Saturday, August 30, 2008
E.K. NATION NFL PREDICTION CLAMBAKE
Never in the history of E.K. Nation have any of my pre-season Super Bowl predictions been accurate; the only time in the last five tries that a team I picked to make it to the Super Bowl actually made it was last year, when the Patriots lost (I had predicted that they would win). So silly are my picks sometimes that I look back in the archives and just shake my head (Chiefs and Saints in 2004? Eagles last year? Which wouldn't have been so bad except that they were the only team in their division to miss the playoffs entirely.)
But something's going right in baseball this year. Six of the eight teams I picked to make the postseason, including all four National League teams, would make it if the season ended today. So maybe this is the start of a turnaround. Here are my guaranteed NFL predictions for the 2008 season (and by "guarantee" I simply mean that I gaurantee that these are my picks, not that they will be right.)
NATIONAL CONFERENCE:
THE DIVISION CHAMPIONS (in order of finish):
But something's going right in baseball this year. Six of the eight teams I picked to make the postseason, including all four National League teams, would make it if the season ended today. So maybe this is the start of a turnaround. Here are my guaranteed NFL predictions for the 2008 season (and by "guarantee" I simply mean that I gaurantee that these are my picks, not that they will be right.)
NATIONAL CONFERENCE:
THE DIVISION CHAMPIONS (in order of finish):
THE WILD CARDS:
NFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME:
def.
AMERICAN CONFERENCE:
THE DIVISION CHAMPIONS:
THE WILD CARDS:
AFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME:
def.
SUPER BOWL XLIII:
30, 17.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
KEVIN DUCKWORTH: 1964-2008
I woke up this morning to the news that former Trail Blazer Kevin Duckworth has died at the age of 44.
Kevin Duckworth played a key role in the first Game 7 the Blazers ever played, in 1990, during their run to the NBA Finals. It wasn't necessarily what he did on the court, but what happened a few minutes before the game that I'll remember. I was sitting in the second row behind the hoop on the Blazers' side. Duckworth had been injured and wasn't expected to play in the decisive game. And when the team came out to the floor for the pregame shootaround, Duckworth was absent. But after several minutes, to my left, I heard a stirring. And sure enough, here comes Duck, a bit wobbly, but still making his way through the tunnel onto the court. And the crowd went nuts. Not to compare Duckworth to a guy with the talents of Willis Reed, but it was just like that legendary Knicks game in the 1970 Finals when a wounded Reed hobbled onto the court to a lengthy roar from the crowd.
This moment fired the Blazers' crowd up, and the intensity remained throughout the game. It was a close, tight game the entire way. Late, though, the Spurs burst out to a 7-point lead, and it seemed like all was lost. Just over two minutes remained. My brother and I were sure the game was over. But then Kevin hit a free-throw-line jumper to make it a five point game, and then Clyde hit a three to close to two points, and then a beautiful jam by Jerome tied it up and bedlam ensued. We won in overtime, and we were ecstatic, and what I'll remember the most is Kevin Duckworth's entrance and that seemingly-innocuous two-point jumper late in the game that kept us close.
It was surprising, in that I didn't expect to wake up to hear of his death, but after having seen Mr. Duckworth on television within the last year, it is not surprising at all that he is gone. If you thought the man was huge during his playing days, you should have seen him being interviewed this one night during the last NBA season. The man had become absolutely gargantuan. It looked like he had eaten a 12-cow omelette every morning. He was simply colossal. So I'm guessing, having not heard confirmation of the cause of death, that it was likely a heart attack.
But anyway, it's a blow. I met him once at an autograph signing at a local stereo store back in maybe 1989. He was a very friendly guy. He'll be missed, and certainly remembered as one of the pieces of the Blazers' return to the NBA Finals in the early 1990s.
Kevin Duckworth played a key role in the first Game 7 the Blazers ever played, in 1990, during their run to the NBA Finals. It wasn't necessarily what he did on the court, but what happened a few minutes before the game that I'll remember. I was sitting in the second row behind the hoop on the Blazers' side. Duckworth had been injured and wasn't expected to play in the decisive game. And when the team came out to the floor for the pregame shootaround, Duckworth was absent. But after several minutes, to my left, I heard a stirring. And sure enough, here comes Duck, a bit wobbly, but still making his way through the tunnel onto the court. And the crowd went nuts. Not to compare Duckworth to a guy with the talents of Willis Reed, but it was just like that legendary Knicks game in the 1970 Finals when a wounded Reed hobbled onto the court to a lengthy roar from the crowd.
This moment fired the Blazers' crowd up, and the intensity remained throughout the game. It was a close, tight game the entire way. Late, though, the Spurs burst out to a 7-point lead, and it seemed like all was lost. Just over two minutes remained. My brother and I were sure the game was over. But then Kevin hit a free-throw-line jumper to make it a five point game, and then Clyde hit a three to close to two points, and then a beautiful jam by Jerome tied it up and bedlam ensued. We won in overtime, and we were ecstatic, and what I'll remember the most is Kevin Duckworth's entrance and that seemingly-innocuous two-point jumper late in the game that kept us close.
It was surprising, in that I didn't expect to wake up to hear of his death, but after having seen Mr. Duckworth on television within the last year, it is not surprising at all that he is gone. If you thought the man was huge during his playing days, you should have seen him being interviewed this one night during the last NBA season. The man had become absolutely gargantuan. It looked like he had eaten a 12-cow omelette every morning. He was simply colossal. So I'm guessing, having not heard confirmation of the cause of death, that it was likely a heart attack.
But anyway, it's a blow. I met him once at an autograph signing at a local stereo store back in maybe 1989. He was a very friendly guy. He'll be missed, and certainly remembered as one of the pieces of the Blazers' return to the NBA Finals in the early 1990s.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
SOME BASEBALL STATS ARE OVERRATED
Jim Caple on ESPN.com wrote this article on the overrated-ness of closers in baseball, and if you haven't seen it yet, it is a gem. I am fairly certain that every single word in it is true, even if some of it is merely opinion, i.e. such phrases as "messed up" and "If so, sanity...will rule the world again."
I must say that it is not the pitching talent of closers that is overrated but the stats that go along with it, namely, the save. The save is one of the stupidest stats ever invented, behind only a few more in baseball, and the quarterback rating in football, which no one understands.
Let's go back almost 20 years, when Dennis Eckersley was in his prime as a closer. No doubt that he had a few of the most amazing seasons any pitcher has ever had. In 1989, he pitched 57 and 2/3 innings. His ERA was 1.56, and he walked -- get this -- a grand total of three batters. Three! His strikeouts-to-walk ratio was more than 18-to-1. And just to prove it wasn't a fluke, the next year he pitched 73 and 1/3 frames, compiled an ERA of -- holy crap -- 0.61(!) and walked just four more batters. (Here's a trivia question: Who the hell did he walk and are those guys the greatest hitters ever? I don't know the answer. I'm just wondering.)
But I think those particular stats get overlooked in favor of the simple save. In those two seasons alone Eckersley "saved" 81 games. I use quotation marks around "save" because I can't tell you how many times I saw him come in to pitch the ninth when the A's had a three-run lead. Clearly, as Caple points out in his 100% correct article, Tony LaRussa would put him in almost exclusively in save situations, meaning his team had the lead going into the ninth inning, a situation where, again as Caple points out in reference to a study done, teams win somewhere around 90 percent of the time, no matter whether it's a closer or the starter pitching the ninth.
Caple writes about the Mets refusing to use Billy Wagner in a tie game late against Florida last week. It wasn't a save situation, the game being a tie, so Jerry Manuel had Aaron Heilman pitching, who gave up a grand slam. Now, wouldn't this be the right time to use your "closer", in a dire situation in the eighth inning? If closers are the ones you want on the mound to try to finish wins off, wouldn't they be useful in a tie game as well? Hell, even a fourth-inning bases-loaded jame with one out might be a good time to use your best pitcher. Why not use him then, instead of when you have a three-run lead in the ninth?
In the article, Caple quotes Oakland G.M. Billy Beane, who proves yet again that he is one of the smartest men in baseball. He says,
Wondering why? I thought you might ask. Let's take the pitcher's stat we call "wins". As a team stat, wins are very important. In fact they are the most important thing if you want your team to get to the World Series. Obviously. But if you want your pitcher to rack up 20 victories for his stat board, that means your team's offense must do some good hitting. A pitcher can give up eight runs in a game and still get a win if his team scores nine, whereas a guy like Roger Clemens, as happened in 2005, can pitch great but wind up on the losing end of not one, not two, but five 1-0 games. He pitched outstandingly that year, with an ERA of 1.87, and should have won the Cy Young if you really want to give it to the best pitcher of the year. Who got it instead? The Cardinals' Chris Carpenter, who had a fine year to be sure, but gave up almost one full run more for each nine innings than Clemens did (Carpenter's ERA was 2.83, which is still pretty stellar). Why'd Carpenter get the votes? Well, he had 21 wins. Clemens only had 13. If the Astros score two runs in each of the Rocket's five 1-0 losses, Clemens is 18-3. Then, doubtless, his ERA would have been noticed.
Why are runs and RBIs overrated as personal stats? Because if you're playing baseball, most of the runs you score are dependent upon what the batters behind you in the lineup do. And most of the RBIs you rack up are dependent upon what the batters in front of you did. Personal stats that matter in baseball? Home runs, of course, which translate to instant scoring. Batting average, to an extent, and usually so for guys who don't normally hit homers, but not to the same extent as on-base percentage. Slugging percentage (total bases per at-bat). Not runs, and not RBIs. You can score a run by grounding into a force play at second, thereby replacing a different runner at first with yourself, and then coming around on a home run, which means the guy before you got on base and you made an out, but you get the credit for the run. Or you can pinch-run for the catcher who miracluously legged out a triple and score on a grounder to second for a run that you had nothing to do with. And RBIs, except for home runs, are solely dependent upon whether anyone is on base before you come up to bat. If no one ever gets on base for you, the only way to rack up RBIs is to hit home runs.
Caple's article is correct, and if anyone disagrees, send me an e-mail and explain why. I like hearing bad arguments for positions I am opposed to. (The address is up top.)
I must say that it is not the pitching talent of closers that is overrated but the stats that go along with it, namely, the save. The save is one of the stupidest stats ever invented, behind only a few more in baseball, and the quarterback rating in football, which no one understands.
Let's go back almost 20 years, when Dennis Eckersley was in his prime as a closer. No doubt that he had a few of the most amazing seasons any pitcher has ever had. In 1989, he pitched 57 and 2/3 innings. His ERA was 1.56, and he walked -- get this -- a grand total of three batters. Three! His strikeouts-to-walk ratio was more than 18-to-1. And just to prove it wasn't a fluke, the next year he pitched 73 and 1/3 frames, compiled an ERA of -- holy crap -- 0.61(!) and walked just four more batters. (Here's a trivia question: Who the hell did he walk and are those guys the greatest hitters ever? I don't know the answer. I'm just wondering.)
But I think those particular stats get overlooked in favor of the simple save. In those two seasons alone Eckersley "saved" 81 games. I use quotation marks around "save" because I can't tell you how many times I saw him come in to pitch the ninth when the A's had a three-run lead. Clearly, as Caple points out in his 100% correct article, Tony LaRussa would put him in almost exclusively in save situations, meaning his team had the lead going into the ninth inning, a situation where, again as Caple points out in reference to a study done, teams win somewhere around 90 percent of the time, no matter whether it's a closer or the starter pitching the ninth.
Caple writes about the Mets refusing to use Billy Wagner in a tie game late against Florida last week. It wasn't a save situation, the game being a tie, so Jerry Manuel had Aaron Heilman pitching, who gave up a grand slam. Now, wouldn't this be the right time to use your "closer", in a dire situation in the eighth inning? If closers are the ones you want on the mound to try to finish wins off, wouldn't they be useful in a tie game as well? Hell, even a fourth-inning bases-loaded jame with one out might be a good time to use your best pitcher. Why not use him then, instead of when you have a three-run lead in the ninth?
In the article, Caple quotes Oakland G.M. Billy Beane, who proves yet again that he is one of the smartest men in baseball. He says,
"I'll tell you why...It's the same reason more football coaches don't go for it on fourth-and-1. Because when it doesn't work, 30 of you guys come storming in wondering why the manager didn't go to the closer. It's turned into a situation where a lot of emotion is tied to that decision, just as a lot of emotion is tied to the fourth-down decision. Even if you know the odds, it's more comfortable being wrong when you go to the closer or the punter.But no, it's about the overrated stats, the ones that look good on your dossier when entering the free agent market. Wins, saves, runs scored, RBIs, all of these are overrated. As stats, mind you, not as elements of a game being played. You want your guys driving in runs, you want your players scoring runs, you want your pitcher to win, etc. But as stats, they are largely irrelevant in determining how good a player is.
Wondering why? I thought you might ask. Let's take the pitcher's stat we call "wins". As a team stat, wins are very important. In fact they are the most important thing if you want your team to get to the World Series. Obviously. But if you want your pitcher to rack up 20 victories for his stat board, that means your team's offense must do some good hitting. A pitcher can give up eight runs in a game and still get a win if his team scores nine, whereas a guy like Roger Clemens, as happened in 2005, can pitch great but wind up on the losing end of not one, not two, but five 1-0 games. He pitched outstandingly that year, with an ERA of 1.87, and should have won the Cy Young if you really want to give it to the best pitcher of the year. Who got it instead? The Cardinals' Chris Carpenter, who had a fine year to be sure, but gave up almost one full run more for each nine innings than Clemens did (Carpenter's ERA was 2.83, which is still pretty stellar). Why'd Carpenter get the votes? Well, he had 21 wins. Clemens only had 13. If the Astros score two runs in each of the Rocket's five 1-0 losses, Clemens is 18-3. Then, doubtless, his ERA would have been noticed.
Why are runs and RBIs overrated as personal stats? Because if you're playing baseball, most of the runs you score are dependent upon what the batters behind you in the lineup do. And most of the RBIs you rack up are dependent upon what the batters in front of you did. Personal stats that matter in baseball? Home runs, of course, which translate to instant scoring. Batting average, to an extent, and usually so for guys who don't normally hit homers, but not to the same extent as on-base percentage. Slugging percentage (total bases per at-bat). Not runs, and not RBIs. You can score a run by grounding into a force play at second, thereby replacing a different runner at first with yourself, and then coming around on a home run, which means the guy before you got on base and you made an out, but you get the credit for the run. Or you can pinch-run for the catcher who miracluously legged out a triple and score on a grounder to second for a run that you had nothing to do with. And RBIs, except for home runs, are solely dependent upon whether anyone is on base before you come up to bat. If no one ever gets on base for you, the only way to rack up RBIs is to hit home runs.
Caple's article is correct, and if anyone disagrees, send me an e-mail and explain why. I like hearing bad arguments for positions I am opposed to. (The address is up top.)
