For 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.
For starters, a Niners blog post 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:
Smith:
Completion percentage- 70.0%
Third down efficiency- 38.0%
Touchdown percentage- 6.0%
Interception percentage- 2.3%
Sack percentage- 10.0%
Kaepernick:
Completion percentage- 66.7%
Third down efficiency- 40.0%
Touchdown percentage- 6.3%
Interception percentage- 2.1%
Sack percentage- 2.0%
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.
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.
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.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Fool's Gold
The Gold Glove winners were announced 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:
Trout had such a big statistical advantage it's laughable. The one knock I read against Trout came from a comment on an ESPN article, 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)?
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:
Carlos Gonzalez over Martin Prado:
Chase Headley over David Wright:
Jimmy Rollins over Clint Barmes:
Finally, the biggest travesty of all, Andrew McCutchen over Michael Bourn:
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 the rightful winner prevails.
DRS
|
UZR
|
FPCT
|
RF
|
dWAR
|
|
Jones
|
-16
|
-6.7
|
.982
|
2.75
|
-1.3
|
Trout
|
23
|
10.6
|
.993
|
2.70
|
2.2
|
Trout had such a big statistical advantage it's laughable. The one knock I read against Trout came from a comment on an ESPN article, 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)?
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:
Carlos Gonzalez over Martin Prado:
DRS
|
UZR
|
FPCT
|
RF
|
dWAR
|
|
Gonzalez
|
-13
|
-8.5
|
.982
|
1.71
|
-1.9
|
Prado
|
12
|
10.7
|
.984
|
1.72
|
1.7
|
Chase Headley over David Wright:
DRS
|
UZR
|
FPCT
|
RF
|
dWAR
|
|
Headley
|
-3
|
6.0
|
.976
|
2.67
|
0
|
Wright
|
16
|
15.4
|
.974
|
2.50
|
2.1
|
Jimmy Rollins over Clint Barmes:
DRS
|
UZR
|
FPCT
|
RF
|
dWAR
|
|
Rollins
|
-8
|
4.4
|
.978
|
3.83
|
0
|
Barmes
|
13
|
14.4
|
.972
|
4.24
|
2.1
|
Finally, the biggest travesty of all, Andrew McCutchen over Michael Bourn:
DRS
|
UZR
|
FPCT
|
RF
|
dWAR
|
|
McCutchen
|
-5
|
-6.9
|
.997
|
2.44
|
-0.2
|
Bourn
|
24
|
22.4
|
.995
|
2.59
|
3.0
|
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 the rightful winner prevails.
Sunday, October 14, 2012
The 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:
Houston- 4th fewest points, 3rd fewest yards
Chicago- 3rd fewest points, 5th fewest yards
Seattle- 2nd fewest points, fewest yards
San Francisco- Fewest points, 2nd fewest yards
Those are pretty close, but what about the competition they have faced? Here's the rankings of the offenses that each has faced:
Houston- 19.8 ppg, 320.3 ypg
Chicago-18.7 ppg, 321 ypg
Seattle- 19 ppg, 299.9 ypg
San Francisco- 22.9 ppg, 345.9 ypg
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:
Houston- 23.8
Chicago- 19.6
Seattle- 20.2
San Francisco- 16.6
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.
Houston- 4th fewest points, 3rd fewest yards
Chicago- 3rd fewest points, 5th fewest yards
Seattle- 2nd fewest points, fewest yards
San Francisco- Fewest points, 2nd fewest yards
Those are pretty close, but what about the competition they have faced? Here's the rankings of the offenses that each has faced:
Houston- 19.8 ppg, 320.3 ypg
Chicago-18.7 ppg, 321 ypg
Seattle- 19 ppg, 299.9 ypg
San Francisco- 22.9 ppg, 345.9 ypg
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:
Houston- 23.8
Chicago- 19.6
Seattle- 20.2
San Francisco- 16.6
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.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
New Rule is not a Flop
Starting 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 article on Grantland, 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."
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.
Flops like these:
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.
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.
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.
Flops like these:
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.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Criteria Carousel
The AL MVP race is one of the closest of all-time. But before deciding who should win, shouldn’t
we decide what it really means to be the MVP?
The problem I have with this race is the same problem I have with any
MVP race: arbitrary criteria. The reasoning for why someone's a MVP changes. Sometimes it's the "best player on the best team" scenario. Sometimes it's the "he's the best player" reasoning. And sometimes it's the "he carried his team to the playoffs" rationale. The reasoning for a given player, in a given year, is completely arbitrary. In 2002, Miguel Tejada appeared to win the MVP as "the best player on the best team." By regular or advanced stats, A-Rod was the better player. He had more HRs, more RBIs, better OBP, better fielding percentage, a greater range factor, and more Wins Above Replacement (8-10 for A-Rod compared to 4-5 for Tejada). A-Rod was a Silver Slugger and a Gold Glove. It appears the only thing Tejada had on him was that his team won 103 games (compared to 72 for A-Rod). In 2003, A-Rod won the MVP. His numbers were slightly down from the year before, but he still got a Silver Slugger and Gold Glove. But how did his team do? Not better. They only won 71 games that year. So apparently he was the MVP as "the best player." In 2010, Joey Votto and Albert Pujols had very similar stats. Advanced stats gave Pujols the slight edge, and he also beat out Votto for the Silver Slugger and Gold Glove. Who won MVP? Votto, because he "carried his team to the playoffs." Pujols was a better hitter and defender, just not more valuable? How are we supposed to accurately judge who's the MVP, when the reasoning is not even consistent?
This is precisely the problem with this year's AL MVP debate. People touting Cabrera as the MVP as "the player that carried his team," while others are saying that Trout is "the best player." So who's the MVP? Is it "player that carried his team," like in 2010? Or is it "best player," like it was in 2003? Who knows which side will win out this year, so let's examine both.
Best player:
Both players have strong cases. There are, however, two words that shouldn't matter: Triple Crown. Now I'm not saying that Cabrera winning the Triple Crown isn't impressive. Of course it is. But this is about value. If Josh Hamilton would've hit two more HRs this year, would that have affected Cabrera's value to the Tigers in any way? No. The production Cabrera provided for the Tigers is the value he brought. Hamilton hitting two more HRs wouldn't have taken away from Cabrera's production. He wouldn't have helped the Tigers less, because Hamilton hit two more HRs. In other words, the value Cabrera brought to the team is independent from the award.
Not to mention that Triple Crown is an achievement of relatively superficial stats, in terms of value. Batting average isn't as important as On-base percentage and RBIs are circumstantial. Trout may have hit slightly less, but he got on-base more frequently (.399 compared to .393). And when I say RBIs are circumstantial, I mean that they're influenced by your teammates and where you hit in the lineup. You don't control how frequently your teammates get on-base ahead of you. Cabrera had more RBIs, but that's to be expected. Trout hits leadoff, while Cabrera hits third. Check the splits for both guys and you'll see that Cabrera had more at-bats with runners on, as well as runners in scoring position. Cabrera had 174 at-bats with RISP. Trout had 111. In those 111, Trout had 53 RBIs. At that rate, Trout would've had 83 RBIs (in 174 at-bats). That means that if Trout had as many opportunities to drive in runs as Cabrera, he would've had an extra 30 RBIs. Add those 30 to his actual 83 and he would've had 113. Not that far off from Cabrera's 139.
Since RBIs are team dependent, let's try and isolate what Cabrera and Trout did on their own. Apart from driving people in, the best thing a hitter can do is score themselves (a HR) or get in scoring position (double, triple, or stealing a base). Cabrera hit 44 HRs, 40 doubles, no triples, and stole 4 bases. So Cabrera scored or put himself in scoring position on 88 occasions. Trout had 30 HRs, 27 doubles, 8 triples, and stole 49 bases, which means he scored or put himself in scoring position on 114 occasions. Which one is more valuable?
If you go by advanced stats, Trout was the better offensive player. According to Baseball-Reference, Trout was worth 8.6 offensive Wins Above Replacement and Cabrera was worth 6.9. By the way, I think it's funny that people think advanced stats (like WAR) are inaccurate or faulty, but would use the Triple Crown as evidence. One final thing on that: Cabrera may only be the 10th guy to win the Triple Crown in the AL, but Trout is only the third player ever to hit 30 HRs and steal at least 49 bases in a season.
The final point for Trout is defense. Baseball-reference had Cabrera worth -0.2 defensive Wins Above Replacement, while Trout was worth 2.2. Trout was one of the best center fielders in baseball. The guy literally robbed multiple HRs. Offense, defense, baserunning. The guy did it all. Dig deeper than HRs and RBIs and you will see that Mike Trout wasn't just the best player in the AL, he was the best player in baseball.
Carried his team to the playoffs:
Not only do we not know which year this will be the decisive factor in a MVP race, we don't even know what this really means. Shouldn't there be a more nuanced reasoning than one team making the playoffs and the other one not? Acting like a team making the playoffs is automatically significant ignores the strength of the division. How can you fault Trout for the Angels not making the playoffs, when they play in a tougher division? The Angels had a .556 winning percentage against the AL Central and a .526 winning percentage against the West. The Tigers had a .597 winning percentage against the Central and a .394 winning percentage against the West. The West was much tougher than the Central.
Not only did the Angels have a tougher schedule, they still finished a game ahead of the Tigers. If they switched divisions, Cabrera wouldn't be in the playoffs. If the playoffs didn't require a representative from every division, Cabrera wouldn't be in the playoffs. The Tigers needed a soft division and a technicality to make the playoffs; not Cabrera "carrying them." "Carrying his team to the playoffs" is a faulty way to determine the MVP, unless they're from the same division (and even then it's not necessarily conclusive). Something so circumstantial shouldn't be used to determine a players' value. Trout's not the MVP because he played in a tougher division? That doesn't make sense.
Forget about the technicality of the playoffs and focus on what they players actually did. Mike Trout was worth 10 WAR. Cabrera was worth 7. Mike Trout's job was to score runs. He did that better than anyone in the league (129). Miguel Cabrera's job was to drive in runs. He did that better than anyone in the league (139). That's a difference of only 10 runs (less if you factor in the literal runs Trout saved). This, in spite of the difference in the level of competition. The teams in Cabrera's division gave up an average of 775 runs. The teams in Trout's division gave up an average of 657. That's essentially the difference between playing a team that gives up the 5th most runs in the AL and the 11th most runs. Yet Trout was basically as productive at his job as Cabrera was at his. And if you still insist on tying their value to their team's record, look at how their teams performed; not whether they made the playoffs. When Trout started, the Angels had a .580 winning percentage. When Cabrera started, the Tigers had a .540 winning percentage. That's the difference between a 94-win team and an 88-win team. You tell me who's more valuable.
This is precisely the problem with this year's AL MVP debate. People touting Cabrera as the MVP as "the player that carried his team," while others are saying that Trout is "the best player." So who's the MVP? Is it "player that carried his team," like in 2010? Or is it "best player," like it was in 2003? Who knows which side will win out this year, so let's examine both.
Best player:
Both players have strong cases. There are, however, two words that shouldn't matter: Triple Crown. Now I'm not saying that Cabrera winning the Triple Crown isn't impressive. Of course it is. But this is about value. If Josh Hamilton would've hit two more HRs this year, would that have affected Cabrera's value to the Tigers in any way? No. The production Cabrera provided for the Tigers is the value he brought. Hamilton hitting two more HRs wouldn't have taken away from Cabrera's production. He wouldn't have helped the Tigers less, because Hamilton hit two more HRs. In other words, the value Cabrera brought to the team is independent from the award.
Not to mention that Triple Crown is an achievement of relatively superficial stats, in terms of value. Batting average isn't as important as On-base percentage and RBIs are circumstantial. Trout may have hit slightly less, but he got on-base more frequently (.399 compared to .393). And when I say RBIs are circumstantial, I mean that they're influenced by your teammates and where you hit in the lineup. You don't control how frequently your teammates get on-base ahead of you. Cabrera had more RBIs, but that's to be expected. Trout hits leadoff, while Cabrera hits third. Check the splits for both guys and you'll see that Cabrera had more at-bats with runners on, as well as runners in scoring position. Cabrera had 174 at-bats with RISP. Trout had 111. In those 111, Trout had 53 RBIs. At that rate, Trout would've had 83 RBIs (in 174 at-bats). That means that if Trout had as many opportunities to drive in runs as Cabrera, he would've had an extra 30 RBIs. Add those 30 to his actual 83 and he would've had 113. Not that far off from Cabrera's 139.
Since RBIs are team dependent, let's try and isolate what Cabrera and Trout did on their own. Apart from driving people in, the best thing a hitter can do is score themselves (a HR) or get in scoring position (double, triple, or stealing a base). Cabrera hit 44 HRs, 40 doubles, no triples, and stole 4 bases. So Cabrera scored or put himself in scoring position on 88 occasions. Trout had 30 HRs, 27 doubles, 8 triples, and stole 49 bases, which means he scored or put himself in scoring position on 114 occasions. Which one is more valuable?
If you go by advanced stats, Trout was the better offensive player. According to Baseball-Reference, Trout was worth 8.6 offensive Wins Above Replacement and Cabrera was worth 6.9. By the way, I think it's funny that people think advanced stats (like WAR) are inaccurate or faulty, but would use the Triple Crown as evidence. One final thing on that: Cabrera may only be the 10th guy to win the Triple Crown in the AL, but Trout is only the third player ever to hit 30 HRs and steal at least 49 bases in a season.
The final point for Trout is defense. Baseball-reference had Cabrera worth -0.2 defensive Wins Above Replacement, while Trout was worth 2.2. Trout was one of the best center fielders in baseball. The guy literally robbed multiple HRs. Offense, defense, baserunning. The guy did it all. Dig deeper than HRs and RBIs and you will see that Mike Trout wasn't just the best player in the AL, he was the best player in baseball.
Carried his team to the playoffs:
Not only do we not know which year this will be the decisive factor in a MVP race, we don't even know what this really means. Shouldn't there be a more nuanced reasoning than one team making the playoffs and the other one not? Acting like a team making the playoffs is automatically significant ignores the strength of the division. How can you fault Trout for the Angels not making the playoffs, when they play in a tougher division? The Angels had a .556 winning percentage against the AL Central and a .526 winning percentage against the West. The Tigers had a .597 winning percentage against the Central and a .394 winning percentage against the West. The West was much tougher than the Central.
Not only did the Angels have a tougher schedule, they still finished a game ahead of the Tigers. If they switched divisions, Cabrera wouldn't be in the playoffs. If the playoffs didn't require a representative from every division, Cabrera wouldn't be in the playoffs. The Tigers needed a soft division and a technicality to make the playoffs; not Cabrera "carrying them." "Carrying his team to the playoffs" is a faulty way to determine the MVP, unless they're from the same division (and even then it's not necessarily conclusive). Something so circumstantial shouldn't be used to determine a players' value. Trout's not the MVP because he played in a tougher division? That doesn't make sense.
Forget about the technicality of the playoffs and focus on what they players actually did. Mike Trout was worth 10 WAR. Cabrera was worth 7. Mike Trout's job was to score runs. He did that better than anyone in the league (129). Miguel Cabrera's job was to drive in runs. He did that better than anyone in the league (139). That's a difference of only 10 runs (less if you factor in the literal runs Trout saved). This, in spite of the difference in the level of competition. The teams in Cabrera's division gave up an average of 775 runs. The teams in Trout's division gave up an average of 657. That's essentially the difference between playing a team that gives up the 5th most runs in the AL and the 11th most runs. Yet Trout was basically as productive at his job as Cabrera was at his. And if you still insist on tying their value to their team's record, look at how their teams performed; not whether they made the playoffs. When Trout started, the Angels had a .580 winning percentage. When Cabrera started, the Tigers had a .540 winning percentage. That's the difference between a 94-win team and an 88-win team. You tell me who's more valuable.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Historic and Hyperbolic
Last year, the NFL season kicked off in historic fashion. Rodgers and Brees passed for 300+ yards, 3 TDs and no INTs in the same game, Brady passed for 500+ yards, Cam Newton set the rookie debut record with over 400 yards, Janikowski kicked a 63-yard FG, and Ted Ginn Jr. returned a kick and a punt for a TD. This season started in a very similar fashion. While last season saw offensive explosions from players (Rodgers, Brees, and Brady), this season saw offensive explosions of teams. The Bears, Falcons, Redskins, Jets, and Ravens all scored 40+ points, the most number of teams to do so on opening weekend in history. Cam Newton's rookie debut was topped by RGIII, who became the first player in history to throw for over 300 yards, 2 TDs and no INTs in his debut. Janikowski's record-tying 63-yard FG was tied by David Akers. And a return record was set, albeit a different kind, as Ed Reed set the record for most interception return yards in history. With a similar beginning, let's just hope this season plays out close to as well as last year did.
The only negative start to the year revolves around the Green Bay Packers. The media coverage of the Packers has been pretty ridiculous. Coming into the year, ESPN the Magazine predicted that the Packers would go 16-0. I'm not being hyperbolic when I say that is the most ludicrous prediction that's ever been made. The Packers went 15-1 last year! Do they really think a team is going to go 31-1 over a two year period? That's insane! It's very unlikely that a team wins more than 27 games, over a two-year stretch. In fact, since the merger in 1970, it's happened less than half a dozen times. The Niners have won 28 ('89-'90), the Patriots have won 28 on two separate occasions ('03-'04 and '06-'07), the Bears won 29 ('85-'86), and the '72-'73 Dolphins went 26-2 (which would be the equivalent of 29.7 wins, over a 32-game stretch). No team has won 30 games over two years, yet the Packers are going to win 31? Are you kidding me? Not only is it statistically improbable for the Packers to win that many games, they don't even have the right type of team to attempt to do it. The teams that won 28+ games all had very good defenses. Here's their defensive rankings, by points allowed:
'89 Niners- 3rd
'90 Niners- 2nd
'03 Patriots- 1st
'04 Patriots- 2nd
'06 Patriots- 2nd
'07 Patriots- 4th
'85 Bears- 1st
'86 Bears- 1st
'72 Dolphins- 1st
'73 Dolphins- 1st
Where did the Packers rank last year? 19th. They would've had to get substantially better on defense, in order to even get to 29 wins. Especially considering the possibility that the offense would take a step back. Prior to last year, there were 13 teams that scored 500+ points in a season. Of those teams, only four regressed by less than triple digit points and only one (the 2000 Rams) actually scored more points the following year. In summation, the Packers lacked an elite defense and possibly an unsustainable offense. Not exactly the recipe for unprecedented success.
And when it took all of one week for the projection of an undefeated season to come crashing down, did everyone realize the error of their ways? Did they realize that predicting an undefeated season was an absurd projection to make and that maybe they should stop making statements like that? Nope. Instead of deciding to stop making absurd statements, some thought the best course of action was to respond with some more idiotic remarks. Like this gem from Foxsports: "The '72 Dolphins can pop bubbly early". This, of course, is referencing the '72 Dolphins' ritual of toasting champagne whenever the last undefeated team in the league loses, preserving their season as the lone undefeated one. Saying that the Dolphins can toast now is idiotic. What they're saying is "Green Bay's not going undefeated, so no one is". When a hyperbolic statement blows up in your face, it's probably not smart to immediately make another one. Saying "there's no way anyone goes undefeated" is as stupid as guaranteeing that a team will go undefeated. How about just not guaranteeing something that can't be guaranteed?
As if that wasn't bad enough, that wasn't the only generalized statement in that post (that's right, there's four sentences and half of them are generalizations). It also stated that the Packers "still have no running game" (a sentiment I've heard from more than just Foxsports). Let me get this straight, because Benson only had 18 yards rushing, the Packers will have no running game all year? A guy in his first game with the team, against last year's top rushing defense, was enough to project how his year will go? Maybe one game against a great rushing defense shouldn't be used to draw a conclusion? (Last year, Steven Jackson had 19 yards against the Niners. I guess he wouldn't help the Packers either?)
People overreact ("the Packers have no running game") in order to pretend that the original sentiment ("Green Bay will go undefeated") wasn't absurd to begin with. How about just acknowledging that it was more likely the Packers were going to win 10-13 games this year? Don't poke holes in the team after one week, pretending like some unforeseen circumstance is the reason why the original prediction isn't going to come true. Don't make preposterous predictions and you won't have to sound the alarm after one week of football.
The hyperbolic nature of the media is taking away from the real stories, like how the Ravens are going to have the best offense in the NFL, RGIII is going to have the greatest rookie season in history, and that Adrian Peterson is genetically superior to the rest of us. Ok, that last one is true.
The only negative start to the year revolves around the Green Bay Packers. The media coverage of the Packers has been pretty ridiculous. Coming into the year, ESPN the Magazine predicted that the Packers would go 16-0. I'm not being hyperbolic when I say that is the most ludicrous prediction that's ever been made. The Packers went 15-1 last year! Do they really think a team is going to go 31-1 over a two year period? That's insane! It's very unlikely that a team wins more than 27 games, over a two-year stretch. In fact, since the merger in 1970, it's happened less than half a dozen times. The Niners have won 28 ('89-'90), the Patriots have won 28 on two separate occasions ('03-'04 and '06-'07), the Bears won 29 ('85-'86), and the '72-'73 Dolphins went 26-2 (which would be the equivalent of 29.7 wins, over a 32-game stretch). No team has won 30 games over two years, yet the Packers are going to win 31? Are you kidding me? Not only is it statistically improbable for the Packers to win that many games, they don't even have the right type of team to attempt to do it. The teams that won 28+ games all had very good defenses. Here's their defensive rankings, by points allowed:
'89 Niners- 3rd
'90 Niners- 2nd
'03 Patriots- 1st
'04 Patriots- 2nd
'06 Patriots- 2nd
'07 Patriots- 4th
'85 Bears- 1st
'86 Bears- 1st
'72 Dolphins- 1st
'73 Dolphins- 1st
Where did the Packers rank last year? 19th. They would've had to get substantially better on defense, in order to even get to 29 wins. Especially considering the possibility that the offense would take a step back. Prior to last year, there were 13 teams that scored 500+ points in a season. Of those teams, only four regressed by less than triple digit points and only one (the 2000 Rams) actually scored more points the following year. In summation, the Packers lacked an elite defense and possibly an unsustainable offense. Not exactly the recipe for unprecedented success.
And when it took all of one week for the projection of an undefeated season to come crashing down, did everyone realize the error of their ways? Did they realize that predicting an undefeated season was an absurd projection to make and that maybe they should stop making statements like that? Nope. Instead of deciding to stop making absurd statements, some thought the best course of action was to respond with some more idiotic remarks. Like this gem from Foxsports: "The '72 Dolphins can pop bubbly early". This, of course, is referencing the '72 Dolphins' ritual of toasting champagne whenever the last undefeated team in the league loses, preserving their season as the lone undefeated one. Saying that the Dolphins can toast now is idiotic. What they're saying is "Green Bay's not going undefeated, so no one is". When a hyperbolic statement blows up in your face, it's probably not smart to immediately make another one. Saying "there's no way anyone goes undefeated" is as stupid as guaranteeing that a team will go undefeated. How about just not guaranteeing something that can't be guaranteed?
As if that wasn't bad enough, that wasn't the only generalized statement in that post (that's right, there's four sentences and half of them are generalizations). It also stated that the Packers "still have no running game" (a sentiment I've heard from more than just Foxsports). Let me get this straight, because Benson only had 18 yards rushing, the Packers will have no running game all year? A guy in his first game with the team, against last year's top rushing defense, was enough to project how his year will go? Maybe one game against a great rushing defense shouldn't be used to draw a conclusion? (Last year, Steven Jackson had 19 yards against the Niners. I guess he wouldn't help the Packers either?)
People overreact ("the Packers have no running game") in order to pretend that the original sentiment ("Green Bay will go undefeated") wasn't absurd to begin with. How about just acknowledging that it was more likely the Packers were going to win 10-13 games this year? Don't poke holes in the team after one week, pretending like some unforeseen circumstance is the reason why the original prediction isn't going to come true. Don't make preposterous predictions and you won't have to sound the alarm after one week of football.
The hyperbolic nature of the media is taking away from the real stories, like how the Ravens are going to have the best offense in the NFL, RGIII is going to have the greatest rookie season in history, and that Adrian Peterson is genetically superior to the rest of us. Ok, that last one is true.
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Puzzling Scouting Reports
For every week 1 game, ESPN has done a scouting report, which includes a head to head comparison of each position group. I'm no expert, but one of them included some egregious picks. In the Green Bay-San Francisco scouting report, it gave the linebacker advantage to Green Bay. A curious decision, seeing as the Niners have the best linebackers in football. All-Pros Bowman and Willis, the best inside linebacker tandem in the league, are joined by Aldon Smith and Ahmad Brooks (who combined for 21 sacks last year). It's no contest. Clay Matthews is the only linebacker in Green Bay that would start in San Francisco, so picking Green Bay is a joke. Equally as terrible of a selection was saying Green Bay had the advantage in special teams. Apparently slighting the best linebackers in football wasn't enough, so I guess they had to slight the best special teams in football too. Granted, special teams fluctuates from year to year, but seeing as a game hasn't been played yet, this analysis can really only go off of last year. And what happened last year? San Francisco had record years from Andy Lee and David Akers, and the Niners outperformed the Packers in kickoff return average, punt return average, opponents' kick return average and opponents' punt return average. They literally outperformed Green Bay in every way, and Green Bay gets the nod? Is this a joke? I don't know what went into those decisions, but it clearly had nothing to do with what actually happens on the field.
Some other, less egregious, choices that I thought were curious:
Carolina DBs over Tampa Bay's- Tampa Bay signed Eric Wright (one of the best corners on the market), moved Ronde Barber to safety, and drafted Mark Barron 7th overall. Meanwhile, Carolina's only new addition is Haruki Nakamura (a backup safety last year for the Ravens). This on top of the fact that Tampa gave up less passing yards and their opponents had a worse passer rating against them. So the better unit from last year got stronger, yet Carolina has the edge? Makes total sense.
Atlanta RBs over Kansas City's- The Chiefs get the return of Jamaal Charles and the addition of Peyton Hillis. The Falcons have a year-older Michael Turner. Last year, Kansas City (led by Thomas Jones and Jackie Battle) had more total rushing yards than Atlanta. Are they really going to be worse with Charles and Hillis? Granted, there's some uncertainty about how they'll both bounce back from last year's injuries, but there's still too much upside. This at least should've been ranked an "even".
Minnesota RBs over Jacksonville's- Gerhart and Jennings are probably pretty close to each other. I think the disparity should come from the fact that MJD only sat out camp, while Peterson is recovering from a serious knee injury. Even though it's mainly a battle of backups, I think MJD is likely to be more effective than Peterson (if Peterson even plays at all). Therefore, the scales should be tipped in Jacksonville's favor.
Again, I'm no expert, but these all seemed like weird choices.
Some other, less egregious, choices that I thought were curious:
Carolina DBs over Tampa Bay's- Tampa Bay signed Eric Wright (one of the best corners on the market), moved Ronde Barber to safety, and drafted Mark Barron 7th overall. Meanwhile, Carolina's only new addition is Haruki Nakamura (a backup safety last year for the Ravens). This on top of the fact that Tampa gave up less passing yards and their opponents had a worse passer rating against them. So the better unit from last year got stronger, yet Carolina has the edge? Makes total sense.
Atlanta RBs over Kansas City's- The Chiefs get the return of Jamaal Charles and the addition of Peyton Hillis. The Falcons have a year-older Michael Turner. Last year, Kansas City (led by Thomas Jones and Jackie Battle) had more total rushing yards than Atlanta. Are they really going to be worse with Charles and Hillis? Granted, there's some uncertainty about how they'll both bounce back from last year's injuries, but there's still too much upside. This at least should've been ranked an "even".
Minnesota RBs over Jacksonville's- Gerhart and Jennings are probably pretty close to each other. I think the disparity should come from the fact that MJD only sat out camp, while Peterson is recovering from a serious knee injury. Even though it's mainly a battle of backups, I think MJD is likely to be more effective than Peterson (if Peterson even plays at all). Therefore, the scales should be tipped in Jacksonville's favor.
Again, I'm no expert, but these all seemed like weird choices.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)