tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-65180975740839674022024-02-08T11:43:18.655-08:00My Two Common CentsA sports blog where 'my two cents' and common sense meet.Jared Dayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468719620686765175noreply@blogger.comBlogger71125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518097574083967402.post-2528591508150336452017-11-01T14:11:00.000-07:002017-11-01T14:28:59.080-07:00The winner of the World Series is...Tonight is game 7 of the World Series and the big question is who will win? If recent history is any indication, the Dodgers will win. Since 1982, the World Series has gone to a seventh game 11 times. How many times has the team that won game 6 gone on to win game 7? Let's take a look:<br />
<br />
<b>1982- Cardinals win game 6. Cardinals win game 7.</b><br />
<b>1985- Royals win game 6. Royals win game 7.</b><br />
<b>1986- Mets win game 6. Mets win game 7.</b><br />
<b>1987- Twins win game 6. Twins win game 7.</b><br />
<b>1991- Twins win game 6. Twins win game 7.</b><br />
1997- Indians win game 6. Marlins win game 7.<br />
<b>2001- Diamondbacks win game 6. Diamondbacks win game 7.</b><br />
<b>2002- Angels win game 6. Angels win game 7.</b><br />
<b>2011- Cardinals win game 6. Cardinals win game 7.</b><br />
2014- Royals win game 6. Giants win game 7.<br />
<b>2016- Cubs win game 6. Cubs win game 7.</b><br />
<br />
Nine times out of 11, the team that won game 6 also won game 7. That's a pretty significant margin. The only two teams that bucked that trend were the 1997 Marlins and the 2014 Giants. Before you cling on to those teams as hope for an Astros win tonight, both those games had significant x factors that the Astros won't have. The Marlins were at home and the Giants had an all-time performance from the best World Series pitcher of the modern era (Bumgarner has given up one run in 36 innings, which is an ERA of 0.25). The Dodgers just beat the best pitcher Houston has and they're at home. They're going to be supremely confident going into the night. Meanwhile, Houston has the pressure of failing to capitalize on a golden opportunity, with everything lined up just right for them, and have to try to pull it out under tougher circumstances.<br />
<br />
I've longed subscribed to the theory of game 6 deciding a seven game series. It even holds up well in basketball. During the same time frame, the NBA had a series go seven games six times (I'm eliminating 2016, because the format was no longer 2-3-2, but the team that won game 6 did win game 7): in 1984, 1988, 1994, 2005, 2010, and 2013. Of those six, only twice did the team that lost game 6 go on to win game 7. And in both those instances, it was the home team that was victorious.<br />
<br />
So once again, in the last 35 years, whether it be baseball or even basketball, the road team won a game 7 one time out of 17. Can the Astros pull a 2014 Giants? Doubtful. Because if there's one thing more certain than the balls are juiced, it's that Houston doesn't have Madison Bumgarner.Jared Dayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468719620686765175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518097574083967402.post-90633630652439125922017-06-28T17:34:00.000-07:002017-06-28T17:34:53.674-07:00Myth Buster<u>LeBron didn't start super teams</u>:<br />
In the past couple weeks, there has been a lot of chatter about super teams in the NBA and which one came first. I've already addressed this in a <a href="http://mytwocommoncents.blogspot.com/2011/05/heats-stars-need-history-lesson.html">previous post</a>, but I'll quickly recap my thoughts here. The idea that the first super team wasn't Miami is just dumb. The Lakers and Celtics of the '60s and '80s were assembled through the draft and trades, so it's apples and oranges. People don't get upset about a franchise drafting great players or making great trades. When people refer to "super teams," they're referring to the collaboration of stars. LeBron tried to claim he didn't start super teams, and pointed to the '99 Rockets, the '04 Lakers or the '08 Celtics. Here's the difference between those teams and Miami: those were <i>veterans</i> teaming up together. No dynasties happened, nor were any even expected. When Miami got together, there's a reason why they went on record <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYe8B--jrbs">saying</a>, "not one, not two, not three..." and proclaiming they were going to win more than seven titles. Because they were superstars teaming up <i>in their primes</i>. When you haven't played a game and you project yourself to win more than seven titles, <i>you are a super team!</i> Only two teams have ever assembled and immediately evoked images of dynasty: the 2011 Heat and the 2017 Warriors. So you can bring up the '99 Rockets, '04 Lakers, or '08 Celtics all you want, but the ceiling for those teams was never as high, nor the window as wide.<br />
<br />
<u>Add LeBron to any team and they're a contender</u>:<br />
This is a popular narrative trumpeted by people. The main reason people say this is by saying look at Cleveland with and without him and by looking at Miami with and without him. Unsurprisingly, that is a very simplistic view that completely ignores any and all context. How so? Because LeBron isn't the only difference between those teams. Let's look at the 2010 Cavs vs the 2011 Cavs (we'll just compare the top 8 guys by minutes played.):<br />
<br />
2010 Cavs:<br />
LeBron, Mo Williams, Anthony Parker, Anderson Varejao, JJ Hickson, Delonte West, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, and Shaq<br />
<br />
2011 Cavs:<br />
JJ Hickson, Ramon Sessions, Anthony Parker, Daniel Gibson, Antawn Jamison, Ryan Hollins, Mo Williams, and Anderson Varejao<br />
<br />
LeBron wasn't the only change, so you can't pin all the results of the season on one thing. (For more in-depth analysis on this specific change, check out one of my <a href="http://mytwocommoncents.blogspot.com/2011/04/on-contrary-clevelands-record-not.html">previous posts</a>.) Not included in that post is the coaching change. Following LeBron's exit, Mike Brown was fired. And while Mike Brown isn't a great coach, he's not as bad as Byron Scott. Byron Scott hasn't won 25 games in a season since 2009! In thirteen full seasons, he had a winning record in exactly four of them. As for the 2011 Miami Heat, they improved by 11 wins. And that was adding LeBron and Bosh. No in-depth analysis required. Now let's forward to LeBron's Miami departure and his return to Cleveland.<br />
<br />
2014 Heat:<br />
LeBron, Chris Bosh, Mario Chalmers, Norris Cole, Ray Allen, Dwyane Wade, Shane Battier, and Chris Andersen<br />
<br />
2015 Heat:<br />
Luol Deng, Mario Chalmers, Dwyane Wade, Chris Bosh, Norris Cole, Hassan Whiteside, Chris Andersen, and James Ennis<br />
<br />
The Heat didn't just lose LeBron. They also lost Ray Allen and Shane Battier and Bosh played barely more than half the season.<br />
<br />
2014 Cavs:<br />
Tristan Thompson, Kyrie Irving, Jarret Jack, Dion Waiters, Anderson Varejao, Luol Deng, Matthew Dellavedova, and Tyler Zeller<br />
<br />
2015 Cavs:<br />
Kyrie Irving, Kevin Love, LeBron, Tristan Thompson, JR Smith, Matthew Dellavedova, Timofey Mozgov, and Shawn Marion<br />
<br />
The 2015 Cavs didn't just add LeBron; it was almost a completely different roster. Tristan Thompson and Kyrie Irving were in their fourth years, and naturally should have gotten better, and they added Kevin Love. But that wasn't it. If those weren't improvements enough, they also traded for JR Smith, Timofey Mozgov, and Iman Shumpert. And if you think that trade didn't make a huge impact, consider this: Prior to the trade, Cleveland was 19-16. That's a 45-win pace. Then there was a two game adjustment period, where Smith came off the bench one game and Mozgov came off the bench the next game (they lost both games). Once Smith and Mozgov (and eventually Shumpert) were added to the rotation, they went 34-11. That's a 62-win pace. So when you say that LeBron can make any team a contender, do you actually mean LeBron and Bosh, Allen, and Battier or LeBron and Love, Smith, and Shumpert?<br />
<br />
Not only did LeBron not single-handedly turn those teams around, but we also have information that contradicts the idea that LeBron, as a solo entity, can make any team a contender. In the Windhorst <a href="http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/presents-19449451/nba-playoffs-tales-woe-lebron-defeated-foes">article</a> I addressed in my previous post, he had a fascinating tidbit about LeBron's first venture into free agency in 2010:<br />
<span style="background-color: #eeeeee;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">"When the Chicago Bulls lost a competitive 4-1 series to James and the Cavs in 2010 they hoped it could be turned into a net positive. Young guard Derrick Rose starred in the short series and Joakim Noah, in addition to insulting the city of Cleveland, showed promise as a valuable postseason performer during the first-round series.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br /></span>
<span style="background-color: white;">The Bulls made a pitch to James as a free agent a few months later, touting their growing core of Rose, Noah, Luol Deng and Taj Gibson. The Bulls also made presentations to Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh. When they couldn't open enough salary-cap space to sign all three and Rose declined to directly recruit James, the window closed."</span><br />
<br />
Chicago had Rose, Noah, Deng, and Gibson and that wasn't good enough for LeBron so much so that they also would've needed to add Wade AND Bosh? If LeBron didn't think Chicago was good enough, how on earth are you going to tell me he could make Brooklyn or Sacramento a contender? Claiming that putting LeBron on a terrible team would instantly make them a contender ignores all the information to the contrary. Let's recap what has actually happened: LeBron didn't want to go to a talented Chicago team, instead teamed up with two of the best players in basketball and brought in really good veteran players, and then when that started to get a little old he went to Kyrie and brought in Kevin Love and traded for Smith, Shumpert and Mozgov. Not only do we have no record of him single-handedly carrying a lottery team to contention, but his moves have been exactly the opposite. Not only does he not team up with bad players, he intentionally seeks out <i>great </i>players. So no, teaming up with Bosh, Wade, Love, Kyrie, Allen, Battier, Smith, Thompson etc. isn't evidence that he would win with Willie Cauley-Stein and Ben McLemore.<br />
<br />
None of this is to criticize LeBron's skill as a basketball player, but rather the myths surrounding him.Jared Dayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468719620686765175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518097574083967402.post-72653766849671720222017-06-20T13:25:00.000-07:002017-06-20T13:29:57.543-07:00Formidable or Feeble?Last month, Brian Windhorst wrote <a href="http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/page/presents-19449451/nba-playoffs-tales-woe-lebron-defeated-foes">an article</a> about how LeBron has conquered the Eastern Conference. It's true, LeBron has conquered the East. But is that achievement as great as Windhorst made it sound? Anyone that has followed the NBA knows that the Eastern Conference has been incredibly weak, since shortly after the turn of the century. If that truth isn't patently obvious to you, then let's look at some basic numbers.<br />
<br />
During LeBron's 14 years, the top three franchises with the <a href="http://bkref.com/tiny/T3pkR">most wins</a> in the league are all in the West (San Antonio, Dallas, and Houston). Following those three teams are Miami, Denver, Boston, OKC, Golden State, Chicago, Cleveland, Indiana, Phoenix, LAL, Utah, and Memphis. That's the top 15 best records in the league and ten of them are Western Conference teams. It's even more lopsided than that though; because of the top five Eastern Conference franchises, two were teams he played for (Miami and Cleveland) and not rivals. Not only is the West better at the top, it's also better at the bottom. The bottom ten (from worst to "best") is Charlotte, Minnesota, Philly, Sacramento, NY, Brooklyn/NJ, Milwaukee, Washington, New Orleans, and Orlando. So of the bottom ten franchises in the league, seven of them are from the East.<br />
<br />
If that isn't enough for you, let's take a look at how the best players are distributed. Of the 210 All-NBA players since '03-'04, 137 have been in the West. The fact that 65% of All-NBA players have been in the West doesn't even illustrate how much of an imbalance exists. Why? Let's look at the top 25 most selected players in each conference, with the West players in bold:<br />
<br />
LeBron 13x<br />
<b>Kobe 10x</b><br />
<b>Duncan 9x</b><br />
<b>Dirk 9x</b><br />
<b>Paul 8x</b><br />
Wade 8x<br />
<b>Durant 7x</b><br />
Howard 6x<br />
<b>Westbrook 6x</b><br />
<b>Nash 5x</b><br />
<b>Yao 5x</b><br />
<b>Curry 4x</b><br />
<b>Harden 4x</b><br />
<b>Carmelo 4x</b><br />
<b>Stoudemire 4x</b><br />
<b>Parker 4x</b><br />
<b>Aldridge 4x</b><br />
<b>Griffin 4x</b><br />
George 3x<br />
<b>McGrady 3x</b><br />
<b>Garnett 3x</b><br />
Arenas 3x<br />
<b>P. Gasol 3x</b><br />
B. Wallace 3x<br />
<b>D. Jordan 3x</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
Of the top 25, 19 are from the West! It's not even close. Who is LeBron's competition? He didn't have to go against Kobe, Duncan, Dirk, Paul, Durant, Westbrook, Harden, Curry etc. Not only that, but his most formidable foe became a teammate! In the last 14 years, 9 MVPs are from the West. And of the five MVPs from the East, four were LeBron. It goes even further than that. If you took the top 3 finalists for MVP for each of the last 14 years, the West holds 26 of the 42 spots and LeBron holds ten of the 42 spots. That means that there are only <i>six</i> top three finishes by LeBron's competitors! One Rose MVP and one MVP finalist season from Wade, Shaq, Carmelo, Howard, and Jermaine O'Neal. Again, who has been LeBron's competition? <br />
<br />
No matter how you slice it, the East has been incredibly weak. 67% of the top 15 franchise records, 65% of All-NBA players, and 64% of MVPs have been from the West and 70% of the worst ten franchises are from the East. So don't pretend that he conquered a stacked, or even competitive, conference. He faced the tail end of the Pistons, the brief reign of the Celtics, an abbreviated run from the Magic and Bulls, and a flicker of the Pacers. LeBron didn't make the Pistons and Celtics get old, he didn't make Rose's knee and Howard's back deteriorate, and he didn't make Roy Hibbert and Lance Stephenson lose their ability to play basketball. And in spite of facing few strong competitors, he still teamed up with Wade and Bosh and then essentially traded them in for Kyrie and Love.<br />
<br />
LeBron didn't conquer the best. He faced the path of least resistance.Jared Dayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468719620686765175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518097574083967402.post-56083382947040014682017-02-02T14:33:00.000-08:002017-02-02T15:46:10.149-08:00Brady vs. MontanaOn Sunday, Tom Brady is playing for a chance to win his 5th Super Bowl title, so naturally the discussion of his place in history has been a big topic of conversation. Many people think Tom Brady is the best quarterback of all-time. For the ones who don't agree with that, the most obvious contender for that title is Joe Montana. So, who's better?<br />
<br />
<u><b>Regular season</b></u><br />
First, let's take a look at their regular season numbers. But not the raw totals, since the game has evolved so much. Instead the comparison will be made by era. Montana became a starter in 1981 and finished his career in 1994. Brady became a starter in 2001 and is obviously still going. So we'll compare how they performed relative to their era (1981-1998 for Montana and 2001-present for Brady). Also, since the number of games can vary between players, the stats that we'll be looking at will be yards per game, yards per attempt, touchdown percentage, interception percentage, completion percentage, and passer rating (minimum 2,500 pass attempts).<br />
<br />
Yards per game:<br />
Montana ranked <a href="http://pfref.com/tiny/4dexf">4th</a><br />
Brady ranks <a href="http://pfref.com/tiny/Ea4xW">6th</a><br />
<br />
Yards per attempt:<br />
Montana ranked <a href="http://pfref.com/tiny/XtUJa">3rd</a><br />
Brady ranks <a href="http://pfref.com/tiny/lmH80">10th</a><br />
<br />
TD%:<br />
Montana ranked <a href="http://pfref.com/tiny/riFGO">T-4th</a><br />
Brady ranks <a href="http://pfref.com/tiny/RBfb6">4th</a><br />
<br />
Int%:<br />
Montana ranked <a href="http://pfref.com/tiny/KJfXt">3rd</a><br />
Brady ranks <a href="http://pfref.com/tiny/Zsl2i">2nd</a><br />
<br />
Cmp%:<br />
Montana ranked <a href="http://pfref.com/tiny/3yB2i">2nd</a><br />
Brady ranks <a href="http://pfref.com/tiny/4lJ3b">10th</a><br />
<br />
Passer rating:<br />
Montana ranked <a href="http://pfref.com/tiny/RDufg">2nd</a><br />
Brady ranks <a href="http://pfref.com/tiny/rPW13">3rd</a><br />
<br />
Montana performed better in his era than Brady has in his era, almost across the board. Now a common argument from Brady supporters is that Montana had Jerry Rice. Which is meant to imply that Montana benefited more from Rice than Brady has from Moss, Welker, Gronkowski, and Edelman. But is that true? Let's compare Montana before and after 1985 and Brady before and after 2007.<br />
<br />
Montana pre-1985: 240.7 yds/game, 7.7 Y/A, 5.1 TD%, 2.5 Int%, 63.7 Cmp%, 93.6 passer rating<br />
Montana post-1985: 248.6 yds/game, 7.7 Y/A, 5.4 TD%, 2.8 Int%, 63.5 Cmp%, 94 passer rating<br />
<br />
Brady pre-2007: 226.9 yds/game, 7.0 Y/A, 4.8 TD%, 2.5 Int%, 61.9 Cmp%, 88.4 passer rating<br />
Brady post-2007: 283.8 yds/game, 7.8 Y/A, 6.0 TD%, 1.4 Int%, 64.9 Cmp%, 102.5 passer rating<br />
<br />
Montana had almost no statistical change from before Rice to with Rice. Meanwhile, Brady's numbers all increased considerably, once he got elite weapons (and the rules changed). Before Rice, the Niners offense averaged 5th in scoring. With Rice, they averaged 5th in scoring. Before Moss, Welker, Gronk etc, the Pats averaged 8th in scoring. After Moss, Welker, Gronk etc, they averaged 3rd in scoring. So whose stats really benefited from better weapons (and massive rule changes)?<br />
<br />
<u><b>Awards</b></u><br />
Montana was truly eligible for awards in 11 seasons (he missed 1991, 1992, and half of 1986). In those 11 seasons, he made 8 Pro Bowls, First-team All-Pro 3 times, Second-team All-Pro twice, MVP twice and Super Bowl MVP 3 times. In 15 seasons, Brady has made 12 Pro Bowls, First-team All-Pro twice, Second-team All-Pro twice, MVP twice, and Super Bowl MVP 3 times. Their award cases are pretty identical. The one major difference is in All-Pro appearances. Montana made 5 in 11 seasons (45%). Brady has made 4 in 15 seasons (27%).<br />
<br />
<u><b>Super Bowl</b></u><br />
The final point of comparison is performance in Super Bowls. The reason that people put Brady and Montana over Marino, Elway, Manning, Brees, Rodgers etc is because of one thing: winning. So the question is, who won more impressively? Here are the stats for each:<br />
<br />
Montana- 1,142 yards (285.5 yds/game), 11 TDs, 0 INT, 68% completion percentage, 127.8 passer rating, 105 yards rushing, 2 TDs<br />
<br />
Brady- 1,605 yards (267.5 ydgs/game), 13 TDs, 4 INT, 66% completion percentage, 95.3 passer rating, 11 yards rushing, 0 TDs<br />
<br />
Montana was lights out in the Super Bowl. He outperformed Brady by every single measure. And that was reflected in each team's performance too. The Patriots' total point differential is currently +6. The Niners point differential was +76. Yes, the Niners' defense did perform better (15.75 pts/game compared to 21.5 pts/game for the Patriots), but their offense also performed substantially better (34.75 pts/game compared to 22.5 pts/game). In total, the Niners scored 139 points and the Patriots scored 135 points (technically 136 for the Niners, because Ray Wersching essentially scored three points by himself, and 128 for the Patriots, because Ty Law had a pick-6 in the first Super Bowl). Yes, the Niners scored more points in four Super Bowls than the Patriots have scored in six. Which is why the Niners convincingly won three of them. The other one was tied in the 4th; and after Cincinnati gained the lead with a FG, Montana drove down for a touchdown with 34 seconds to go. Worst case scenario for Montana is 3-1. Meanwhile, the Patriots only convincingly won a single Super Bowl (against the Eagles), so it's completely possible for them to be 1-5.<br />
<br />
For the record, in their Super Bowl seasons, the Niners averaged 4th in
offense and 4th in defense and the Patriots averaged 5th in offense and
5th in defense; so the teams performed very similarly. And the Super Bowl the Niners almost lost was one with Rice. And the year they went 15-1 and blew out Dan Marino and the Dolphins, they didn't have Rice yet. Brady in Super Bowls with Moss, Welker and/or Gronk averaged 19.7 points. Montana <i>before</i> Rice averaged 30.5 points. So the idea that Montana only achieved greatness cause of Jerry Rice is patently false.<br />
<br />
None of this is to disparage Brady. He's clearly an all-time great. But when you look at how they compared to their eras, and to each other on the biggest stage, anyone anointing Brady needs to take a second look.Jared Dayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468719620686765175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518097574083967402.post-29834389000682879152017-01-08T12:11:00.000-08:002017-01-08T12:51:21.085-08:00Greatness UnrecognizedA little over a month ago, Klay Thompson had a brilliant performance, when he scored 60 points in only three quarters of play. Everyone then, rightfully, talked about how that compared to other great performances. Everyone knows about Wilt's 100 and Kobe's 81. But what about other 60+ point outings? The website Land of Basketball has a great list of <a href="http://www.landofbasketball.com/records/60_or_more_points.htm">every 60+ point game in history</a>. You can read over that page and notice some really cool things: Wilt accounts for nearly half of them (32 out of 66), Jordan owns the playoff record (with 63), Baylor owns the Finals record (with 61), two occurred in the same season against the same team (Carmelo and LeBron against Charlotte), and two occurred on the same day (George Gervin scored 63 and David Thompson scored 73).<br />
<br />
But there's one that you might not have even noticed; or even if you did notice it, you might not have grasped the magnitude of it. The game I'm speaking of is Kobe scoring 62 points, in three quarters, against Dallas. Why is that game so impressive? Because Dallas was really good that year. How good? Let's examine that and compare how Dallas stacked up against the other opponents (for the purposes of this exercise, we're just going to examine the 60+ point games in the modern era, after the NBA and ABA merged). Since the merger, <a href="http://bkref.com/tiny/TCDsT">there have been 25 such games</a>. Let's compare how those teams stacked up by record, defensive rating, and offensive rating.<br />
<br />
<u>Team Record</u>:<br />
<b>Kobe vs 60-22 '05-'06 Mavs</b> <br />
Jordan vs 57-25 '86-'87 Hawks<br />
Jordan vs 52-30 '86-'87 Pistons<br />
Malone vs 44-38 '89-'90 Bucks<br />
Carmelo vs 43-39 '13-'14 Bobcats<br />
LeBron vs 43-39 '13-'14 Bobcats<br />
Arenas vs 42-40 '06-'07 Lakers <br />
Jordan vs 42-40 '89-'90 Cavs<br />
King vs 42-40 '84-'85 Nets<br />
K. Thompson vs 19-18 '16-'17 Pacers (current record would translate to 42-40)<br />
Chambers vs 41-41 '89-'90 Sonics<br />
Jordan vs 41-41 '92-'93 Magic<br />
Maravich vs 40-42 '76-'77 Knicks<br />
Kobe vs 40-42 '15-'16 Jazz<br />
Gervin vs 39-43 '77-'78 Jazz<br />
D. Thompson vs 38-44 '77-'78 Pistons<br />
Iverson vs 36-46 '04-'05 Magic<br />
Bird vs 34-48 '84-'85 Hawks<br />
Kobe vs 32-50 '08-'09 Knicks<br />
Kobe vs 32-50 '06-'07 Blazers<br />
Kobe vs 27-55 '05-'06 Raptors<br />
Robinson vs 27-55 '93-'94 Clippers<br />
McGrady vs 25-57 '03-'04 Wizards<br />
Kobe vs 22-60 '06-'07 Grizzlies<br />
Shaq vs 15-67 '99-'00 Clippers<br />
<br />
<u>By Defensive Rating</u>:<br />
Jordan vs 2nd ranked '86-'87 Hawks<br />
Jordan vs 5th ranked '86-'87 Pistons<br />
Carmelo vs 5th ranked '13-'14 Bobcats<br />
LeBron vs 5th ranked '13-'14 Bobcats<br />
Kobe vs 7th ranked '15-'16 Jazz<br />
Jordan vs 10th ranked '89-'90 Cavs<br />
Gervin vs 10th ranked '77-'78 Jazz<br />
<b>Kobe vs 11th ranked '05-'06 Mavs</b><br />
Bird vs 11th ranked '84-'85 Hawks<br />
King vs 12th ranked '84-'85 Nets<br />
Jordan vs 12th ranked '92-'93 Magic<br />
Malone vs 14th ranked '89-'90 Bucks<br />
D. Thompson vs 14th ranked '77-'78 Pistons<br />
K. Thompson vs 15th ranked '16-'17 Pacers<br />
Maravich vs 15th ranked '76-'77 Knicks<br />
Iverson vs 18th ranked '04-'05 Magic<br />
Robinson vs 18th ranked '93-'94 Clippers<br />
McGrady vs 20th ranked '03-'04 Wizards<br />
Chambers vs 21st ranked '89-'90 Sonics<br />
Kobe vs 23rd ranked '08-'09 Knicks<br />
Arenas vs 24th ranked '06-'07 Lakers<br />
Kobe vs 26th ranked '06-'07 Blazers<br />
Kobe vs 29th ranked '05-'06 Raptors<br />
Shaq vs 29th ranked '99-'00 Clippers<br />
Kobe vs 30th ranked '06-'07 Grizzlies<br />
<br />
<u>By offensive ratings</u>:<br />
<b>Kobe vs 1st ranked '05-'06 Mavs</b><br />
Jordan vs 4th ranked '86-'87 Hawks<br />
Kobe vs 5th ranked '05-'06 Raptors<br />
Arenas vs 7th ranked '05-'06 Lakers<br />
Chambers vs 8th ranked '89-'90 Sonics<br />
Jordan vs 9th ranked '86-'87 Pistons<br />
Maravich vs 10th ranked '77-'78 Knicks<br />
D. Thompson vs 12th ranked '77-'78 Pistons <br />
Kobe vs 13th ranked '06-'07 Grizzlies<br />
Jordan vs 13th ranked '92-'93 Magic<br />
King vs 13th ranked '84-'85 Nets<br />
Kobe vs 16th ranked '15-'16 Jazz<br />
Bird vs 16th ranked '84-'85 Hawks<br />
Kobe vs 17th ranked '08-'09 Knicks<br />
Malone vs 17th ranked '89-'90 Bucks<br />
Jordan vs 19th ranked '89-'90 Cavs<br />
K. Thompson vs 19th ranked '16-'17 Pacers<br />
Kobe vs 20th ranked '06-'07 Blazers<br />
Gervin vs 21st ranked '77-'78 Jazz<br />
Iverson vs 21st ranked '04-'05 Magic<br />
Carmelo vs 24th ranked '13-'14 Bobcats<br />
LeBron vs 24th ranked '13-'14 Bobcats<br />
Robinson vs 22nd ranked '93-'94 Clippers<br />
McGrady vs 27th ranked '03-'04 Wizards<br />
Shaq vs 28th ranked '99-'00 Clippers<br />
<br />
Look at any metric, and it's clear that Dallas is one of the best teams to ever have 60+ points scored against them. And if those metrics aren't enough for you, consider that the Mavs went to the Finals that year. Yes, Kobe dropped 62 points on a Finals level team. And he did it in three quarters. Here's how his minutes played compared to everyone else's.<br />
<br />
<u>Minutes played</u>:<br />
K. Thompson 29 minutes played vs '16-'17 Pacers<br />
<b>Kobe 33 minutes played vs '05-'06 Mavs</b><br />
Malone 33 minutes played vs '89-'90 Bucks<br />
Kobe 37 minutes played vs '08-'09 Knicks<br />
Carmelo 39 minutes played vs '13-'14 Bobcats<br />
Jordan 41 minutes played vs '86-'87 Hawks<br />
King 41 minutes played vs '84-'85 Nets<br />
LeBron 41 minutes played vs '13-'14 Bobcats<br />
Kobe 42 minutes played vs '15-'16 Jazz<br />
Kobe 42 minutes played vs '05-'06 Raptors <br />
Chambers 42 minutes played vs '89-'90 Sonics<br />
Iverson 42 minutes played vs '04-'05 Magic<br />
Jordan 43 minutes played vs '86-'87 Pistons<br />
Bird 43 minutes played vs '84-'85 Hawks<br />
Robinson 44 minutes played vs '93-'94 Clippers<br />
Kobe 45 minutes played vs '06-'07 Grizzlies<br />
Shaq 45 minutes played vs '99-'00 Clippers<br />
McGrady 46 minutes played vs '03-'04 Wizards<br />
Jordan 47 minutes played vs '92-'93 Magic<br />
Arenas 49 minutes played vs '06-'07 Lakers<br />
Kobe 50 minutes played vs '06-'07 Blazers<br />
Jordan 50 minutes played vs '89-'90 Cavs<br />
*minutes played for Maravich, D. Thompson, and Gervin not available<br />
<br />
So Kobe scored 62 against one of the best teams to ever give that up and he did it in fewer minutes than anyone but one guy. And that's not all. Do you know how many points Dallas had after three quarters? 61. Yes, Kobe outscored a Finals level team through three quarters. Even on a bad night for Dallas, that's insane. Dropping 60+ on a Finals bound team is crazy. Outscoring a team is crazy. Outscoring a Finals quality team? Absurd. It's one of the greatest performances ever and one of the least talked about. It is greatness unrecognized.Jared Dayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468719620686765175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518097574083967402.post-44346500260399216912016-12-21T16:32:00.001-08:002017-03-02T22:33:30.725-08:00Jeff Fisher is UnderratedSince Jeff Fisher has been fired, it seems everyone is talking about him like he was a really bad coach. "He only had six winning seasons!" "He is tied for the most losses in history!" Both of those are true facts. But do those facts tell the whole story?<br />
<br />
First, let's examine those two facts. Jeff Fisher is indeed tied with Dan Reeves for the most losses in NFL history. And who follows Jeff Fisher on that damning list? Tom Landry. And then Don Shula, Tom Coughlin, George Halas, and Chuck Knoll. Look at all those terrible, horrible, all-time great coaches. Now this isn't to say that Fisher is the same caliber as those coaches. Of course he's not. But if total number of losses isn't an indictment of those coaches, then how can it be an indictment of Fisher?<br />
<br />
Maybe because to lose a lot of games, you have to coach a lot of games. And the truth is that a bad coach wouldn't be able to coach long enough to make that list. Cause while it's true that Jeff Fisher is tied for the most losses, it is also true that he is 11th all-time in wins. Yes, only ten coaches in history have ever won more games than Fisher. Which brings me to the stat that he has only six winning seasons. While it's certainly true, is it really as bad as it sounds? Because if you only listed the stat that he has six winning seasons out of 22, wouldn't you assume he has a terrible record? And yet Fisher actually has a winning record: 173-165-1. So clearly his bad years weren't that bad, if they didn't submarine his career record.<br />
<br />
Just examining the numbers of his record at face value doesn't necessarily tell the whole story either. A simple win-loss record isn't the end-all be-all. For example, let's say that Pete Carroll retired and next year his replacement won 10 games and Hue Jackson won 8 games in Cleveland (both with minimal roster differences), which performance would be more impressive? Do you go with the 10 wins because it's more than 8? Or do you go with the 8 wins because of what Hue had to work with? Presumably most would choose the latter, because it's generally accepted that talent level plays a role in the success of a coach.<br />
<br />
So the question becomes what was the talent level that Fisher had to work with? Now I'm not gonna break down every roster he ever had. No one wants to seriously evaluate that (especially me). So let's take the (admittedly) simplistic route and just look at the most important position: quarterback. First, let's take a look at Fisher's time in Houston/Tennessee. Steve McNair had a record of 76-55. And Vince Young had a record of 30-17. With those two QBs, Fisher was 106-72. A .596 winning percentage (equal to 9.5 wins). Without them, he had a record of 36-48. A .429 winning percentage (equal to 6.9 wins). The lesson? Give Fisher a competent QB and he can win.<br />
<br />
With the Rams, here's a list of the seven quarterbacks that started games for Fisher: Sam Bradford, Kellen Clemens, Austin Davis, Shaun Hill, Nick Foles, Case Keenum, and Jared Goff. That's not exactly a murderers row. Probably the best one of that group is Bradford, and it's not like he's a franchise QB. With Fisher, Bradford's record was 10-12-1. Since leaving the Rams, Bradford is 13-14. Not exactly a stark difference. As for the other QBs, what level of success should be expected with that group? Here's a hypothetical: if you could take their average talent level and put it into one QB and pair him with Bill Belichick or have Jeff Fisher and Tom Brady, which pairing would you take?<br />
<br />
If your inclination is to choose Jeff Fisher over Belichick, because of Brady, then does that not highlight the importance that the quarterback plays in the success of a coach? Because obviously Fisher is no Belichick. And if your inclination is to choose Belichick, in spite of having an average QB at best, consider this: while Belichick does appear to have a knack for getting improved play out of sub par players, he is 54-63 without Tom Brady. Yes, Bill Belichick has a losing record in games not started by Brady. Maybe Belichick can do better than what 117 games would suggest. But would he really do better than what Fisher could do with Brady? If Fisher could average 9.5 wins with McNair and Young, then surely he could do even better with Brady right? So if you think the answer is Fisher/Brady, then you are of the mind that talent plays a big part in success. And if you think the answer is Belichick/average Rams QB, then either you think Brady is worse than McNair and Young or you think 182 games of Fisher's career and 117 games of Belichick's career (nearly 18 NFL seasons worth of games combined) are all an aberration. <br />
<br />
And if that hypothetical scenario (using factual information) is too arbitrary for you, let's just evaluate Fisher by how the Titans have done since he left and how the Rams were before he got there. Jeff Fisher was 142-120 with the Oilers/Titans (a .542 winning percentage). Currently, the Titans are in their sixth year since Fisher was fired and they are on their third coach and have a total record of 35-59 (a .372 winning percentage). With the Rams, Jeff Fisher's record was 31-45-1 (a .409 winning percentage). Admittedly, not very good. But how were they performing before Fisher? Since the post-Fisher sample size was (almost) six seasons, it makes sense to use the same time frame for the Rams pre-Fisher (which appropriately happened to be the season after Mike Martz was fired). So Martz was replaced by Scott Linehan, who was then fired four games into his third season and replaced with Jim Haslett, who promptly went 2-10 and was then fired and replaced by Steve Spagnuolo the following year. And they're combined record? A staggering 23-73 (a .240 winning percentage).<br />
<br />
So the Titans were worse after Fisher left and the Rams were better after Fisher got there. How much so? The Titans went from an average of 8.7 wins under Fisher to 6 wins without him (a difference of 2.7 wins). And the Rams went from a 3.8 win team to a 6.5 win team. A difference of? 2.7 wins. And the difference in each team's performance is arguably even more impressive when you consider that the post-Fisher Titans aren't competing against Peyton Manning's Colts and the pre-Fisher Rams didn't exist in arguably the best division in football. Fisher performed better against Manning/Dungy, Carroll, Harbaugh, and Arians than his successors have performed against Andrew Luck and better than his predecessors performed against only a <i>single</i> season of San Francisco and Seattle being juggernauts.<br />
<br />
For those that like numbers, here's exactly how the division competition breaks down:<br />
While Fisher was with the Titans- the Colts, Texans, and Jags had a .544 winning percentage<br />
Since Fisher left- the Colts, Texans, and Jags have a .429 winning percentage<br />
<br />
Post-Martz to Pre-Fisher- the Niners, Seahawks, and Cardinals had a .462 winning percentage<br />
Since Fisher joined the Rams until the present- the Niners, Seahawks and Cardinals have a .583 winning percentage<br />
<br />
What does all this mean? Obviously that Jeff Fisher is the greatest and shouldn't have been fired! No, not at all. In fact, a case can still be made for him being fired, based on other possible factors like personality/style, philosophical differences, or just to shake things up (like Andy Reid being fired in Philadelphia). But unless him being 11th all-time in wins and franchises performing better when he's there (against better competition) than when he's not there (against weaker competition) are just seasons upon seasons of flukes, then he can't be a bad coach. And that would make him underrated.Jared Dayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468719620686765175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518097574083967402.post-87888093074269716862013-09-06T19:07:00.000-07:002013-09-06T19:11:50.334-07:00NFL Predictions 2013The NFL season is underway! Time to make some predictions.<br />
<br />
<u><b>AFC</b></u><br />
As I see it, there is only one "guaranteed" team to make the playoffs in the AFC and that, of course, is the <b>Broncos</b>. I don't feel great about any other teams, but I do feel like the <b>Patriots</b>, <b>Texans</b>,<b> </b>and <b>Bengals</b> will return to the postseason. Tom Brady hasn't missed the playoffs since 2002. I'm not going to predict he'll do so now. The Texans are a very solid team and happen to play in (presumably) the second weakest division in football. The Bengals are similar to the Texans. A very solid team that doesn't seem to have any obvious competition for the division title. The Ravens did only win 10 games last year. Now they're without two of their top three receivers from last year and have a lot of new personnel on defense. I just don't seem them making the playoffs. The Bengals' only other likely source of competition would come from the Steelers. Last year I noted that, since Roethlisberger arrived, the Steelers have had a pattern of making the playoffs two years and missing them one. If that continues, that means it's a playoff year for Pittsburgh. But part of me also feels like the Steelers are on the verge of decline (similar to how I felt about the Jets two years ago and the Chargers last year). The difference is that the conference seems pretty weak and the Steelers have something the Jets and Chargers didn't: a coach and quarterback with proven success. So while I feel like their window is closing, I think the <b>Steelers</b> have at least one more playoff berth in them. Who gets the final spot? I picked the Bills last year, but - unless Manuel is a revelation - I don't see them making it. The Dolphins have some talent, but I don't think they're quite there yet. I think the last two spots comes down to one of two teams: the Colts or the Chiefs. The Colts are a strong regression candidate, and I'm betting they do regress. But they also have a very good (potentially great) quarterback. Instead of declining by an expected three to four wins, I think Luck may be able to stop the decline at two. The Chiefs seem to be everyone's "bad team improves to playoff team" this year. They improved from greatly by going from Cassel and Crennel to Smith and Reid. They had the number one pick in the draft. They brought in Sean Smith and Dunta Robinson. And they're playing a 4th place schedule. They have four games against the Chargers and Raiders, games against the Browns, Bills, Jaguars, and Titans, and most of their toughest out-of-division games (Cowboys, Giants, Texans, Colts) are at home. Upgrade at coach, upgrade at quarterback, upgraded talent, and an easy schedule is why I feel the <b>Chiefs</b> make the playoffs.<br />
<br />
<u><b>NFC</b></u><br />
The likely teams to return to the playoffs are the <b>Seahawks</b>, <b>Packers</b>, <b>Niners</b>, and <b>Falcons</b>. The Seahawks and Niners are on two of the most talented teams in football. The Packers have Aaron Rodgers. The Falcons are talented, but I'm not as high on them as other people seem to be. I think they'll make the playoffs, but I do think there's a real chance they don't win their division. For starters, it's hard to win 13 games two years in a row, so they're likely to regress a little. Second of all, since realignment in 2002, no team has won the NFC South two years in a row. I think it's possible that Atlanta wins 11 games but loses the tiebreaker. Picking which team they'd lose to is rather difficult. On one hand, you have the Saints; a team that has one of the best quarterbacks in the league and is getting the return of Sean Payton. I predicted the Saints wouldn't make the playoffs last year due to the absence of Payton, so I would think his addition would be pretty helpful. On the other hand, I liked the Bucs prior to last year; and while they only finished 7-9, they did start out 6-4. Also noteworthy: of their nine losses, six were by a touchdown or less (and a 7th by 8 points). They lost nine games and seven of them were by one score. And now they've added Darrelle Revis and Dashon Goldson and gotten Carl Nicks and Davin Joseph back from injury. I love their potential, but I can't pick against the quarterback/coach combo of New Orleans, so I'm picking the <b>Saints </b>to make the playoffs. The NFC East is a crapshoot. Like the South, I could easily see any of three teams making the playoffs, but I'm going with the <b>Giants</b>. The Redskins have injury risk surrounding RGIII and they made the playoffs last year. There's turnover every year and since I don't think it's likely to come from the top four teams, that means it has to be the Redskins. I can't pick the Cowboys because they seem like habitual underachievers. That leaves the Giants; another team that also happens to fit my quarterback/coach formula. Final note, if another NFC North team beats out the Packers or gets a wildcard spot, I think it would be the Bears. They won 10 games last year and had the 4th best point differential in the NFC. I love their potential on offense, with some additions to the o-line and the hiring of Marc Trestman, but I have questions about how their defense will respond after thriving off so many takeaways last year and the loss of Lovie Smith.<br />
<br />
<u><b>MVP</b></u><br />
Easy. Unless Tom Brady wins 12 games with Gronk and Amendola playing less than 20 games combined, <b>Peyton Manning</b> wins the MVP.<br />
<br />
<u><b>Super Bowl</b></u><br />
Seahawks versus Broncos. The other teams just have more question marks.<u><b> </b></u>Jared Dayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468719620686765175noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518097574083967402.post-63124468539583314982013-07-30T18:11:00.000-07:002013-07-30T18:11:14.800-07:00The Optimistic View of Tyreke EvansFour years ago, Tyreke Evans had a pretty darn good rookie season; one in which he averaged over 20 points, 5 rebounds and 5 assists (something done by only Michael Jordan, Oscar Robertson, and LeBron James). Four years later, people are scoffing at the idea of him making $11 million per year and Kings fans seem to be perfectly fine that he left. How'd we get here? The "answer" is that his rookie year was his best year and that his numbers have declined every season. But are they really as bad as everyone seems to think?<br />
<br />
In three of his four seasons, Tyreke has averaged at least 16 points, 4.5 rebounds, and 4.5 assists. How many players have averaged those numbers at least three different seasons? <a href="http://bkref.com/tiny/M8ZsD">44</a>. And of those 44, how many have been an All-Star? 41 (which includes 18 Hall-of-Famers and 6 guaranteed future HOFers). That's a pretty impressive group to be a part of. Not to mention the fact that Tyreke has done it in only his first four seasons. Only <a href="http://bkref.com/tiny/DFdEy">15 others</a> accomplished the same thing in their first four years, with only one never becoming an All-Star (Ron Harper).<br />
<br />
Of course, one of those years is Tyreke's rookie year. If you want to assume his rookie year was an aberration, then let's pretend that he only has two years that qualify and expand the requirement from players who accomplished that for three seasons to players who accomplished it for a minimum of two. That list would grow to 67 players. Of those 23 additional players, only 6 were never an All-Star (which includes one that may become one - John Wall). Exclude Evans and Wall (since they still may become All-Stars) and you have 65 players with those stats. 58 of them made an All-Star team (89%). (It should also be noted that there have been 64 ROY award
winners and, excluding Evans and Lillard, only 8 have never gone on to
appear in an All-Star game.)<br />
<br />
In other words, his statistical performance would seem to indicate that the odds are in his favor that he'll be an All-Star at some point in the future. Now you may think that Tyreke is just a "good stats, bad team" guy. That's certainly possible. But it's also true that his bad team would be just as likely to negatively influence him than it would be to positively affect his stats. The guy played for a completely dysfunctional organization that employed <a href="http://probasketballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/04/08/kings-players-frustrated-with-smarts-random-rotations/">terrible coaching</a>. The guy has put up decent numbers, in spite of the poor roster construction, terrible coaching, position changes, and injuries. Oh, and the guy is still only 23 years old. Put him on a team that's not dysfunctional, with a coach who understands the value of a rotation, and it's not hard to envision him fulfilling his potential.<br />
<br />
This isn't to say that Tyreke is "guaranteed" to be an All-Star or that his contract is completely reasonable. Because even though he is only 23 years old, that also means that his contract will end while he's still in his prime (so if he does live up to his yearly salary, it may not be until the third or fourth year of the contract). All I'm saying is that while New Orleans probably overpaid (by a least a little), don't be surprised if the move doesn't backfire. Don't be surprised if Kings fans eventually regret losing him. And don't be surprised if, at some point in the future, you see Tyreke Evans with "East" or "West" on his chest.Jared Dayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468719620686765175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518097574083967402.post-90768774844554086142013-07-08T17:34:00.000-07:002013-07-08T17:39:14.647-07:00The Hook: Silva out from one. Dana off of one.The greatest title reign in UFC history has come to an end. The frustrating part is that it's basically a footnote, because of the way it transpired. Instead of being able to appreciate the run Silva put together, everyone's talking about the way it ended (and rightfully so, unfortunately). There seems to be two camps of people: people who think Silva got caught, by being cocky, and people who think he wasn't that interested in winning the fight. The truth is, no one really knows which one it was. Me? I'm in-between. Originally, I thought it was the former. After seeing Silva's post-fight interview, I started thinking it was the latter. But after letting things settle a bit, I think that it may have been a little of both (if I had to guess).<br />
<br />
Maybe he was a little tired or stressed and lacking proper motivation. Maybe he was trying to win and did just make a mistake, and the things he expressed afterward were subconscious feelings that he was just realizing. The reason I think it may be a little of both is because of his behavior. He's no stranger to using provocation, but he did so more than usual in this fight. He wasn't just dropping his hands, something he's done many times before, but he would also act like he was wobbly. That behavior was even more egregious than what he did against Demian Maia. And there's no way that he thought Chris Weidman's striking deserved the same lack of respect that he gave Maia's (and then some).<br />
<br />
Regardless of whether or not his behavior during the fight was born of cockiness or some level of disinterest, it took away from Weidman's victory. That wasn't a fight that proved Weidman was better. It proved that Silva shouldn't behave that way ever again. If they do a rematch, I hope it's because Silva wants to have one and not because Dana convinces him to do one ($). Because if this fight happens again, Weidman needs to fight a clearly motivated Silva. That way if he wins, we can all give him the proper respect he would indisputably deserve. But unless that happens, it will be hard to take this victory without a grain of salt. No one knows what was in Silva's head, but we may get some indication in the near future. If he doesn't demand a rematch, doesn't that prove that he wasn't 100% dedicated to keeping the title?<br />
<br />
Whatever happens next needs to be Silva's choosing. If he fights Weidman again, it needs to be because he really wants the belt back. If he wants a new challenge other than Middleweight? Well then it sucks for Weidman that he wouldn't get to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that he's better than Silva. But at least if Silva were to vacate the division, we could actually be headed down a path that ends with him facing Jon Jones. So something good should come of this. We'll either get a Silva-Weidman rematch that puts all doubt to rest, or we could be starting down the path to an amazing Light Heavyweight title fight. A fight that I would still be very interested in seeing, because - as crazy as it was against Weidman - would he really try that "gameplan" with Jones? If there was ever going to be one non-Heavyweight in the world that Anderson Silva wouldn't drop his hands against, it would be Jon Jones. It's the one fight that would (or at least should) guarantee a completely motivated Silva. And now that he doesn't hold the title, he's technically free to move up. So maybe Silva losing didn't end the prospect of a Jones fight. Maybe it made it more likely. Because, like I wrote on Saturday, I don't think a super fight would've ever happened (Silva-GSP or Silva-Jones).<br />
<br />
If it was going to, it would've been done by now. Back in the summer of 2009, right after Silva destroyed Forrest Griffin, I wanted to see a Silva-GSP super fight. Obviously it never came together. And why not? Was it because their schedule's weren't lined up? Nope. They fought two weeks apart. Was it because they both had deserving contenders waiting in the wings? Not really. GSP's next fight was against Dan Hardy and Silva's was against Demian Maia. Does anyone really believe that the UFC would let Hardy and Maia stand in the way of what could have been one of the biggest fights of all-time, had they really wanted to make that fight happen? <br />
<br />
Even if the UFC believed Hardy and Maia were deserving contenders, it's not like they haven't bypassed deserving contenders - in order to set up big-money fights - before. For example, Nick Diaz (coming off a loss) getting a title shot over Johny Hendricks. Chael Sonnen was a Middleweight coming off a loss. He got a title shot, because there were no better options, right? Like say, Anderson Silva? It's a super fight that Dana White supposedly wanted to happen. So why didn't it happen? That's right, Silva was taking time off and Jones had to film TUF with, and then fight, Sonnen. The fight that Dana claims he wanted to happen didn't happen because Silva was taking time off and Jones was fighting Sonnen? Yep. Dana totally wanted this fight to happen. And it was going to happen. Unless of course vacation and an undeserving Middleweight got in the way. But other than that, this fight was totally going to happen.<br />
<br />
While it sucks to see the greatest title reign in UFC history come to an end, at least Dana White no longer has to pretend to want to set up super fights.Jared Dayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468719620686765175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518097574083967402.post-47702468953374860212013-07-06T17:18:00.001-07:002013-07-06T17:18:38.260-07:00Pipe Dream FightMonths ago, I wrote about what I thought was <a href="http://mytwocommoncents.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-dream-fight.html">the biggest dream fight</a> the UFC could make: Anderson Silva versus Jon Jones. Well, what was once a dream may soon be a reality. <a href="http://www.mmatorch.com/artman2/publish/UFC_2/article_16983.shtml#.UdiEA6xRHTp">According to Dana White</a>, if Silva gets past Chris Weidman tonight, we could see him fight Jones. There's only one problem; I think it's bs. I don't think Dana has any true intention of setting up this fight. Why? Because I think setting up the fight could have negative repercussions that the UFC doesn't want to deal with. For starters, I think it's possible that the fight would be too hyped. I believe Silva-Jones is the biggest fight that the UFC could put on. The problem becomes where do you go from there? After Jones fights Silva, it's possible that it would be difficult to drum up interest in future Jones fights (at least the ones immediately following it). Let's say Jones beat Silva, how then is the UFC supposed to successfully market Jones versus, say, Glover Teixeira or a rematch with Machida? The problem with a super fight is that it makes everything else seem less special by comparison. Maybe the UFC thinks that would be the case.<br />
<br />
Even more so, I think the problem they don't want to deal with is that either Silva or Jones would have to lose. If Silva were to lose, they'd now be faced with having a champion coming off a loss; and no longer being able to tout Silva being undefeated in the octagon. If Jones were to lose, his drawing power would take a small hit. And if it was for the title, does that mean Silva would hold two titles? Or would he vacate the Middleweight title? Right now the UFC has two dominant champions that they can market. That goes away with a super fight.<br />
<br />
This isn't to say that I think the fight shouldn't happen. It's just the reasons I think the UFC doesn't want it to happen. Just to be sure, I really hope Silva wins tonight. Because if he loses, the UFC obviously has an out for not pairing him with Jones. But if he wins, I'll be interested to see what "reason" Dana comes up with for why the fight won't come together.<br />
<br />
Silva versus Jones may be the obvious dream fight. Unfortunately, I think it's just a pipe dream.Jared Dayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468719620686765175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518097574083967402.post-55374590427236561852013-07-02T17:20:00.001-07:002016-12-21T23:01:11.783-08:00On they Contrary: Hernandez case not an example for rookiesI haven't felt the need to write about the Aaron Hernandez situation, because I didn't think there was anything worth saying. At least nothing that probably hasn't been said on talk radio, or written by columnists, that will be regurgitated ad nauseum. That was until I came across Alex Marvez's piece "<a href="http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/aaron-hernandez-arrest-an-example-to-those-attending-roookie-symposium-062613">Hernandez an example for rookies</a>." Here's how he starts it:<br />
<br />
"<i>The NFL Rookie Symposium features guest speakers who try to help young
players avoid the pitfalls that derailed their own pro careers.</i><br />
<br />
<i>This year the most powerful message was delivered from almost 700 miles away.</i><br />
<br />
<i>
</i>
<i>Aaron Hernandez attended the same symposium in 2010 after being drafted by the New England Patriots. Clearly, he didn’t take what was preached to heart.</i>"<br />
<br />
That's absurd. Hernandez is accused of first-degree murder. This isn't a case of wrong place, wrong time. It's not like he was hanging out at a club with a bad group of friends and things escalated, and now he's accused of assault or something. He's accused of driving someone to an industrial park to kill him; which may or may not be associated to previous murders he possibly committed. Does Alex Marvez really think a four-day symposium is the difference between upstanding citizen and murderer?<br />
<br />
Apparently so, because he had this to say near the end:<br />
<br />
"<i>The NFL knows the symposium itself isn’t a cure-all for the off-field
problems that some players can find themselves in. But if it can prevent
another situation like the one Hernandez finds himself in, staging the
event is well worth it for an image-conscious league.</i>"<br />
<br />
It can't cure all of the off-field problems, but it can prevent murder? How can something be impactful enough to prevent first-degree murder, but not enough to prevent less serious issues?<br />
<br />
I'm sorry, but I don't agree with the notion that what Aaron Hernandez is accused of doing could have been prevented by him listening at a symposium. I'm not going to pretend to know what events transpired that could lead to Hernandez (possibly) committing first-degree murder, but I'm guessing they were more serious, and would require more intervention, than a NFL rookie symposium could provide.<br />
<br />
I don't know what makes less sense, that he thinks a symposium could've prevented Aaron Hernandez's situation or that he thinks a similar situation will need to be prevented in the future.Jared Dayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468719620686765175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518097574083967402.post-36571993900949909682013-06-28T19:21:00.003-07:002016-12-21T23:01:27.767-08:00NBA Finals ReviewIt's been a week since the Heat won the title, and I'm stilled pretty bummed. Not because of the team that won, but because the series ended. Going into the Finals, I was excited about Duncan-LeBron and the two best teams in the league squaring off. All three delivered. It was great to see the Tim Duncan of 10 years ago. He started out a little slow, but he picked it up the last four games; especially the last two, where he averaged 27 points and 14.5 rebounds. As we're nearing the end of Duncan's career, it was great to see the Tim Duncan of old, instead of just old Tim Duncan.<br />
<br />
Similar to Duncan, LeBron also started out slow and picked it up in the last four games (where he averaged 31.8 points, 6.8 assists, and 9.8 rebounds). The end of game six and game seven were especially impressive, when LeBron made it perfectly clear that he's the best player in the world and it's not even close. But while he's clearly the best player, he can still not be the most consistently dominant. His start to the series resembled his 2011 Finals performance and he ended the series resembling his 2012 Finals performance. It was quite bizarre. People can say that the chatter about LeBron's mentality can stop now, but if the Spurs had made FTs in game 6 and the Heat lose the title, wouldn't everyone be talking about LeBron not showing up? Luckily for the Heat, the best player in the world did show up, but he almost showed up too late.<br />
<br />
Finally, the thing I was most looking forward to was the high level of basketball that would be played. And this series did not come up short. It started out exciting, with a great game one. And while the next four games were blowouts, the alternating displays of dominance showed how evenly matched these teams were; which perfectly set the stage for the final two games. The first five games were all entertaining for their own reasons, but the last two games were basketball at its best. Game six was one of the craziest, most exciting games I've ever seen. Game seven was predicted to be sloppy, and while it started out that way, it turned out to be good. These teams were just too good to play bad basketball for 48 minutes in an all-or-nothing game. It was a great end to a great series.<br />
<br />
The only negatives to the series were that someone had to lose and that the series had to end. It sucked to see Duncan come up short, but it sucked more that this series is over. Every year, there's talk about the format of the Finals being 2-3-2. This year, that wasn't the problem. The problem was that it wasn't 2-2-2-2-1-1-1. There have been other NBA Finals that were more satisfying from a rooting interests standpoint, but from a quality of basketball standpoint, this one was the most satisfying. Too bad it had to end.Jared Dayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468719620686765175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518097574083967402.post-81444185275201883382013-06-06T17:32:00.000-07:002013-06-06T17:32:58.157-07:00NBA Finals PreviewThe NBA Finals kick off tonight and I'm not as excited as I should be. The reason for this is because I've been rooting against this matchup happening. Not directly, but indirectly. As I've mentioned before, the Warriors were the most fun team to follow this year. So naturally, I rooted for them against the Spurs. Once the they were eliminated, I invested my rooting interests in the Grizzlies. I've been a fan of them ever since their amazing 2011 playoff run, and I love Z-Bo and Gasol. I really wanted to see a Miami-Memphis Finals. It would've been a great clash of styles; the Grizzlies using the old school lineup, featuring two bigs, against Miami's new school small-ball lineup. Which style won out would've been extremely fascinating to watch. But the Spurs squashed that possibility too.<br />
<br />
Then a new interesting team materialized in the form of the Pacers. The emergence of Hibbert, Stephenson and especially George was fun to watch. I was actually interested in the possibility of a Spurs-Pacers Finals. I think it could've been fun to have two small-market, non-star driven teams in the Finals. Last year when I previewed the Finals possibilities, I said that Thunder-Pacers would've been the greatest college basketball ever played (similar style and atmosphere, but way better execution). But I actually think that would've been more the case this year, had the Spurs and Pacers squared off (yet something tells me the pro-college, anti-NBA basketball fans wouldn't have tuned in, even though it would've delivered everything they claim to love).<br />
<br />
So my tempered excitement is more the result of Golden State, Memphis and Indiana being eliminated than it is the actual matchup of Miami and San Antonio. But instead of focusing on what teams aren't playing, I need to focus on the teams that are playing; because the actual matchup of Miami and San Antonio is worth getting excited about.<br />
<br />
Six years ago, LeBron met the Spurs in the Finals. A Finals that would
turn out to be the lowest rated one of all-time. Looking back, it makes
perfect sense. Because it wasn't a culmination; it was an impetus.
The impetus of the Spurs transitioning from Tim Duncan to Tony Parker and of LeBron becoming LeBron. Parker would win the Finals MVP and eventually take control of the team and LeBron (after the first in a series of failures) would fully realize his potential as the best player in the world and finally be surrounded by a great supporting cast. The 2007 series wasn't a culmination. <i>This</i> series is the culmination.<br />
<br />
And even though Tony Parker may be the key cog for the Spurs now, that doesn't mean Tim Duncan is merely a supporting member. Which means it's still exciting that we're getting to see the best player of the last generation (Duncan) square off against the best player of the current generation (LeBron). Something that hasn't happened in over 20 years, when Jordan squared off with Magic. Jordan vs. Magic was also the last time that two top 10 players of all-time met in the Finals, prior to Duncan-LeBron.<br />
<br />
We're not just getting two top 10, generational players squaring off, we're also getting arguably the two best teams in the league doing battle. Teams with outstanding ball movement, defense and shooting. The Heat have been the best team in the league all year, but the Spurs will provide a very interesting challenge for them; as they're a team that can go big or small, without compromising the strength of their team.<br />
<br />
Regardless of the outcome, we're going to see something historic (Duncan and Pop winning titles 14 years apart or LeBron taking another step toward becoming a top 5 player of all-time). But most of all, we should see some really great basketball.Jared Dayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468719620686765175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518097574083967402.post-8017562271377692062013-06-05T13:33:00.000-07:002013-06-05T13:33:51.656-07:00Offensive BaseballBack in April, Jayson Stark wrote about how <a href="http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/9158659/mlb-designated-hitter-spread-nl">the DH will eventually spread to the NL</a>. If it does, it won't be for some of the reasons he said.<br />
<br />
<i>"Now, though, let's look ahead. To late September, when the two teams traveling to National League cities in the last week of the season happen to be the Red Sox (to Denver) and Tigers (to Miami). Now let's say those are must-win games. And let's say people notice that Felix Doubront and Rick Porcello are heading for the plate instead of Big Papi and Victor Martinez. Anybody think this will suddenly seem like a much bigger deal? Yeah, thought so."</i><br />
<br />
This is sort of falsely presented. It's comparing the strength of a team with a DH vs. the strength of that team with no DH. But it's not the Red Sox with Big Papi vs. the Red Sox with Doubront. It's the Red Sox with no DH vs. the Rockies with no DH. You can't complain that the Red Sox aren't using their nine best hitters, when the Rockies aren't using their nine best hitters either. Besides, this is only looking at the scenario from one way. What if the Rockies were traveling to Boston? Are they supposed to get mad that their DH isn't as good as Ortiz? No, because it comes with the territory. The home team always has an advantage. AL teams are at a disadvantage in NL stadiums and NL teams are at a disadvantage in AL stadiums. But guess what? That's the case all year; not just in September. The Red Sox aren't at more of a disadvantage playing in Colorado in September than they would be in July. You're either going to win those games or you won't.<br />
<br />
Oh yeah, let's not pretend that Big Papi and Victor Martinez are prevented from playing. If they're such a liability defensively that they can't be put into the lineup, how could fans be mad they're not playing? If their managers thought they would help them win, they would play. If they don't, that means the manager thinks they'll have a better shot winning without them. It's as simple as that.<br />
<br />
His next point:<br />
<i>"Or what happens if, say, the Mariners get rained out in the final game of their interleague series in St. Louis -- on Sept. 15? Do they have to fly back to St. Louis from Seattle, after a night game, on their only remaining off day (Sept. 26) to make that one up?"</i><br />
<br />
What happens if Seattle's September 19th game against Detroit gets rained out? Do they have to fly back to Detroit (a longer trip, by the way) from Seattle, after a night game, on their only remaining off day (Sept. 26) to make that one up? As I see it, the potential problem Seattle faces with St. Louis is the same one it faces with Detroit. Besides, if there is more potential scheduling conflicts than in years past, that comes from year-round interleague play, that's not a problem solved by having a DH; that would only solved by going back to having an even number of AL and NL teams.<br />
<br />
What about the soaring cost of pitching?<br />
This point was made by Brewers GM Doug Melvin:<i> "'Now, when we're starting to pay pitchers $20 million a year, don't we have to start thinking more about whether we want pitchers hitting?' He adds, 'When you think about the competitiveness of a Zack Greinke or a [Clayton] Kershaw when he's hitting, there's a danger of those guys overdoing it in any at-bat and getting hurt.'"</i><br />
<br />
Pitchers getting injured from hitting? How often does that even happen? The injury concern you should have with pitchers should come from pitching; not hitting. If the injury risk that comes from pitching isn't enough to prevent you from paying a pitcher $20 million, then the risk of injury from hitting shouldn't really bother you either.<br />
<br />
Finally:<br />
<i>"But any time the National League is ready for this, it won't have to worry about convincing these AL managers who find themselves already playing by NL rules -- in April."</i><br />
<br />
Every AL manager should either be embarrassed by this or offended by it. Do they really have that much trouble assembling a NL lineup? Something they only have to do 20 times a year (while their NL counterparts do it 142 times a year)? If so, they should be embarrassed. On the other hand, if they don't think it's too hard, then they should be offended that Jayson Stark would suggest as much.<br />
<br />
Now maybe Jayson wasn't referring to the day-to-day managing as much as he was referring to the challenges of roster construction, something he touched on:<br />
<br />
<i>"What's the toughest part of playing interleague games one series at a
time from April to September? Putting a roster together that can
function by the other league's rules. That's more challenging than ever,
now that teams no longer have most of their interleague games scheduled
in one block in June. </i><br />
<br />
<i>'When I was with the Diamondbacks,' said Angels general manager Jerry
Dipoto, 'we signed Wily Mo Pena as a minor league free agent [in 2011],
brought him to spring training as a non-roster player and then sent him
to Triple-A, with the express idea that when we reached this nine-game
window in June where we were playing in American League parks, he was
going to play on our big league team and be our DH. He wound up coming
up, hitting a couple of home runs, won us a game in Kansas City and then
nine days later he was designated for assignment.'"</i><br />
<br />
Stark mentions that a proposed solution could be expanding the roster to 26 players, for interleague games. That sounds like a way better solution than expanding the DH, because that quote does more to point out the absurdity of the DH position than it does advocate for its expansion. A player is not good enough to play in the major leagues, but is good enough to play DH? What kind of position is that? <br />
<br />
I'm sorry, but none of these seem like sufficient reasons to have a universal DH. It seems like people are just trying to come up with excuses to expand DH, because <i>they</i> want there to be a universal DH. Which brings me to the final reason people like the DH: it creates more offense. But how much offense does it really create? Here's the average runs per game by AL and NL teams, over the past five years:<br />
<br />
2012<br />
AL 4.45<br />
NL 4.22<br />
<br />
2011<br />
AL 4.46<br />
NL 4.12<br />
<br />
2010<br />
AL 4.45<br />
NL 4.33<br />
<br />
2009<br />
AL 4.82<br />
NL 4.43<br />
<br />
2008<br />
AL 4.78<br />
NL 4.53<br />
<br />
Five-year average<br />
AL 4.59<br />
NL 4.33<br />
<br />
The difference is less than one run per game? You're giving up the strategy of pinch-hitting and double switches for less than one run per game? Personally, that seems dumb. I'd rather watch a team have to use more strategy to get four runs per game than less strategy and get five runs per game. But that's me. If fans of AL teams like having a DH, good for them. I'm perfectly ok with them doing whatever they want. But as a fan of the NL, I don't want to see the DH expand.<br />
<br />
While some people like the more offensive baseball that the DH provides, others just find it offensive.Jared Dayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468719620686765175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518097574083967402.post-46053020747486883592013-06-02T12:08:00.000-07:002016-12-21T23:22:10.507-08:00Does LeBron think we're blind?A couple days ago, there was an <a href="http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2013/story/_/id/9317929/2013-nba-playoffs-lebron-james-says-not-flopper-sees-advantage-flopping">article on ESPN</a> where LeBron stated that he sees the value in flopping. As dumb as that is, it wasn't even the stupidest thing he said. He went on to say, "I don't need to flop. I play an aggressive game. I don't flop. I've never been one of those guys." It's true. He doesn't flop. That's why there's absolutely no<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/4VX2tAFPU88?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
video</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<object class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://img.youtube.com/vi/N8g_YsF7y3g/0.jpg" height="266" width="320"><param name="movie" value="https://youtube.googleapis.com/v/N8g_YsF7y3g&source=uds"><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed width="320" height="266" src="https://youtube.googleapis.com/v/N8g_YsF7y3g&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
evidence</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/wJJkvilMSuw?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
of</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/jTjDPNKJHLI?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
him</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/YYkhOCwqkV0?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
flopping.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/ktJ8S-PJGEQ?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/cL1xl0FR6xM?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
You know how when you get hit from behind and your body jolts backwards and then, as your falling to the ground, your upper body and arms go backwards again?<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/lUXE6bH3qTQ?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
Or how when someone steps on your foot and your head whips back?<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/Gts0TlE4TnQ?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
Or how when someone's arm or hand maybe touches your arm or hand and your head whips back?<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/asky183PeSI?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
Or how the wind from someone's arms passing in front of your face makes your head whip back? Wait, that looks familiar. Where have I seen that before?<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/qhn3LJum3mg?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
Oh, that's right. Another member of the "non-flopping" Heat. Do they practice this stuff?<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/rqFcln5FoPA?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
Woah! A Chalmers flop into a LeBron flop! Incredible! But no, they don't practice flopping because the Heat (and especially LeBron) don't flop.<br />
<br />
Oh yeah, and LeBron was not <a href="http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2013/story/_/id/9324801/2013-nba-playoffs-lebron-james-david-west-lance-stephenson-fined-flopping">fined</a>, the day after he said he's not a flopper, because he didn't <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qP-xIFyJcx8">flop</a> the day before he said he's not a flopper.<br />
<br />
Sorry LeBron, but you can't say you don't flop. We are all witnesses.Jared Dayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468719620686765175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518097574083967402.post-70767962375907944022013-05-05T15:40:00.000-07:002013-05-05T15:57:33.664-07:00NBA Playoffs: Round one reviewThe first round of the playoffs was a mixed bag, and the journey to it was bipolar. As the regular season was ending, it looked like we weren't going to get the best matchups. It looked like Houston would face San Antonio and the Thunder would face the Lakers or Jazz. But then the Rockets lost to the Suns and the perfect playoff bracket was still in play for the West. Amazingly, the best matchups ended up happening. We got James Harden facing his old team, the two most successful franchises of the past decade doing battle once again, a rematch of last year's 7-game series, and the "leftovers" being a matchup between two of the most exciting teams in the league. In the East, we even got a Celtics-Knicks series. On paper, the matchups looked about as good as possible. Unfortunately, what looked good on paper didn't really materialize, as injuries wreaked havoc.<br />
<br />
Kobe got hurt, as well as almost every other Laker, ruining what may have be the final go-round of a Kobe-Duncan series (at least one that included both guys playing at such a high level). Injury struck again with Russell Westbrook, delivering a blow to that series. David Lee got hurt (thankfully that didn't ruin that series, maybe because Denver had their own loss with Gallinari). Almost every Bull has suffered some type of ailment. Sensing a theme? Add in the other injured players for playoff teams and here's the list of important players that didn't contribute in the playoffs: Kobe, Westbrook, Lee, Rose, Rondo, Granger, and Gallinari. And this list doesn't even include other players who were injured that didn't make the playoffs (Kevin Love and Andrew Bynum); whose teams may have made it, had they been healthy (same goes for the Wizards, had John Wall been healthy the whole year). Has there ever been a larger quantity of valuable players who missed the playoffs? Could that group of guys medal in the Olympics? I think they could.<br />
<br />
Between the (probably) unprecedented number of injuries, the predictable Miami sweep, and Boston falling down 3-0 (all but guaranteeing their elimination), the first round ended up being very disappointing. The saving grace came in the form of two series' (Sorry, Indiana and Atlanta fans. Not one of them): Clippers-Grizzlies and Warriors-Nuggets. Clippers-Grizzlies was a quality follow-up to last year's series. The bad blood and physicality makes for some great basketball. But as good as that series was, my personal favorite was Warriors-Nuggets. Which wasn't really a surprise to me, because these teams were two of my favorites to watch this year. From start to finish, I thought the Warriors were the most exciting team to watch. Their team even provided my favorite highlight clip from this season:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/cllNLj4mGLQ?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
The Nuggets were thoroughly entertaining as well, but I wasn't privy to them until much later in the season. They didn't become one of my favorites until after their February game against the Lakers, which produced my second favorite highlight clip of the season (coincidentally, the two teams I thought were most exciting provided my two favorite clips of the season, and they did it two days apart):<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/bXqXl3HHdgI?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
Those first two dunks are especially incredible. I hadn't seen much of the Nuggets before this game, but I was a fan of them after it. They played such a unique style of basketball. I don't think I've ever seen a team attack the basket as much as they did.<br />
<br />
Anyway, back to the series, the only downside to two exciting teams squaring off is that one of them had to be eliminated. And while having seven games would've been fun, it would've been hard to top game 6. Steph Curry going off, in front of an electric crowd, with Kevin Harlan calling the game is pretty much basketball at its greatest:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/a41YWCUQtXM?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
I hope these teams come back even better next year, but for now we'll just have to settle for them providing the highlight of round one.<br />
<br />
While pretty much the rest of the first round may have been disappointing, I'm hoping that it at least sets up a very good second round. We're kicking things off with a rematch of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkmjzDbO4xA">2011's classic series</a> between the Thunder and Grizzlies (which featured the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0Cf-xTm1uA">superb triple overtime game</a>). Following that up with Pacers-Knicks, which I'm sure will provide plenty of flashbacks to <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXs-dSowe9A">their historic rivalry</a>. Spurs-Warriors has potential to be really fun. And we cap it off with the Heat facing the Bulls, teams who have a nice history of tough games (including this year's <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1LcBL5RMvk">great game</a> where Miami's win-streak was ended).<br />
<br />
There are two things would make round two even better. One, no more injuries (additionally, the guys that are banged up become or stay capable of contributing). Two, Derrick Rose returns. Now I'm not one of those people saying he <i>has</i> to play. If he's not comfortable yet, he shouldn't play. Fans are fickle. They may say he should play now, but if he came back and got hurt, then they would say he shouldn't have played. Or if he doesn't play, but goes on to continue having a great career, no ones really going to care about him sitting out. Perceptions change (just ask LeBron). So I'm not saying I think he's ready to play; I'm just hoping that he is (A surprise return in game 3 would be especially fun. Chicago would go insane).<br />
<br />
As it is, round two has a lot of potential to be great. Let's just hope that, unlike round one, the potential is actually realized.Jared Dayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468719620686765175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518097574083967402.post-56494777340121767622013-05-01T21:07:00.001-07:002016-12-21T23:40:04.133-08:00Chael Sonnen versus himselfAfter losing to Jon Jones, Chael Sonnen hinted that he was probably going to retire. He said that there's no point in fighting, if you can't work your way to a title fight. Unless he was actually planning on retiring, that was a dumb thing to say. He put himself in a no-win situation, because now he's either forced to do something he doesn't want to do (retire) or something he said he wasn't going to do (continue fighting without contending). He boxed himself into a corner.<br />
<br />
Or did he?<br />
<br />
Maybe there's actually a way Sonnen could capitalize on what he said, instead of backtracking from it. Right now, Sonnen's in this middle ground where he's not close to a title shot and he might not be close to retirement. So if he can't fight to prove he's a contender, why not fight to prove that he's not ready to retire? How he should do that is by putting his career on the line. He should announce that he will in fact retire...once he's beaten.<br />
<br />
Sonnen has said he doesn't really have any interesting fights at Middleweight. That's true. But by putting his career on the line, it wouldn't be Chael Sonnen vs. Mark Munoz or Vitor Belfort; it would be Chael Sonnen vs. his career. It's perfect, because it provides a built-in angle to promote his fights. He doesn't have to be promoted as a contender, nor does he have to be relegated to being a gatekeeper. It's just about him trying to save his career.<br />
<br />
The irony is that it's not only the best way to keep him relevant outside of the title picture, but it's also his best (and probably only) path back into it. Imagine the buzz it would create if he put together a winning streak. Every win would raise the stakes for his next fight; and it could do the seemingly impossible and make the prospect of Sonnen fighting for a title actually interesting (not to mention that it could actually set up the fight <a href="http://youtu.be/_jcgiTcT7fk?t=42s">Sonnen proposed once upon a time: title vs. career</a>). I think it would sell too, because it wouldn't be about Sonnen facing Silva (assuming Silva was still the champion). It would be about Sonnen facing the ultimate stakes a fighter ever could: he'd either reaching the highest point of his career or the end of it. No middle ground. It would truly be "go big or go home".<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, Sonnen's already basically backtracked on his retirement by <a href="http://www.mmatorch.com/artman2/publish/UFC_2/article_16677.shtml">calling out</a> Wanderlei Silva (<a href="http://sports.yahoo.com/news/mma--what-s-chael-sonnen-s-next-career-move---hint--it-won-t-be-retirement--214939077.html">just as Dave Doyle predicted</a>). But if he doesn't want to fully undermine his post-fight comments, and would rather capitalize on them, all he has to do is put his career on the line.<br />
<br />
The key to keeping Chael Sonnen's career relevant is for him to risk ending it.Jared Dayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468719620686765175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518097574083967402.post-20138370220780505882013-04-24T17:02:00.000-07:002013-04-24T17:02:19.218-07:00UFC on Fox 7 reviewThe 7th installment of the UFC on Fox was a good to very good show, which I was fortunate enough to be able to attend live. I missed the two Facebook prelims, but I arrived before the Dillashaw-Viana fight that kicked off the FX broadcast; which turned out to be a great way to get things started and the decisive finish was a preview of things to come. This event was chock-full of (T)KOs, <a href="http://www.mmatorch.com/artman2/publish/UFC_2/article_16524.shtml">tying a UFC record with 8</a>, which included impressive performances by Chad Mendes, Joseph Benavidez, and Matt Brown. But the performance that stands out the most to me was the one turned in by Josh Thomson. To be the first one to TKO Nate Diaz, and have it include Diaz's corner throwing in the towel, is pretty remarkable and it was quite a sight to see. It was definitely the highlight of the night. The only downside to having so many finishes is the delay between
fights. Most of the time it was manageable, but I think there was about
a 30 minute gap between the last fight on FX and the first fight on
Fox.<br />
<br />
As far as the fights that went the distance, they were mostly ok. The only one that didn't really hold my interest was the Carmont-Larkin fight; which apparently was a good thing, considering the controversy surrounding the decision. The Mir-Cormier fight was disappointing for a couple of reasons. First off, a fight that primarily consists of clinching isn't the most exciting display, especially without the benefit of commentary. It's just not a style that translates well live. The other reason that it was disappointing was that I was personally hoping to see Mir get dominated. Him and Tito are probably the two fighters I enjoy booing the most. Ironically, the only other event I've been to had Tito fighting Rashad Evans. So I've had the pleasure of booing both guys, but neither fight was particularly satisfying (from a results standpoint). The Tito-Rashad fight had a little more back and forth and had better crowd involvement (including "Tito" and "Tito sucks" chants), which wasn't the case with Mir-Cormier.<br />
<br />
The main event was good, but not great. I think the problem was that both fighters fought similar stylistically, so it ended up being more of a stalemate. There weren't really any big exchanges or any moments where it looked like one fighter might be finished. It was more just point, counterpoint. The fight playing out this way also led to a close decision, with fans split on who won. This seems to be a frequent occurrence in the division (Edgar-Penn, Edgar-Maynard, Edgar-Henderson and now Henderson-Melendez). And with Maynard-Grant being a number one contender's fight, it's possible that such a fight could happen again (if Maynard wins). This is where Pettis moving down to face Aldo hurts the division, because Pettis' style would force Henderson to be offensive. I don't think you can go conservative against Pettis or he'll make you pay. So hopefully Pettis moves back up in the near future (Aldo can move up too).<br />
<br />
While the main event wasn't as good as anticipated, it didn't really hamper the event. It's always fun seeing the fighter's live; even the ones who aren't on the card. I was a couple sections over from the preshow desk, so of course I saw Dominick Cruz, Chael Sonnen and Brian Stann (I saw Brian take some pictures with fans in between the FX and Fox broadcasts). The other fighter's I saw were Nick Diaz, Jake Shields, Cain Velasquez, and Ronda Rousey. Diaz and Shields came out during the prelim fights. Nick wasn't out very long (don't know if he had something to do or if he didn't want the attention), but Jake seemed to sign every autograph and take every picture. Big props to him, as well as Ronda. She was signing autographs and taking pictures for what seemed like forever, as her presence created the biggest commotion. Doesn't seem like it will be long before she's in the top two or three most popular fighters (if she's not there already). I think Cain signed some autographs as well (not sure for how long though). Uriah Faber was also there, but I only saw him on the big screen. I don't believe they showed Cain or Ronda on the big screen, which surprised me. The only other famous person I recognized was Aldon Smith, who was most likely there to support Cormier.<br />
<br />
All in all, I'd say it was a good show. Most of the fights delivered, and that's all you can really ask for. I'd probably rate the event somewhere between an 8 and an 8.9.Jared Dayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468719620686765175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518097574083967402.post-52509562056766227632012-12-15T15:09:00.000-08:002012-12-15T15:09:04.697-08:00The Dream FightIn the MMA world, the major dream fight being talked about right now
is Anderson Silva versus Georges St. Pierre. I was completely on board
with this fight happening...three years ago. But some things have
happened since then that has made me change my mind. The first was that
it was pointed out that the risk-reward for each fighter is disproportionate.
GSP has more to gain than to lose and Silva has more to lose than to
gain. What shame does GSP have in losing to Silva? On the other hand,
what is there to gain from Silva beating a smaller fighter? Silva
beating GSP wouldn't be that impressive. The same even goes for GSP beating
Silva, after what happened at UFC 117 (where Chael Sonnen took, and held
down, Silva at will). Yes, there were questionable circumstances
surrounding the fight (Silva being injured, Sonnen on PEDs etc.), but
the fact remains that the novelty of seeing Silva dominated through
wrestling is gone. That's the problem with this fight. The outcome
will almost certainly resemble either GSP-Serra I (albeit more
legitimately) or Silva-Sonnen I (albeit more legitimately). It doesn't
have the unpredictable nature that a dream fight should have. <br />
<br />
The
next thing that happened was UFC 128 and the beginning of Jon Jones'
ascension up the P4P rankings. Jones' victory over Shogun was the most
dominant title win I'd seen since that of one Anderson Silva. It was
this precise moment that the prospect of a Jones-Silva fight surpassed
Silva-GSP. Silva and Jones are two of the, if not the, best and most
creative strikers in the sport. This fight is not predictable.
Technically Jones could employ a Sonnen-like gameplan, but there's also
the possibility that something happens that's never been done before
(Jones getting picked apart or vice versa); something that's not
possible with GSP. Not to mention that, unlike GSP-Silva, the loser
doesn't take a big hit. If Jones were to lose, then it would be to the
greatest fighter of all-time. And if Silva were to lose, it would be to
a younger fighter just entering his prime (and could be on his way to
being the greatest of all-time). It's a win-win. Both fighters would
be helped by a win and not that hurt by a loss.<br />
<br />
Not
only is Silva-Jones a more exciting, even, and unpredictable matchup,
but both fighters are in similar situations of not really having imminent contenders. Other than postponing a potential Dan Henderson-Jon Jones fight (which could've been avoided had the UFC just rescheduled
Henderson-Jones, instead of irrationally plugging in a completely
undeserving Chael Sonnen), neither division would
be held up by a super fight. That's not the case with the Welterweight
division. GSP has both Nick Diaz and Johnny Hendricks waiting in the wings (not to mention Rory MacDonald closing in on a title shot). In fact, I'd much rather see GSP fight Diaz over Silva. Diaz's boxing and Jiu-Jitsu make for a good stylistic matchup with GSP. Even if he couldn't beat GSP, he should at least be able to get a great fight out of him (much like Condit just did).<br />
<br />
Thankfully, GSP-Diaz is exactly <a href="http://www.mmatorch.com/artman2/publish/UFC_2/article_15319.shtml">the direction the UFC is going in</a>. The next step is moving on from the idea of GSP fighting Silva and switching to the true dream fight: Silva versus Jon Jones.Jared Dayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468719620686765175noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518097574083967402.post-28470118291317888242012-12-13T11:25:00.000-08:002016-12-19T11:16:31.302-08:00Who's up first?When <a href="http://mytwocommoncents.blogspot.com/2012/10/criteria-carousel.html">I broke down the AL MVP race</a>, one of the things I mentioned was how RBIs are somewhat circumstantial. Being a good hitter doesn't automatically get you RBIs; you do need runners on base (obviously). In the same way, having runners on base could lead to RBIs, even if a player isn't hitting great. For a perfect example of this, look no further than Hunter Pence. Pence finished 14th in baseball with 104 RBIs, even though he only hit .253 (106th in the league). But that doesn't tell the full story. Because Pence was on two different teams, you can see the difference in production.<br />
<br />
In Philly, Pence hit 59 RBIs in 398 at-bats. In San Francisco, he had 45 RBIs in 219 at-bats. In order to give a clearer comparison, let's look at how many RBIs he would have had if he had played a full year in each location. Pence was on pace for 630 at-bats in Philly and 594 at-bats in San Francisco. We'll just average the two and set the hypothetical number at 612 at-bats. Assuming he had 612 ABs, Pence was on pace for 91 RBIs in Philly and 126 RBIs in San Francisco. What's even crazier? Pence was hitting .271 in Philly and only .219 with the Giants. Using the same 612 ABs, that's the difference between finishing with 166 hits and 134. Pence would have 35 more RBIs, despite getting 32 less hits! If you can hit worse, yet drive in more runs, something tells me that who bats in front of you does make a pretty big difference.Jared Dayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468719620686765175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518097574083967402.post-50438313597126529122012-12-10T18:08:00.002-08:002012-12-10T18:08:47.510-08:00UFC on Fox 5 reviewOn paper, the UFC's latest Fox event offered easily the best card to date. It didn't quite live up to my lofty expectations, but it was still a good show. Part of the problem was the inclusion of Shogun and BJ Penn. This isn't to criticize the matchmaking. As I said, these were all great fights (on paper). The problem is that Shogun and Penn aren't the same fighters anymore, which makes them a gamble. There's no way of knowing how the fighters are going to show up. Is it going to be the Shogun from the Dan Henderson/Machida fights or the Shogun from the Vera fight? Because Shogun is so hit or miss, it makes it hard to judge Gustafsson's performance. Did he pick him apart because he's just better or because the underwhelming Shogun showed up? It was still an impressive performance from Gustafsson, but not as much as it could've been, if we could tell for sure that it was the good Shogun that he dominated.<br />
<br />
Penn's case is more extreme than Shogun's. Obviously questions of his preparedness and endurance have surrounded him virtually his whole career. But as the fight was going on, I started thinking less about how those questions pertained to this fight and more about how they pertained to his career; which led me to this question: has any athlete ever achieved so much while simultaneously leaving so much on the table? He's the greatest Lightweight fighter of all-time and only the second person in UFC history to hold a title in multiple weight classes, yet it still feels like he greatly underachieved. If only he had trained with a real trainer and was in shape for every fight, he probably would have beaten GSP the first time, Hughes the second time, Edgar both times, and Fitch. Could you imagine if BJ had the stamina that Ben Henderson has? He would've been virtually unbeatable. Instead, he might be the most accomplished underachiever ever.<br />
<br />
In my <a href="http://mytwocommoncents.blogspot.com/2012/08/ufc-on-fox-4-review.html">review of UFC's last Fox event</a>, I mentioned how the UFC is in a tough place because all of their previous superstars are fading. That continued with this show, as the doors closed more and more for Shogun and Penn. However, I had also mentioned some new fighters that were becoming must-see (Jon Jones, Junior Dos Santos, Cain Velasquez, and Jose Aldo). The big positive from this event? Add Benson Henderson to that list. On the heels of his fights with Clay Guida and Frankie Edgar, Henderson put together another stellar performance on Saturday night. He's now what I would call the most entertaining "decision fighter" in the sport. He's so active and aggressive; it doesn't feel like he's just trying to outpoint his opponent or play it safe. Great showing from the champ.<br />
<br />
In total, the show was a mixed bag. Swick-Brown was pretty good and Henderson-Diaz was great, but Shogun-Gustafsson and Penn-MacDonald felt more like two stars falling than it did two stars rising; which is a shame. Hopefully their next fights will be against more consistent fighters (like Machida and Condit, respectively), where potentially dominant performances would say more about them than it would their opponents. And thankfully there's a quick turnaround to the next Fox event, where two of the three fights (Johnson-Dodson and Pettis-Cerrone) won't be subject to "declining superstar sabotage". Should be good.Jared Dayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468719620686765175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518097574083967402.post-9493269063822301592012-11-30T18:06:00.001-08:002012-11-30T18:18:51.240-08:00The Case for KaepernickFor the past week or two, the hot topic in the NFL has been the quarterback situation in San Francisco. Some think Alex Smith should start, while others think Colin Kaepernick should start. Personally, I don't think there's a wrong answer. I think the Niners would be perfectly fine with Smith starting. But with that said, here's the case for why Kapernick was the right choice.<br />
<br />
For starters, a <a href="http://blog.sfgate.com/49ers/2012/11/28/numbers-explain-harbaughs-qb-rationale-better-than-tight-lipped-coach/">Niners blog post</a> points out that "the 49ers have [had] fewer really bad plays – and more really good plays – with Kaepernick at the controls". One stat given in that blog post is that, in his two starts, Kaepernick has 10 completions of 20+ yard passes, while Alex only has 22 such completions in the eight full games he has played. This is reflected in Kapernick's 9.9 yards/attempt, compared to 8.0 yards/attempt for Smith. Here's some other stat comparisons of Smith's eight starts to Kaepernick's two:<br />
<br />
<u><b>Smith</b></u>:<br />
Completion percentage- 70.0%<br />
Third down efficiency- 38.0%<br />
Touchdown percentage- 6.0%<br />
Interception percentage- 2.3%<br />
Sack percentage- 10.0%<br />
<br />
<u><b>Kaepernick</b></u>:<br />
Completion percentage- 66.7%<br />
Third down efficiency- 40.0%<br />
Touchdown percentage- 6.3%<br />
Interception percentage- 2.1%<br />
Sack percentage- 2.0%<br />
<br />
People think Kaepernick was chosen because he's a high-risk, high-reward player; that he can provide the big plays that Smith rarely does. The thing is, he hasn't been high-risk (so far). Smith's calling card has been ball security. Kaepernick has been just as proficient in that area, but hasn't needed to take sacks or throw shorter passes to achieve that. Smith wasn't benched just because he was injured. He was benched because Kaepernick has been able to play Smith's style and more.<br />
<br />
Of course one could (wisely) point out that Kaepernick's stats consist of a very small sample size. It's possible that defenses eventually adjust to him and that he becomes less effective. But here's the thing, if that happens, going back to Smith is easy. It's not like Smith is going to struggle if they go right back to him in three or four weeks. But on the flip side, what if Harbaugh had gone with Smith over Kaepernick and then there was a visible dropoff from Kaepernick? The media and fan base would be clamoring for a change. And if that happened, and a change was made at that point, then going back to Smith is completely off the table. Right now, Smith isn't benched because he was playing bad; he's benched because Kaepernick happens to be playing better. If you went back to Smith and then benched him, it would actually be an indictment of his play. And that you can't come back from. You can go from Kaepernick to Smith. But if you went from Smith to Kaepernick, you can't go back to Smith. In that instance, you're stuck with Kaepernick and would have to hope he really is good enough to win in the playoffs.<br />
<br />
Which is better: going with Kaepernick and having Smith as the safety net or going with Smith and having Kaepernick as the safety net? Harbaugh didn't just go with the option that had the biggest upside, he went with the one that also had the safest plan B.Jared Dayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468719620686765175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518097574083967402.post-60556200652098446662012-11-03T20:53:00.000-07:002012-11-30T18:07:12.338-08:00Fool's GoldThe Gold Glove <a href="http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8574862/gold-glove-awards-baltimore-orioles-win-3-mike-trout-los-angeles-angels-snubbed">winners </a><a href="http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/8574862/gold-glove-awards-baltimore-orioles-win-3-mike-trout-los-angeles-angels-snubbed">were announced</a> this week. The big headline was Mike Trout losing to Adam Jones. To see how questionable of a choice that was, I decided to look up some stats (Defensive Runs Saved, Ultimate Zone Rating, Fielding Percentage, Range Factor, and Defensive Wins Above Replacement) and compare the two. Here's what I found:<br />
<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
table.MsoTableGrid
{mso-style-name:"Table Grid";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-border-insideh:.5pt solid windowtext;
mso-border-insidev:.5pt solid windowtext;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-insideh: .5pt solid windowtext; mso-border-insidev: .5pt solid windowtext; mso-padding-alt: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 480;">
<tbody>
<tr style="mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-irow: 0;">
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
DRS</div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
UZR</div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
FPCT</div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
RF</div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
dWAR</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 1;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
Jones</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
-16</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
-6.7</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
.982</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
2.75</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
-1.3</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 2; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
Trout</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
23</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
10.6</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
.993</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
2.70</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
2.2</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
Trout had such a big statistical advantage it's laughable. The one knock I read against Trout came from a comment on an <a href="http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/54853/orioles-return-to-gold-glove-glory">ESPN article</a>, which brought up Trout shifting to LF when they would bring in Peter Bourjos for defensive purposes. The problem with that point is that it doesn't take into account how good Bourjos is defensively. Being not as good as Bourjos automatically means he's not as good as Jones? That would be like saying Jordan wasn't as good of a defender as Dumars, because he wasn't the best defensive player on his team. You wouldn't fault Jordan for playing with Pippen, so why would you fault Trout for playing with Bourjos (who, by the way, did have the highest UZR of anyone with a minimum of 500 innings played)?<br />
<br />
Even if you held that against Trout, that doesn't mean Jones was the right choice. Denard Span had 20 DRS, an 8.5 UZR, a .989 FPCT, a .289 RF, and 2.4 dWAR. Not only did Jones have the lowest DRS of any qualified center fielder and negative defensive wins, he also committed the most errors. Yes, he had 439 putouts, but he still only had 54.9 putouts per error. By comparison, Trout had 132 putouts per error and Span had 84.8. So regardless of whether you thought it should or shouldn't go to Trout, it clearly shouldn't have gone to Jones. Here are some other questionable choices:<br />
<br />
Carlos Gonzalez over Martin Prado:<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
table.MsoTableGrid
{mso-style-name:"Table Grid";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-border-insideh:.5pt solid windowtext;
mso-border-insidev:.5pt solid windowtext;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-insideh: .5pt solid windowtext; mso-border-insidev: .5pt solid windowtext; mso-padding-alt: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 480;">
<tbody>
<tr style="mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-irow: 0;">
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
DRS</div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
UZR</div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
FPCT</div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
RF</div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
dWAR</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 1;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
Gonzalez</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
-13</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
-8.5</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
.982</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
1.71</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
-1.9</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 2; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
Prado</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
12</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
10.7</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
.984</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
1.72</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
1.7</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
Chase Headley over David Wright:<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
table.MsoTableGrid
{mso-style-name:"Table Grid";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-border-insideh:.5pt solid windowtext;
mso-border-insidev:.5pt solid windowtext;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-insideh: .5pt solid windowtext; mso-border-insidev: .5pt solid windowtext; mso-padding-alt: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 480;">
<tbody>
<tr style="mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-irow: 0;">
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
DRS</div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
UZR</div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
FPCT</div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
RF</div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
dWAR</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 1;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
Headley</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
-3</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
6.0</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
.976</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
2.67</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
0</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 2; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
Wright</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
16</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
15.4</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
.974</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
2.50</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
2.1</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
Jimmy Rollins over Clint Barmes:<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
table.MsoTableGrid
{mso-style-name:"Table Grid";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-border-insideh:.5pt solid windowtext;
mso-border-insidev:.5pt solid windowtext;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-insideh: .5pt solid windowtext; mso-border-insidev: .5pt solid windowtext; mso-padding-alt: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 480;">
<tbody>
<tr style="mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-irow: 0;">
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
DRS</div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
UZR</div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
FPCT</div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
RF</div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
dWAR</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 1;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
Rollins</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
-8</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
4.4</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
.978</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
3.83</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
0</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 2; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
Barmes</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
13</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
14.4</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
.972</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
4.24</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
2.1</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
Finally, the biggest travesty of all, Andrew McCutchen over Michael Bourn:<br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
</w:Compatibility>
<w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel>
</w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><br />
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156">
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
table.MsoTableGrid
{mso-style-name:"Table Grid";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
border:solid windowtext 1.0pt;
mso-border-alt:solid windowtext .5pt;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-border-insideh:.5pt solid windowtext;
mso-border-insidev:.5pt solid windowtext;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<br />
<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-insideh: .5pt solid windowtext; mso-border-insidev: .5pt solid windowtext; mso-padding-alt: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 480;">
<tbody>
<tr style="mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-irow: 0;">
<td style="border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
DRS</div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
UZR</div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
FPCT</div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
RF</div>
</td>
<td style="border-left: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
dWAR</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 1;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
McCutchen</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
-5</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
-6.9</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
.997</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
2.44</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
-0.2</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 2; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;">
<td style="border-top: none; border: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
Bourn</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
24</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
22.4</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
.995</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
2.59</div>
</td>
<td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-top: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-left-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; width: 73.8pt;" valign="top" width="98"><div class="MsoNormal">
3.0</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody></table>
<br />
<br />
McCutchen over Bourn? Bourn is statistically the best defensive outfielder in baseball. How did he lose to someone with subpar stats? Even if you don't think advanced metrics are 100% conclusive, you can't ignore significant gaps. If Bourn had 24 DRS and McCutchen had 19, you might be able to make an argument that stats don't tell a complete story. But a 29-run difference? That's hard to write-off. All of these questionable decisions involved at least a 19-run difference. Is it really reasonable to expect a margin of error of 20? These players chosen were questionable at best and preposterous at worst. I hope these perplexing Gold Glove selections don't carry over to the AL MVP, and that <a href="http://mytwocommoncents.blogspot.com/2012/10/criteria-carousel.html">the rightful winner</a> prevails.Jared Dayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468719620686765175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518097574083967402.post-29511682595918179442012-10-14T10:48:00.003-07:002012-11-03T16:23:33.553-07:00The Best D in the League?Who has the best defense the NFL? Some say Houston. Some say Chicago. Some say Seattle. How could anyone say anything but San Francisco? Let's compare their rankings:<br />
<br />
Houston- 4th fewest points, 3rd fewest yards <br />
Chicago- 3rd fewest points, 5th fewest yards<br />
Seattle- 2nd fewest points, fewest yards<br />
San Francisco- Fewest points, 2nd fewest yards<br />
<br />
Those are pretty close, but what about the competition they have faced? Here's the rankings of the offenses that each has faced:<br />
<br />
Houston- 19.8 ppg, 320.3 ypg<br />
Chicago-18.7 ppg, 321 ypg<br />
Seattle- 19 ppg, 299.9 ypg<br />
San Francisco- 22.9 ppg, 345.9 ypg<br />
<br />
Some would say that points per game and yards per game aren't extensive enough. Using advanced stats, Football Outsiders ranks the defenses as follows: Chicago, Houston, Seattle, San Francisco. The crazy part? Here's Football Oustiders' average ranking of each of their opponents:<br />
<br />
Houston- 23.8<br />
Chicago- 19.6<br />
Seattle- 20.2<br />
San Francisco- 16.6<br />
<br />
By Football Outsiders' own rankings, the Niners have faced the best offenses. The Niners have given up the fewest points in the league, to better offenses than Houston, Chicago, or Seattle faced, and they're not the best defense in the league? How does that make any sense? I'm sorry, but San Francisco has the best defense in the league.Jared Dayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468719620686765175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518097574083967402.post-47841489188868810042012-10-13T20:40:00.001-07:002012-10-14T16:02:38.336-07:00New Rule is not a FlopStarting this season, the NBA will finally penalize flopping. Surprisingly, this new rule wasn't met with universal praise and, quite frankly, I'm dumbfounded by that. Jalen Rose tweeted, "I appreciate rules against 'FLOPPING' but dislike the new penalties. Any
punishment should happen DURING the game(personal/tech foul)." In his <a href="http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/39467/the-new-age-of-flopping-understanding-the-nbas-rules-change">article on Grantland</a>, Zach Lowe stated, "An in-game punishment would be ideal, especially in the rare case in
which a blatant flop tricks the referee. It wouldn’t take long for a
video-review official to make the call, and the victimized team would
shoot a technical after a timeout, minimizing the interruption."<br />
<br />
In-game punishments? As Zach stated, the way for this to be done would be to review it. People complain about the pace of sports already; I don't think reviewing more plays is going to help that. How would this even be done fairly, without reviewing every flop? Do we really want/expect the refs to review every flop? The only thing worse then flopping would be flops leading to delays in the game.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
Jalen also tweeted why he doesn't like the punishment: "You must get 16 technical fouls to pay $5k while the 2nd flop has the same fee attached? Don't like it." I think that punishment is completely fair. Here's why: technical fouls are incidental; flopping is not. Technical fouls can happen in the heat of the moment. Flopping is an intentional attempt to deceive the referees. In fact, I even think that $5,000 dollars is low, for the type of flopping the refs should penalize.</div>
<br />
Flops like these:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<object class="BLOGGER-youtube-video" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0" data-thumbnail-src="http://1.gvt0.com/vi/8AAM_mdNVek/0.jpg" height="266" width="320"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8AAM_mdNVek&fs=1&source=uds" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed width="320" height="266" src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8AAM_mdNVek&fs=1&source=uds" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></div>
<br />
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/foaPMZxtzx4?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe><br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/2h60uviwKC0?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/8pYGtlTnWiE?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
<br />
Flopping to exaggerate the contact of actual fouls is one thing. The complete fabrication that a foul happened is what needs to be punished. This may sound strict, but I think the flops in those videos should be punished with suspensions. Why? Because they NEVER need to happen. Pretending like you were fouled, when you weren't, is a disgrace to the game. The problem isn't the fines. It's that the fines even need to exist in the first place.Jared Dayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06468719620686765175noreply@blogger.com0