Roger Goodell talked about extending the playoff format to include 16 teams instead of the current 12. He hopes to bring it before the competition committee soon. Here's why I don't like it.
First of all, 16 teams is literally half the league. Right now, with the current 12 team format, only the best advance. The top teams make the playoffs and we get superior post season competition. Barring the occasional instances when a division is so weak that a team wins it with a losing record (looking at you, Seattle), or with a .500 record (looking at you Denver and San Diego), you are practically guaranteed to only get winning teams in the playoffs. Adding four more teams is going to practically guarantee you get at least one 8-8 team.
Let's back track a little bit. Let's also pretend that we had this proposed 16 team format in place ten years ago, here's what the playoffs would have looked like. In 2011, you have New England, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Houston all with winning records. You have the Broncos win that weak AFC West at 8-8. We're counting that as that occasional instance of a weak division pushing a bad team into the playoffs. To add two more teams? Well, there was only one other team with a winning record - Tennessee went 9-7. So the next team has to be among the New York Jets, San Diego, or Oakland, all who went 8-8. Take a look at the NFC side of things, where there were literally only six teams with winning records in the entire conference. All made the post season. Adding two more teams would have brought two 8-8 teams.
Take a look at 2010. In the AFC, there were seven teams with winning records. Only the San Diego Chargers missed the playoffs at 9-7. Add two more teams to the equation, yeah, the Chargers get in, but so does either the Raiders or Jaguars who both finished at 8-8. The NFC was particularly frustrating because that was a year in which the NFC West was so pathetic, Seattle won the division and advanced with a 7-9 record. That year, there were seven teams in the NFC with a winning record. The New York Giants and Tampa Bay Buccaneers both missed the playoffs despite both going 10-6. It sounds at first like this is a good example FOR extending the playoffs. Add two more teams, neither of those teams miss the playoffs. However, no matter how you cut it, you still end up with a losing team. Let's pretend Tampa Bay was in the NFC West and so they won the division instead of the 7-9 Seahawks. Throw in two more teams, you get the 10-6 Giants, but then there literally wasn't even an 8-8 team that year. You'd still have to include the 7-9 Seahawks to take that final Wild Card spot. (More on this later.)
Let's go back one more year to 2009. Extending the format by two teams per conference would have included two more winning teams to the post season in the AFC (Pittsburgh and Houston both went 9-7), but in the NFC, you only had one non-playoff team with a winning record. Adding two more teams again guarantees an 8-8 team. That final spot goes to Carolina, New York, or San Francisco, none of who finished above .500.
It's hard to find a 16 team post season that does not include at least one 8-8 team. 2008 is close. It was another year in which the fact that you advance just by winning even a bad division seems like a flaw as the 8-8 Chargers made the post season why the 11-5 Patriots missed out on a tie breaker. But there were also only seven teams in the AFC with a winning record, so no matter how you cut it, an 8-8 team makes it. A 16 team format in 2007 would have included three 8-8 teams. In 2006, we would have seen four 8-8 teams.
So sure, if the argument against the extended format is that you increase the chances of a losing team making the playoffs, you will have a hard time proving that (though statistically speaking, it does increase the chances - it's still unlikely though.) You have to go back to 2004 to find a situation where adding two more teams per conference would have included a sub-.500 team regardless of divisional winners. To find that 8th team for the NFC, you'd have to look at the Carolina Panthers, who finished 7-9. Same thing in 2002, when you'd need to include the 7-9 Redskins, Panthers, Rams, or Seahawks to reach the 8 team quota. In the past ten years, only in 2005 would you find a 16 team format included only winning teams. 2005 is the last time in which each conference had eight teams with winning records.
Point being, adding two teams doesn't sound like it will water down the competition that much, but it really does. The odds of including a losing team are higher, but still small. However, the other side to the equation is true as well - you aren't going to just include good teams. You will get weak competition that, frankly, doesn't deserve to be there. As it stands right now, we are poised to have another season in which there aren't enough winning teams to fulfill the 16 team format. Currently, there are seven teams in the AFC above .500, while there are nine in the NFC (though we're likely to see that drop to seven by year's end).
It should tell you something that in the past 10 years, we'd have three years in which a losing team made the playoffs, nine years in which at least one 8-8 team made it, and only one year in which all sixteen teams were above .500 if we had a 16 team post season.
The post season is supposed to reward the best teams in the league. By increasing the playoff slots, you demean the value of the regular season. Further, to increase it to eight teams per conference, you then remove the Bye Week for the top seeds. The Bye Week is perhaps the only incentive for teams with nine or ten wins by the final month to keep playing hard. If there's no Bye Week incentive for finishing at the top of the regular season, what incentive is there for say the New England Patriots to keep putting their starters forward? The Patriots currently sit at 10-3. They have already won their division and a playoff spot. They can rest their starters for the final three games of the season, lose them all, finish 10-6 and still potentially grab the 3 seed. The same thing can be said of Denver. What incentive is there for these teams to really put their best foot forward for the final few weeks of the season? The Bye Week is. They are not just trying to get home field advantage throughout the playoffs; they are also trying to get a week off to rest some of their starters and hopefully get a few back from injuries.
The Bye Week is a fair reward for playing the best football in the regular season. In the past ten years, five times has a team that won a bye week also gone on to win the Super Bowl. That's pretty split, and I think that indicates that the bye week is not such a huge advantage. With half the time being won by a team that didn't have a bye, it shows that you don't need it to win out. However, it is a benefit to putting forth a strong effort through the entire season. It is incentive for the best teams to keep playing late in the season.
Another thing to keep in mind is how the NFL has been discussing the possibility of increasing the regular season from 16 games to 18. How can they honestly propose this while also proposing adding an extra game to the post season? Right now, a team that doesn't earn a bye week but makes the Super Bowl plays 20 games in the season. Tack on one more post season games and two additional regular season game, any team that makes it to the Super Bowl is going to have to play 23 games. That's almost six months of football! In a day and age where the NFL is promoting so many different (and often times worse) rules in the name of player safety, how can they possibly justify adding an extra month of football? What is that going to do to these players?
While we're on the topic of adding an extra month of football, you also have the logistical problem of how you air these games. As it stands right now, there are four games in the Wild Card and Divisional rounds. It's a pretty easy break down. You put two games on Saturday, two games on Sunday. Most fans can sit through a double header on the weekends. Increase the format to sixteen teams, no one gets a bye week, that means that we now have eight games. Typically, each game gets its own broadcast time so that there is no other football competing with it. The NFL post season games are completely independent from each other so that we can maximize enjoyment. We don't have to worry about missing a playoff game or have a simultaneous game get spoiled for us as we Tivo it while watching the other game. How are you supposed to put eight games in two days in a way that has each game independent?
I've heard an argument to put three games on Saturday and Sunday (usually CBS gets the AFC games while Fox gets the NFC), and then you put two games on ESPN for their Monday night football. Ok, well, first of all, how do you decide who gets the Monday night game? You can't say that the top seeds get it as a benefit for finishing on top in the regular season, because you also give that extra day's rest to the worst team. Further, that's a LOT of football for a weekend. Sure, you can argue that on Sundays, we get three separate games anyway - the 1:00, 4:30, and Sunday Night football at 8:30. True, and that's a lot of football in one day. How many people actually watch three games in a row? And if so, how many do so because it's just one day a week? You're not just seeing if we'll sit through a triple header on Sunday. You're seeing if we'll sit through a triple header on Saturday in addition to it! I don't know about you, but I have stuff to do on the weekends. I can usually sit through a couple of games on Sunday, but I can't waste an entire weekend watching football. And then on Monday night? You'd have to start the game at 4:30 to ensure that both games finish at or before midnight. (Alternatively, you could minimize commercial breaks to speed the game along, but I think we all know that that is never ever going to happen.)
It's just too much. There's no good way to broadcast a 16 team format. This is part of the reason the bye week is such a good idea in the first place. Never mind the reward for the best regular season teams, it also prevents the weekend from being over saturated with NFL football.
At the end of the day, there is nothing wrong with the current 12 team format. It helps create a smooth broadcasting schedule that is fair to most fans and both networks. It helps ensure that only the best teams advance. It puts stock in the regular season. Yes, I hear you, fans who say that some teams are the beneficiary of a weak schedule. By all means, some teams do benefit from it (case in point, this year's Indianapolis Colts). But if you're willing to mess everything up and make things worse because some teams have weaker schedules, where do you stop? What about the divisions? How do you account for teams like the San Diego Chargers who win a division with an 8-8 record because it's a bad division, meanwhile the 11-5 New England Patriots miss out on a tie breaker? It's the NFL. Yes, not all schedules are equal, but it's professional football. Any team really is capable of beating any other. Any given Sunday, and all that. Sure, would we be very surprised if the Kansas City Chiefs beat the New England Patriots? No doubt. Does anyone really think it's impossible though?
If any change is going to be made to the current NFL playoff format, it should be a requirement to have a winning record to advance (or at a minimum, 8-8). I still don't think it's right that a 7-9 team can "win a division," and make the playoffs while a 10-6 team misses out as a result. The "win the division and you're in" should have a stipulation that says, "but if you don't finish .500 or above, you forfeit your spot."
But that's probably just me.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
Monday, December 3, 2012
PSN (phony sports news): David Stern fines Cardinals, Jets $500,000
NEW YORK: David Stern threw the hammer down once again, fining the New York
Jets and the Arizona Cardinals $500,000 each for franchises
"unacceptable for fans." Neither team provided the big names nor
entertainment and - according to Stern - did a disservice to the fans.
This just shows how far Heir Stern's reach extends given that Roger Goodell is the NFL commissioner, not Stern.
Goodell supports the fine and has even considered throwing in his own.
"We take fan safety very seriously," Goodell said in a brief interview after the game. "We feel that not only did the Cardinals and Jets do the fans wrong, they also put their health at risk."
"Those teams metaphorically made helmet to helmet contact with the fans," he continued. "We hope the fans will seek proper psychiatric treatment before returning to the stadiums."
All fans present at the game will have to pass a baseline test before becoming eligible to buy tickets again.
Asked for comment after securing their tenth AFC East title since 2001, rival Patriots coach Bill Belichick had no words. He just couldn't stop laughing.
This just shows how far Heir Stern's reach extends given that Roger Goodell is the NFL commissioner, not Stern.
Goodell supports the fine and has even considered throwing in his own.
"We take fan safety very seriously," Goodell said in a brief interview after the game. "We feel that not only did the Cardinals and Jets do the fans wrong, they also put their health at risk."
"Those teams metaphorically made helmet to helmet contact with the fans," he continued. "We hope the fans will seek proper psychiatric treatment before returning to the stadiums."
All fans present at the game will have to pass a baseline test before becoming eligible to buy tickets again.
Asked for comment after securing their tenth AFC East title since 2001, rival Patriots coach Bill Belichick had no words. He just couldn't stop laughing.
Saturday, December 1, 2012
The Bigg Question: What is the role of professional sports teams?
Apparently, the NFL no longer holds a monopoly on ridiculous fines. In a surprisingly harsh move, NBA commissioner David Stern fined the San Antonio Spurs $250,000 for sending four of their big name players home in order to give them rest instead of playing them against the Miami Heat. The core issue seems to be that by resting the starters and the big name players, coach Greg Popovich was essentially screwing the fans over - he was taking away what the fans had paid to see.
And this brings up a big question: what exactly is the role of a professional sports team?
There's no real right or wrong answer, of course. Like most things in the world, it walks a balance. At the end of the day, sports exist for our entertainment as both players and spectators. We play because we have fun and we watch it for the same reason.
Still, an overwhelming percentage of us will never make money for playing sports or for writing about sports. For us, it's all pleasure, no business. So then, what is the role of a professional sports team? Is it to entertain us? Or is it, as many say, to try and win championships? What should their primary focus be - winning games or winning fans?
If the argument for the fine is that Popovich screwed over the fans and didn't give them what they paid for, we have to then look at it from two angles. The first being what do the fans pay for? Are they paying to see big name sports celebrities, or are they paying to see a good, competitive, entertaining sports match? I tend to think it is the latter. I would rather have a good game filled with no names than a bad game filled with big names. This, of course, is a matter of opinion. And you wonder what the game would have been if Duncan, Ginobli, and Parker were in that game. It could have been more entertaining, but you can't guarantee that because it could have also been worse. When you look at this case in particular, the Spurs played in Miami. The game came down to the final minute and was literally won in the final 30 seconds of the game. The Heat won in thrilling fashion 105-100. It was an exciting game, well worth the price of admission.
So why is Heir Stern fining San Antonio such an exorbitant amount for resting starters and claiming Popovich did a disservice to the fans? Take a look at what Stern said. "I apologize to all NBA fans. This was an unacceptable decision by the San Antonio Spurs and substantial sanctions will be forthcoming."
The only thing one can say in Stern's defense is that he made those comments before the game. Had he waited to see the outcome of the game, maybe this wouldn't be an issue (since, after all, it was one of the more entertaining games of the year). Still, he didn't have to make those comments in the first place. If he truly felt that the Spurs did a major disservice to the NBA fans, he should have waited to see the result of the decision first. (I don't remember him fining LeBron James for his "The Decision," which was a major slap in the face to pretty much any NBA fan except Heat fans.)
The second perspective is which fan base we are looking at this from. Stern claims this decision is unacceptable for all NBA fans. Is it though? So if we argue that people are paying more to see big names than good games, who are the fans that paid to watch the game? Miami Heat fans. Are you really going to tell me that Miami fans are paying $50 to see Tim Duncan or Manu Ginobli? No. They are paying to watch their Miami Heat stars LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, and Ray Allen. They saw James nearly get a triple double. They saw a game in which the Heat won on a late Ray Allen three pointer. The fans got what they paid for. They saw the stars they wanted to see. Maybe you have an argument if this is against the Washington Wizards or the Atlanta Hawks, but not against the Heat who is practically hoarding big name super stars right now.
What about Spurs fans? Their team had just gone on the road for six straight games and were playing their fourth game in five nights. And let's be honest here: the Spurs have a little recent history with maintaining health. Is David Stern apologizing to Spurs fans? I bet Spurs fans think Greg Popovich did absolutely the right thing. He's doing what it takes to ensure San Antonio's chances of a championship are as high as possible. He's doing right by Spurs fans. And Stern claims to be apologizing to "all NBA fans." Really? Do Celtics fans really care about this? Do Lakers fans? Would these fans feel their coach was doing right by them if they rested their starters in order to give the team the best chance of reaching the post season?
Finally, this is the NBA. Anyone playing in that game is top tier talent. If they weren't, they wouldn't be there. That is why - despite resting their starters - San Antonio still played a competitive game against the star studded Miami Heat. Fining the Spurs for resting their big name players is a slap in the face to any NBA player who is not considered a super star. You can look at a guy like Kendrick Perkins, for example. He's not a super star player - no one is paying to see him play - but he has been a critical piece of the puzzle for Boston and Oklahoma City. How insulting must it be to a Spurs bench player who came out, performed extremely well, gave the fans a great game, and are now getting bashed solely because they don't have the same name recognition?
Which reminds me: you never know what can happen in these games. Maybe someone comes off the bench and steps up. Maybe the coach finds another key role player that he can start to use more. Practice isn't the same thing as game time. There are plenty of benefits for the team, the players, and the fans to resting starters from time to time.
And frankly, if Stern is going to fine the Spurs for resting star players because it's not entertaining to fans, he might as well just kick the Washington Wizards out of the league. How is that franchise not a disservice to NBA fans?
To Popovich's credit, he has acknowledged that he can see both side. He even admitted that if he were taking his son to see a basketball game, he would hope they all had their star players on the court. Still, he was ultimately trying to do what was best for his team. It is hard to imagine that anyone thinks this was a bad call for the health of the team.
Sports can't exist just to win though. Granted, it already is just its own self-fulfilling circle of importance - winning is everything, you always play to win, your greatness is determined by wins, et cetera. Still, it has to be about more than just winning or it would never be fun for players or more importantly, the fans. No one ever seems to have an issue when coaches rest starters at the end of a season to gear up for a playoff run. That is generally "acceptable" because it - theoretically - helps them in the post season. So why is this any different? The logic is exactly the same: rest starters when we can, maintain health throughout the regular season as best we can, win as many games as we can. The Spurs are playing not just for the playoffs, but will likely be looking at a high seeding for home court advantage. Or what about when coaches bench players for "disciplinary reasons"? Did the 76ers get fined for benching super star Allen Iverson just for missing practice? Is that a cause worthy of ensuring fans don't see the stars they paid for?
At the end of the day, sports teams have two purposes - to provide entertainment (which includes providing top talent) and to win championships. They must strike that balance. Greg Popovich might not have provided name recognition against the Heat, but he provided top talent that was competitive. He provided entertainment. And he was doing what he thought he needed to provide the second purpose. Further, there is nothing in the rules that says a coach cannot rest players. If you suddenly say that you can't do that, what is to stop Popovich from saying, "Oh, well Duncan was late to practice so I sent him home." Or "Parker twisted his knee in practice, so I sent him home." At least Popovich was honest. "We have played a lot and have been away from home. I wanted them to get a head start on rest." But he clearly didn't give up that game. The San Antonio players and coaches still tried to win that game (even if Pop made a big error by not calling a time out late in the game). The Spurs broke no rules. The home crowd got to see the stars they wanted to see. And all NBA fans got an incredibly entertaining game.
And David Stern is fining someone as a result. Yeah. Makes sense to me. You don't have to like what he did - there are legitimate arguments against it given the dual nature of the league's purposes. Still, he did nothing illegal and no one suffered any harm from it. There shouldn't be a fine, never mind a quarter million dollar fine.
Better watch out, Roger Goodell. You've got competition.
And this brings up a big question: what exactly is the role of a professional sports team?
There's no real right or wrong answer, of course. Like most things in the world, it walks a balance. At the end of the day, sports exist for our entertainment as both players and spectators. We play because we have fun and we watch it for the same reason.
Still, an overwhelming percentage of us will never make money for playing sports or for writing about sports. For us, it's all pleasure, no business. So then, what is the role of a professional sports team? Is it to entertain us? Or is it, as many say, to try and win championships? What should their primary focus be - winning games or winning fans?
If the argument for the fine is that Popovich screwed over the fans and didn't give them what they paid for, we have to then look at it from two angles. The first being what do the fans pay for? Are they paying to see big name sports celebrities, or are they paying to see a good, competitive, entertaining sports match? I tend to think it is the latter. I would rather have a good game filled with no names than a bad game filled with big names. This, of course, is a matter of opinion. And you wonder what the game would have been if Duncan, Ginobli, and Parker were in that game. It could have been more entertaining, but you can't guarantee that because it could have also been worse. When you look at this case in particular, the Spurs played in Miami. The game came down to the final minute and was literally won in the final 30 seconds of the game. The Heat won in thrilling fashion 105-100. It was an exciting game, well worth the price of admission.
So why is Heir Stern fining San Antonio such an exorbitant amount for resting starters and claiming Popovich did a disservice to the fans? Take a look at what Stern said. "I apologize to all NBA fans. This was an unacceptable decision by the San Antonio Spurs and substantial sanctions will be forthcoming."
The only thing one can say in Stern's defense is that he made those comments before the game. Had he waited to see the outcome of the game, maybe this wouldn't be an issue (since, after all, it was one of the more entertaining games of the year). Still, he didn't have to make those comments in the first place. If he truly felt that the Spurs did a major disservice to the NBA fans, he should have waited to see the result of the decision first. (I don't remember him fining LeBron James for his "The Decision," which was a major slap in the face to pretty much any NBA fan except Heat fans.)
The second perspective is which fan base we are looking at this from. Stern claims this decision is unacceptable for all NBA fans. Is it though? So if we argue that people are paying more to see big names than good games, who are the fans that paid to watch the game? Miami Heat fans. Are you really going to tell me that Miami fans are paying $50 to see Tim Duncan or Manu Ginobli? No. They are paying to watch their Miami Heat stars LeBron James, Dwayne Wade, and Ray Allen. They saw James nearly get a triple double. They saw a game in which the Heat won on a late Ray Allen three pointer. The fans got what they paid for. They saw the stars they wanted to see. Maybe you have an argument if this is against the Washington Wizards or the Atlanta Hawks, but not against the Heat who is practically hoarding big name super stars right now.
What about Spurs fans? Their team had just gone on the road for six straight games and were playing their fourth game in five nights. And let's be honest here: the Spurs have a little recent history with maintaining health. Is David Stern apologizing to Spurs fans? I bet Spurs fans think Greg Popovich did absolutely the right thing. He's doing what it takes to ensure San Antonio's chances of a championship are as high as possible. He's doing right by Spurs fans. And Stern claims to be apologizing to "all NBA fans." Really? Do Celtics fans really care about this? Do Lakers fans? Would these fans feel their coach was doing right by them if they rested their starters in order to give the team the best chance of reaching the post season?
Finally, this is the NBA. Anyone playing in that game is top tier talent. If they weren't, they wouldn't be there. That is why - despite resting their starters - San Antonio still played a competitive game against the star studded Miami Heat. Fining the Spurs for resting their big name players is a slap in the face to any NBA player who is not considered a super star. You can look at a guy like Kendrick Perkins, for example. He's not a super star player - no one is paying to see him play - but he has been a critical piece of the puzzle for Boston and Oklahoma City. How insulting must it be to a Spurs bench player who came out, performed extremely well, gave the fans a great game, and are now getting bashed solely because they don't have the same name recognition?
Which reminds me: you never know what can happen in these games. Maybe someone comes off the bench and steps up. Maybe the coach finds another key role player that he can start to use more. Practice isn't the same thing as game time. There are plenty of benefits for the team, the players, and the fans to resting starters from time to time.
And frankly, if Stern is going to fine the Spurs for resting star players because it's not entertaining to fans, he might as well just kick the Washington Wizards out of the league. How is that franchise not a disservice to NBA fans?
To Popovich's credit, he has acknowledged that he can see both side. He even admitted that if he were taking his son to see a basketball game, he would hope they all had their star players on the court. Still, he was ultimately trying to do what was best for his team. It is hard to imagine that anyone thinks this was a bad call for the health of the team.
Sports can't exist just to win though. Granted, it already is just its own self-fulfilling circle of importance - winning is everything, you always play to win, your greatness is determined by wins, et cetera. Still, it has to be about more than just winning or it would never be fun for players or more importantly, the fans. No one ever seems to have an issue when coaches rest starters at the end of a season to gear up for a playoff run. That is generally "acceptable" because it - theoretically - helps them in the post season. So why is this any different? The logic is exactly the same: rest starters when we can, maintain health throughout the regular season as best we can, win as many games as we can. The Spurs are playing not just for the playoffs, but will likely be looking at a high seeding for home court advantage. Or what about when coaches bench players for "disciplinary reasons"? Did the 76ers get fined for benching super star Allen Iverson just for missing practice? Is that a cause worthy of ensuring fans don't see the stars they paid for?
At the end of the day, sports teams have two purposes - to provide entertainment (which includes providing top talent) and to win championships. They must strike that balance. Greg Popovich might not have provided name recognition against the Heat, but he provided top talent that was competitive. He provided entertainment. And he was doing what he thought he needed to provide the second purpose. Further, there is nothing in the rules that says a coach cannot rest players. If you suddenly say that you can't do that, what is to stop Popovich from saying, "Oh, well Duncan was late to practice so I sent him home." Or "Parker twisted his knee in practice, so I sent him home." At least Popovich was honest. "We have played a lot and have been away from home. I wanted them to get a head start on rest." But he clearly didn't give up that game. The San Antonio players and coaches still tried to win that game (even if Pop made a big error by not calling a time out late in the game). The Spurs broke no rules. The home crowd got to see the stars they wanted to see. And all NBA fans got an incredibly entertaining game.
And David Stern is fining someone as a result. Yeah. Makes sense to me. You don't have to like what he did - there are legitimate arguments against it given the dual nature of the league's purposes. Still, he did nothing illegal and no one suffered any harm from it. There shouldn't be a fine, never mind a quarter million dollar fine.
Better watch out, Roger Goodell. You've got competition.
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
The Case for Robert Griffin III as Rookie of the Year.
Andrew Luck seems to be getting most of the rookie quarterback hype these days, but after the 59-24 romp in New England we were reminded that Luck is still a rookie. That game overall serves as a snapshot of his season so far. A few weeks ago, an NFL.com writer posted an article making the claim that Luck deserves to be mentioned among possible MVP candidates. That's counting your chickens before they hatch. While he has a practically bare bones and rebuilding Colts team at 6-4, he belongs nowhere near the MVP debate. The rookie of the year conversation is another matter.
Luck has been solid, but inconsistent. He almost seems the perfect fit for the Seattle Seahawks as he plays much better at home than on the road (Seattle has not finished with a .500 road record since 2006 when they went 4-4 on the road). The game against the Patriots showed two Andrew Lucks. In the first half, barring a pick six early, he played pretty well. He had the Colts down by one touchdown going into the half and had actually moved the ball quite well. In the second half, he and the Colts fell apart. One can look at Luck's performances at home and compare them to his performances on the road to find a similar theme.
First of all, his road record is a little inflated since he has played a relatively soft schedule. That said, he is 2-3 on the road versus 4-1 at home. But it's more than just wins and losses. It's how he does it. At home, he looks like a veteran field general, completing 60% of his passes and throwing 8 touchdowns to just 2 interceptions. Additionally, he has rushed for 3 TDs at home and only lost 1 fumble. All in all, he's accounted for 11 TDs to just 3 turnovers at home with an average passer rating of 88.9. That's pretty darn good.
Compare those numbers to his numbers on the road though. Away from the dome, he has completed 56% of his passes (a few points higher than Mark Sanchez's completion percentage on the year). He has also thrown only 4 touchdowns while throwing 10 interceptions. Additionally, he has rushed for 2 touchdowns and lost 4 fumbles. Thus, on the road, he accounted for 6 TDs but 12 INTs with an average passer rating of 67.4. Those numbers aren't good.
It also seems the hype around Andrew Luck's Colts might be a little inflated. In 10 games, he has played against 4 opponents with winning records, going 2-2 (not surprisingly, the two wins against Green Bay and Minnesota were at home while the two losses against Chicago and New England were on the road). What's even more interesting about his home versus away performances is that the schedule has been a little tougher at home than on the road. Thus far, opponents he's faced at home are a combined 28-32 (.466) while the opponents on the road are a combined 17-23 (.425). Granted it's not a huge difference, but he has faced tougher competition at home than on the road. So why can't he pull off the same performances on the road?
This inconsistency leads me to lean toward another rookie quarterback who has been garnering hype this season: Robert Griffin III. As it stands right now, RGIII has played better and more consistently than any other rookie this season - and this season has been full of solid rookie play. Sure, the first thing people will note is that Griffin is two games under .500 (4-6) while Luck sits two games above (6-4). When you crunch Griffin's numbers, he has been incredibly consistent.
Let's break Griffin down the same way as Luck. At home, Griffin has completed 70% of his passes, throwing for 6 touchdowns and just 1 interception. He has also rushed for 3 touchdowns and lost only 1 fumble. His passer rating at home? 100.6! Now shift over to his road stats. This is where Luck's numbers drop considerably, but Griffin seems to stay the same. Away from Washington, he has completed 66% of his passes, throwing for 6 touchdowns and 2 interceptions. He has also rushed for 3 touchdowns and lost 1 fumble, and his passer rating on the road is 102.1! How about that for consistency?
Furthering his case is the fact that Griffin takes substantially better care of the ball than Luck. Luck has thrown for 12 touchdowns and 12 interceptions while also rushing for 5 touchdowns and 5 lost fumbles. Yes, Luck turns the ball over once for every touchdown he accounts for (17 touchdowns to 17 turnovers). Meanwhile, Griffin has also thrown 12 touchdowns, but only 3 interceptions. He has also rushed for 6 touchdowns and lost just 2 fumbles. All in all, Griffin accounts for 18 touchdowns (1 more than Luck) but only 5 turnovers (12 fewer than Luck).
The yardage thing is kind of a moot point. Differences in style of play are relevant here as Luck has thrown for 2,965 yards to Griffin's 2,193. It is a substantial difference until you look at the rushing yardage too, in which Griffin has rushed for 613 yards to Luck's 163. The difference in total yardage is 322 yards. It's not that big of a gap. Both quarterbacks have strong arms and are mobile, but Luck is not expected to make the same kind of plays with his legs. Washington runs a large number of intentional rushing plays for Griffin.
Another reason to give the edge to Griffin is that he has played so consistently against superior competition. His very first game was in the Superdome against future Hall of Famer (and chronic record breaker) Drew Brees. The Redskins' schedule has been tough. They've played 7 teams with a .500 or better record. The Saints, Bengals, Bucs, Falcons, Vikings, Giants, and Steelers are all battling for a playoff spot. That's nearly twice the number of .500 or above teams the Colts have faced. So sure, looking at the record, it makes sense that the Redskins would be 4-6 while the Colts are 6-4. And yeah, Griffin is 3-5 against those teams compared to Luck's 2-2, but Griffen has never shown any real drop in play.
In fact, Griffin has completed less than 60% of his passes in just two of those games! Meanwhile, Peyton Manning's successor has completed MORE than 60% of his passes four times. He's completed 50% or less in two games (and completed 51.1% in another). Those percentages are very reminiscent of a certain quarterback from the Big Apple on the hot seat...
Additionally, some might even argue that the Colts actually are a better all around team than the Redskins. Yes, the Colts were pretty awful last season, but the Redskins have been bad for a long time now. With a few occasional blips into the post season, they have rarely been able to see success, and they haven't exactly been the best at evaluating personnel. While the Colts did some major remodeling in the offseason, their team is still a similar structure - get a solid quarterback in there, and you'll be all right. The team went 2-14 last year without Peyton Manning, but if they had had a solid quarterback, they could have been fine. You're not going to win many games - no matter who you have around - if your quarterbacks are Curtis Painter or Dan Orlovsky. Credit to Colts management for trying to build with Luck instead of sticking Luck in there; they would have been fine if they had gone that route too though. Still, both Griffin and Luck have had to do more with less. Luck has the Colts 4th in yards, but 21st in points. Griffin has the historically woeful Redskins offense 8th in yards and 10th in points.
Of course Andrew Luck has a bright future ahead of him. It's too early to call him the second coming of Peyton Manning, but he's shown many positive signs. He's a rookie and one imagines he'll only get better with time. He very well could lead the Colts back to AFC dominance like Manning before him, but right now everyone needs to scale down expectations a little bit. Luck will be lucky to make the playoffs (that wasn't meant as a pun), and he should be nowhere near the MVP talk.
Griffin shouldn't be near the MVP talk either, of course. It's impressive he has been able to play so well and so consistently despite being a Washington Redskins quarterback and with the beating he has taken - already suffering a rib injury and a concussion. It makes his long term future seem shaky. A lot of people like to compare him to Michael Vick (Vick was nowhere near as accurate and he relied heavily on his legs), but I tend to look at him more like Donovan McNabb (which reminds me even though I'm doing it right now - why do we only compare black quarterbacks to other black quarterbacks?) Either way, it has to make you a little nervous if you're investing in Griffin for the long term. Whether he is more like Vick or McNabb, or even more like a Ben Roethlisberger or Tony Romo type mobile quarterback, season impacting injuries seem looming on the horizon. Still, Griffin seems to play a little bit different than all of those guys.
I still think Luck will be better in the long term success of the Colts than Griffin for the Redskins, but so far this year, Griffin is the hands down Rookie of the Year.
Luck has been solid, but inconsistent. He almost seems the perfect fit for the Seattle Seahawks as he plays much better at home than on the road (Seattle has not finished with a .500 road record since 2006 when they went 4-4 on the road). The game against the Patriots showed two Andrew Lucks. In the first half, barring a pick six early, he played pretty well. He had the Colts down by one touchdown going into the half and had actually moved the ball quite well. In the second half, he and the Colts fell apart. One can look at Luck's performances at home and compare them to his performances on the road to find a similar theme.
First of all, his road record is a little inflated since he has played a relatively soft schedule. That said, he is 2-3 on the road versus 4-1 at home. But it's more than just wins and losses. It's how he does it. At home, he looks like a veteran field general, completing 60% of his passes and throwing 8 touchdowns to just 2 interceptions. Additionally, he has rushed for 3 TDs at home and only lost 1 fumble. All in all, he's accounted for 11 TDs to just 3 turnovers at home with an average passer rating of 88.9. That's pretty darn good.
Compare those numbers to his numbers on the road though. Away from the dome, he has completed 56% of his passes (a few points higher than Mark Sanchez's completion percentage on the year). He has also thrown only 4 touchdowns while throwing 10 interceptions. Additionally, he has rushed for 2 touchdowns and lost 4 fumbles. Thus, on the road, he accounted for 6 TDs but 12 INTs with an average passer rating of 67.4. Those numbers aren't good.
It also seems the hype around Andrew Luck's Colts might be a little inflated. In 10 games, he has played against 4 opponents with winning records, going 2-2 (not surprisingly, the two wins against Green Bay and Minnesota were at home while the two losses against Chicago and New England were on the road). What's even more interesting about his home versus away performances is that the schedule has been a little tougher at home than on the road. Thus far, opponents he's faced at home are a combined 28-32 (.466) while the opponents on the road are a combined 17-23 (.425). Granted it's not a huge difference, but he has faced tougher competition at home than on the road. So why can't he pull off the same performances on the road?
This inconsistency leads me to lean toward another rookie quarterback who has been garnering hype this season: Robert Griffin III. As it stands right now, RGIII has played better and more consistently than any other rookie this season - and this season has been full of solid rookie play. Sure, the first thing people will note is that Griffin is two games under .500 (4-6) while Luck sits two games above (6-4). When you crunch Griffin's numbers, he has been incredibly consistent.
Let's break Griffin down the same way as Luck. At home, Griffin has completed 70% of his passes, throwing for 6 touchdowns and just 1 interception. He has also rushed for 3 touchdowns and lost only 1 fumble. His passer rating at home? 100.6! Now shift over to his road stats. This is where Luck's numbers drop considerably, but Griffin seems to stay the same. Away from Washington, he has completed 66% of his passes, throwing for 6 touchdowns and 2 interceptions. He has also rushed for 3 touchdowns and lost 1 fumble, and his passer rating on the road is 102.1! How about that for consistency?
Furthering his case is the fact that Griffin takes substantially better care of the ball than Luck. Luck has thrown for 12 touchdowns and 12 interceptions while also rushing for 5 touchdowns and 5 lost fumbles. Yes, Luck turns the ball over once for every touchdown he accounts for (17 touchdowns to 17 turnovers). Meanwhile, Griffin has also thrown 12 touchdowns, but only 3 interceptions. He has also rushed for 6 touchdowns and lost just 2 fumbles. All in all, Griffin accounts for 18 touchdowns (1 more than Luck) but only 5 turnovers (12 fewer than Luck).
The yardage thing is kind of a moot point. Differences in style of play are relevant here as Luck has thrown for 2,965 yards to Griffin's 2,193. It is a substantial difference until you look at the rushing yardage too, in which Griffin has rushed for 613 yards to Luck's 163. The difference in total yardage is 322 yards. It's not that big of a gap. Both quarterbacks have strong arms and are mobile, but Luck is not expected to make the same kind of plays with his legs. Washington runs a large number of intentional rushing plays for Griffin.
Another reason to give the edge to Griffin is that he has played so consistently against superior competition. His very first game was in the Superdome against future Hall of Famer (and chronic record breaker) Drew Brees. The Redskins' schedule has been tough. They've played 7 teams with a .500 or better record. The Saints, Bengals, Bucs, Falcons, Vikings, Giants, and Steelers are all battling for a playoff spot. That's nearly twice the number of .500 or above teams the Colts have faced. So sure, looking at the record, it makes sense that the Redskins would be 4-6 while the Colts are 6-4. And yeah, Griffin is 3-5 against those teams compared to Luck's 2-2, but Griffen has never shown any real drop in play.
In fact, Griffin has completed less than 60% of his passes in just two of those games! Meanwhile, Peyton Manning's successor has completed MORE than 60% of his passes four times. He's completed 50% or less in two games (and completed 51.1% in another). Those percentages are very reminiscent of a certain quarterback from the Big Apple on the hot seat...
Additionally, some might even argue that the Colts actually are a better all around team than the Redskins. Yes, the Colts were pretty awful last season, but the Redskins have been bad for a long time now. With a few occasional blips into the post season, they have rarely been able to see success, and they haven't exactly been the best at evaluating personnel. While the Colts did some major remodeling in the offseason, their team is still a similar structure - get a solid quarterback in there, and you'll be all right. The team went 2-14 last year without Peyton Manning, but if they had had a solid quarterback, they could have been fine. You're not going to win many games - no matter who you have around - if your quarterbacks are Curtis Painter or Dan Orlovsky. Credit to Colts management for trying to build with Luck instead of sticking Luck in there; they would have been fine if they had gone that route too though. Still, both Griffin and Luck have had to do more with less. Luck has the Colts 4th in yards, but 21st in points. Griffin has the historically woeful Redskins offense 8th in yards and 10th in points.
Of course Andrew Luck has a bright future ahead of him. It's too early to call him the second coming of Peyton Manning, but he's shown many positive signs. He's a rookie and one imagines he'll only get better with time. He very well could lead the Colts back to AFC dominance like Manning before him, but right now everyone needs to scale down expectations a little bit. Luck will be lucky to make the playoffs (that wasn't meant as a pun), and he should be nowhere near the MVP talk.
Griffin shouldn't be near the MVP talk either, of course. It's impressive he has been able to play so well and so consistently despite being a Washington Redskins quarterback and with the beating he has taken - already suffering a rib injury and a concussion. It makes his long term future seem shaky. A lot of people like to compare him to Michael Vick (Vick was nowhere near as accurate and he relied heavily on his legs), but I tend to look at him more like Donovan McNabb (which reminds me even though I'm doing it right now - why do we only compare black quarterbacks to other black quarterbacks?) Either way, it has to make you a little nervous if you're investing in Griffin for the long term. Whether he is more like Vick or McNabb, or even more like a Ben Roethlisberger or Tony Romo type mobile quarterback, season impacting injuries seem looming on the horizon. Still, Griffin seems to play a little bit different than all of those guys.
I still think Luck will be better in the long term success of the Colts than Griffin for the Redskins, but so far this year, Griffin is the hands down Rookie of the Year.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
PSN (Phony Sports News): Belichick's Hoodie Shrinks in Wash: Laundry Guy Traded for Third Round Draft Pick
From last year:
FOXBOROUGH – Coach Bill Belichick’s defense took another hit this week when the personable Belichick’s famed hoodie was washed in hot water and machine dried. The result was a hoodie too small for the hall of fame head coach.
The New England Patriots at 9-3 sit on top of the AFC standings, but their future is precarious. The Houston Texans, Baltimore Ravens, and Pittsburgh Steelers are all constantly knocking at their door, ready to jump ahead should the AFC East leaders falter. For a team with an already weak defense and battling injuries, the loss of the hoodie comes at the worst time.
“We’re not thinking about it,” said a clearly emotional Belichick. “We’re keeping our focus on Washington. They’re a good football team.”
Staying focused might not be so easy. It’s hard to remember a time when Belichick was on the sidelines without the hoodie. Some players have said that the loss of the hoodie will be a rallying point, a tragedy that will bring the team closer together.
“It’s tough,” said wide receiver Wes Welker. “I don’t think there’s ever been a time the hoodie wasn’t with us since I’ve been here. I think it serves as motivation though. We’re going to try and double our production, for Bill, for the hoodie.”
The Redskins vaunted defense will determine whether Welker will double his production. Working against the small receiver is the Washington secondary, which has not allowed a receiver to grab thirty receptions all season.
Tom Brady, of course, is not fazed. The greatest quarterback of all time has been in his share of big games. “We’re treating this like a Super Bowl,” Brady said casually. “You only see this stage once every two or three years. You have to make them count.”
Most analysts agree that the offense is likely to have a big day; the bigger question is how the defense will fair.
Recent cornerback Julian Edelman, who grew up idealizing the great defensive backs like Deion Sanders and Ronnie Lott, is not too concerned. Despite Washington’s prolific passing offense, he predicts the defense is going to step up to meet the challenge. “We practice hard all week and try to get better every Sunday. We know the Redskins like to run the ball. We know they are capable passing the ball.”
This kind of talk is highly unusual for Patriots players and causes some concern, according to some NFL analysts. “Whenever you have so many players coming out and talking like this, it gives you pause,” said NFL blogger Marty Morningwood. “These players are speaking up like they’re Jets! I think the loss of the hoodie is affecting everyone more than they’ll admit.”
Still, the team will move on. With a win today and a Jets loss, the Patriots can clinch the elusive AFC East title. Brady spoke of it in great detail. “We’re only looking ahead to Washington,” said the elite quarterback who is better than you. “Though it’d be great to win the division.”
One would imagine it is on everyone’s mind though. After all, the New England Patriots have not won an AFC East title in almost a year. Belichick was uncharacteristically quiet on the topic. “Our goal is the Super Bowl,” he said.
While the Patriots are in good spirits and in a good position to make the playoffs for only the ninth time in eleven years, the future is not as certain for one particular member of the upstart Patriots.
Mike Dixon, the nineteen year old laundry boy for the club, has been traded to the Buffalo Bills, according to league insiders. In exchange for their mistake prone human washer and drier, the Patriots get a rare third round draft pick.
Many analysts argue that the deal is actually, what some call, a “steal” for the Patriots. League insider Jerry Fallon explained why the deal works out well for New England. “They got this kid as an intern from Boston College’s sports management program. It was a low risk, high reward situation. He didn’t produce, so now they at least get a third round draft pick.”
The Patriots have eight third round draft picks from similar trades. Last month, their in house DJ was traded to the Seattle Seahawks after playing the Super Bowl Shuffle. They received a third round draft pick. Earlier during the preseason, their in house cook was traded to the Dallas Cowboys after forgetting that Tom Brady doesn’t like fish. Again, the Patriots got a third round draft pick.
Not everyone goes for a third round draft pick, however. Former Patriots TE Dan Gronkowski was simply cut.
“We realized he wasn’t Rob after a few plays,” explained Patriots offensive coordinator Bill O’Brien. He was waived, re-signed, then released as the confusion between Gronks came to a head.
Dixon has kept a low profile, something the Patriots are unfamiliar with though happy about. “Dixon was a good kid,” said a bitter Bill Belichick. “We wish him well, but we all have to move on.”
Asked if he were afraid to face Dixon in the season finale against Buffalo, Belichick became surprisingly serious. “Let’s just say I won’t be wearing anything I like.”
-
Just gotta say, it's funny to think that I was making fun of Washington, then they turned around and came so close to beating the Patriots that week.
FOXBOROUGH – Coach Bill Belichick’s defense took another hit this week when the personable Belichick’s famed hoodie was washed in hot water and machine dried. The result was a hoodie too small for the hall of fame head coach.
The New England Patriots at 9-3 sit on top of the AFC standings, but their future is precarious. The Houston Texans, Baltimore Ravens, and Pittsburgh Steelers are all constantly knocking at their door, ready to jump ahead should the AFC East leaders falter. For a team with an already weak defense and battling injuries, the loss of the hoodie comes at the worst time.
“We’re not thinking about it,” said a clearly emotional Belichick. “We’re keeping our focus on Washington. They’re a good football team.”
Staying focused might not be so easy. It’s hard to remember a time when Belichick was on the sidelines without the hoodie. Some players have said that the loss of the hoodie will be a rallying point, a tragedy that will bring the team closer together.
“It’s tough,” said wide receiver Wes Welker. “I don’t think there’s ever been a time the hoodie wasn’t with us since I’ve been here. I think it serves as motivation though. We’re going to try and double our production, for Bill, for the hoodie.”
The Redskins vaunted defense will determine whether Welker will double his production. Working against the small receiver is the Washington secondary, which has not allowed a receiver to grab thirty receptions all season.
Tom Brady, of course, is not fazed. The greatest quarterback of all time has been in his share of big games. “We’re treating this like a Super Bowl,” Brady said casually. “You only see this stage once every two or three years. You have to make them count.”
Most analysts agree that the offense is likely to have a big day; the bigger question is how the defense will fair.
Recent cornerback Julian Edelman, who grew up idealizing the great defensive backs like Deion Sanders and Ronnie Lott, is not too concerned. Despite Washington’s prolific passing offense, he predicts the defense is going to step up to meet the challenge. “We practice hard all week and try to get better every Sunday. We know the Redskins like to run the ball. We know they are capable passing the ball.”
This kind of talk is highly unusual for Patriots players and causes some concern, according to some NFL analysts. “Whenever you have so many players coming out and talking like this, it gives you pause,” said NFL blogger Marty Morningwood. “These players are speaking up like they’re Jets! I think the loss of the hoodie is affecting everyone more than they’ll admit.”
Still, the team will move on. With a win today and a Jets loss, the Patriots can clinch the elusive AFC East title. Brady spoke of it in great detail. “We’re only looking ahead to Washington,” said the elite quarterback who is better than you. “Though it’d be great to win the division.”
One would imagine it is on everyone’s mind though. After all, the New England Patriots have not won an AFC East title in almost a year. Belichick was uncharacteristically quiet on the topic. “Our goal is the Super Bowl,” he said.
While the Patriots are in good spirits and in a good position to make the playoffs for only the ninth time in eleven years, the future is not as certain for one particular member of the upstart Patriots.
Mike Dixon, the nineteen year old laundry boy for the club, has been traded to the Buffalo Bills, according to league insiders. In exchange for their mistake prone human washer and drier, the Patriots get a rare third round draft pick.
Many analysts argue that the deal is actually, what some call, a “steal” for the Patriots. League insider Jerry Fallon explained why the deal works out well for New England. “They got this kid as an intern from Boston College’s sports management program. It was a low risk, high reward situation. He didn’t produce, so now they at least get a third round draft pick.”
The Patriots have eight third round draft picks from similar trades. Last month, their in house DJ was traded to the Seattle Seahawks after playing the Super Bowl Shuffle. They received a third round draft pick. Earlier during the preseason, their in house cook was traded to the Dallas Cowboys after forgetting that Tom Brady doesn’t like fish. Again, the Patriots got a third round draft pick.
Not everyone goes for a third round draft pick, however. Former Patriots TE Dan Gronkowski was simply cut.
“We realized he wasn’t Rob after a few plays,” explained Patriots offensive coordinator Bill O’Brien. He was waived, re-signed, then released as the confusion between Gronks came to a head.
Dixon has kept a low profile, something the Patriots are unfamiliar with though happy about. “Dixon was a good kid,” said a bitter Bill Belichick. “We wish him well, but we all have to move on.”
Asked if he were afraid to face Dixon in the season finale against Buffalo, Belichick became surprisingly serious. “Let’s just say I won’t be wearing anything I like.”
-
Just gotta say, it's funny to think that I was making fun of Washington, then they turned around and came so close to beating the Patriots that week.
PSN (Phony Sports News): Roethlisberger Doesn't Refer to Penis as "Big Ben"
An oldy, but goody.
PITTSBURGH – In what can only be described as a shocking turn of events, it has been revealed that Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger does not refer to his penis as "Big Ben," something that many guys are calling stupid or lame.
The news comes in a time of relative peace and quiet for the womanizing NFL star. After getting heat with accusations of sexual assault over a year ago, the quarterback overcame the odds and began treating women with respect.
“He was trying so hard on the field,” a close friend of Roethlisberger explained. “He had the worst Super Bowl performance of a winning QB of all time against Seattle. And he was only solid in the last Super Bowl. He has been trying to overcompensate lately.”
Which is precisely what got him into trouble. In a survey conducted by Women Against Steeler Penises, a feminist group stationed in nearby Bethel Park, most women said that Roethlisberger’s penis is smaller than his last name in size 12 New Times Roman font.
“Really, it makes sense that he had assaulted women,” said the head of WASP Miriam Anglepoint. “He overcompensates on the field, why wouldn’t he overcompensate at the bars?”
Anglepoint, skeptical of the Super Bowl champion’s reformation, hired a private detective to explore his change of heart. At a local night club, the detective – a woman – flirted like there was two minutes left in the game. In a surprise move, Big Ben didn’t touch the dick.
However, it was at this point that the classified information came. After the PI turned to leave, she overheard Roethlisberger talking to a buddy. According to the detective, he had leaned over and said, “I would have loved to show her my Ras-hard Man-denhall and do it up her Heinz Field!”
Roethlisberger could not be reached for clarification regarding the comment. Appearing to have cleaned up his act, the incident brings questions of his character back to the foreground. Further complicating the issue is the question of why he refers to his junk as his “Man-denhall.”
“It just doesn’t make sense,” said Richard Pubebody, penis nicknaming expert. “Why on earth would he not call his shaft ‘Big Ben’? “
Doing so would have just made things more simple for the Pro Bowl quarterback, according to Pubebody. Though pick up lines for the Steeler great are inherently endless, - “Check out my LaHard Woodey,” “I’ll Pola-maul-you,” “I’m great in the pocket,” and the popular “Don’t worry if my protection breaks down: I’m great on the move” have all been used by the all star – there is one glaring pick up line he hasn’t used:
“When the cock strikes ten, you’ll see Big Ben.”
An insider for the Pittsburgh Steelers has confirmed that his Lombardi trophy is slightly curved. It’s totally normal.
The recent information leak has hindered his reputation among cool guys, though women are mostly riding a high of not being sexually assaulted for a change.
Roethlisberger battled an ankle injury in Pittsburgh’s thrilling 14-3 victory over the heavily favored Cleveland Browns on Thursday night. Now he has to overcome a different agony in his every day life.
“Look, he’s a married man now,” said a family friend. “He’s got a three rings, and one of them is legit! He went from zero to 90 so quickly. Now he’s crashing. It’s a mental motorcycle for him right now.”
It comes as a surprise to many fans that Roethlisberger lacks the wit to refer to his Johnson as Big Ben, but for the youngest quarterback to win a Super Bowl, it is not as disappointing as the nickname Anglepoint hopes will catch on: Crotchlesspervert.
However, it is not too late for Roethlisberger to make the necessary changes. Should he do so, there may be a happy ending for him after all. Like all things the captain does, he is at his best in the final two minutes.
PITTSBURGH – In what can only be described as a shocking turn of events, it has been revealed that Pittsburgh Steelers quarterback Ben Roethlisberger does not refer to his penis as "Big Ben," something that many guys are calling stupid or lame.
The news comes in a time of relative peace and quiet for the womanizing NFL star. After getting heat with accusations of sexual assault over a year ago, the quarterback overcame the odds and began treating women with respect.
“He was trying so hard on the field,” a close friend of Roethlisberger explained. “He had the worst Super Bowl performance of a winning QB of all time against Seattle. And he was only solid in the last Super Bowl. He has been trying to overcompensate lately.”
Which is precisely what got him into trouble. In a survey conducted by Women Against Steeler Penises, a feminist group stationed in nearby Bethel Park, most women said that Roethlisberger’s penis is smaller than his last name in size 12 New Times Roman font.
“Really, it makes sense that he had assaulted women,” said the head of WASP Miriam Anglepoint. “He overcompensates on the field, why wouldn’t he overcompensate at the bars?”
Anglepoint, skeptical of the Super Bowl champion’s reformation, hired a private detective to explore his change of heart. At a local night club, the detective – a woman – flirted like there was two minutes left in the game. In a surprise move, Big Ben didn’t touch the dick.
However, it was at this point that the classified information came. After the PI turned to leave, she overheard Roethlisberger talking to a buddy. According to the detective, he had leaned over and said, “I would have loved to show her my Ras-hard Man-denhall and do it up her Heinz Field!”
Roethlisberger could not be reached for clarification regarding the comment. Appearing to have cleaned up his act, the incident brings questions of his character back to the foreground. Further complicating the issue is the question of why he refers to his junk as his “Man-denhall.”
“It just doesn’t make sense,” said Richard Pubebody, penis nicknaming expert. “Why on earth would he not call his shaft ‘Big Ben’? “
Doing so would have just made things more simple for the Pro Bowl quarterback, according to Pubebody. Though pick up lines for the Steeler great are inherently endless, - “Check out my LaHard Woodey,” “I’ll Pola-maul-you,” “I’m great in the pocket,” and the popular “Don’t worry if my protection breaks down: I’m great on the move” have all been used by the all star – there is one glaring pick up line he hasn’t used:
“When the cock strikes ten, you’ll see Big Ben.”
An insider for the Pittsburgh Steelers has confirmed that his Lombardi trophy is slightly curved. It’s totally normal.
The recent information leak has hindered his reputation among cool guys, though women are mostly riding a high of not being sexually assaulted for a change.
Roethlisberger battled an ankle injury in Pittsburgh’s thrilling 14-3 victory over the heavily favored Cleveland Browns on Thursday night. Now he has to overcome a different agony in his every day life.
“Look, he’s a married man now,” said a family friend. “He’s got a three rings, and one of them is legit! He went from zero to 90 so quickly. Now he’s crashing. It’s a mental motorcycle for him right now.”
It comes as a surprise to many fans that Roethlisberger lacks the wit to refer to his Johnson as Big Ben, but for the youngest quarterback to win a Super Bowl, it is not as disappointing as the nickname Anglepoint hopes will catch on: Crotchlesspervert.
However, it is not too late for Roethlisberger to make the necessary changes. Should he do so, there may be a happy ending for him after all. Like all things the captain does, he is at his best in the final two minutes.
Friday, November 9, 2012
The Case for It Doesn't Matter (Tebow vs. Sanchez)
PREFACE: I started this article with the idea that I would argue Tim Tebow should be starting over Mark Sanchez. As I continued to delve deeper into the stats though, I began to realize that - statistically speaking - the two were much more identical than I imagined. Probably more so than anyone thought. Still, while case for Tebow is extremely thin at best, the statistics are still pretty insightful. Thus, I've decided to post this despite the weak sauce argument.
Let me start by saying that I have never really understood the hype around Tim Tebow. Last year, he stunk up most of the season, pulling out close games, then backed into the playoffs losing three straight and winning the division on a tie-breaker, got a huge helping hand from his receivers, and then got crushed by a true competitor. With a few fourth quarter exceptions, he looked horrible in almost every game. The run-option offense that John Fox built around Tebow worked well for a while, but by the end of the season went the way of the Wild Cat. Defenses figured it out and were able to shut it down with little problem.
This is not to suggest that Tebow can't become a decent quarterback in the NFL. He's only in his third season and hasn't even started a full one yet. He has a strong arm and great mobility. And he's tough. The guy can take some licks. He has potential if he can learn to become a more traditional style quarterback. However, until then, Tebow is not someone that you can bank on for sustained success or legitimate post season success.
Yes. I remember last year's game against the Pittsburgh Steelers - the Anomaly. Tebow deserves credit for some really pretty passes, but overall, his performance was only impressive in context of it being Tim Tebow who was playing. For a majority of the game, he did a whole lot of nothing. On those few occasions he did something, they were big plays. Again, credit to Tebow for hitting those receivers perfectly in stride; ultimately the receivers deserved more credit.
Of the 316 yards he threw for, 260 of those came off of five passes of 30 or more yards. That's 82% of his passing yards - off of five plays! Tebow went 10 for 21 (again, completing less than 50% of his passes) and 2 TDs - only one in regulation. Pittsburgh did well keeping him in check on the ground and held him to 50 yards on 10 rushes, though they did give up a TD. Point being, Denver won on a few big plays. They converted on just three of ten third downs and scored just three points in three full quarters of play. The Broncos scored 20 points in the second quarter, taking a 20-6 lead at half time before blowing it in the second half - in no small part to Tebow's inability to convert on third downs thanks to his inaccurate arm.
And can we just talk about that Demaryius Thomas touchdown in overtime for the win? Would anyone have been more impressed with the quarterback than with the receiver if it had been any other quarterback than Tim Tebow? Before that throw, Tebow had completed 45% of his passes. Yes, he threw a perfect strike 20 yards down field to an open receiver making his break. Thomas took it the remaining 60 yards himself. That is a throw that any quarterback starting in the NFL should be able to make. It only seemed impressive because of who was throwing it - the woefully inaccurate Tim Tebow.
Further complicating the Tebow issue is how steadfast supporters are with the opinion that Tebow is a natural winner - "all he does is win," they argue. In 2011, Tebow went 8-6 as a starter. (He's 9-8 in his NFL career.) He had a good stretch, pulling off narrow victories for six straight weeks. Then, he went 1-4 in the final five games they played. And when you look at that six game winning streak, they won four straight by four points or fewer. It's true that his fourth quarter stats shoot up considerably, but the Denver defense deserves a lot more credit for their success in that stretch than Tebow.
Tebow isn't going to score many points. In his fourteen starts, he scored 20+ points in just five games (that's 35% of his games). He led the Broncos to 30+ points just three times (21%). Normally, when you so consistently score fewer than 20 points, you aren't going to win - that is, unless your defense can hold the opponent to the same. Let's not ignore the relatively soft schedule the Broncos had. Tebow played against just two playoff bound teams, losing both by a combined score of 86-33. In the playoffs, despite one win, he was outscored 68-39 in those two games.
Admittedly, that long first part was designed to do a little Tebow bashing. Not to say he doesn't have positive attributes or can't develop, there is nothing to indicate that he is a good quarterback in the NFL. Statistically, he is underwhelming. Even in the running game, he is not that impressive. In 2011, he ran for 6 touchdowns while losing 6 fumbles. Compare that to Cam Newton, who ran for 14 touchdowns while only losing 2 fumbles, or this year Robert Griffin already has 6 rushing touchdowns to 2 lost fumbles. Tebow should not be a starter in the NFL, unless your team is in desperate need of a change. One of maybe three teams that fits this description is the New York Jets.
Sitting at 3-5, the Jets season is extremely close to finished. Granted, the second half of their season is pretty weak, with only the Patriots and Seahawks on the docket with winning records, they still technically have a chance. Still, when the Jets lose, they lose ugly. To be fair to Mark Sanchez, he doesn't have a whole lot to work with. Shonn Greene has started to show up this season, but the defense is banged up and the receivers are dropping a lot of passes. However, Sanchez has gone most of the season completing less than 50% of his passes and not all of that falls on the receivers.
When you compare the two, Mark Sanchez and Tim Tebow don't look all that different right now. Sanchez has completed 53% of his passes this season (only breaking the 50% mark in recent weeks). That number seems a little inflated too when you consider that a big part of his increased percentage comes from his game against New England - a team with a notoriously awful secondary that customarily makes Joe Flacco look like Joe Montana. Overall, this 53% is usually where Sanchez hovers. His first three years, he completed 53.8%, 54.8%, and then 56.7%. Improvement each year, but not really what you are hoping for in your quarterback. Comparatively, Tebow completed 50% of his passes in the three games he started in 2010 before completing just 46.5% of his passes in 2011 (the second lowest completion percentage of a starting quarterback since 2000). That number seems pretty inflated too when you consider that nearly a quarter of his completions were wide receiver screens in which his throw never went beyond the line of scrimmage. Of pass attempts that went beyond the line, he completed a dismal 41.6%.
So to look at the completion percentages, they don't look all that different. Sanchez's rate might be improving slowly, but they've gone 1-2 since he started completing more than 50% of his passes. Despite improving his accuracy, the Jets still struggle to put up points. In the last three weeks, they've scored 35, 23, and 9. In the first three weeks, they scored 48, 10, 23. They are also the only team to get shut out in a game - week 4 against the Texans. Yes, not even the abysmal Kansas City Chiefs have been shut out this season. The Jets offense just struggles to put up points consistently - similarly to how Tim Tebow has in his career. When it comes to scoring points, Tebow and Sanchez are practically the same.
There's no secret that the Jets are built around their defense. If the defense holds, they don't need their offense to do a whole lot. Even with a banged up defensive unit, this Jets team is still talented enough to make a wild card run. At the quarterback position though, neither guy is going to put up a lot of points. Neither guy is going to complete a high percentage of his passes consistently. Even the turnover differential is practically identical. Sanchez accounted for 32 touchdowns last season (26 passing, 6 rushing); he also accounted for 26 turnovers (18 interceptions, 8 lost fumbles). He accounted for 6 more TDs than turnovers. In 2011, Tebow accounted for 18 touchdowns (12 passing, 6 rushing) and 12 turnovers (6 ints, 6 lost fumbles) - 6 more TDs than turnovers. In his three games at the end of 2010, he accounted for 11 TDs (5 passing, 6 rushing) while only accounting for 4 turnovers (3 INTs, 1 lost fumble). Hard to really go by that though given that it was only three games and Tebow is a streaky player. Already this year though, Sanchez accounts for 10 TDs (all passing) and 11 turnovers (8 INTs, 3 lost fumbles). On this front, Tebow has the edge (though narrowly).
They even have almost identical sack stats. In 2011, Sanchez was dropped 39 times totaling 243 yards. Tebow was sacked 33 times for 225 yards. Sanchez's passer rating is currently sitting at 72.8. Tebow's passer rating for last year was 72.9.
The one area of difference really is in the rushing yards. Because Tebow is bigger, stronger, and more mobile, he took off a fair amount. He rushed almost half as often as he threw. This eventually opened up the passing game in the fourth quarter, but it also opened up the running game a little bit. Mark Sanchez is not very mobile. Teams don't have to play that aspect defensively. No one is worried that Sanchez will take it. In this regards, Tebow is superior, rushing for 660 yards on 122 attempts.
Ultimately, that is why the Jets should consider starting Tebow soon if Mark Sanchez continues to struggle with consistency. The trick will be to try and get Tebow to fit into the offense, with occasional quarterback runs. The run-option offense of the Broncos last year was effective to a point, but proved to be more of a novelty offense - like the wild cat. If you can get Tebow to keep his eyes down field and can get him to address his mechanics (long wind up, sloppy footwork), Tebow has a strong arm and the mobility to become a dangerous quarterback.
If the Jets lose one more game, they are essentially out of playoff contention. Mathematically, they might remain, but realistically, they would not. Tebow could provide a spark to an otherwise stale and predictable offense that struggles with consistency, with accuracy, and with scoring. Currently, they are 21st in points, 27th in yards, 26th in passing yards, and 14th in rushing yards. Their defense ranks 6th in passing yards, but 29th in rushing yards allowed. Opponents are able to run all over them and control the clock and the pace of the game. New York's offense has to be able to control the ball a little bit more, to keep their defense off the field. The running game is looking solid, but they don't have a means to capitalize on that.
While I argue Tim Tebow might just bring a little more to the table than Mark Sanchez here, it's tough to think of him as a long term solution for the Jets. When the year is over, they might do best to look toward the draft again.
Let me start by saying that I have never really understood the hype around Tim Tebow. Last year, he stunk up most of the season, pulling out close games, then backed into the playoffs losing three straight and winning the division on a tie-breaker, got a huge helping hand from his receivers, and then got crushed by a true competitor. With a few fourth quarter exceptions, he looked horrible in almost every game. The run-option offense that John Fox built around Tebow worked well for a while, but by the end of the season went the way of the Wild Cat. Defenses figured it out and were able to shut it down with little problem.
This is not to suggest that Tebow can't become a decent quarterback in the NFL. He's only in his third season and hasn't even started a full one yet. He has a strong arm and great mobility. And he's tough. The guy can take some licks. He has potential if he can learn to become a more traditional style quarterback. However, until then, Tebow is not someone that you can bank on for sustained success or legitimate post season success.
Yes. I remember last year's game against the Pittsburgh Steelers - the Anomaly. Tebow deserves credit for some really pretty passes, but overall, his performance was only impressive in context of it being Tim Tebow who was playing. For a majority of the game, he did a whole lot of nothing. On those few occasions he did something, they were big plays. Again, credit to Tebow for hitting those receivers perfectly in stride; ultimately the receivers deserved more credit.
Of the 316 yards he threw for, 260 of those came off of five passes of 30 or more yards. That's 82% of his passing yards - off of five plays! Tebow went 10 for 21 (again, completing less than 50% of his passes) and 2 TDs - only one in regulation. Pittsburgh did well keeping him in check on the ground and held him to 50 yards on 10 rushes, though they did give up a TD. Point being, Denver won on a few big plays. They converted on just three of ten third downs and scored just three points in three full quarters of play. The Broncos scored 20 points in the second quarter, taking a 20-6 lead at half time before blowing it in the second half - in no small part to Tebow's inability to convert on third downs thanks to his inaccurate arm.
And can we just talk about that Demaryius Thomas touchdown in overtime for the win? Would anyone have been more impressed with the quarterback than with the receiver if it had been any other quarterback than Tim Tebow? Before that throw, Tebow had completed 45% of his passes. Yes, he threw a perfect strike 20 yards down field to an open receiver making his break. Thomas took it the remaining 60 yards himself. That is a throw that any quarterback starting in the NFL should be able to make. It only seemed impressive because of who was throwing it - the woefully inaccurate Tim Tebow.
Further complicating the Tebow issue is how steadfast supporters are with the opinion that Tebow is a natural winner - "all he does is win," they argue. In 2011, Tebow went 8-6 as a starter. (He's 9-8 in his NFL career.) He had a good stretch, pulling off narrow victories for six straight weeks. Then, he went 1-4 in the final five games they played. And when you look at that six game winning streak, they won four straight by four points or fewer. It's true that his fourth quarter stats shoot up considerably, but the Denver defense deserves a lot more credit for their success in that stretch than Tebow.
Tebow isn't going to score many points. In his fourteen starts, he scored 20+ points in just five games (that's 35% of his games). He led the Broncos to 30+ points just three times (21%). Normally, when you so consistently score fewer than 20 points, you aren't going to win - that is, unless your defense can hold the opponent to the same. Let's not ignore the relatively soft schedule the Broncos had. Tebow played against just two playoff bound teams, losing both by a combined score of 86-33. In the playoffs, despite one win, he was outscored 68-39 in those two games.
Admittedly, that long first part was designed to do a little Tebow bashing. Not to say he doesn't have positive attributes or can't develop, there is nothing to indicate that he is a good quarterback in the NFL. Statistically, he is underwhelming. Even in the running game, he is not that impressive. In 2011, he ran for 6 touchdowns while losing 6 fumbles. Compare that to Cam Newton, who ran for 14 touchdowns while only losing 2 fumbles, or this year Robert Griffin already has 6 rushing touchdowns to 2 lost fumbles. Tebow should not be a starter in the NFL, unless your team is in desperate need of a change. One of maybe three teams that fits this description is the New York Jets.
Sitting at 3-5, the Jets season is extremely close to finished. Granted, the second half of their season is pretty weak, with only the Patriots and Seahawks on the docket with winning records, they still technically have a chance. Still, when the Jets lose, they lose ugly. To be fair to Mark Sanchez, he doesn't have a whole lot to work with. Shonn Greene has started to show up this season, but the defense is banged up and the receivers are dropping a lot of passes. However, Sanchez has gone most of the season completing less than 50% of his passes and not all of that falls on the receivers.
When you compare the two, Mark Sanchez and Tim Tebow don't look all that different right now. Sanchez has completed 53% of his passes this season (only breaking the 50% mark in recent weeks). That number seems a little inflated too when you consider that a big part of his increased percentage comes from his game against New England - a team with a notoriously awful secondary that customarily makes Joe Flacco look like Joe Montana. Overall, this 53% is usually where Sanchez hovers. His first three years, he completed 53.8%, 54.8%, and then 56.7%. Improvement each year, but not really what you are hoping for in your quarterback. Comparatively, Tebow completed 50% of his passes in the three games he started in 2010 before completing just 46.5% of his passes in 2011 (the second lowest completion percentage of a starting quarterback since 2000). That number seems pretty inflated too when you consider that nearly a quarter of his completions were wide receiver screens in which his throw never went beyond the line of scrimmage. Of pass attempts that went beyond the line, he completed a dismal 41.6%.
So to look at the completion percentages, they don't look all that different. Sanchez's rate might be improving slowly, but they've gone 1-2 since he started completing more than 50% of his passes. Despite improving his accuracy, the Jets still struggle to put up points. In the last three weeks, they've scored 35, 23, and 9. In the first three weeks, they scored 48, 10, 23. They are also the only team to get shut out in a game - week 4 against the Texans. Yes, not even the abysmal Kansas City Chiefs have been shut out this season. The Jets offense just struggles to put up points consistently - similarly to how Tim Tebow has in his career. When it comes to scoring points, Tebow and Sanchez are practically the same.
There's no secret that the Jets are built around their defense. If the defense holds, they don't need their offense to do a whole lot. Even with a banged up defensive unit, this Jets team is still talented enough to make a wild card run. At the quarterback position though, neither guy is going to put up a lot of points. Neither guy is going to complete a high percentage of his passes consistently. Even the turnover differential is practically identical. Sanchez accounted for 32 touchdowns last season (26 passing, 6 rushing); he also accounted for 26 turnovers (18 interceptions, 8 lost fumbles). He accounted for 6 more TDs than turnovers. In 2011, Tebow accounted for 18 touchdowns (12 passing, 6 rushing) and 12 turnovers (6 ints, 6 lost fumbles) - 6 more TDs than turnovers. In his three games at the end of 2010, he accounted for 11 TDs (5 passing, 6 rushing) while only accounting for 4 turnovers (3 INTs, 1 lost fumble). Hard to really go by that though given that it was only three games and Tebow is a streaky player. Already this year though, Sanchez accounts for 10 TDs (all passing) and 11 turnovers (8 INTs, 3 lost fumbles). On this front, Tebow has the edge (though narrowly).
They even have almost identical sack stats. In 2011, Sanchez was dropped 39 times totaling 243 yards. Tebow was sacked 33 times for 225 yards. Sanchez's passer rating is currently sitting at 72.8. Tebow's passer rating for last year was 72.9.
The one area of difference really is in the rushing yards. Because Tebow is bigger, stronger, and more mobile, he took off a fair amount. He rushed almost half as often as he threw. This eventually opened up the passing game in the fourth quarter, but it also opened up the running game a little bit. Mark Sanchez is not very mobile. Teams don't have to play that aspect defensively. No one is worried that Sanchez will take it. In this regards, Tebow is superior, rushing for 660 yards on 122 attempts.
Ultimately, that is why the Jets should consider starting Tebow soon if Mark Sanchez continues to struggle with consistency. The trick will be to try and get Tebow to fit into the offense, with occasional quarterback runs. The run-option offense of the Broncos last year was effective to a point, but proved to be more of a novelty offense - like the wild cat. If you can get Tebow to keep his eyes down field and can get him to address his mechanics (long wind up, sloppy footwork), Tebow has a strong arm and the mobility to become a dangerous quarterback.
If the Jets lose one more game, they are essentially out of playoff contention. Mathematically, they might remain, but realistically, they would not. Tebow could provide a spark to an otherwise stale and predictable offense that struggles with consistency, with accuracy, and with scoring. Currently, they are 21st in points, 27th in yards, 26th in passing yards, and 14th in rushing yards. Their defense ranks 6th in passing yards, but 29th in rushing yards allowed. Opponents are able to run all over them and control the clock and the pace of the game. New York's offense has to be able to control the ball a little bit more, to keep their defense off the field. The running game is looking solid, but they don't have a means to capitalize on that.
While I argue Tim Tebow might just bring a little more to the table than Mark Sanchez here, it's tough to think of him as a long term solution for the Jets. When the year is over, they might do best to look toward the draft again.
Monday, November 5, 2012
PSN (Phony Sports News): Cyclist Accused of Being Clean!
Justin Aldrin won the Fifth Annual Piccolo Fondo for Testicular Cancer Awareness in Lincoln, New Hampshire this weekend. He didn't just win the 25 mile road race for the third straight year - he destroyed his competition finishing a full three minutes before any other competitor. This year, however, things went a little differently for the victor. Instead of the pomp and circumstance the 27 year old cyclist has grown accustomed to, he was welcomed to the podium with negative chants.
Aldrin is battling accusations of being clean. If the blood test he submitted immediately after the race comes back negative, he could be stripped of his three titles. If the three time champ is worried, he's not showing it.
"I just want the truth to come out," he said in his press conference the next morning. "I've been taking steroids for like, at least a decade."
This isn't the first time he has been accused of being clean. When he first broke onto the local cycling scene, many of his competitors cried fair as he passed them on his way to his first win on the 30th Annual Road Race for the Survival Center in Plymouth, NH.
"I'd never seen anything like it," said second place finisher Michael Flanders. "He just kept his head down and pedaled hard. He was just a jerk about the whole thing."
"I swear I was doping to increase my testosterone levels!" Aldrin defends. "The blood test should prove that."
While the attention paid to this little event is welcomed by event organizers, they admit that the controversy has them a little befuddled. "I just don't know how this could have slipped through the cracks," Linda Sheldon said. The director of the Testicular Cancer Awareness issued a statement to assure spectators that they are very careful to test every participant for doping. "If they're caught clean, they are immediately removed from the competition. Simple as that."
"There's a lot of pressure to be the best," said Flanders. "Fans want winners."
Flanders has gone on to win several local road races and finishing in a respectable place on the national stage in recent years. He too isn't without controversy. He won the Plymouth race and the Lincoln race in consecutive years before hearing accusations that he was not doping. Several blood tests came back positive for erythropoietin, a kind of blood doping that maximizes the efficiency of red blood cells that then enhances performance. He was allowed to keep his titles after his next, less substantial controversy in which he murdered his ex-girlfriend. Police blood tests placed Flanders at the scene of the crime, but by that time, nobody cared.
Despite the accusations, Aldrin remains upbeat and is looking forward to his next race. "Oh, I'm definitely going to enjoy this win. Relax this weekend. But the 15th Annual Road Race and Cider Donut Eating Contest is in a couple of weeks. So come Monday, it's right back to shooting human growth hormone," Aldrin said.
Aldrin also has a message for his critics. "It's stupid to think I'm not doping," he contests. "I mean, frankly, I'm not sure I understand why there are still people who aren't taking EPO! It makes your cells function better for Christ's sake!"
On this point, Flanders agrees. "Anyone not taking steroids is (expletive) stupid."
Friday, October 12, 2012
The Case for a Salary Cap in Major League Baseball
Right upfront, I should say that I am not a big baseball fan. It is growing on me, yet every post season I find myself questioning why there is no talk of a salary cap. As a casual fan and outside observer, the introduction of a salary cap seems to be the best thing for baseball.
The main argument is: money does not buy you championships. Obviously, throwing money at pre-existing talent doesn't necessarily work out. The New York Yankees (who have a business model of "Can't beat 'em? Buy 'em!") have won just one World Series in the past decade. Similarly, the 2012 Boston Red Sox had the third highest payroll in baseball and had a disaster of a season. So sure, you can make the argument that money doesn't guarantee a thing.
However, take a look at this year's post season. From the National League you have the Cardinals, Braves, Nationals, Reds, and Giants. From the American League: the Orioles, Rangers, Yankees, Tigers, Athletics. Of those ten teams, five of them (or 50%) have a payroll that is in Major League's top ten highest (the Yankees, Giants, Cardinals, Rangers, and Tigers all spent over $100 million). Go back last year to the 2011 post season featuring the Yankees, Tigers, Rangers, Rays, Cardinals, Brewers, Diamondbacks, and Phillies. Of that list, the Yankees, Tigers, Cardinals, and Phillies (again, 50%) were in the top ten highest payrolls. All of those teams spent over $100 million.
In fact, this post season - regardless of who wins the Orioles/Yankees or Cardinals/Nationals series - every single match up will feature a team in the top ten highest payrolls. This is also the first time since 1993 in which only one of the teams with the top five highest payrolls made the playoffs (Yankees). Dating back to 2000, there has always been a minimum of two.
In Major League Baseball, the disparity between highest payroll and lowest payroll is dumbfounding. The New York Yankees have the highest at a whopping $192 million. The San Diego Padres have the lowest at $55 million. That is a gap of almost $140 million! Teams that regularly spend over $90 million have the highest chance of making the playoffs and winning the World Series.
Here is how the last twenty World Series winners break down financially:
2011 - St. Louis Cardinals: $105 million (11th highest)
2010 - San Francisco Giants: $97 million (10th highest)
2009 - New York Yankees: $201 million (1st)
2008 - Philadelphia Phillies: $98 million (13th)
2007 - Boston Red Sox: $143 million (2nd)
2006 - St. Louis Cardinals: $88 million (11th)
2005 - Chicago White Sox: $73 million (13th)
2004 - Boston Red Sox: $125 million (2nd)
2003 - Florida Marlins: $63 million (20th)
2002 - Anaheim Angels: $61 million (15th)
2001 - Arizona Diamondbacks: $81 million (8th)
2000 - New York Yankees: $92 million (1st)
1999 - New York Yankees: $89 million (1st)
1998 - New York Yankees: $64 million (2nd)
1997 - Florida Marlins: $48 million (7th)
1996 - New York Yankees: $53 million (1st)
1995 - Atlanta Braves: $46 million (3rd)
1993 - Toronto Blue Jays: $43 million (1st)
1992 - Toronto Blue Jays: $44 million (1st)
1991 - Minnesota Twins: $23 million (13th)
Reflect on that for a second. Teams that were in the top 30% financially won 70% of the World Series dating back to 1991. Teams in the top 50% financially won 95%. Only one team that had a payroll in the lower half of the spectrum has won a World Series in the past twenty-one years.
Frankly, it really is hard to argue that the more money you spend, the better your odds. Only one team in the past twenty years has won a World Series with a payroll in the bottom half. In the anomaly year - in which the Marlins won the Series despite the 10th lowest payroll at $63 million - eleven teams were spending over $92 million. The disparity between the 11th highest and the 20th highest was $30 million. In 2003 - which consisted of the Marlins, Cubs, Braves, Giants, Yankees, Twins, Red Sox, and A's - four teams (again, 50% of the post season make-up) spent over $100 million.
Money doesn't guarantee championships, but it certainly makes it a hell of a lot easier. It is a pretty safe bet that if your team does not have money, you're not going anywhere. When you consistently have 50% of the post season teams coming from the top 30% of payrolls, something is wrong.
As it continues to lag behind the NFL in popularity, I have to wonder why there isn't at least more discussion about the possibility of bringing a salary cap to baseball. Sure, the money doesn't guarantee anything. Sure, the fans might want to deny that it matters. The numbers, however, tell a slightly different story. Perhaps baseball is the perfect metaphor for modern America: the more money you have, the better your odds. It is not impossible to "climb the ladder," it is just incredibly unlikely.
I say this all as a die-hard sports fan but a casual baseball fan. So baseball fans: you disagree? Let me hear the argument in favor of the current system. My only question is: do you think it should at least be a topic of discussion?
The main argument is: money does not buy you championships. Obviously, throwing money at pre-existing talent doesn't necessarily work out. The New York Yankees (who have a business model of "Can't beat 'em? Buy 'em!") have won just one World Series in the past decade. Similarly, the 2012 Boston Red Sox had the third highest payroll in baseball and had a disaster of a season. So sure, you can make the argument that money doesn't guarantee a thing.
However, take a look at this year's post season. From the National League you have the Cardinals, Braves, Nationals, Reds, and Giants. From the American League: the Orioles, Rangers, Yankees, Tigers, Athletics. Of those ten teams, five of them (or 50%) have a payroll that is in Major League's top ten highest (the Yankees, Giants, Cardinals, Rangers, and Tigers all spent over $100 million). Go back last year to the 2011 post season featuring the Yankees, Tigers, Rangers, Rays, Cardinals, Brewers, Diamondbacks, and Phillies. Of that list, the Yankees, Tigers, Cardinals, and Phillies (again, 50%) were in the top ten highest payrolls. All of those teams spent over $100 million.
In fact, this post season - regardless of who wins the Orioles/Yankees or Cardinals/Nationals series - every single match up will feature a team in the top ten highest payrolls. This is also the first time since 1993 in which only one of the teams with the top five highest payrolls made the playoffs (Yankees). Dating back to 2000, there has always been a minimum of two.
In Major League Baseball, the disparity between highest payroll and lowest payroll is dumbfounding. The New York Yankees have the highest at a whopping $192 million. The San Diego Padres have the lowest at $55 million. That is a gap of almost $140 million! Teams that regularly spend over $90 million have the highest chance of making the playoffs and winning the World Series.
Here is how the last twenty World Series winners break down financially:
2011 - St. Louis Cardinals: $105 million (11th highest)
2010 - San Francisco Giants: $97 million (10th highest)
2009 - New York Yankees: $201 million (1st)
2008 - Philadelphia Phillies: $98 million (13th)
2007 - Boston Red Sox: $143 million (2nd)
2006 - St. Louis Cardinals: $88 million (11th)
2005 - Chicago White Sox: $73 million (13th)
2004 - Boston Red Sox: $125 million (2nd)
2003 - Florida Marlins: $63 million (20th)
2002 - Anaheim Angels: $61 million (15th)
2001 - Arizona Diamondbacks: $81 million (8th)
2000 - New York Yankees: $92 million (1st)
1999 - New York Yankees: $89 million (1st)
1998 - New York Yankees: $64 million (2nd)
1997 - Florida Marlins: $48 million (7th)
1996 - New York Yankees: $53 million (1st)
1995 - Atlanta Braves: $46 million (3rd)
1993 - Toronto Blue Jays: $43 million (1st)
1992 - Toronto Blue Jays: $44 million (1st)
1991 - Minnesota Twins: $23 million (13th)
Reflect on that for a second. Teams that were in the top 30% financially won 70% of the World Series dating back to 1991. Teams in the top 50% financially won 95%. Only one team that had a payroll in the lower half of the spectrum has won a World Series in the past twenty-one years.
Frankly, it really is hard to argue that the more money you spend, the better your odds. Only one team in the past twenty years has won a World Series with a payroll in the bottom half. In the anomaly year - in which the Marlins won the Series despite the 10th lowest payroll at $63 million - eleven teams were spending over $92 million. The disparity between the 11th highest and the 20th highest was $30 million. In 2003 - which consisted of the Marlins, Cubs, Braves, Giants, Yankees, Twins, Red Sox, and A's - four teams (again, 50% of the post season make-up) spent over $100 million.
Money doesn't guarantee championships, but it certainly makes it a hell of a lot easier. It is a pretty safe bet that if your team does not have money, you're not going anywhere. When you consistently have 50% of the post season teams coming from the top 30% of payrolls, something is wrong.
As it continues to lag behind the NFL in popularity, I have to wonder why there isn't at least more discussion about the possibility of bringing a salary cap to baseball. Sure, the money doesn't guarantee anything. Sure, the fans might want to deny that it matters. The numbers, however, tell a slightly different story. Perhaps baseball is the perfect metaphor for modern America: the more money you have, the better your odds. It is not impossible to "climb the ladder," it is just incredibly unlikely.
I say this all as a die-hard sports fan but a casual baseball fan. So baseball fans: you disagree? Let me hear the argument in favor of the current system. My only question is: do you think it should at least be a topic of discussion?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)