the finish line from his front porch?

Huh?? Can someone explain that metaphor to me, please? I'm serious. I guess it means, "he's so close to being finished, he sees the end of his career before he even leaves his house."

Okay, you come up with one better.

Before the season began, I opined that Harrison, one of the most fiercely prideful athletes ever to play this game, would have an epic comeback season, returning after injuries to both knees and reaching the Pro Bowl. And I still think it's way too early to write the epitaph on a Hall of Fame receiving career.

You're exactly right; it is too early. End the article.

But the whispers are starting. And the longer Harrison goes without having that Marvin-like breakout game, the louder the whispers will become, ultimately turning into howls.

"The whispers are starting." Who is whispering? Coaches? Players? Ghosts of receivers past? A group singing "Rock Steady?" If you don't say who is "whispering," then it's not really a story, now is it? Sometimes--and I'm not saying little Bobby Kravitz is doing this here--columnists will use the idea of "whispers" to get their own opinion across without saying it's their own opinion.

Frankly, I'm not worried about whispers. Alert me when the whispers become murmurs. Or guffaws, but that's different.

"I don't know how to say this, but it was almost sad to watch Marvin (against the Minnesota Vikings)," said former running back and current ESPN analyst Merril Hoge, speaking Wednesday on WFNI-1070 AM. "It's sad to watch him. It's like he's a shadow of himself. During the game, I've seen Peyton (Manning) throw that comeback to Marvin a hundred times, but this time, Marvin didn't have that explosiveness coming back to the ball and it got knocked down. And after that (play), he was never a factor in the game."

Oh, so they weren't whispers--that opinion was stated by an ESPN football analyst on your radio show. Why didn't you say so earlier instead of using all of this "whispering" nonsense?

In the season opener against the Chicago Bears, Harrison had a relatively productive night, catching eight passes for 76 yards, but he lost a fumble that the Bears returned for a touchdown.

In the victory over Minnesota, he had just one catch for 16 yards, although that one reception was an important one in the red zone.

Doesn't this completely debunk the idea that Marvin is "done"? At least, doesn't it debunk the idea that anything definitive can be taken from the first two games of the season? Against the Bears, Marvin averaged 8.5 YPC (yards per catch), Reggie Wayne averaged 7.6 YPC on his 10 catches. Yes, Marvin had the fumble, and that could be a problem if that trend continues, but that was a pretty productive night.

Only having one catch in the Vikings game is a concern. But I think it's not a stretch to say that Marvin wasn't much of a factor because a) he was covered by a good defender and b) Manning had something like 1.2 seconds to throw for the first two-thirds of the game.

If Harrison was 26 and completely healthy, one or two sub-standard games wouldn't raise an eyebrow. We'd focus instead on how it took six quarters for Manning to shake the rust. Or how the Indianapolis Colts' young offensive line doesn't give Manning time to go downfield. Or how Harrison was defended by two of the league's best corners, Chicago's Charles Tillman and Minnesota's Antoine Winfield.

Those seem like good things to focus on to me. Manning was/is rusty. The offensive linemen are playing like they're wearing clown shoes right now. And the CB matchup for Marvin was tough in each of the first two games. So, Bobby, why aren't you focusing on these things? After all, this is your article.

Perhaps the first line of the above paragraph should begin, "If I knew even a little bit about football and wasn't trying to make a story out of a non-story..."

But he's 36, ancient by wide receiver standards. He had left knee problems most of last year. He had his right knee cleaned out during the summer.

And last year he was 35, and until he got hurt he was just fine. I know that age will catch up with him eventually, but if there's anyone on the team that doesn't look his age physically, it's Marvin.
However, coming back from the knee surgeries is a legitimate point.

Still, it's been two games--or one-eighth of the NFL season. Small sample size?

So there are whispers, people suggesting Harrison's decline has begun.

In this week's SI.com column, longtime NFL guru Paul Zimmerman wrote, "(Harrison) has come back from his knee problems as an old warrior who can't shake the coverage anymore."

Again: two games. Against good defensive backs. With a bad offensive line and a rusty Manning.

Sidebar: "Rusty Manning" sounds like a TV weatherman's name.

And there's this from Hoge, whose whispers are a bit louder than the others.

This "whispers" analogy is falling apart, if it was ever together in the first place. Do you mean that Hoge speaks louder than the others when he's on TV, or that he writes louder for his espn.com column (presumably in ALL CAPS)? Or do you mean that he is more adamant in his criticism? If it's the latter, perhaps you should say that.

"I'm not ready to say he's done, but he sure looked done in that (Minnesota) game. When Dallas Clark comes back, it's going to be hard to keep him (Clark) off the field."

Not really. Clark and Harrison play different positions. You see, Clark is a tight end. Harrison is a wide receiver. Those are two entirely different positions, altogether.

(All: "Those are two entirely different positions.") Thanks for playing!

If Hoge had said that when Clark comes back it will be difficult to keep Anthony Gonzalez out of the lineup, that would be a more valid point. And although Clark is not the typical tight end because of how the Colts use him (split wide, slot, etc.), he seldom--if ever-- is in the game in place of Harrison. Does Hoge watch the Colts on a regular basis?

"He's just not a factor. He's not as good off the ball. Not as good with his routes. It's just kind of sad to see . . . Maybe he's still working back off the injuries, and that's what I kind of hope, but I've been watching tape of him since I retired. I'm used to seeing certain things and what I saw was a guy who is a half-second slower in everything he does. He's not the same route runner, not the same intensity."

NBC's Cris Collinsworth said roughly the same thing during Sunday's studio show. "One of the problems this Colts offense has had thus far is that Marvin Harrison is no longer the deep threat he once was," Collinsworth said.

To be honest, Marvin hasn't really been a deep threat for the past 2 or 3 years. Yes, he can go downfield, but Marvin has become more of a possession receiver. That doesn't mean he's done, however.

So there are questions: Is he done, or close to being done? Or is everybody jumping the gun and failing to look at the bigger picture? Where is Marvin -- really -- in terms of his health?

To nobody's surprise, Harrison declined to comment for this column.

But Dungy did.

So Dungy declined to comment, too? Common-sense editing, anyone?

"What I've seen, it looks to me like he's running and practicing, doing everything the way he did before," the coach said. "So I've stopped worrying about him at this point."

This could just be a coach who doesn't want to admit his Hall of Fame receiver is on the decline. Or, he could really think that.

At this point, I'm not among those who are ready to count him out.

I should hope the hell not. Again: two games. Small sample size!

But there are ominous signs. The national analysts aren't making things up after watching the tape. They see what we all see, a legendary receiver who doesn't quite look right.

Do you really see that? Or do you say that you see that because three national analysts say they see it?

This article is classic Kravitz in that he takes an old story and recycles it. Hoge and Zimmerman made their comments on Wednesday; Collinsworth made his statement Sunday night. What is Kravitz adding to this? All he's doing is compiling the comments. I understand why the article was held until Friday morning's paper: it needed to be in the special Colts section. But theoretically, Kravitz could have done this column early in the week, since he "saw" Marvin's struggles on Sunday, too (and he still could have cited Collinsworth). The problem is, Kravitz didn't want to blow this article early in the week because he would have had to come up with yet another Colts article for Friday--it would have been too difficult to do something original.

Think about it. Anyone who watched Sunday Night Football probably saw Collinsworth's comments already. So, again, what is Kravitz adding? All he says in this article is "wait and see," which is a good observation, but it's also the obvious one. Instead, Kravitz takes another person's idea (in this case, other people's idea) and adds nothing.

It's the passive-aggressive guide to doing a sports column. Kravitz mentioned at the beginning of the article that he predicted that Marvin would have a "comeback year." But now, after two games, Kravitz isn't so sure, but he doesn't want to say so directly. So he uses these other opinions to show that there is doubt about Marvin. But he never admits that he shares those doubts, and he never says he stands by his previous prediction, either. He completely avoids giving his own opinion, instead spending 15+ paragraphs giving other people's opinions without adding any analysis. This despite the fact that it's his job to give his opinion--which should be a well-argued, thought out opinion that's both fair and insightful. That's exactly what is missing from this article.

Which makes it no different from his other articles.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Friday, September 19, 2008

Be Kind - Rewind Your Writer/Editor

Evidently, September is Be Kind to Writers and Editors Month. I guess they have come up with a "holiday" for everything.

Here at LomHenn.com, we would like to say thanks to the majority of writers and editors that do their job admirably and provide a worthy service to readers everywhere.

For those current and future targets of Lom Henn, your still fucktards and will get no reprieve on the drivel and crap you produce. We take great pleasure in letting fucktard writers and editors know they suck and why they suck.

I noticed that November is Slaughter Month. (Calm down, Kringlebert!) Could November be a blood bath of epic proportions? Only time will tell.

Watch out writers!

Labels: , , , ,

Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Will They Ever Learn?

Just sing the fucking song!

Labels: , ,

Monday, September 15, 2008

Colts Win, Fans Of Good Sports Media Lose

Some thoughts and observations after the come-from-behind win for the Indianapolis Colts over the Minnesota Vikings Sunday:

Would somebody please outbid CBS the next time the NFL contract is up for negotiation? For fuck's sake, there are high school television programs who would have better production values and a better eye for the game than CBS. An example was on the Anthony Gonzalez/Reggie Wayne circus play, where Wayne scored an apparent touchdown. CBS had a grand total of two camera angles on the replay, one of which was the original shot (the sideline camera). The touchdown was overturned (and rightfully so), but it appeared that the spot of the ball was incorrect. It appeared Wayne's knee hit with the ball at about the one-foot line; the referee spotted the ball at the one-yard line. Of course, I have no way of knowing where it really was, since CBS had no functional angle of the spot.

Next up, WTHR-13's Dick Rea, summing up the Colts' win:

"...and the defense for the Colts did the job, preventing the Vikings from scoring on their home field."

Final score: Colts 18, Vikings 15. Technically, the Vikings scored five times. Dick, were you watching Matlock reruns again instead of the game?

And, then, our boy Bobby:

Manning's still good

This was no time for false humility, certainly not from Peyton Manning, who normally resorts to "aw, shucks'' platitudes in the moments after a huge victory...

He allowed himself a wry smile. "That was a good throw.''

A great throw. A game-winning throw. And maybe, just maybe, a season-saving throw. Not that teams can't win Super Bowls after starting 0-2 -- Peyton has a little brother whose team did just that last season -- but even in a Tom Brady-less league, 0-2 is no place to start a championship run.

This isn't the worst article in the world, especially by Kravitz's standards. Peyton did make plays crucial in winning the game Sunday--the throw to which Kravitz refers was what allowed the Colts to win in regulation. Honestly, Peyton played pretty well considering the offensive line played more like people voted off "The Biggest Loser" instead of NFL linemen.

Still, any reasonable person who watched that game would probably say that the defense was the biggest reason the Colts were able to come from down 15-0. They weren't perfect--at halftime it seemed Adrian Peterson was going to go for 280 yards or so by the end of the game--but they kept the Vikings close until the offense woke up.

Instead, Kravitz devotes his column to Manning and his heroics. Again, I'm not suggesting Manning played poorly, or that he wasn't at least partly-responsible for the win. But this article shows what typically happens in a game like this for the Colts--namely, Manning the media-darling gets the spotlight, and most of the credit.

I won't go through the rest of the article, except for:

Just when you started wondering whatever happened to No. 18, there he was in the second half of a game that seemed irretrievably lost, looking like No. 18 again -- minus about 15 pounds...clearly, he's not the old Manning quite yet. He's still not doing his full pregame workout routine, although he did more this week than he did last Sunday. And he's clearly lost some weight. The custom-made suit he wore after the game looked like one of those oversized jobs your mom used to buy, saying, "You'll grow into it.''

I love how none of the Indianapolis media mentioned Peyton's weight loss until John Madden mentioned it on Sunday Night Football last week. I also love how Kravitz uses the exact same observation that Madden made about Peyton's suit being too big. I don't know if it's technically plagiarism, or just stupidity.

Or maybe a little bit of both.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, September 13, 2008

Prediction: Two Teams Will Play In the Super Bowl

If you ever pay attention to most preseason Super Bowl predictions, you'd find that they are generally wrong. Yes, a person can usually figure out which teams will be competitive, but pundits who predict Super Bowl participants in September are just guessing.

Michael Lombardi of SI.com has taken a different approach. Instead of picking the teams, he'll tell us what stats will be important factors for the Super Bowl participants.

Frankly Football: Three stats that will define the Super Bowl teams

My guess: wins, losses, and jerseys that don't read "Kansas City Chiefs."

There is nothing better than the start of "real football," but with the beginning of the NFL season comes the usual predictions of which teams will get to the Super Bowl. And with all due respect to my colleagues here at SI.com, 99.9 percent of the time those predictions are wrong.

(I included this part to show that Lombardi's article starts out reasonably. Then, it all goes horribly wrong...)

I am sure there are some MIT students who can craft the right formula for the Super Bowl participants...

Yeah: wins, losses, and jerseys that don't read "Kansas City Chiefs."

...but for me it's way too hard. Yet I do know several key statistics that are essential to the makeup of a Super Bowl-caliber team:

Hit me.

1. Have a successful first-half point differential

So...have a halftime lead? Last year, ALL teams were 182-53 when leading at the half, a 77.4 wining percentage. Since 1998, NFL teams leading at halftime have a 74.7 winning pct.

Lombardi is saying that teams that outscore their opponents in the first half during the season will be successful. In general, I agree with this idea, but what if a team leads 44-0 at halftime of one game, but is down 7-6 at halftime of the other 15 games? That team's +29 differential probably won't be that meaningful later.

I can promise you with a 99.0 percent degree of certainty that the final four teams in the playoffs will be ranked in the top eight of point differential in the first half.

99% degree of certainty? That means this criterion will only be wrong 1 out of 100 times, theoretically.

For example, last year the Patriots lead the league in first-half point differential with 196. That means the Patriots, on average, went into each halftime with a lead of roughly 12 points.

The Patriots were one of the final four playoff teams last year. Check.

Rounding out the Top 10 in this category were the San Diego Chargers at 104,

Also a final four team. Two for two.

the Colts at 102, Tampa Bay at 76, Washington at 62, Pittsburgh at 59,

All playoff teams, but only the Colts got past the Wild Card round...and lost in the Divisional.

Green Bay at 56,

Check.

Seattle at 55, Jacksonville at 49 and the Cowboys at 23, all playoff teams last season. (The Giants had a plus-two point differential last season.)

You're "99% degree of certainty" doesn't even hold up for last year? The Giants won the Super Bowl, but were only +2 in first half scoring differential last year. But, despite this, you're saying that it's 99% certain that the final four teams will be in the top 8??? Talk about arbitrary. The bottom line is that good teams typically lead at halftime and they typically lead at the end of the game, too. First half point differential is simply a by-product--you could have just as easily used "teams who lead more often than trail at halftime."

Now, what is so important about halftime leads? Well, it forces the opponent to play a near-perfect second half. It also requires the defensive play-caller to not make one mistake, lest he limit his ability to be creative in attacking the passer. Calling a defensive game is a challenge in itself, but calling it from behind is very taxing. Every third down is crucial as your team needs to get the ball back to close the gap. So if the defensive coach makes one mistake -- like calling a blitz and giving up a big play -- then the 10-point deficit might turn into a 17-point deficit, essentially putting the game out of reach. Forcing a defense to play a cautious and conservative game is what most offenses thrive on to be successful.

Does it really? It is possible that teams who are trailing will take more chances on defense--for example, trying to force a turnover--than play conservatively?

And aren't third downs also crucial in close games, or in games your team is leading?

On average there are slightly more than 13 third-down situations in every game. Teams that convert above 45 percent of their third downs are considered excellent. Every week coaches put tremendous time and energy into breaking down the third-down tendencies of their opponent's defense and learning how their foes plan their exotic blitzes on those downs.

But when a team falls behind and is concerned about not allowing the big play on third down, this reduces their blitzing and makes the game much easier on the quarterback. This is to not imply that if you get a lead, your team will never see any blitzes, but it does reduce the amount of blitzes and makes their predictability much easier to decode.


Any data to back this up? Again, I disagree wholeheartedly. I think that teams that are behind tend to take more chances on defense--that is, blitz more--than teams in the lead. Case in point: teams in the lead using a prevent defense late in the game. In trying to protect the lead and not give up a big play, the defense backs off into coverage (and allows a disciplined offense to march down the field).

Of course, I don't have any hard data for that assertion, either. But I don't claim to be making any predictions.

2. Throw the ball in the first half -- often

Last year only three teams (Minnesota, Oakland and Jacksonville) ran more than they passed in the first half. Most of the playoff teams averaged a 44 percent run to 56 percent pass ratio before intermission. Seattle, Green Bay, Indy, N.E., Dallas, Pittsburgh and the Giants came out trying to establish the pass, therefore most of them had a positive halftime point differential. San Diego and LaDainian Tomlinson had a 48 percent run and 52 percent pass ratio.

This point might as well be "use 11 players on offense -- often." Lombardi admits that 29 of the 32 teams in the league passed more often than ran in the first half. So how does this differentiate the playoff teams? He uses the ambiguous "most playoff teams" had a 44/56 run/pass split to try to make his point. But then he shows that San Diego had a 48/52 split, and he already mentioned Jacksonville running more often than passing. Since he doesn't include how he came up with his averages, there is no way to break down the numbers. However, since 2 of his 12 playoff teams don't come close to following his assertion (including a team that made the AFC Championship game), I'm calling bullshit here.

3. Seven yards per passing attempt

The two teams that find their way down to Tampa for the Super Bowl will have above a 7.25 average per attempt passing for the season.

11 of 32 starting quarterbacks did this last year. Only one of the QBs in the Super Bowl did it.

Last year, Eli Manning played on a team that led the NFL in dropped passes, so his stats in this area were a little off, but of the 25 top-rated passers in yards per attempt, 17 had above 7.00. Completions are nice, they look good on the stat sheet and it's nice to have a high percentage, but making yards matters most.

But Eli was still 28th in yards per attempt. 28th! Even with the dropped passes, I don't think Lombardi's point is a good one. Let's see about the 4 Conference Championship participants:

NYG: Eli Manning, 28th
GB: Brett Favre, 5th
NE: Tom Brady, 1st
SD: Philip Rivers, 18th

Half of those four quarterbacks were in the bottom half of the league in yards per attempt. How about the quarterbacks for the other playoff teams?

IND: Peyton Manning, 3rd
JAC: David Garrard, 7th
PIT: Ben Roethlisberger, 4th
TEN: Vince Young, 22nd
DAL: Tony Romo, 2nd
SEA: Matt Hasselbeck, 14th
TB: Jeff Garcia, 10th
WAS: Jason Campbell, 24th

7 of the 12 playoff teams were in the top 12 in yards per attempt. While I agree with Lombardi that yards per attempt is a good stat for evaluating QB performance, it's easy to see that the stat is not a reliable predictor of who will make the Super Bowl.

The bottom line is that predictions made at this point of the season are mostly garbage. How can anyone predict injuries? How many people predicted Tom Tom would go down in week one? Do you think that might affect some people's predictions for the season?

I fully expect San Diego and Seattle to achieve high rankings in all three areas and I believe they have the key elements of teams that reach the Super Bowl.

The biggest problem I have with this article is that these stats are too general to make any accurate predictions from. I can define three arbitrary statistics and give general stats in order to make a Super Bowl prediction, too. All this will prove is that if you're generic enough, no one can tell you that you are wrong...even when you are.

Here are my arbitrary stat predictions:

1. The Super Bowl participants will each be in the top 8 in the NFL in scoring differential.

2. Each Super Bowl team will be in the top 14 in offensive yards per game.

3. Each Super Bowl team will have jerseys that don't read "Kansas City Chiefs."

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

Cross the "T" in Idiotic

Last weekend's college football games brought us some dramatic upsets and the usual idiotic drivel from sports commentators of the various sporting networks. One of the hottest discussions from last weekend came from the BYU-Washington game and the controversial ending.

Jake Locker scored the winning touchdown with two seconds remaining in the game and in his excitement flipped the ball over his head and began to celebrate with his teammates. As a result of flipping the ball in the air, Locker received an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty for excessive celebration. The 15-yard penalty meant the chip shot extra point that would tie the game was now a 35-yard attempt and subsequently was blocked by BYU and BYU won the game.

Everyone from Huskies coach Tyrone Willingham to seeming evryone at ESPN (Jim Caple, Mark May, Lou Holtz, Kirk Herbstriet, etc) all feel that the refs made the wrong call in penalizing Locker. Granted, Locker did not fire the ball into air in celebration as much as just flipped it into the air. However, the NCAA Rule 9, Section 2, Article 2c states that “throwing the ball high into the air” in celebration is an act of unsportsmanlike conduct subject to a 15-yard penalty.

The ball was thrown into the air and the refs were correct in making the call. Why is it that everyone at ESPN seems to think that the refs were wrong to make a call that they were correct in making? I have seen several sports writers note that all football calls are judgement calls and the refs should have not called this penalty because it was seemingly an innocent flip of the ball. So if I "innocently" bump into a receiver while guarding him, that should not be a pass interference or illegal contact call? If I "innocently" hold a lineman, I should not be called for holding? Of course I'm going to get called, assuming they see it.

I'm curious what everyone would be saying if Locker had done this in the first or second quarter and they ended up losing by the one-point? Would everyone still be up in arms about it? If it is a penalty in the first quarter it should be a penalty on the final play.

Is it a crap rule? The way it is written, yes it is. I understand the NCAA wants decorum and integrity in their players, but flipping a ball into the air is not an excessive celebration. Don't kill the refs for making the correct call, go kill the NCAA rules committee for making a shit rule.

And while your at it, can you kill most of the ESPN college commentators while you're at it?

Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, September 9, 2008

Yes, Boys and Girls, it's football season!!!!

Are we ready for some football or what?!?

I don't have anything to say about bad sports writing per se, but since I am "The Football Guy", I'm going to throw my hat in the ring. There is a small piece of "writing" that really has my dander up! The Indianapolis Colts are my team and by now the ENTIRE world has heard about their new home. The "state of the art" Lucas Oil Stadium is a beautiful facility. I was awestruck when I entered that North gate for the first time. Almost brought a tear to my eye in fact. Well imagine my thrill when I got to my seat and took in the full view of the new glorious field. Sure I had to take along my portable O2 tank to get to my seat, but it really was beautiful.

I look down at the large Colts helmet from the same opening view you'd get from a telecast with the announcer saying (in his best radio/TV voice) "Live from Lucas Oil Stadium...". Really quite impressive. Until...

I see, from LEFT to RIGHT, Colts in one endzone and Indianapolis in the other. Now I realize that most people probably didn't even notice this minor transgression, but this has been pissing me off for years!!!!!!! I've spent the last four seasons wondering why in the world anyone in their right mind would arrange them in that way! Are they the Colts Indianapolis? NO YOU FREAKIN' MORONS!!! They are the Indianapolis Colts! Again I understand that Indianapolis is not that far removed from some of the more rural areas in the Midwest, but even I learned in school that you read from left to right. Would it have been that hard to put Indianapolis on the Left and Colts on the right? You know, so that when the national audience looks at the sky view they know they're looking at the home of the Indianapolis Colts? I'll admit that I haven't checked every stadium out, but from those I have observed, it ALWAYS reads city/state and then team. I was somewhat glad the RCA dome was going to be replaced because I was just sure they wouldn't screw it up again. I mean if you're putting in new turf, in a brand new facility, at the cost of millions of taxpayer's dollars, surely you will right this terrible wrong, RIGHT?!?

Uh, NO!

So now I'm going to spend the next 25 or 30 years thinking the same thing every single time I take in that view....HOW CAN THESE PEOPLE BE SO STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Alright, I'm done...for now. But don't think I'm going to let this go because I got it all out. I'm probably going to end up in a bell tower someday screaming "It's Indianapolis Colts you dumbf#@*$!!!

Monday, September 8, 2008

Dot the "I" In Idiotic

It was a busy weekend, sportswise, with the NFL opening weekend, MLB pennant races getting down to the last couple of weeks, and college football's second weekend. And with having lots of sports on TV comes lots of bad announcing on TV!

Take Ohio St. vs. Ohio U. on Saturday. Ohio State came from behind to win 26-14 in a game in which it was a 33 1/2 point favorite. ESPN sideline reporter Rob Simmelkjaer, when asked if Ohio State's lackluster performance against Ohio was a bad sign for the upcoming Ohio State/USC game next week:

"I don't want to take anything away from Ohio today, but Ohio State played down to the level of its competition. The Buckeyes were horrible today...again, I don't want to take anything away from Ohio, but Ohio State plays down to the level of its competition when it faces bad teams. Against a good team like USC next week, Ohio State always rises to the level of its competition, so I expect the Buckeyes will be ready." (emphasis mine)

You don't want to take anything away from Ohio, huh? Do you think that perhaps not giving them any credit for nearly beating a top 5 team takes anything away from their performance? Is it possible that Ohio had something to do with making it a close game?

Oh, and Ohio State always rises to the level of its competition, eh? Like this game? Or maybe this one?

Yeah, that seems about right.

Labels: , ,

Friday, September 5, 2008

Hungry Hungry HIPAAs

I love a good play on words, especially when it takes a federal law regarding personal health care privacy and relates it to a silly game involving marbles. Fun!

Why am I doing such a thing? Because of the good people on tonight's Chicago Tribune Live broadcast on Comcast SportsNet. Our participants: host David Kaplan and his three "panelists:" writers Fred Mitchell and Phil Rogers of the Tribune, and John Crist, publisher of Bear Report Magazine (the football team, not the large woodland animal).

Anyway, the panel was discussing the recent injuries to Cubs' pitchers Carlos Zambrano and Rich Harden and the apparent secrecy and lack of disclosure to the media. Kaplan made the point that the sports media don't trust the Cubs because of their handling of Mark Prior's injury a few years ago. Then, this exchange:

Kaplan: "Baseball is less forthcoming with injury info. Some of it is the federal government and HIPAA, but generally, they've come to think that's their business and why should they talk about it?"

Crist: "This is not exclusive to baseball...this is an epidemic across sports. These teams act like they are protecting government trade secrets, and that's just not the case." (emphasis mine)

I like how Kaplan mentions HIPAA, and the panel just dismisses it like it's a minor inconvenience. An "epidemic across sports"??? HIPAA is a federal law protecting patients from having their health care information shared without their consent. Is MLB--or in this case, the Cubs--doing something wrong by not disclosing injury information about two players? Or, are they merely upholding a federal law??

Crist's statement is especially dumb. Johnny, they're not "protecting government trade secrets;" they are following a federal government law. Just because you think you're Richard Thornburg and that the public has a right to know everything, it doesn't mean a team is above federal law.

Look, I get that fans want to know the status of important players on their favorite teams. But you can't fault the teams for doing the right thing, even if you think the teams are merely doing it to be secretive. It doesn't matter--it's the law.

****BUT WAIT, THERE'S MORE!!!****

On the same show, the panel decided to preview Sunday's Bears/Colts game. The discussion turned to the new stadium, and how Lucas Oil Stadium will be different than the RCA Dome during the game:

Rogers: "What do you think about Lucas Oil Stadium? Are they (the Colts) giving up an advantage that they had playing in that dome, where they would pipe in the noise and do some goofy stuff?" (again, emphasis mine)

Pipe in the noise.

Pipe in the noise.

Pipe in the noise.

People still think this.

Pipe in the noise.

Fucktards.

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, September 4, 2008

The No-No That Wasn't...And Still Isn't

Was CC Sabathia robbed of a no-hitter in Monday's game versus the Pittsburgh Pirates? I'm sure people will be arguing this question for a while. I cannot fault Bob Webb for calling the play a hit and not an error. It was a judgement call and could have been called either way. He's been an official scorer for 20 years, so I think he knows what he is doing.

I understand that you might think that your teammate or player may have been robbed of a no-hitter and you want to help make his case for a no-hitter. However, I have to laugh at some of the quotes that came out after the game, particularly, a quote from Brewers manager Ned Yost:

"That's a joke. That wasn't even close. Whoever the scorekeeper was absolutely denied baseball a nice no-hitter right there."

First of all, the "hit" occurred in the fifth inning. It may have been the first hit of the game, but no one knew at the time that it would be the only hit of the game for the Pirates.

Secondly, after the "hit", Sabathia believed that he no longer had a no-hitter going and was able to pitch more relaxed than if the no-no was still in effect. When a pitcher gets into the late innings still holding on to the no-hitter, you know his sphincter has to be tight enough to turn a charcoal briquette into a diamond during the ninth inning. There is a mindset that you have to take into account here.

Lastly, the Pirates believed that the no-hitter was gone. Again when you get into those late innings, players will be pressing to break it up. Granted, they may try too hard and have a more adverse effect, but the game would have been much different even if the play had been scored an error.

A difference in the scoring during the MIDDLE of a game does not mean the outcome of the game would be the same!

MLB of course did not over turn the scorekeeper's ruling of a hit and Sabathia's no-no will forever be a never-was.

Labels: , , ,

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

You Mean Someone's Gonna Die?

Remember this about Gritty McGritterson?

Seems that he may make the postseason after all.

David Eckstein traded from Toronto to Arizona

Pretty straightforward article by AP writer Mike Fitzpatrick, but there are the normal gems:

David Eckstein quickly called his wife, then finished a fast interview and bounced around the clubhouse exchanging hugs with ex-teammates. The scrappy infielder always hustles, but this was a little different.

Scrappy McGritstein always "bounces" because he is made of rubber.

The trade, made just before the deadline for playoff eligibility, gives Arizona a late-season spark plug with impressive October credentials.

A "late-season spark plug?" That would be great if he was joining a NASCAR team. On second thought, that's a bad idea since his feet wouldn't reach the pedals.

The 2006 World Series MVP with St. Louis, Eckstein batted .277 with a homer, 23 RBIs and a .354 on-base percentage in a part-time role for Toronto. Known for his all-out effort at 5-foot-7, he also helped the Angels win the 2002 World Series.

You ever notice that baseball writers only cite on-base percentage when they are either (a) making fun of new-fangled stats, or (b) using it to justify the acquisition of a decidedly mediocre hitter?

(I think I was channeling Andy Rooney there).

"Known for his all-out effort." It is well known that no other major league baseball player runs....ever. Some amble, some mosey, some even sashay. But only Tiny Mckecklestein runs--with itty-bitty little legs that sound like the wings of a hummingbird.

In all honesty, this isn't a bad trade. The Diamondbacks gave up a class-A pitcher, which isn't a lot. As mentioned already, Eckstein has a .354 OBP, which isn't awful (though his .358 SLG won't turn any heads). And while Eckstein is overpaid, Arizona only has to pay him for a month. Plus, the D-backs plan on playing him at second base rather than shortstop, so his anemic arm won't be as much of a liability.

Of course, one reason he was acquired is because he's played pretty well in two World Series. And if that happens a third time, well...we may all see Zinglebert's wrath.

That alone is something to fear.

Labels: ,