Gimme a f'n siren... Here's my attempt to answer all of the EDSBS Live!!! questions since they've been doing it. When they ask for something about "my team", I'll respond for UGA reluctantly, but my real response will be in reference to college football media coverage.
Naturally, this is going to be long, so it's below the fold...
August 14:
1. Favorite Sportswriter (Big Media): I used to like Tim Tucker back when he was really just interesting quirks and numbers. But I'm not even sure if he even has a column anymore - and all I can remember from him for the last few years are some Reillyesque human interest stories. I'd give props to Phil Mushnick for his recent crusade against Joe Morgan (but he's not really into college football, is he?). But really, isn't Barnhart the correct answer here?
2. Favorite Broadcaster: For TV, the guy who shuts up the most wins. So, I'll give it to the time the CBC broadcast CFL games without announcers. If I have to choose one... well, Ron Franklin's an obvious pick. Brad Nessler's pretty good, but kind of plastic. This question would be a lot easier if "least" were inserted at the front. I'll catch hell for it, but were he not affiliated with his current school, I guess I'd pick Wes Durham. Calls a clean game, doesn't dumb things down, and you always know what is happening on the field, even if you can't see it. So basically, the opposite of Larry Munson (who is fine for adding color, but is totally useless if you can't see what's happening).
3. Simple change in coverage that would make things better: Some competing network puts on a pregame show opposite Gameday, and that show is modeled almost entirely on Sky Sports News: 60% of the screen showing information, constant injury and weather updates, first hand interviews, zero personality stories. Like you wouldn't watch that.
4. Sexiest Blogger: Great framing. Why not ask about the smartest character on The Hills, or most virginal contestant on Rock of Love? I don't even know where to start on this. So I won't.
August 7:
1. Question Marks for my team: For the Dawgs, you'd think O-Line (and you're right), but I'm more worried about the defensive backs. Could be trouble. For the media: will Gameday continue the trend of cross-promotion at the expense of objective journalism? Will the daily CFB Live show cause Gameday to be a rehashing and repeating of previously run topics/clips?
2. Player our team cannot lose this year: Dawgs - might think I'm crazy, but it's Fernando Velasco, the senior center. Seriously. Media - SMQ.
3. Preseason Shopping List: TiVo HD Dual Tuner. Comcast's DVR is driving me crazy. I just won't be able to do Gameday Recaps with that crappy box and remote.
4. Something that gets me almost as fired up as college football: Books about mountain climbing. Highbrow/Lowbrow comedy classics that first time you see it. Cold beer.
July 31:
1. Best road trip destination: Ole Miss this past year was solid, but I doubt anything will top the New Orleans/LSU trip in Fall '98 (Quincy Carter's "One Shining Moment"). Hurricanes on Bourbon Street, outrageous drunkenness in Red Stick, the single worst smelling vehicle I've ever been in. I'd say Georgia-Florida in '97 was at least second, but I cannot for the life of me remember a single detail of the entire weekend (including where I even stayed) before or after Edwards turned it upfield to clinch.
2. Road Trip I want to take the most: Got a lot of ideas on this one... How about a Wisconsin weekend with Madison on Saturday and Lambeau on Sunday? What about Louisville with a side trip to Churchill Downs? But the one I've always watched and I'd love to see in person: Army-Navy in Philadelphia.
3. Essential Road Gadget: Ex Officio Give-n-Go Boxers. Your balls will thank me.
4. Most impressive road performance: Hmmmm... not too great history here. Perhaps the 11 hour train from Oxford to Edinburgh, during which I vomited for 8 of them (hot scotch and coke from a bowl for several hours right before departure), but then rallied to drink on Grassmarket Street? Maybe pulling the "Drink around the world" trick from France to Mexico at Epcot? Pretty weak, overall.
July 24:
1. Adopt an underdog (player or team): I'm going with Idaho. Getting jobbed by Dennis Erickson deserves something, doesn't it? Also, App State against Michigan.
2. Underdog I hope falls flat: I'm not sure I get this question. If it's a traditional underdog that some people are talking up this year, it's simple: South Carolina.
3. Favorite underdog player of all time: In time, I've got a feeling that Verron Haynes will become a favorite underdog for most Georgia fans. Perhaps it's odd how a lot of recent big plays for the Dawgs have come from underdog-type players, like Haynes and Michael Johnson.
4. Biggest sexual upset: The fact that the night I introduced myself to my eventual wife I was wearing bright white slacks with embroidered nautical symbols and anchors. That's Nova over Georgetown right there.
July 17:
1. Game I'd sacrifice my firstborn to the Gods for this year: To win, Georgia-Florida. This will be the answer until people stop using the phrase "Florida's won X out of Y in the series" and start using the phrase "Georgia's won X out of Y in the series."
2. Game not involving my team I'd sacrifice something to see: I've got a feeling Michigan-Wisconsin in Madison would be fun as hell and it'll be important too. But there is a correct, non-obvious answer here: Thanksgiving weekend, Boise State at Hawaii. Like you wouldn't want to roll up on that one.
3. College Football Gods: Darren McFadden is Brahma, the Creator. Jake Long is Vishnu, the Protector. Glenn Dorsey is Siva, the destroyer.
4. Sexiest God/Goddess: Got to go with the Celtic Goddess Brigid, who for some reason has a following in Haiti, where she's described thusly: "Maman Brigitte may be characterised as a hard working, hard cursing woman who can swear a blue streak and enjoys a special drink made of rum laced with 21 hot peppers." Awesome.
July 10:
1. Three worst coaches: Zook, Morriss, Mangino. Three coaches with at least 5 years tenure, below .500 winning percentage, all have winning percentages far below the traditional winning percentage for their respective schools.
2. Offensive or defensive scheme I hate the most: Modified West Coast Offense. 5 yard out, 5 yard out, 5 yard out. Games take 6 hours to play. The entire scheme is predicated on the idea to make the other team miss a tackle. It's a loud admission that you don't have the ability to overpower another team. I hate it.
3. Playoff/system preference: Shit or get off the pot. Either go back to conference tie-ins where bowl committees chose teams based solely on economics and champions are decided in Locke's Natural State, or go to a completely objective won/loss system. As long as coaches and writers who aren't paying attention and have inherent biases aren't involved, I'd be for it.
4. New crush for the season: I always have trouble with the "sexy" questions. I guess I'll go with the most beautiful girl in the... room. Rachel Blanchard
July 3:
1. What do I know about the ACC: I get a sense that there's a continuing trend of ACC teams playing toward the middle. I see UNC as improved. NC State should be a lot better. Wake and Georgia Tech should be worse. FSU better. Miami underrated, but not great. Duke will suck, but I don't see another team better than 9-3 or worse than 5-7.
2. UGA's worst multi-year starter: Greg Bright drove me nuts back when I was starting college, but there's no way I could not say Quincy Carter after 2000 in Columbia. F him in his cokehole.
3. Something nice about the ACC: Ralph Friedgen is a fantastic coach and deserves to be considered among the best in the country. Maryland simply isn't a football school. He's been able to create winners there, and not just off the back of a couple of players or a quirky system.
4. Most mediocre performance: So many to choose from! Wrecking a car from falling asleep (no alcohol) at the wheel the night of Junior Prom is high mediocrity.
June 26:
1. Most undervalued team: I typically think this team is overrated, and normally lazy pundits look at schedules and returning starters, so I expected them to be listed a lot, but I haven't seen them anywhere. Iowa. They miss Ohio State and Michigan. The OOC is weak. The way last year ended offered some off-season motivation. I could see them 11-1 and top 10, easy.
2. Underrated coach and announcer: Believe it or not, I honestly think Dennis Erickson is underrated. 2 National Titles, 4 conference titles, and a top 15 active winning percentage, to me, means he's objectively a top coach, but he's rarely thought of that way. Also, I think Phil Fulmer's gotten to the point where he's underrated. Wins don't lie, and he's got a ton of them. I don't think any announcer is underrated, because "not being completely horrible" is equivalent to sainthood in that profession.
3. Advice I've been given and undervauled and wished I hadn't: "Take your vacation time. If you don't, you're not earning your full compensation."
4. Undervalued sexual asset: words.
June 19:
1. Paradise for UGA: 1980, before my Dawg Mitzvah. 2002 could've been...
2. Gameday Utopia: I arrive before the parking lot is full. It's quiet and a little chilly (cold enough for a pullover that'll get removed by 10:30. The only sound is the pitter patter of flip flopped feet of a shacking girl on the walk of shame. Thought it was early? Wrong. I unwrap a Chic-fil-a biscuit. Not undercooked, as they're wont to. I read the newspaper, scanning the high school scores. Then, the silence is punctured with the crisp crack of a frigid cheap tallboy. The next 4 hours are filled with discussion about the day's games and exactly how many nugget trays I could eat in a single 24 hour day. 7 beers killed, but not wavering. Arrive at seats just as the trumpet blares. Mistake free football is played - especially clock management. I feel the nerves that things will fall apart at exactly 3 points during the game, but it never comes to pass. Leave hoarse and happy. Drink a gallon of gatorade and eat half a ton of chicken fingers. Sleep without worry.
3. Perfect game, situation and score: After 8 weeks of eking out wins against inferior opposition but remaining undefeated, #5 Georgia is a TD underdog to #1 Florida. 21-0 at the end of the first quarter. 38-0 at the half. 45-3 at the end of the third. 59-3 final. Florida turns the ball over 6 times in their own half. Florida receivers drop 11 passes. Basically, everything that had gone their way over the last 2 decades gets turned on its head. A stunned national media elevates Georgia to #1. Brogen's and the Jacksonville Landing burn to the ground.
4. Favorite book/show/movie in re Hawaii: Magnum's the easy pick. Lost is probably my favorite current show, but it's just filmed there without reference to being in Hawaii. If I can't pick that, I'll go with a tie between From Here to Eternity and Saved By The Bell: Hawaiian Style.
June 12:
1. Big XII winner: I've got a weird feeling that the South is going to look like the SEC East this year, with 4-5 teams all at 5-3 in conference and every single team with at least one scalp against a good team. I could see some weird tiebreaker coming into play, and, seriously, 5 different teams winning it. Looking at the schedule, Oklahoma and maybe Texas Tech have the most favorable home/away/North teams. I'll go with the Raiders to be weird. In the North, screw it, I'm going with Kansas State. They'll have a lot of tiebreaker advantages because of their schedule against the North. I'm not buying Nebraska. K-State vs. Taco Tech? I'll go with the 'Cats.
2. Winner of Big XII play for BCS title? I doubt it. I see a lot of teams beating each other up. I actually think the Big XII will be better than it has been in recent years (step up in abilities for Okie State, A&M, Missouri, Kansas, Kansas State), but that'll just lead to tougher games for supposedly elite teams - and random losses. The conference will be better for it though.
3. $500K to move to Nebraska: I'd do it for less than that, but to make me stay it'd take repeat payments. Also, it'd depend on what I'd be doing. Insurance Adjuster? $300K per year minimum. Athletic Director in Lincoln? $100,000 per year. Blogger? $100K per year.
4. Sexiest Big XII mascot: I'd say Kansas, because of the phrase "naked as a jaybird", but the mascot's nose looks far too much like a dick. I'll go with Kansas State - because cougars are Wildcats.
June 5:
1. Do I care about Notre Dame: A little, just not what I'm supposed to. I'm Irish Catholic. I was born up North. I have an Uncle who graduated from Notre Dame. But I've never been all that fired up about them. Natural response to something when people tell me I'm supposed to like a certain thing is to go the other way. It's hard to separate what I think of them from the massive promotional support system. I guess objectively, I care some. But not anywhere near as much as someone in a conference room in Bristol, CT thinks I should.
2. Grief ND fans endure proportional to crimes: Please. Undeserved worth draws undeserved criticism. This question is akin to "Does Paris Hilton deserve to be hounded by papparazzi?" Were the Irish just another program, they wouldn't deserve criticism and attention. But they reap the benefits (bowls, poll fluffing, easier recruiting, $$$$$$$$$), so don't cry about it.
3. What do I like about ND: The fact they've never beaten UGA. Sugar Bowl 1980. How they occasionally beat GT. How good an example they are for why the current system of popularity-based polling should be completely scrapped.
4. Sleep with a leprechaun?: No. Not into dudes, and there aren't female leprechauns.
May 29:
1. OMG What's HoTT?: Perception of the SEC among sportswriters. I sense a lot more "best ever" descriptions attached to the SEC this year than in many. A lot of national writers I think felt totally scooped by Florida last year, and right on time (translate: late to the party), they decide to jump in with hyperbole. And it's probably wrongheaded. CNNsi has 6 SEC teams in their top 20. The early coaches poll has 9 getting votes. I think the SEC is tough as hell, but I also know that polls inevitably drop teams that lose games. In the SEC, these teams will play one another, and someone has to lose. I'm readily awaiting the columns mid season (after everyone in the SEC has a loss or 2) that wonder why the SEC isn't quite as strong as they though because there isn't a dominant team (and without the intrusion of y'know, logic).
2. OMG soooo NoT HoTT?: Wake Forest. They return a whole lot of talent but aren't getting much stick. It's not like the ACC got that much better overnight. I don't know whether they'll win the conference again, but it wouldn't surprise me to see them back in a bowl and the Top 25. Also, I wrote above about Iowa. Don't understand why they're not getting much publicity.
3. Hot Boomlet: Iowa ends up hyped big by the end of the year. Arizona pulls a big upset and gets into the Pac-10's third best bowl.
4. Trend for 2007: Red Bull and other energy drinks fall out of favor. I've got a feeling that these drinks won't age well - and the people who were 18-23 when they originally came out are getting older. Red Bull and Vodka will be as easily mocked as an 18 year old male ordering an Amaretto Sour. If it's not already.
May 22:
1. Big program that deserves the awe: I don't care much for awe. I guess the best way I can answer this is by saying the big program that pisses me off the least for receiving awe is Michigan.
2. Big program that has caused me the most personal anguish: Florida. 1995 alone gets them this spot. If you'd asked me this question in 1998, I might've said Tennessee.
3. Little program I wish was big: Any of the Florida schools- FIU, FAU, UCF, USF. Dilute the talent down there. Also, if Memphis were more of a perennial power, I think it'd hurt Tennessee and several of the SEC West schools, and it wouldn't hurt UGA all that much.
4. Overrated Hottie: Jessica Simpson's never done much for me. I like women smart-strong-independent, not fake-strong-independent. Never much cared for Jennifer Aniston either. Can't really separate her from her loathsome character on Friends.
May 15:
1. Favorite play/scheme/thing that goes boom: If it worked better, I'd like that goal line run that UGA sometimes rons with the FB lined up just behind the tackle and even with the QB. But it rarely works. So I'll go with the play I appreciated the most in flag football: the inside shovel pass.
2. Favorite football movie: Football is probably the worst sport when it comes to movies. I suppose I think Varsity Blues was entertaining, if ridiculous. Little Giants had that awesome play, the "Annexation of Puerto Rico".
3. Am I blitzing: early, but not often. If you can get the jump on the opposing team's line in the first quarter and shake the confidence of the QB, it can have a great impact (not just risk rattling him, he'll feel like he has to rush his throws the rest of the game). But I wouldn't blitz much in the second half. Fewer risks unless absolutely necessary.
4. Most suggestive football term: There are hundreds. I'm personal to "spread 'em out wide, but pound it right up the middle".
May 8:
1. Worst team I've ever seen: 1998 Kent State. They went 0-11 and were annihilated 56-3 by a Jim Donnan Georgia team. One of the few instances where Georgia didn't play to the level of the opponent, because it was physically impossible for Georgia to play as bad as that Kent team.
2. Team I'd wish football anthrax on: You might expect me to say Florida, but I'd rather beat them hard, fair and square. I might have said Auburn, but since the fanbase whines more than anyone, terrible misfortune would simply spread. I thought about Georgia Tech, but that'd just make us look bad because of a worse OOC schedule. I'll just go with the team from Knoxville.
3. Worst player/play I've ever seen: September 9, 2000. The first, second, third, fourth and fifth interceptions thrown by Quincy Carter.
4. Worst song to make love to: OK, here's something embarassing... I was making a mix CD of mood tunes. I found a somewhat recognizable Massive Attack song. Slow groove. Moody, seemed right. Slapped it on there. Of course, when I finally get around to playing it, the Lady chimes in with "Isn't this the theme from 'House'?" Indeed it was. Things stopped right there, as she couldn't control her laughter. Alternate answer: The Kidz Bop version of Since U Been Gone.
May 1:
1. Sportswriter that most gets under my skin: If just college football, Stewart Mandel. If not, Scoop Jackson.
2. Sportswriter I like that some unfairly bash/underrate: I like Clay Travis and wish he had a broader audience. Not too many people bash him though.
3. One writer who doesn't cover sports who would become one: I cackle to think of how Chuck Pahlaniuk would cover college football.
4. Lovin' Song: Trainspotting by Primal Scream is pretty great. Big Poppa by Biggie usually gets a laugh, but it's never failed.
April 24:
1. Best Pre-1990 team: The talent on the '86 team might've been even better, but I'll take the '87 Miami national champs. Steve Walsh, The Blades Brothers, Bubba McDowell... even the punter was a stud: Jeff Feagles. And the icing on the cake: Irvin. They beat then-ranked #10 Arkansas, in Fayetteville, 51-7. Beat Prime Time in Tallahassee. Shut out a top 10 Notre Dame team. Beat top-ranked and totally roided Oklahoma (with the Boz) in the Orange Bowl. Pretty impressive season. One of the few 1980s teams to get through a challenging schedule unscathed with some badass wins.
2. Favorite Pre-1990 player: Herschel is Herschel, enough said. But I remember liking how Terry Hoage played, a lot.
3. Remove one aspect of the modern game/coverage: TV timeouts. I'm not too upset with commercials during games when the clock and game is stopped anyway. It's TV's insertion into the game that bothers me.
4. Favorite Retro Babe: Myrna Loy. Nora Charles is the ideal woman: hilarious, kinda hot, willing to get ass over ears wasted with you, and can solve mysteries.
April 17:
1. Sleeper player of the season: For UGA, it's got to be Sean Bailey, because nobody remembers him. Wouldn't surprise me if he tears up a few early games, then draws more safety coverage, and Mo Massaquoi explodes the second half.
2. Incoming freshman/early enroll that can help: If you count JUCOs and Redshirts, then pick one of Haverkamp, Davis, and Sturdivant. If just true frosh: Sturdivant's your boy.
3. Tailgate the Spring Game: Nope. Had to help the Lady travel (pregnant 6 months). Saw some of it on TV though. Mark Richt was doing play-by-play, which should let you know how important it really was.
4. News anchor reporter I'd bang: I'd bang Debbie Matenopolous with a hammer in the face. For the other meaning, I'd go with two choices. (a) CNN's blog girl Abbi Tatton. (b) 60 Minutes II's Lara Logan. Lara Logan in a war zone in a flack jacket = fantastic.
April 10:
1. Sketchiest Football Player Ever: I take sketchy to mean "you know something's fishy, but it's never public", so guys like Marcus Vick don't count. Quincy Carter fits that description. I'd also add Onterrio Smith, because it takes a large amount of sketchiness to get kicked out of Tennessee for bad behavior and then go on to get caught with a fake-dick drug test circumventor.
2. Sketchoid Program: Everyone's dirty but my team, right? Those mid/late-90s Nebraska teams were really sketchy, but I think Alabama's probably got the all-time title wrapped up on this one.
3. Sketchy Family Member?: Yes, but it's not polite to point that out. Who am I kidding? The guy just filled up half the first page with pictures of ThunderCats. Sketchy (and awesome)enough?
4. How am I gay: At every party my roommates and I threw in law school, I made sure to play George Michael's "Father Figure" on the stereo. It was always a hit, if to nobody but me.
April 3:
1. Favorite Sporting Freak: In terms of freaking out, there's Lee Elia, Lou Pinella, Bobby Cox, Earl Weaver, and the best ever, Jim Mora. In terms of being totally eccentric and loving it, I don't know if anyone will ever top Shaq. Seriously, he's a freak and it's awesome.
2. Is it harder to be weird now?: Yes, but not because of the public eye looming larger. It's because it takes more and more insanity to be considered weird now. I find myself shrugging off things that are completely insane.
3. Biggest oddball currently in action: In college football, I think Hal Mumme tops Mike Leach.
4. What would my eccentricity be?: I'd respond to all inane sideline reporter/press conference questions entirely in rhyming verse a la Tobias Funke.
March 27:
1. Favorite sports broadcasting widget: The first down line. It's hard to watch football on TV without it.
2. Something I'd like obliterated from the face of TV: I'll avoid the gratuitous ESPN bashing on this question. What I really hate is the in-game shot of a celebrity promoting a TV show on the network. I don't want to see Mandy Patinkin in the 4th row of the Super Bowl so CBS can tell us that "an all new Criminal Minds is up right after the trophy ceremony." I hate this so so so so so much.
3. Celebrity who would make the worst color commentator: Can it get worse than Craig James and Rod Gilmore? Robin Williams? Rosie O'Donnell? Bill O'Reilly?
4. Antisocial behavior I fantasize about indulging: So there are some kids that park outside my house and roll back into nearby woods to smoke weed or screw around. Didn't bother me for a while, but this summer it's been terrible. All hours of the day and night. They block my driveway and wife's car. Litter in my yard. The woods area used to be a good place to walk Murphy, but now there's blunt wrappers and empty beer cans and broken bottles everywhere. Eventually the police caught some kids, and it's subsided. But before the cops caught them, I always wanted to let the air out of their tires and fuck up the rest of their cars. Never did it because of reciprocity, but it was the first time I ever really wanted to fuck with someone's car.
March 20:
1. Favorite NFL Draft pick I saw play that's not obvious: Thought David Irons to Atlanta in the 6th round was a nice pick. Fred Bennett in the 4th wasn't a bad pick either.
2. Radioactive Do Not Touch Pick: I've got little faith in Brady Quinn at #22, but my choice here is Ted Ginn at #9. I think he'll have an injury-filled, so-so career.
3. Favorite College Stud with no success in the Pros: Breaks my heart, but it's Robert Edwards. I don't understand why he doesn't own ESPN now. He should've sued the crap out of them after that ridiculous sand football BS.
4. Big Draft Board of Life, I was: as a sophomore, Kiper had me pegged as a can't miss prospect, but for some reason I slipped to the 5th round. People in the know then thought I was underrated and a steal, if only the right program could motivate me. Nobody did though. I was out of the game quickly. Total bust.
March 13:
1. What don't I know about football: Too much, but most importantly, how much it hurts, physically.
2. What do I pretend to know more about than I really do: Everything football related. I honestly have little knowledge.
3. Something I could lecture on: Professional sports systems of player allocation (law journal note), movement of professional sports franchises, Arrested Development, the connection between the growth of the game of soccer and shipping routes.
4. Offseason Resolution: TOO LATE! By August 2007, I will be fully capable of using a Baby Bjorn to carry my daughter to a football game.
March 6:
I actually tried calling in on this one and had answers ready... I posted them HERE.
February 27:
1. Prediction for next season pulled from ass: Navy will beat Notre Dame for the first time since 1963.
2. Shameshag: I'm terrible for saying this... Chris McKendry.
3. Tweak one thing about college football: This question has been repeated, sort of. Competitor to College Gameday.
4. Hire one coach, Fire one coach: If I could hire one guy for UGA (assuming Richt becomes unavailable), I'd hire Paul Johnson. If I could fire one guy at another school, I'd fire Urban Meyer, to be replaced by the gay sounding intern from The Tonight Show and Celebrity Fit Club.
5. Sweaters with Ties: Not for me. I'm not much of a sweater guy at all.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
ULTIMATE EDSBS LIVE!!! MEME
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Sword of Omens, give me sight beyond sight
LD asks, LD receives.
I was never much of a comic book fan, but I'm not ashamed to admit I had a huge tub full of action figures. While I dug the first and last Batman movies, and the Spider-Man flicks, there's been a lot of shit in that genre in the 20 years since Dolph Lundgren and Courteney Cox set the standard for live-action-figure movies. With the much-deserved success of Transformers (despite the need for more Rachael Taylor), the moneyprinters in Southern California have announced the upcoming live-action production of Voltron, G.I. Joe, and my personal favorite, ThunderCats. I can't wait, so I thought I'd try my hand at casting. Although I made my list independently, I found this forum while looking for pics. Looks like I'm not the only one who hopes this really happens.
Feel the magic, hear the roar...
Kevin McKidd as Lion-O
Not sure what this time-traveling business is all about, but if you've seen his intense turn as virtuous badass Lucius Vorenus, you'll agree he's a perfect fit for the leader of the Guardians of Thundera.
Ray Stevenson as Tygra
Can't have Vorenus without Pullo. And don't talk about the 13th.
Barry Bonds as Panthro
Samaire Armstrong as Cheetara
Matthew Roloff as Snarf
Michael Chertoff as Mumm-Ra
Don't hassle the 'Toff.
Monday, August 13, 2007
Very Early SEC Predictions
I originally posted this on the message board of the truly exceptional Duff fantasy baseball league (there's your shoutout, boys). I wrote it in about 5 minutes, then annotated and slightly edited it (poorly).
These predictions will most certainly come true...
- Florida will win an important game by an incredibly lucky play performed by a player who, the very next Monday, will be suspended for failing a drug test administered prior to said important game. CUM will deny knowledge of the results of the test and pout like my 3 month old daughter when I withhold her nightly Similac & Jack when reporters even slightly hint that the timing looks bad.
- South Carolina will have several teams on the ropes, but fall short in at least 3 games because of key-moment mental mistakes made by one of the 84% of USC recruits who were "special admits". Steve Spurrier will shake his head, smirk and whine about the university not admitting enough of his athletes to be able to compete.
- Every single good Tennessee player who spurned UGA will suffer a horrific injury that costs UT at least two games. Phil Fulmer becomes the talk of the nation with his new sideline apparel.
- Vanderbilt will upset at least one of the better teams in the East and will be on the verge of a bowl game, but will blow it by losing in OT to Ole Miss and screwing up an easy win against Richmond/Eastern Michigan/Miami.
- Kentucky will lead the league in yards per game, points per game, and will place 4 players on the All-SEC offense. And they will go 6-6.
- Georgia will just barely win at least one game on the last play against an opponent over whom it was favored by double digits.
- Auburn will lose at LSU because of multiple phantom pass interference penalties. Auburn fans will complain about it incessantly (until the week of the Alabama game, when they have bigger fish to fry). Adroit internet sleuths will identify payoffs from the Alabama Board of Trustees to particular officials. More technologically advanced Tiger fans will identify the "kerning" on a printout of a cellphone picture taken from the upper deck as undeniable proof positive that blah blah blah I stopped listening after the 40th mention of Nick Saban, the Illuminati, the Rothschild family, Jack Ruby and "Liberals who want to take away your bibles and make you marry a dude". Questions to Auburn fans about the 2006 LSU game will be met with confused, blank stares.
- Mississippi and Mississippi State battle to an incredible 9-hour, 12-OT 15-13 classic that disrupts ESPN2's showing of 6 different episodes of the World Series of Poker As to who won? Nobody cares, since both teams were 2-9 going into the game. Somehow Sly Croom and The Orgeron keep their jobs, but only due to a complicated plot involving Nick Saban, the Illuminati, the Rothschild family, Jack Ruby and "Liberals who want to take away your bibles and make you marry a dude." Meanwhile, Southern Mississippi finishes 12-1.
- LSU coach Les Miles calls Pete Carroll a "nancy boy" and says that the rest of the Pac-10 are "total homos". He follows that up with a statement that "Nick Saban wears womens' underwear and I've got the dirties in the closet in my office to prove it." When asked about schedule strength, Miles adds "they're all, y'know, fagging out and stuff... everyone in all those other conferences is scared and hiding like a frightened turtle, which also reminds me of Nick Saban's miniature schlong." The next day, when interviewed on ESPN, Miles asserts how he has the greatest respect for everyone he constantly mocks and degrades and all of the comments attributed to him were taken out of context because of the fact that he has no mental faculties whatsoever. As proof for this assertion, he goes 9-3 with the most talented team in the country.
- Alabama loses several games over the course of the season, but somehow pulls it all together and upsets Auburn in the final regular season game. A rash of overweight women with awful haircuts who wear bootleg jerseys getting DUIs strikes Alabama. Nick Saban threatens to leave for the Japanese National College Football team if he doesn't get unlimited refills at the Tuscaloosa Roly Poly AND unlimited free blue cheese for his wings at Bottomfeeders. "Non-negotiable. I'll do it."
- Arkansas, to the disbelief of sentient beings everywhere, goes 11-1 and wins the west using just the Tecmo Bowl playbook (but not using the passing plays, naturally). McFadden gains 2500 yards and scores 30 touchdowns but loses a close Heisman vote to Chad Henne of 10-2 Michigan. Chris Fowler and Kirk Herbstreit agree that it was the right decision. Nutt gets an extension the week before the SEC title game, but gets fired the week after an embarassing loss in the title game to the winner of a tiebreaker among four 8-4 teams in the East. Everyone else shakes their heads and wonders why the SEC didn't make a push for Clemson or Miami or, hell let Sewanee or Tulane back in... just pick one of them to join instead of those lunatic hillrats.
Banishment Nominee!
A few years ago I posted about how the Georgia legislature needs to bring back the concept of banishment. If you act like an idiot and bring shame to our state, you are free to keep acting like such, but you just can't do it here. Take it to South Carolina or Alabama or someplace else.
New nominee:
Juanita Marie Jones of Rochelle, Ga.
Want the law to prosecute the guy who sold you fake crack? I believe the Muscle Shoals Police Department can help.
That said, I'm no lawyer (or at least a good one), but is it really possession if the crack was indeed fake? I mean, yes, arrest the woman on general moronic behavior (that's a law, right?), but possession doesn't seem to me to be the right law for which to prosecute her. I mean, what if she produced a fully-completed Voltron or an adorable puppy and called it crack?
And on the topic of Voltron... awesome?
Flick the Button
1. Pan's Labyrinth: Quite good. I understand the people who are overwhelmingly effusive with praise, and I also understand the people whose expectations were too high and therefore were underwhelmed. I figure I'm in the middle of that. I liked the storyline set in reality much more than the fantasty storyline, but I thought they worked fine together. I want to say that this was one of the better movies I've seen this year, but I've seen a lot of crap. Objectively, I set this as pretty good, but not a classic. Steak Knives.
2. Breach: Surprisingly decent. What I liked about this was how instead of a tense, tradecraft, twisty thriller, this set all of the tension and twistiness in a plain white walled, blue suit, bland bureaucracy. I definitely got the sense that I was looking in on an actual government agency, and not the dark-lit, wall-of-plasma-screens-with-satellite-feeds offices of most ridiculous Hollywood versions of government agencies. Chris Cooper is great as usual. And Billy Ray seems to have quite a talent for bringing out decent performances from young actors with questionable abilities (see Hayden Christensen in Shattered Glass), as Ryan Phillippe was believable and support-drawing. Could've used more of Laura Linney and President Palmer though. Steak Knives.
3. Cars: I was disappointed. Pixar has been so consistently good, that I suppose they were due for a letdown. I just didn't find it clever, or really all that sweet. And the eyes in the windshields bothered me far far far too much. Sadly, this made me think what I normally think about non-Pixar computer animation movies: that the movie is secondary to the sale of tie-ins. I didn't think that way about Finding Nemo, or my favorite, Monsters, Inc. This felt like they just wanted to sell Happy Meal toys, rather than actually make a good movie. You're Fired.
4. Shooter: Here's what's odd about this movie: there are like 4 moments in it when the move jumps the shark, but it never gets to the point where the ridiculousness makes it fun. The script felt rushed, there are quite a few plot holes, and the acting was just bad for most of it. The climax scene with Ned Beatty's 45th try at recapturing his scene in Network was so painful to watch without laughing, but it wasn't even close to funny. Just weird. Either they should've gone totally realistic and cut out the ridiculousness, or they should've hammed it up with some winks and nods. Instead, we're left with a movie that could be unintentionally funny, but isn't. You're Fired.
5. Alpha Dog: Very watchable, but very flawed - and that seems strange to me, since the movie looked like it had been shelved for a while (long enough for them to have noticed some of the problems and break out the scissors). What was good was the energy of the movie, and the realistic performances from some of the young actors - especially Timberlake, who definitely captured "in-over-my-head immaturity" better than most in the movie. And Ben Foster's scene-chewing was really entertaining. The bad: the opening credits were atrocious; Bruce Willis' interview scene at the beginning almost made me turn it off; how the movie provided us no explanation for why Emile Hirsch's character got respect; the way Ben Foster's character disappeared for the last 45 minutes; and, worst of all, Sharon Stone's Oscar Reel scene in a fat suit at the end (probably the worst 5 minutes of film I've seen all year). The movie could've used more subtlety, more backstory, or more procedural (the references to each character as witnesses was OK, but they could've gone further with that). Instead, it hammered the point across too strongly. Decent performances by most of the kids, really bad performances from all of the adults. I'm writing a lot about this one because it's kind of troubling to me. I actually enjoyed watching it, but the more I think about it, the more I actually want to not just not like it, but hate it. It's rare that I have such a different response to the same movie from my eyes and my mind. You're Fired, but I'd recommend it.
6. Norbit: Ain't gonna lie to try to maintain credibility... I laughed a lot at this. Obviously, it's a cheap movie, with ridiculous plotlines and jokes we've heard 100 times before. It's also enoyable and funny if you've got a little buzz on. I'd watch it again, no question about it. Also, I find it funny how some people think Eddie Murphy lost an Oscar for Dreamgirls by releasing this during the voting period. If so, that's stupid. First, I actually liked this movie more than Dreamgirls. Second, and more importantly, it just displays snobbery. I mean, it's Eddie Murphy in a fat suit with fart jokes. It's not like the point of the movie was to cut to the heart of emotions and the core of our existence. A movie like this should be judged solely on whether it's funny or not. And I'm not too ashamed to say that I thought a lot of it was. But take note: drinking makes this a lot better. Steak Knives drunk, You're Fired (and you have a bug up your ass) if sober.
7. And not a movie, but I spent a couple of weeks re-watching the entire series of Arrested Development. The best comedy that has ever been on television. Period. Even the episodes I didn't like the first time around (the Martin Short episode and the Wee Britain episodes) had great moments. Here's hoping that Superbad blows up and someone greenlights an Arrested Development movie to make money off of Michael Cera's impending domination of Hollywood.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
OK, OK! He can still eat a dick!
Since I started this weak blog, I've rarely been asked to comment on particular issues of the day. But this week, no fewer than 6 people have emailed, commented or told me in person that I needed to write something about Stewart Mandel's two week assault on rationality which was his attempt to categorize elite teams.
I hadn't said anything because I thought Sen. Blutarsky, Michael Elkon, and the Mayor said most of what I wanted to say, and with significantly better writing.
Here are a few of my thoughts...
- Mandel's not alone in doing this - a lot of national media writers I sense have fallen into this habit of late, possibly due to the presence of bloggers: taking something that's pure subjective opinion and covering with a veneer of categorization to give the appearance that there's some form of objective analysis. The 100 Montantans test is a perfect example. Mandel isn't actually interviewing 100 semi-interested college football fans in Montana. He's just telling us what he thinks 100 fictional Montanans would think. It's a costume of objectivity, when it's really just subjectivity cloaking subjectivity. Personally, I think objectivity and subjectivity are sort of an "East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet". If you want to categorize teams a certain way, either use objective criteria (like winning percentage, titles, whatever you want) and include those teams no matter how much you personally differ (that's called intellectual honesty), or use subjective criteria alone and say "I think this because I think this" an if others disagree with their opinions, fine.
- To follow up on the objective/subjective divide... I think subjective analysis probably has its place, but there's no doubt that I prefer objective analysis when it comes to actually learning something. And that's the paradox. National columnists have jobs not because they can aggregate data, but because they are supposed to have some advanced knowledge on a subject that supports opinions the rest of us can't be expected to have. The flaw in that is that with information more readily available to us all, nobody has a particular monopoly on knowledge. So if Stewart Mandel's opinions (or anyone else's) aren't necessarily more informed than his readers' (and they aren't necessarily), he's not providing any service. Further, because national writers are expected to cover over 100 teams, their knowledge will necessarily be less informed than a fan who only cares about his team. So while in the aggregate on college football, national writers might have more knowledge (though not necessarily - if someone puts in the effort, the information is out there), but on any one particular topic, the national writer is at a distinct disadvantage. So if a national writer has no particular information advantage, why should we be expected to learn any more from them than we could from raw data?
- It might be a worldview issue for me. I have little respect for my betters. Never had. I refuse the concept of "betters" at all. So I've never really bought into the idea that someone else's opinion (especially when such opinion contrasts or cannot be supported by objective facts) is automatically deserving of respect. Naturally, there's a big picture approach to this. Opinions are the product of what people think. People are wrong. A lot. Opinions are often misguided or incorrect. College football polling is the basis of opinion.
- The worst part of Mandel's elite program analysis is that it's a tautology. Certain programs are "elite" because certain programs are thought of as elite. Certain programs are thought of as elite because individuals who cover those programs think of those programs as elite and affect their coverage accordingly. This cycle can happen without an external, objective definition of "elite" getting in the way. Or worse, when an objective definition is involved, writers/pundits insert their own opinion to supplant facts.
- Back to Mandel... a few weeks ago he admitted that he chose his own questions for his mailbags. To me, this was a significant development. Because now, there's ABSOLUTELY no excuse for when he doesn't answer a question for lack of knowledge (and it happens kind of frequently). If you can't answer it, DON'T CHOOSE THE QUESTION! If the question was so mind-numbingly stupid that it would receive mockery from a mouthbreathing message board troll, DON'T CHOOSE THE QUESTION! The only point that question serves is to elicit sympathy for the fact that a writer of such esteem has to actually receive emails from the hoi polloi. Deleting emails isn't hard. But with knowledge that he chooses the questions, we now know how he frames issues. If Mandel wants to take a shot at a particular team, all he has to do is pick the worst letter from a fan of that team. If he wants to puff up a particular program, he can pick a good letter and build upon it. If he wants to draw out trolls and start a massive debate, all he has to do is throw out some moronic analysis that would fire up a rabid fanbase. Which I think is why this elite program thing got revisited... Mandel's trolling.
- And on the topic of trolling... Mandel knows exactly how many people read every page at CNNsi. He knows what drives attention. He also knows that the more readers he gets, the more valuable he is to the site. There's a serious question here: if more readers is the strongest motivation, what is more important to a national writer: creating controversy or providing cogent analysis? Are we to a point where bad analysis could draw more flies because of the resulting controversy than good analysis? Are we now at the sports talk radio breaking point? An don't get me wrong... blogs aren't isolated from this. Some blogs surely troll for comments and links.
- I'm pretty sure this elite argument isn't over. Perhaps it shouldn't be. Elitism in college football is a problem. Certain teams receive the benefit of the doubt, while others do not. And this ends up affecting polling, bowl selections, and potentially the crowning of champions. Simply knowing that people, with all of their biases and flawed opinions, affect the game... that's a start. Then we can take the next step: rooting out those biases and flawed opinions, exposing them, and removing them from the equation. That'd make for a fairer system.
UPDATE: Peter Bean has more thoughts on this here.
I agree with much of it. I'd add one thing about the blog/MSM divide. I think there's a distinction between national media columnists and bloggers that's very evident in motivations. I think most MSM types are generally interested in college football, but they write because it's their job - and they are a source of profit for their employers. That motivation may affect how they write. Bloggers, on the other hand, may have thousands of reasons why they blog. Some are rabid partisans for a particular team. Others want to parlay a blog into a media job. Others just have lots of free time on their hands. Some bloggers offer basically the same content as a national media guy, but the only difference is the platform. And naturally, whatever motivation the blogger has for writing will eventually affect that writing.
I agree completely that the divide between bloggers and big media writers should be elevated. I'm as guilty as anyone of juvenile namecalling. I hope (bad writer, so hope is all I have) that the content of the posts, even if they start with namecalling, includes some more substantive criticism. And furthermore, I think the frustration many bloggers have with big media guys isn't what they write, but where. It's the platform for bad analysis that gets my goat, not the bad analysis. If Stewart Mandel wrote the same exact subjective analysis and anecdote-driven commentary on a blog with 100 hits a day, I doubt I'd devote any time to him. But because he gets tens of thousands of hits a day, what he writes matters more. And to whom much is given, much is expected. I've always kind of looked at it this way: I don't want Stewart Mandel's job. I sometimes don't even care if he does his job better. What I really want is for his actions not to have an effect on things. But under the current college football system, what he does (or the Gameday guys, or whoever else) matters. To the extent that blogs can factcheck or provide a counterweight to big media types, I think that's a realistic and positive step.
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Things I always wanted to write down for posterity
I have been far too busy/lazy over the last few months and I know I've missed a few brief posts about sports related things... I'll put it behind the fold because it's all dated now.
1. Hawks' draft. I liked it a lot. If they couldn't trade the pick for a superstar (and now I kind of wonder whether Amare was ever an option), and I don't think they'll be able to make any trades until the ownership situation is resolved, then they had to get the best two players they could. Assuming (and Billy Knight and others told us this) that the Hawks had to get a frontcourt player and a point guard with their two picks, I think they did as well as they could have. Horford and Law are a good pair, and I think Horford has a shot to be very good. Some might've argued that Conley has more upside than Horford. Perhaps. But had the Hawks picked Conley instead of Horford (and assume Memphis took Horford and the rest of the draft went to form), the best available PF/C would've been Sean Williams (talented, but major question marks and a huge reach at 11) or Jason Smith (not as talented as Williams, and an even bigger reach), and the only other frontcourt player drafted in the first round was Tiago Splitter. Basically, had the Hawks grabbed the PG first and hoped that a PF fell to them, they would've been bit in the ass (forced to reach or draft for an unneeded position). So the draft was good for the Hawks. I'm not sure they'll be great next year, but they will be better, and if they can find some money to extend Smith, the next yea they could be very good. ADDED: I forgot to mention it... yes, my analysis of the Hawks' draft is subject to attack from this angle - what if Law had gotten drafted earlier. My view is that there were a couple of other PGs available who wouldn't have been a terrible dropoff from Law (namely Belinelli and Crittendon). Also, I thought it not so likely that Law would've been drafted earlier. Perhaps if the Hawks had taken Conley, they could've gotten lucky by having someone else take Law earlier and had Spencer Hawes or Joakim Noah dropped, but I think that would've taken a lot of prayer (from memory, I don't recall Law being ahead of either of those guys on any mock draft).
2. I am oddly disturbed by the visage of Jerome Jurenovich on the Braves' post-game show. I remember his bodiless voice reading the sports highlights :19 after the hour on Headline News, way back in the day before ESPNews and the internet and constant tickers. When I needed sports news in my early teens, he provided it. And now that I see him, it's kind of like the Wizard of Oz.
3. Like I wrote in the Teixeira post, I read Baseball Between the Numbers, by the editors of Baseball Prospectus, and I recommend it highly. It's heavy math, but very much worth it. I should've been writing posts nightly on what interested me as I read it. Now I'm having trouble pointing to the right spots. The chapter on usage of relievers was fascinating to me - recalled Michael Lewis' article (can't find the direct link) on punting in ESPN the magazine from last December. Basically, it seems like every manager uses relievers inefficiently - and one just wonders when someone will actually challenge conventional wisdom and try something different. Chapter 6-2 is probably my favorite chapter of all, because I've always had an odd interest in stadia. If you don't mind challenging your brain in a sports book, read this.
4. I'm no die hard follower, but I will say that the doping scandals didn't prevent me from paying that much attention to the Tour de France this year. I watched parts of probably 5 stages (all in the mountains and on the Champs Elysees) and the whole of the final time trial - which was awesome. My personal feeling on doping is that its deplorable, but as long as usage/testing/prevention across the board (as in, if they're going to stop it, they stop everyone and if they can't they're not only stopping some) and that the competition is relatively close, I don't know if I can tell the difference. I'm a dilettante at it, so what do I care. I watch for some of the action and the interest in the way the racers exert themselves, but I probably watch more for the views and the crowds. And speaking of the crowds, on the last day in the Pyrenees, did anyone else see the dude in the last few km dressed in a massive penis costume? Hilarious drunkenness on those slopes. I need to go there some summer.
5. I love the current Braves' lineup. Love it. And for once, the Braves will be the annoying team to face late in the season in important games. You know... that team that fouls off a ton of pitches and works counts deep. Guys like Kelly Johnson, Matt Diaz, Willie Harris. And Chipper is having one hell of a year.
6. Not old, but I think Eric Byrnes' contract extension was insane. $10M a year for a 31 year old guy who is pretty much an average major leaguer over his career, and has a career year this late. Bad idea. And worse... if Eric Byrnes is worth $10M, every other decent outfielder free agent is going to get paid. Bad news for the Braves.
7. I watched a good part of the MLS match between Toronto and the Galaxy the other day. Toronto's fans are so damn cool it makes me terribly jealous. They're not very good right now, but if I had to guess what team will end up the best franchise in the league in a decade, it's them. And in my own personal battle of trying to choose an MLS team to follow/halfway support, Toronto took the lead from Houston.
8. I don't have much to say about it, but the Wimbledon mens' singles final was incredible. A special match. Federer is such a beast. And as much as I hate Nadal's fashion sense, he's a really good player.
Monday, August 06, 2007
Charleston Editors: Easy Marks
Back in 2003 at The Masters, a DJ for 99X in Atlanta attended some of the Martha Burke-led protests, holding signs that read "MAKE MY DINNER".
The Charleston Post & Courier captured the scene in a story, quoting the DJ as being named "Heywood Jablome". They edited the story after drawing guffaws nationally.
Now, 4 years later... the same paper gets caught again?
Here's a blog post by the superb TBogg referring to a story in the Charleston Post & Courier quoting a witness named "Jack Knuoff". The story's author's been changed and the reference has been deleted. Anyone get a screen shot?
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
A Note on Comments
I noticed a big influx of spam comments this afternoon, deleted a bunch of them, changed the setup to moderated comments and added a word verification to comments. That kind of sucks, I think. I always appreciated having this an open forum. But when a post on Kirby Puckett from 18 months ago ened up with a dozen porn spam comments, I figured I had to do something.
If I haven't done this before, here's my mission statement on comments:
I will never delete a comment unless it's solicitation or beyond the pale (and I reserve the right to determine what that is).
I won't delete a comment, ever, just because the commenter disagrees with me or points out that I'm wrong about something (if the commenter does so outside decorum, different story).
If you want to blogwhore, post a comment that's at least slightly relevant - because I'm wont to delete comments that even kind of look like solicitation. Or, in the alternative, email me at the address above - I'll be much more likely to link to you or post it if you take some effort. Also: my blog is read by, like, 3 people; you're probably better off whoring elsewhere.
I might turn off the moderation if I get annoyed by it or if spammers are blocked by the verification system. If I haven't moderated a comment in a while and you're just dying to let me know something, email me and I'll get on it.
Sorry about this. Blame offshore betting sites, fake college degrees, and porn for it.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Why I Like The Braves Adding Mark Teixeira
1. On Baseball Reference, the player most similar to Mark Teixeira at his current age is... Fred McGriff. And McGriff's next few years of OPS+: 157, 147, 165.
2. Teixeira means Andruw Jones gets to move from a significantly underperforming cleanup hitter who makes a lot of outs early in the lineup into a kind-of underperforming 5th hitter who makes a lot of outs a little later in the lineup. Teixeira means Jeff Francoeur gets to move from a decent 5th or 6th hitter into a good 6th or 7th hitter. Teixeira means Brian McCann gets to move from a pretty good 5th or 6th hitter into very good 6th or 7th hitter. More on this in a second.
3. Teixeira will mean more wins to the Braves. How many more is up in the air, but he'll mean more. Assuming no improvement by Teixeira (a conservative assumption, since he'll be moving to a league with worse pitching and to a team with better players in the lineup - meaning better pitches to hit), he'd be worth, on his own, about 2 more wins to the Braves (his current WARP3 is 5.4, and a little more than a third of the season remains). Wait... let me adjust that. Teixeira's WARP3 is affected by the fact he's missed 27 games this year so far. If he's got 56 games left with Atlanta, and he'll only play 125 total, that might mean we're up to 2.5 wins - and that assumes no improvement. Second adjustment: the players Teixeira will be replacing aren't "replacement players". Those 2.5 wins I've mentioned only would be an improvement if the guy he's supplanting is a "replacement player". If the guy he's replacing is better than replacement (which would be, y'know, normal), then those 2.5 wins would shrink. Luckily (sort of) for the Braves, the guys who have played at first this season aren't even replacement level. Thorman's WARP1 is negative right now. Craig Wilson's was too. Franco was at 0 most of the year. Saltalamacchia was the only guy with a positive WARP number, but that wasn't even worth a single win. I think it's a safe assumption to make to say that the Braves' output at first was costing them wins rather than helping them get wins. I'd guess that by simply not playing Franco or Thorman, that's worth an additional half-win. That brings us to 3 wins. Now, as I wrote above, I think Teixeira will mean the other guys in the lineup will see better pitches, or get protected better, or have more opportunities to drive in runs (Teixeira's OBP is the highest of his career). This is the murkiest part of the equation, but if the addition of Teixeira will increase the win totals for 6 other players in the lineup by just a half-run each, that's 3 more wins (I'd bet that moving Andruw down the lineup is probably worth one by itself). I think these are conservative estimates, but my guess is that adding Teixeira is worth 6 more wins the rest of the way. If he improves on his performance this season, he's worth even more than that.
4. Using an estimate of 6 more wins by adding Teixeira to the Braves, here's what that's worth. Using the studies and numbers in the recommended book Baseball Between the Numbers, six additional wins are worth approximately $4.5 million (see Ch. 5-2, Table 5-2.1) for the regular season wins. That additional amount covers Teixeira's salary the rest of the year (about $3.5M). The real value, however, is in making the playoffs. A playoff appearance is worth approximately $30M to a franchise. If Teixeira's addition means the difference between making the playoffs and not, his addition would be worth $30M to the team. And if you look at Fig. 5-2.4 of that same chapter, you can see the logistic regression analysis for probability of making the playoffs. Based on the Braves' results thus far, they're on pace for about 85.5 wins. According to the regression analysis, that's equal to approximately a 10% chance of making the playoffs. Add 6 wins to the Braves, and that'd raise them to 91.5 wins. 91.5 wins is equal to a 75% chance of making the playoffs. That's a massive difference - and uses the biggest swing of the regression curve. Let's use a poker analogy: if you, by betting 1/8th the pot (the cost of adding Teixeira's salary is your bet, the pot is the potential added revenues of making the playoffs), you increase your chances of winning the hand by 65%, that's the smart play, isn't it? If Teixeira's worth only 3 wins more to the Braves, the probability of making the playoffs increases from 10% to about 40%. 4 wins = increase from 10% to 50%. 5 wins = increase from 10% to 63%. If Teixeira is worth more than 6 wins, the probability starts to approach a sure thing (7 more wins gets them above 85% probability of making the playoffs).
All this is just for this season - but if Teixeira helps the Braves make the playoffs (assuming they wouldn't without him), he just added $30M in revenue. And that would make an extension more palatable for him.
I think it's a good deal for the Braves to add Teixeira. And I'm starting to get fired up about this team. And if Dotel comes aboard too, damn.
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Word of the Day
The Lady and I actually watched a few minutes of that silly reality show that's basically an impersonator's American Idol yesterday. The Seacrest wannabe is a woman named Michelle Merkin. For some reason that word, Merkin, stuck in my head. I knew it was a good word, and that I should remember the definition. But I couldn't remember it.
Thank the Lord for Google for being there to remind me.
Merkin:
Definition 1. –noun- false hair for the female pudenda...
Definition 2. n. A pubic wig for women.
Etymology. "female pudenda," 1535, apparently a variant of malkin (q.v.) in its sense of "mop." Meaning "artificial vagina or 'counterfeit hair for a woman's privy parts' " is attested from 1617. According to "The Oxford Companion to the Body," the custom of wearing merkins dates from c.1450, was associated with prostitutes, and was to disguise either pubic hair shaved off to exterminate body lice or evidence of venereal disease.
Needless to say, I find this freaking incredible.
On the Growth of Soccer In America
What with David Beckham arriving like Cleopatra in Rome, I figure now is as good as any time to talk about where soccer is in America, and where it should go.
For the sake of most readers, I'll put the bulk of the post below the fold.
First, let me just deal with Beckham... He'll be one of the more talented players in the league, and he'll help the Galaxy a good bit. He'll bring some attention from people who aren't really interested in soccer. The attention will be swift and will fade quickly, domestically at least. But his presence will mean more foreign nations will pay some attention to MLS. And he'll make money for the league and its sponsors.
What about the level of play in MLS? Beckham's just one guy, so his arrival can't change the talent level or competitiveness. But he can change the way the league is perceived.
The league today isn't perceived very well. MLS supporters seem to overrate the league, and I suppose they feel they need to frame the debate in favor of the league. The foreign press probably underrates the league, and I suppose they feel the need to keep holding over our heads the one sporting thing the rest of the world has an advantage. Both aren't right.
It's difficult, if not impossible to compare domestic leagues. How does one compare? By taking the best of the teams? The worst? International competitions? Eventually, one simply has to make a subjective guess.
I'd say these leagues are certainly better than MLS, meaning that, in my mind, even the best MLS team would struggle to avoid relegation: La Liga Primera, the Barclays Premiership, Serie A, Bundesliga A.
I'd say these leagues have a few teams significantly better than the best MLS teams, but several MLS teams could hang with most teams in the league: Eredivisie, Ligue 1, La Liga Mexicana, Brasil's first division, Argentina's first division, Portugal's Superliga, Greek Super League, Turkish Super Lig, Russian Premier League, Ukraine Premier League.
I'd say that an MLS team could challenge for the title frequently in these leagues: Belgian Jupiler League, Norwegian, Swedish, Danish, Austrian leagues, J-League, UAE's league, all African leagues, most South American leagues other than Brazil and Argentina.
Considering that MLS is pretty young in the game, and considering where soccer stands in the national consciousness, I don't think that the current posture is a bad thing. The US league doesn't need to be the best in the world. But it also won't ever be the worst.
That said, I don't think that just because MLS isn't an international embarrassment, MLS shouldn't try to improve and get better. It most certainly should.
First, much has been made about how the league has gotten better since several franchises have built and opened soccer-specific stadia. I've got a lot of thoughts about this, and it'll make for its own post soon. In short, I think it's good that there are soccer-specific stadia, but they could also do even better.
Second, the refusal of MLS to even consider relegation and promotion I think is a bad idea. Relegation is, effectively, the marketplace for markets. For a young league, a host of experts might think they can place the best spots for franchises to be located, but they might be wrong. Miami and Tampa Bay were thought to be good locations initially, but both failed. Meanwhile, a smaller market like Rochester has thrived in the USL. And every league has something like this. If you were starting the NFL today, nobody would locate a team in Green Bay, Wisconsin, but not Los Angeles. But the best part of relegation is this: nobody has to guess. If certain cities are great spots for teams - and public support provides resources for the team to improve and compete - those cities will stay in the top flight. If particular cities don't support the team, it'll be harder to compete in the top flight. If the result is that a town like Rochester, or Charleston, almost organically, becomes a first division city, and cities with larger TV markets but which just don't care don't end up in the top flight... well, the league is healthier for it. And if over time, those larger markets develop support for teams, and they move up through promotion... well, isn't that better? Then we know the cities in the top flight want it, rather than a centralized league determining what's good for particular cities. Anyway, this should've been its own post too. And it might still be.
Third, importing talent. In an odd way, I kind of hope that Beckham's arrival gets some attention, but it's clear enough (hopefully because of already-decent talent in the league) that one or two imported players won't make a huge difference. MLS has shown a commitment to player development, and they've resisted quick fixes by throwing money at players before. Hopefully, they'll hold firm with that. Slow growth is best.
Finally, expansion. San Jose was awarded a franchise, which will be MLS's 14th. There've been announced plans for 2 more in the next few years. If MLS keeps the same, East-West divisional structure, I'd bet there will be one Eastern and one Western team added. Suggested locations are Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, San Diego, Las Vegas, San Antonio, St. Louis, Miami, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Rochester, another in NYC, Cleveland, and Milwaukee. Expansion gets its own post. Come back soon.
And now, because I feel like I'm writing like a 4th grader, here's a summary of all this:
Saturday, July 14, 2007
Upsetting
The USA-Austria U-20 World Cup Match isn't over yet as I write this, but I'm pissed enough to start writing now.
A few thoughts...
1. Austria looked like the better team on the field. I think I underestimated their talent, and it looked (after Altidore's goal) that the USA team did too. The USA didn't deserve a win, so the rest of this post is just me bitching.
2. Adu's crosses looked like they were fired from a potato gun all day. Totally useless.
3. Altidore's sitter that was missed early in extra time was awful, yet very "American". I still have hopes that he's the striker that doesn't bottle up the USA has needed for years.
4. Okotie is an impressive striker. Bright future there.
5. The conditions weren't good for keepers, but Seitz really has trouble hanging on to things. And combine that with the tendency of the USA defense to go from decent organization to Keystone Cops after rebounds meant both goals in this game (and the goal in the Uruguay match). Kind of odd how the three goals conceded in the knockout round were all busted up rebounds, while there were probably 5-6 very good scoring opportunities that didn't result in goals (due to woodwork, luck).
6. On the last goal, that sure looked like a handball. Wonder if the ref was playing the advantage and had there not been an immediate goal if he'd have pointed to the spot.
7. Like I said, the conditions weren't great. Hard rain, very wet track. When the conditions are that bad, there are two directions a referee can go in terms of changing the way he judges (which I feel is necessary). He can take the conditions into account by calling a closer game, thinking that in bad conditions players are already at risk for injury, so blowing the whistle more and breaking out cards, in some way, will protect players. The other direction the referee can go is by allowing for the fact that the conditions cause added slipping and sliding - and often balls and bodies don't go precisely the spot players had intended - and because of that, the ref allows perhaps a little more contact before breaking out the cards. The ref in this game, I believe, chose the former. I was bothered by that, and considered, in many cases, that the cards doled out in this came (for both teams) weren't the result of intended assaults, but rather odd bounces and unexpected slides. This is a shame, considering that either team would lose key players due to card accumulation in subsequent rounds.
8. Considering the way the ref was calling the game, the USA was at a disadvantage. The USA played definitely a bit rougher, and the Austrian had a definite advantage in touch and finesse. But also, Austria played probably the middle 45 minutes with their chests on the ground or whining with their hands facing the sky. And I think the ref responded. Didn't mean the USA should've won, but it did annoy. It always bothers me when teams with a talent advantage are also the teams that work the ref more.
A good tournament for the USA, but it could've been a game-changer had they advanced to the final (not that winning the next round would've been a sure thing). It's a little sad that there's very little non-Beckham-related soccer to follow now (after the Copa America final). I've actually watched more MLS this year than any before, so maybe I'll stick with that. Houston is good.
So with that, no more soccer for a few months.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Tater Tots don't go well with fact-checking
From Terry Bowden's column a few weeks ago:
June 26 – We can argue ad nauseum which conference has the best players, but when it comes to the biggest stadiums there isn’t much room for debate. The Big 10 wins hands down. Of the four college football stadiums that seat over 100,000 people, the B10 has three of them … Michigan, Penn State, and Ohio State (Tennessee is also on the list). Now, it looks like Michigan is going to solidify its position as the “Biggest House” on the collegiate block with a planned renovation of $226 million to give them a capacity of over 108,000. I’m shocked that the Southeastern Conference is going to take this sitting down (or should I say standing up.).
Ahem. There is room for debate. There are more than 3 stadia in the Big 10. There are 11. And there are more stadia than just Tennessee's in the SEC.
The Big 10 has 3 stadia with capacity over 100,000 seats. The SEC has 1. OK. Point Big 10.
But the Big 10 has only 4 stadia with capacity over 80,000 seats (same number as the Big 12). The SEC has 7. Point SEC.
Add up all the capacities for each conference's stadia, and average them out:
SEC Stadia: 78,106 per
Big 10 Stadia: 76,295 per.
Point SEC.
Hands down? Only if the question is "which conference has the most 100,000 seat stadia?". If "big" means anything else, the answer isn't the Big Ten.
For reference, here are the other conferences' capacities:
- SEC: 78,106 per
- Big 10: 76,295 per
- Pac 10: 64,517 per
- Big XII: 62,373 per
- ACC: 57,732 per
- Big East: 50,518 per
- Independent: 50,241 per
- C-USA: 49,712 per
- Mountain West: 46,958 per
- MAC: 32,393 per
- WAC: 31,708 per
- Sun Belt: 28,071 per
All numbers via World Stadiums.
Finally, as if this needed to be said... the size of the stadium isn't what matters. What matters is how many people actually attend the games. Rice has a 70,000 seat stadium that they're lucky to have 1/6th full. Same with plenty of others.
And in terms of attendance, the debate actually is "hands down". The SEC has led the nation in total attendance and percentage of capacity for [insert ridiculous number here] years in a row (26 years for total fans, 23 years - every one since it's been kept track of - for percentage of capacity). Last year, the SEC averaged about 6,000 more fans per contest than second place Big 10.
No matter how you look at it, the SEC has more conference members with a big stadium, and puts more fans in the seats than any other conference.
Having 3 100,000 seat stadiums is definitely respectable. Too bad it's not the Big 3 (or would that be the Big 2, since you always need to subtract one?).
Monday, July 09, 2007
Can't just focus on the negative
Some things I like...
- Miller Chill.
- That the World Series of Pop Culture has returned.
- When The Lady surprises me by making mini cheeseburgers.
- The girl who can't stop crying on Age of Love (comedy reasons alone - total trainwreck).
- PLANET EARTH DVDS - this deserves its own post times ten.
- Every episode of Man vs. Wild except the one where Bear drops into the Everglades.
- Fatherhood.
- Rafael Soriano, Jared Saltalamacchia, Kelly Johnson, and Chipper Jones.
- Amazon Prime.
- The sassy Russian girl in GoldenEye.
- Chicago's Greatest Hits. No shitting.
- Trader Joe's chai tea cookies (and just about everything else in the store).
- Joe Simpson on Braves games.
- That there's less than 2 months to college football.
- Flight of the Conchords.
Bile Dump
Stuff that's bothered me for a while...
- The way Alicia Keys draws every syllable out when enunciating in that American Express commercial.
- SportsCenter's "Who's Now" gimmick.
- Bob Wickman
- Ringtone Subscription commercials
- The fact that I'm not in London today, considering the Tour de France starts there, Wimbledon is just finishing, the Live Earth concert, British Grand Prix, etc.
- When local sports talk radio focuses on "parenting" issues.
- That SportsCenter sometimes shows WNBA highlights instead of MLB scores (and highlights or anything else, really).
- Zach Braff's voiceover on Wendy's commercials.
- And on that note, the Wendy's commercial where the dude in the Wendy Wig is kicking a tree. Am I missing something? Is "kicking trees" some sort of regional colloquialism or idiom I'm not aware of?
- The way that Starz (which I don't get) has lots of movies I'd like to watch, while HBO (which I do get) has only TV shows I like to watch.
- I know I'm not the first to say this, but Rafael Nadal's shorts.
- The way that VH-1's host and hostess felt they had to spend a minute explaining Ricky Gervais' comedy during the Concert for Diana.
- The taste of White Hawk IPA.
- MTV's Scarred - the show and all commercials.
- Wasting too much reading time on a weak book that you know is bad, but you refuse to put down on principle.
Update on U-20 WC
Zambia upset Uruguay 2-0, so the US have drawn a better team than any of those I thought they'd face.
The next USA match is 7:45 Wednesday, currently scheduled to air on Galavision and ESPNUprobablydon'tget. Hopefully one of the bigger ESPN networks will step up, but ESPN is currently scheduled to be replaying tonight's Home Run Derby and ESPN will be showing the AAA All-Star Game. So ESPN is currently planning on running something they've already paid for... I wouldn't expect them to show the game. But who knows? They were supposed to replay the Hot Dog Eating Contest last Friday.
The good news about the draw is that the USA probably has the clearest route to the semifinals, as their quarter of the draw has no other top seeds from the group stage (and by "top seed" I mean both a team that actually won their group and team that "should" have won their group). Austria, Gambia and Uruguay are much more reasonable than just about every other group.
The bad news about the draw is that the bottom quarter of the USA's half looks like a Murderer's Row. Spain, Brazil, Czech Republic and (group topper over Nigeria) Japan all are tough. If the USA makes the semis, it won't be an easy hurdle to get to the finals.
But first things first. Uruguay won't be a pushover after getting embarassed by Gambia. They'll be ready to rumble. Hopefully the USA won't be looking ahead like I have.
Saturday, July 07, 2007
Flick the Button
The Pursuit of Happyness: It's a biopic but I feel like I don't know the main character very well still. Even though I think Will Smith was quite good. Kid is cute. I think there's a veneer of nice values (hard work, love your kid), but there's not much depth. There are flaws in looking at this movie with a broad view. The more I think about this movie, the more I think it struggles, though on a cursory view it seems like fine family friendly viewing. You're fired.
Match Point: Strangely, most of the time when I think a movie runs too long, I think they needed to end it sooner. This movie needed to be about 20-30 minutes shorter, but I would've cut it all in the exposition in the beginning. I liked exactly zero of the characters. On the other hand, Scarlett Johansson is very attractive. Hmmm. That makes this hard to rate. The movie: You're fired. Scarlett: Cadillac.
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang: I'm an idiot for forgetting this one, because it was one of the best movies I saw over the last few months. Top notch dialogue. Exceptional acting from Downey and Kilmer. Very very funny. Everyone involved in this seemed to be having a good time. Fine first film (though the director has written some good stuff before). Dented cadillac.
Accepted: Yeah. Not good. Jonah Hill is the only actor involved with any comedic ability. Ridiculous plot, without ridiculous comedy. Justin Long's performance in this raises my esteem for John Hodgman exponentially. Lewis Black is annoying and incoherent. One of the worst movies I've seen this year. Fired Fired Fired.
Miami Vice: OK, here's why I liked this (a lot actually): I wasn't comparing it to the TV show, but rather to Michael Bay directed crapfests like Bad Boys II. And when you compare it to those kinds of movies, this is (a) smarter, (b) better directed, (c) really well filmed, and (d) even well acted. Farrell and Foxx's public personae in the publicity for this movie were awfully grating, but their performances in the movie on their own were subdued and kind of smart. I was actually pleasantly surprised by how much I liked this. All about expectations, though. Steak Knives.
An Inconvenient Truth: I didn't really learn anything new in it. I suppose it's decent in terms of filmmaking, but it definitely isn't among the most interesting or entertaining docs I've seen in a long time. I think Gore's presentation would definitely work better in person, so this is kind of a concert film - OK, but I already know the music and it doesn't have the same effect as a live show. You're Fired.
Dreamgirls: The sum didn't equal its parts. The acting was OK, the songs were alright (if overdone), and the sets and direction was fine. But all-together, the movie just seemed a little simple, and not really "big" enough to support the weight of the notes hit. Had this won lots of awards, I'd have been very disappointed. A big meh. You're Fired.
Knocked Up: There were several scenes of dialogue in this movie that word for word mirrored conversations the Lady and I had over the last year. So I guess there were parts that hit a little close to home. There could've been a sitcom-like quality of this movie, but there wasn't. The scenes with and interaction between Rudd and Rogen were very funny, but the movie overall probably could've pulled fewer punches. Maybe I like comedy a little harsher, so I guess I would've placed the balance between sweetness and audaciousness a bit farther away from sweet than the filmmakers did. But it still had several funny moments. Acceptable date comedy, though not outrageously hilarious. Steak knives.
Reno 911: Miami: Previews gave away too much, and because I love the series I found it a little disappointing that the movie wasn't even more ridiculous. But at the same time, it was really hilarious in parts. Could've been better if it was a little longer. I wouldn't mind more comedies like this. Steak Knives.
Youth Served in Ottawa
Let's talk about soccer for a while...
Watched the U-20 game between the USA and Brazil last night and I have a bunch of thoughts.
First, I absolutely LOVED the coverage. The feed was clearly destined for overseas consumption, and there was no American crew interrupting the feed from Bristol, constantly interjecting googled facts that had little to do with the on-field action. The announcers actually seemed to follow the flow of the game and, God forbid!, kept quiet for large portions of the match. They actually sensed the game and didn't feel it necessary to fill every single second with an inane rambling. Also, there were limited commercials! It was amazing! Normally in soccer matches, pregame festivities aren't covered on TV here at all, and halftime is 15 minutes of straight commercials. For some reason, ESPN didn't cut in and fill every second that the clock wasn't running with DiTech, esurance and "The Bronx is Burning" commercials. They actually showed the national anthems and spent some time announcing the players and formations. It was great, and I'm quite certain that ESPN won't ever let it happen again.
Second, the Canadian crowd was awesome. Sure, the stadium wasn't massive, but it was totally full. And let's not kid ourselves, U-20 tournaments aren't anywhere near as big a deal as full internationals. Compare the attendance of these matches in Canada to the attendance of the Under 21 European Championships in Holland this year: not a single match in that entire tournament, including those with home team and the title game, had as many fans in attendance as last night's USA-Brazil game. Add in the excitement of MLS's Toronto FC, and there's a soccer crazed nation to the north. That's not exactly good for US Soccer - as the next time it's CONCACAF's turn to host the World Cup, they might not choose the massive stadia of the USA and instead opt for better summer weather in Canada. Canada could probably put up very good bids to host the Gold Cup too.
Now, about the game itself... The future's bright for the USA. The Brazil squad wasn't exactly their optimal U-20, but there was definitely talent on that team. But at the same time, it seemed to me like the USA had as much, if not more talent out there. I actually thought Adu was the best player on the field, when he stayed upright. The American defense appeared confident and quick against very skilled and athletic strikers. The result last night wasn't luck. In fact, I'd say that the only lucky thing of the night was that Brazil scored at all - their goal could've been handled by Seitz or been cleared off the line. The game was really enjoyable to watch, and it makes me think the future of the USMNT can't come soon enough. The core of Adu, Altidore, Zizzo and Szetela is something to get excited about. Adu draws som much attention that he frees others up (see the second goal last night), and his skill is world class. Altidore is right now as good a pure finisher has anyone wearing the US uniform. Zizzo looks like the kind of speed and skill, and most importantly an ability not to get blown off the ball with a faint breeze, we've needed on the wing forever. With the talent out on the field, almost as important is the fearlessness. After the match, the players seemed excited and happy - like they knew that their last 2 matches were a big deal. But it was also the look of a group of kids not afraid to do something great.
Now the draw comes up pretty good for the USA. Their next match is Wednesday, probably against the winner of Costa Rica-Scotland, but possibly North Korea, Zambia or Jordan. If the win that one, they'd get probably Portugal or Austria. There's a decent chance that the USA could avoid Argentina, Nigeria, and maybe Brazil again until the Finals. Spain looks to be the biggest threat on the USA's side of the draw.
Back on the TV coverage thing... I think it's very cool that ESPN showed last night's game. I wonder how much the surprise ratings the Gold Cup final got for Univision and the YouTube excitement about Adu's hat trick against Poland had to do with it. I don't think ESPN had intended on showing last night's match until just the other day (my cable guide had "NFL Live" and the Hot Dog Eating Contest supposed to air). That's a good sign for people who like watching soccer, like me. Adu's star power and on-field success for the team can only lead to more coverage, and more interest.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Comparison
Dear Terrence Moore:If When Andruw Jones leaves the Braves, Torii Hunter cannot replace him.
Torii Hunter is nearly two years older.
Andruw Jones has about twice as many career home runs.
Andruw Jones has 400 more RBI.
Andruw Jones has about 500 more hits.
Andruw Jones has 100 more doubles.
Andruw Jones has 25% more triples.
Andruw Jones has a better career OBP (.344 to .324)
Andruw Jones has a better career slugging percentage.
There is a stat called "Equivalent Average", which allows players to be compared without regard to differences in leagues, ballparks, etc. Andruw Jones has a better EqA than Torii Hunter whether adjusted for season or all-time. By significant margins.
There is another stat called "WARP3", which is a way to compare players based upon a formula incorporating a number of offensive statistics and accounting for positional importance, league strength, ballpark, pitching difficulty, and many other considerations. The net result is the number of "wins" a particular player would contribute above a replacement (read: barely a major leaguer) player at that position.
Andruw Jones has a career WARP3 exactly double Torii Hunter's career WARP3.
Simply looking at hitting, Andruw Jones is approximately TWICE as valuable to his team than Torii Hunter.
What about Defense?
Defensive statistics are a little murkier to wade through - errors, putouts and assists do not tell the whole story.
There is a stat called FRAR, which attempts to clean up the muck, and effectively is the number of runs saved having this particular player out there instead of a replacement player. There are two levels of this stat - FRAR1 and FRAR2.
Andruw Jones has saved approximately twice as many runs as Torii Hunter has in their respective careers.
So by objective statistics, basically Andruw Jones is twice as good a player at the plate as Torii Hunter. And Andruw Jones is twice as good a player in the field as Torii Hunter. And Andruw's almost 2 years younger.
Baseball-Reference uses statistics to compare players throughout history.
At his current age, Andruw Jones's closest comparison is Hall-of-Famer Frank Robinson.
At his current age, Torii Hunter's closest comparison is Jermaine Dye.
Of course, no comparison of players is complete without looking at salaries. Andruw makes a little less than $3 Million more than Hunter. Next year, both become free agents.
Torii Hunter should not be an option for the Braves unless Andruw Jones is asking for more than twice as much money than Hunter.
Also, Terrence, David Justice had better numbers throughout his career than Torii Hunter. Not quite as good as the rose-colored glasses view of Justice that Terrence Moore has, but still better than Torii Hunter.
And let the record show that I didn't bring race into the analysis here (someone else is welcome to do that).
Andruw Jones Stats
Torii Hunter Stats
