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...

1. 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.
   
   
2. 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?
   
   
3. 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.
   
   
4. 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.
   
   
5. 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.
   
   
6. 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.
   
   
7. 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.
   

The guy has always bothered me, but he's not alone. The media's effect on the game shouldn't be discounted. And when poor analysis like Stewart Mandel's rears its head, it should be pointed out and we should learn from it. What we should do next is more difficult. Even if I ignore him, he matters because of his profile to others. Blogs can serve as a counter to national media figures - exposing their logical fallacies, factual inaccuracies, etc. Other writers can also do the trick. One of the things I've liked about Bill Simmons (who, yes, I know has tons of flaws as a writer and is a convenient blogger punching bag) recently is that he's not exactly afraid to take shots at other writers and voices with national pulpits. We need more of that. If LD in his pajamas in his mom's basement takes shots at Stewart Mandel, all of 6 readers might nod and post a comment saying how I took it to him. And he wouldn't care a bit. If Bruce Feldman, Pat Forde, one of the CFN writers, or whoever else points out how bad a competitor's piece is, that'd be a lot more effective. I wish we could challenge the idea of mutual respect or collegiality among people with the profile. I'd love to see writers police inadequacies among their own. I'd love to read it.

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.

Read More...

Summary only...

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.

Read More...

Summary only...

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?

Read More...

Summary only...

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.

Read More...

Summary only...

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.

Read More...

Summary only...

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.

Read More...

Summary only...

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:

1. MLS isn't that bad, and it shouldn't have to be that good.
2. Beckham won't be bad, and he'll serve his purpose, and hopefully nobody's really expecting him to be a true savior.
3. MLS can get better, but needs to use more grass-roots methods.

Read More...

Summary only...

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.

Read More...

Summary only...

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:

1. SEC: 78,106 per
   
2. Big 10: 76,295 per
   
3. Pac 10: 64,517 per
   
4. Big XII: 62,373 per
   
5. ACC: 57,732 per
   
6. Big East: 50,518 per
   
7. Independent: 50,241 per
   
8. C-USA: 49,712 per
   
9. Mountain West: 46,958 per
   
10. MAC: 32,393 per
    
11. WAC: 31,708 per
    
12. 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?).

Read More...

Summary only...

Can't just focus on the negative

Some things I like...

1. Miller Chill.
2. That the World Series of Pop Culture has returned.
3. When The Lady surprises me by making mini cheeseburgers.
4. The girl who can't stop crying on Age of Love (comedy reasons alone - total trainwreck).
5. PLANET EARTH DVDS - this deserves its own post times ten.
6. Every episode of Man vs. Wild except the one where Bear drops into the Everglades.
7. Fatherhood.
8. Rafael Soriano, Jared Saltalamacchia, Kelly Johnson, and Chipper Jones.
9. Amazon Prime.
10. The sassy Russian girl in GoldenEye.
11. Chicago's Greatest Hits. No shitting.
12. Trader Joe's chai tea cookies (and just about everything else in the store).
13. Joe Simpson on Braves games.
14. That there's less than 2 months to college football.
15. Flight of the Conchords.
    

Read More...

Summary only...

Bile Dump

Stuff that's bothered me for a while...

1. The way Alicia Keys draws every syllable out when enunciating in that American Express commercial.
2. SportsCenter's "Who's Now" gimmick.
3. Bob Wickman
4. Ringtone Subscription commercials
5. 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.
6. When local sports talk radio focuses on "parenting" issues.
7. That SportsCenter sometimes shows WNBA highlights instead of MLB scores (and highlights or anything else, really).
   
8. Zach Braff's voiceover on Wendy's commercials.
9. 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?
10. 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.
    
11. I know I'm not the first to say this, but Rafael Nadal's shorts.
12. 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.
13. The taste of White Hawk IPA.
14. MTV's Scarred - the show and all commercials.
15. Wasting too much reading time on a weak book that you know is bad, but you refuse to put down on principle.

More later.

Read More...

Summary only...

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.

Read More...

Summary only...

Flick the Button

Some of these I forgot last time, and I'm trying to do this more often so I don't forget...

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.

Read More...

Summary only...

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.

Read More...

Summary only...

Omerta

Michael Savage?

That's some sort of copyright infringement isn't it...

Read More...

Summary only...

Is this thing on?

Might be time I dusted off the cobwebs...

Read More...

Summary only...

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

Read More...

Summary only...

Ranking Coaches X: Screw it, here's the full thing

OK, Intro was here. Longevity Post here. The original Sporting News list here.

I decided to better myself and try to load the spreadsheet I prepared for this onto Google Docs so I could just link to it here and do the full analysis in a single post, so here goes.

The full, sortable spreadsheet is here.

Analysis below the fold!



Longevity

Covered this before.

National Titles

On its own, this category in a way speaks to longevity, since the coaches that have won titles tend to also be around the longest (or perhaps they stick around longer because they've won a title). Also, national titles necessarily include a factor called luck. Tommy Tuberville does not have a national title, though he has an undefeated season. Urban Meyer and Nick Saban have national titles, but not undefeated seasons. One ball bounces a different way, one call goes a different way, and a number of coaches that have titles might not, or coaches that don't have titles might have them.

Only 12 coaches have won a national title. That's a small group. 7 of the 12 have at least 12 years experience. Only 4 coaches have more than one title, and the average tenure of those 4 coaches is 24 years. The vast majority of coaches at BCS programs do not have a national title. The reason: it's hard to win a title, and luck plays a large factor. Some other quirks:

• Dennis Erickson, whose high ranking from Dienhart made me scoff in the introduction, is one of the 4 current coaches with more than one title. That's probably reason enough to put him in a top tier. So I didn't give Erickson enough credit. Damn you EDSBS and your awesome volcano/golf cart picture!
  
  
• Beginner's Luck? Bob Stoops won his title in his second year. Lloyd Carr in his third. Will they get another one? Their chances are probably as good as anyone else.
  
  
• On Dienhart's list, the lowest ranked coach with a national title is Phil Fulmer at 31. 19 coaches without a title are ranked ahead of him.
  

Conference Titles

I think this is actually a better gauge of coaching talent than national titles. How a coach compares against his closest rivals and most direct competitors (who know him best) is a strong method. Now, for a few of these coaches, this category is useless. Charlie Weis won't ever win a conference title at Notre Dame. Joe Paterno has just 2, but Penn State was independent for a long period. Another flaw, as said in the introduction, is that not every conference title is of equal value. An undefeated season in a tough conference is far stronger than a shared title among 3 5-3 teams in a weak conference.

• Pete Carroll has won at least a share of the conference title in every year but his first at USC.
  
  
• Bob Stoops, Urban Meyer, Rich Rodriguez, and Butch Davis have won a conference title 50% of the time.
  
  
• Spurrier and Carr have won titles better than 1/3rd of the time.
  
  
• Erickson and Richt have won titles every third year.
  
  
• Bobby Bowden has won a conference title about every third year, but 16 of his 37 years were spent as an independent. So really, he's going at a rate better than 50%. Only Carroll can beat that.
  
  
• I find it fascinating that Mack Brown hadn't won a conference title until his 18th season. The longest another current coach has gone without a title is Al Groh, 12 years.
  
  
• Tyrone Willingham is the lowest rated coach on Dienhart's list that has won a conference title. If you consider longevity and conference titles, it sure looks like Dienhart is unfairly downgrading Willingham.
  

Winning Percentage

I think this is another good, but not perfect method of objectively comparing coaches. Different programs have different inherent advantages and disadvantages. Programs play schedules of varying difficulty. But if anything matters in football, it's wins and losses. One drawback with sorting this category is that short-term success or failure screws with it. Bret Bielema tops the list with one great season. Dan Hawkins is near the bottom with one awful season.

• Dienhart must definitely think Bielema's first year was beginner's luck. Bielema tops the sorted list of winning percentage, but he's way down at 39 on Dienhart's list, the biggest drop between the two categories.
  
  
• Charlie Weis doesn't fare any better. By winning %, Weis should be 8th, but Dienhart has him down at 42nd.
  
  
• Phil Fulmer also gets downgraded by Dienhart when considering winning percentage. Fulmer is 7th among BCS coaches in winning %, but Dienhart has him at 31. Considering Fulmer's national title and multiple conference titles, it sure looks like Dienhart is underrating Fulmer.
  
  
• Jim Grobe got the biggest lift by Dienhart. Grobe is 39th among coaches in winning %, but Dienhart has him at 4th. Raising Grobe is definitely reasonable considering the disadvantages of coaching at Wake Forest, but 4th is still pretty high for a guy who has barely won half his games.
  
  
• Bobby Johnson at Vandy is another coach that got the benefit of the doubt from Dienhart based upon difficulty of winning at his program. Only 3 coaches with at least a game under their belt have a worse winning percentage than Johnson (and one of them is Dan Hawkins, who has just a single bad year), but Dienhart has him in the top 30. Just so we're clear, Fulmer, who has a national title, 2 SEC titles and 7th in winning percentage, is worse in Dienhart's view than Bobby Johnson, with 0 national titles, 0 SEC titles, and 56th out of 59 in winning percentage.
  
  
• Tyrone Willingham's winning percentage is, like every other category, better than where Dienhart rates him.
  
  
• Coaches rated worse by Dienhart than their winning percentage would have them rated (by at least 10 spots): Bret Bielema, Urban Meyer, Mark Richt, Phil Fulmer, Charlie Weis, Ralph Friedgen, Les Miles, Tommy Bowden, Karl Dorrell, Ron Prince, Bill Doba, Ty Willingham. That's 3 of the 4 African American coaches (who have coached a year - Randy Shannon gets an incomplete). Also, 4 SEC coaches in the top 22 for winning % are downgraded at least 10 spots.
  
  
• Coaches rated better by Dienhart than their winning percentage would have them rated (by at least 10 spots, not counting guys without experience), with my guess on why he's raised them in parentheses: Dan Hawkins (small sample), Bobby Johnson (weak program), Mark Mangino (???), Greg Schiano (weak program), Jim Grobe (weak program), Mike Riley (???), Kirk Ferentz (??? 34th in winning %, 11th with Dienhart), Tom O'Brien (???), Frank Beamer (longevity?), Nick Saban (Title?), Rich Rodriguez (???)

Winning Percentage As Against School's Historic Winning Percentage

This system attempts to isolate the difficulties and advantages some programs have. Basically, I looked at a coach's winning percentage and subtracted his school's historic winning percentage. If a coach served at multiple schools, I accounted for that. For example, USC has a historic winning percentage of .702. That means that it's a very successful program, and there are natural advantages to coaching there. If Pete Carroll's winning percentage is .844, he's +.142 over the historic percentage. So the program is good, but Carroll's abilities in isolation shows that he's made the program even better. Likewise, with a program that historically hasn't been that good, a coach might not top the winning percentage category, but he'd still look pretty good in this one.

I think this is the most accurate objective method of comparing coaches. The only flaw is small sample size - Bielema at the top, Hawkins at the bottom for example.

• Dennis Erickson is the big winner in this category. He's third overall, only behind two guys with small sample sizes (Bielema and Meyer).
  
  
• Bielema, Friedgen, Richt, Miles and Tedford are in the top 10 of this category, but Dienhart doesn't include any of them in the top 20.
  
  
• Biggest downgrade by Dienhart from where a coach would be rated by this objective category: Ron Prince (from 13th down to 57th), but that's a small sample size. Bielema was downgraded the second most (1st down to 39th), but again, a small sample size. For a guy who has coached more than a single year, the most downgraded is Les Miles (from 9th to 41st).
  
  
• Biggest upgrade by Dienhart from where a coach would be rated by this objective category: Bill Callahan (from 50th up to 21st).
  
  
• Coaches downgraded by Dienhart by more than 10 spots: Bielema, Meyer, Friedgen, Richt, Miles, Tedford, Prince, Fulmer, Joe Tiller, Mark Dantonio, Tommy Bowden, Bill Doba, Charlie Weis, Dorrell, Mike Gundy, Randy Edsall, Pat Fitzgerald.
  
  
• Coaches upgraded by Dienhart by more than 10 spots (my guess at a reason, and here I don't consider a bad program as a good reason since it's already accounted for): Hawkins (small sample), Bobby Johnson (???), Bill Callahan (???), Mark Mangino (???), Greg Schiano (???), Jim Leavitt (Shouldn't be listed here - he's the only coach at the program, so his comparison to history is neutral), Houston Nutt (???), Lloyd Carr (title), Kirk Ferentz (???), Tom O'Brien (???), Tommy Tuberville (???, near-title?), Frank Beamer (longevity), Nick Saban (title), Mack Brown (title), Rich Rodriguez (???), Jim Tressel (title)
  
  

Some Overall Thoughts

Looking at the various objective criteria, I think Dienhart overrates and underrates a few coaches, based upon their accomplishments.

OVERRATED: Mark Mangino, Bill Callahan, Bobby Johnson, Rich Rodriguez, Kirk Ferentz, Tom O'Brien.

UNDERRATED: Phil Fulmer, Ralph Friedgen, Mark Richt, Charlie Weis, Jeff Tedford, Les Miles, Tommy Bowden, Bret Bielema, Tyrone Willingham, Karl Dorrell, Bill Doba.

A few more specific nits to pick considering all the categories discussed:

• At the top, Rich Rodriguez is not defensible at #3. Bob Stoops bests him in every single objective category. Spurrier too. And Erickson. And Bobby Bowden. Even Lloyd Carr tops him in every category but one.
  
  
• Kirk Ferentz at #11 and Tom O'Brien at #13 aren't defensible either. Coaches who best or equal them both in every category but are ranked below: Bellotti, Paterno, Butch Davis, Richt, Fulmer.
  
  
• Houston Nutt at #20 isn't defensible. Guys behind him that best or equal him in every category: Tedford, Richt, Leach, Friedgen, Fulmer, Tiller, Bielema, Miles. Nutt's objective rankings put him right in line with Tommy Bowden, whom Dienhart ranks 47th (though, arguably he shouldn't be that low).
  

So there you have it. I can't remember which site discussing this had the comment "Dienhart's fine through #1, but then he falls apart." That's almost right.

The problem, as suggested in the introduction, is that Dienhart's subjective ratings mean something. When he overrates a certain coach, that coach develops an undeserved reputation, which could affect the way his program is perceived.

EDITED for Grammar and a few small analysis mistakes.

Read More...

Summary only...

Ranking Coaches I: Longevity

Intro here. Sporting News' Rankings Here.

I readily admit that length of service at a BCS college, on its own, isn't the best measure of how good a coach is. It clearly represents accomplishment, but doesn't necessarily state an advantage in coaching ability when compared to other coaches. The extended entry has the full list and some commentary.

The list is how many years these coaches have served as the head of BCS programs. Coaches who no longer serve as the head coaches of BCS teams aren't listed (no Mike Price, no Larry Coker). Also, years serving as coach at a non-BCS-automatic-qualifying aren't included (for example, Dennis Franchione's years at TCU don't count). One exception, though: if a coach has served as coach at the same spot, and that team has joined a BCS conference, all years count (for example, Jim Leavitt at USF).

Longest Tenure (Years at BCS conference programs)

1. Joe Paterno (41)
2. Bobby Bowden (37)
3. Rich Brooks (22)
4. Frank Beamer (20)
5. Mack Brown (19)
6. Steve Spurrier (17)
7. Phillip Fulmer (14.5)
8T. Mike Bellotti (12)
8T. Lloyd Carr (12)
8T. Dennis Erickson (12)
8T. Al Groh (12)
8T. Tommy Tuberville (12)
8T. Tyrone Willingham (12)
14T. Jim Leavitt (10)
14T. Tom O'Brien (10)
14T. Nick Saban (10)
14T. Joe Tiller (10)
18. Houston Nutt (9)
19T. Tommy Bowden (8)
19T. Randy Edsall (8)
19T. Kirk Ferentz (8)
19T. Bob Stoops (8)
23. Mike Leach (7)
24T. Pete Carroll (6)
24T. Butch Davis (6)
24T. Dennis Franchione (6)
24T. Ralph Friedgen (6)
24T. Jim Grobe (6)
24T. Les Miles (6)
24T. Guy Morriss (6)
24T. Gary Pinkel (6)
24T. Mark Richt (6)
24T. Mike Riley (6)
24T. Rich Rodriguez (6)
24T. Greg Schiano (6)
24T. Jim Tressel (6)
37T. Chan Gailey (5)
37T. Bobby Johnson (5)
37T. Mark Mangino (5)
37T. Jeff Tedford (5)
37T. Ron Zook (5)
42T. Bill Doba (4)
42T. Karl Dorrell (4)
42T. Ted Roof (4)
45T. Bill Callahan (3)
45T. Sylvester Croom (3)
45T. Mark Dantonio (3)
45T. Mike Stoops (3)
49T. Mike Gundy (2)
49T. Terry Hoeppner (2)
49T. Urban Meyer (2)
49T. Ed Orgeron (2)
49T. Greg Robinson (2)
49T. Dave Wannstedt (2)
49T. Charlie Weis (2)
56T. Bret Bielema (1)
56T. Pat Fitzgerald (1)
56T. Dan Hawkins (1)
56T. Ron Prince (1)
60T. Tim Brewster (0)
60T. Gene Chizik (0)
60T. Jim Harbaugh (0)
60T. Jeff Jagodzinski (0)
60T. Brian Kelly (0)
60T. Steve Kragthorpe (0)
60T. Randy Shannon (0)

Analysis:

This list is a good (though not perfect) gauge of accomplishment as a coach. The guys at the top are, for the most part, legendary coaches. But if the inevitable goal is to find objective criteria to compare coaches, simply looking at how long he's been around doesn't go far enough. If I were choosing a coach today, I'd prefer a guy who isn't going to retire in the next few years, even if a younger guy has only a fraction of a chance at becoming a legend. Plus, with the energy and commitment required to make a major college program work, fresher legs are also preferable. Here are a few quirks in the data:

• Anyone else surprised that Rich Brooks is third on this list? And you'll be even more surprised when the rest of the data gets posted. His number of titles, winning percentage, and comparative winning percentage stand out for the longest-term people - and not for good reasons.
  
  
• Al Groh has as many years heading BCS programs as Lloyd Carr. Might be surprising, because he had those early years at Wake Forest that are probably meaningless.
  
  
• Guys with 6 years' service might be the future legends. Carroll, Tressel, Richt, Schiano, Rodriguez, Friedgen, Grobe and even Miles and Davis. All of them may end up iconic at their respective programs.
  
  
• Before last season, I remember someone writing about how Houston Nutt had the longest tenure at BCS conference schools who had never won a conference title. Not true! Jim Leavitt has served a year longer without a conference title.
  

How does longevity seem to play into Dienhart's rankings? Not much, it seems. And that's probably OK. He downgrades Paterno and Bowden from their spot up high. He (rightly) discounts Rich Brooks. He lifts several of the 6 year guys up high. The guy he's lowered the most appears to be Tyrone Willingham (8th highest by longevity, 54th on Dienhart's list). Urban Meyer gets the biggest lift (49th by longevity, 12th on Dienhart's list). Of the guys with no experience, Dienhart seems to consider most of them under the "incomplete grade", listing 5 of the 7 rookies among the bottom 9 on his list. Only Brian Kelly (36th) and Steve Kragthorpe (27th) avoided the depths - and both are the only rookies at BCS schools who had experience at other Division 1-A schools. Dienhart's assumption that Kelly and Kragthorpe will be solid at BCS schools seems (to me) to be a little strong. Considering that he rates both ahead of two coaches with multiple BCS appearances (Weis, Miles), or a guy with experience at a BCS school who has the highest winning percentage of any coach in America (Bielema). Dienhart has high hopes for those two.

Tomorrow night, National and Conference Titles.

Read More...

Summary only...

Subjective Best Of Lists Are Impeachable

And now, the triumphant return of college football blogging!

A few weeks ago several blogdudes (I'm sure more, but it's been a while...) made note of The Sporting News' Tom Dienhart ranking all of the current BCS coaches. Mr. Dienhart gave no criteria or objectives upon which he based his list. I assume, it must be subjective. And whenever I smell subjectivity in college football, I get mad. Mad like I've a bellyful of cheap gin.

UPDATE: Bill of Eagle in Atlanta thought on these same lines a full month before I did. I didn't see it before, but much credit to him for being significantly ahead of the game!



See, as I've said before, no other sport is influenced by media subjectivity like college football, which necessarily relies upon the opinions of sportswriters and the opinions of people who rely upon sportswriters to base their opinions to crown its champion (or, if you'd prefer more precision, to select which teams play for the title). So when teams or personalities that are often synonymous with teams receive public praise or criticism, it necessarily affects how those teams are presented, and the initial impressions of particular programs directly affect placement in polls. I find this unfortunate, but even if you don't, it's a fact of the game in its current form.

The problem (well, one of the problems) with Dienhart's list is that it is a road map for "the benefit of the doubt" given to some coaches, but not others. If a team coached by a high rated team on his list loses a couple of early games to drop to 1-2, you'll likely see a column somewhere by someone saying "a Coach X coached team is too good to fall apart. Don't be surprised to see them winning the rest of their games..." or something like that. Teams coached by guys that rank high on lists like this are less likely to drop precipitously in the polls after a loss, or merely that they're more likely to be ranked highly (perhaps without reason) in preseason polls, providing the springboard needed to end up in title games or top bowls.

So this benefit of the doubt issue I see... well, some guys deserve the benefit of the doubt. That's certain. Some guys really are great coaches. So the idea of a list of great coaches isn't exactly bad in the abstract. What's bad is that we have no idea what Dienhart uses to come up with his list. Big wins? Recruiting rankings? Team discipline? Wins and losses? Who gives him exclusive interviews and access? We don't know. And that's why this list is bad.

OK. When I looked at the list I saw probably the same odd rankings most people saw. Houston Nutt ahead of Mark Richt? Chan Gailey ahead of Phil Fulmer? Rich Rodriguez in the top 3? Dennis Erickson in the top 10? But then I tried to come up with objective ways of rating these guys. I wanted to make sure my own opinions weren't wrong (what if Dienhart were right, based upon objective criteria?).

So I ranked the 66 BCS-automatic-bid conference coaches in a number of categories that I think provide some objective analysis:

1. Longevity. The longer a guy has coached at a major college football program, that means he's probably capable. Guys who can't hack it don't stick around long, and there are few coaches who make the leap to the NFL. That said, I think this is one of the weaker objective categories for determining how good a coach is today. Who would you rather start a program with right now, Methuselah Paterno or Urban Meyer?
2. Number of National Championships. Winning a title matters. This, I'd say is also one of the weaker objective categories for determining how good a coach is. Specifically, there are a host of major college football programs where, no matter how good a coach is, the resources just aren't there for a national title run (and even if they did win all their games, there are a number of programs which just don't have enough juice to get writers and poll voters to change preconceived notions). Also, not all national titles are equal. Nick Saban, Steve Spurrier and Urban Meyer all have a title in a season where they lost a game, while Tommy Tuberville has an undefeated season, but no title.
   
3. Number of Conference Titles. Again, winning a title matters. The other teams in your conference are your closest competitors, so winning titles means you are besting your closest rivals. That said, not every conference title is equal. An undefeated run through a terribly tough conference is better than a three way tie for first with all teams at 5-3 in the conference (which has happened before). And, needless to say, the fact that there are teams included that haven't always played in conferences. Charlie Weis may never win a conference title. That doesn't mean he's a worse coach than Ty Willingham, who won one at Stanford. Joe Paterno coached for 25 years as an independent, so he has the same number of titles as Mark Richt.
4. Winning Percentage. Winning matters. Winning more than losing. Beating the other team every single week. Of course, not every team plays the same schedule. Some schedules are much more difficult than others. And not every team has the exact same resources. Les Miles has a much easier road to a good winning percentage at LSU than Bobby Johnson has at Vanderbilt.
   
5. Winning Percentage vs. Program's Historic Winning Percentage. This, I believe, is the most accurate objective measure to compare coaches. Basically, you look at the particular coach's winning percentage at BCS schools, and compare that to the winning percentage that the school (or schools, if the coach has appeared at multiple BCS programs) has had. The number should be a + or -. For example, if Ralph Friedgen has a winning % of .676, and Maryland's all time winning percentage is .533, Friedgen's number for this category is +.143. This attempts to isolate the effect of a coach upon a program without regard to inherent benefits or drawbacks of the program. Of course there are flaws to this - some programs aren't the same today as they are over a 100-year period. For example, Vanderbilt all time has a program winning percentage over .500, but that's because of good numbers back in leather helmet days.
   

So how do things shake out? Read on in the next few posts to find out... (and it might take a few days to get them all out)

Read More...

Summary only...