<$BlogRSDUrl$>

Thursday, December 25, 2003

We're #1?

I noticed in a column today a mention that Buffalo is vying for the top overall defense with Dallas. Fishing around, I also noticed that Minnesota has the top ranked offense. Wha? There is not a single player on the Buffalo defense I would want over the corresponding Patriot, and the humiliation due the Bills on Saturday will underline my point nicely. So why are they nearly the "top ranked defense?" Because these statistics-based titles rely on yards, not points. And definitely not wins.

Does anyone really think yards are more important, or a better indicator of success, than points? I suppose there are some arguments, like if your offense keeps turning the ball over deep in your end, it's not your defense's fault if they hold them to a three and out but give up the field goal. Whatever. But in Patriotville we know that the bend-don't-break defense can win a super bowl... not because there is some benefit to having your defense on the field a lot, but because points are what count in the end, and if you're preventing points, you are making plays. And making plays is what puts wins on the table.

This is pretty unscientific, but I added each team's rank in overall offense and defense to forma combined total ranking. If a team has the #4 defense and #17 offense, they got 21 points; rankings ranged from a best possible score of 2 to a worst of 64. And I did this once for a system ranking teams based on yards, and another based on points. [I am not crazy; this only took about 15 minutes.] The question is, which ranking system, the one based on points or yards, more closely resembled teams' won-loss records?

The yardage ranking: 1. Denver; 2. Tampa; 3. Indy (tie) San Fran; 5. Dallas; 6. Jax; 7. Green Bay; 8. Tenn (tie) St Louis; 10. Carolina (tie) Minn (tie) New England; 13. Baltimore; 14. Seattle (tie) New Orleans...

The points ranking: 1. St. Louis; 2. Denver; 3. Baltimore; 4. New England (tie) Green Bay; 6. Tampa; 7. Miami (tie) Philly; 9. Seattle (tie) Tennessee; 11. Indy; 12. KC; 13. Dallas; 14. San Fran (tie) Carolina.

So which is better? The yardage rankings include three loser teams in the top 15, including Tampa at a stunning #2; while the points ranking includes only two: tampa at #6 and San Fran at 14(tie). Also, the yardage ranking leaves off Kansas City, Philly, Cincy and a still-breathing Miami from the top 15; whereas the points ranking excludes only marginal winners Minnesota (9-6) and Cincy (8-7) from the first division. The winner and still champion: points. Any system that ranks a mediocre team like Tampa second while leaving off two teams with first-round byes is a joke.

N.B.: No matter how you slice it, Denver looks damn good on paper. They also looked good in the Hoosierdome last week too. Can you say sleeper?

Sunday, December 21, 2003

Waiting for Alex

Not that I haven't been busy, but in any event it's been hard to blog about the Sox for the last week. The Trade will spawn a dozen interesting topics to get through the cold winter... if and when it ever happens. I guess the best thing to do is sit back and watch the Patriots, whom Peter Gammons recently called the best-run organization in any sport. See my post below. I agree with him; I just can't believe we're talking about the Patriots.

Still, I can't help but take a moment and write about my uninformed sense that Tom Hicks is a complete ass. He thinks he can play the Sox for extra money by leaking moment-by-moment details of the trade negotiations to the press. He can act like he's being taken to the cleaners for a deal that's going to save him $100 million. The Red Sox may yet accommodate him, but only because it's good for the Townies, and because they don't reject good deals simply out of spite.

So here's a few points about what a great owner Tom Hicks is. His team is trying to accommodate an unhappy A-Rod and also get out from under a mammoth contract that doesn't pay off. Hicks brought in A-Rod to be the franchise savior, and has since complained that they don't have the maneuverability to land a decent pitching staff. This reminds me of a popular story about Hummer owners, that in surveys their chief complaint is the poor gas mileage. Ya think?? Anyway, the basic point is that Tom Hicks doesn't know a damn thing about baseball. And even if he did, nobody in Dallas would care, once the Cowboys' spring practices began.

First, the franchise model he's working off was debunked at least twenty years ago. A-Rod is a shortstop in whom the team has invested at least a quarter of its budget. Contrasted to the Sox (post-Duquette) and Yanks, who at least try to build around pitching, and whose approach to offense is more in the way of having a deep, balanced attack. Hell, compare Texas to the recent World Champs, what image comes to mind when you think of the Marlins (Beckett), Angels (bullpen), D-Backs (Schilling & Johnson), Yankees (entire rotation)? Texas has A-Rod, a few comic-book character types in the order around him (Palmeiro, Juan-Gone) guys whose baseball value is limited to fantasy leagues, and ace starters like Rick Helling or Chan Ho Park. Has any team so constituted ever won anything? Even the '82 Brewers had Pete Vuckovich, Mike Caldwell and a mid-season Don Sutton rental.

Moreover, Hicks' A-Rod-as-savior notion is bible belt fantasy. Build him up to be all things to all people, and they may not remember that he's one of nine batters or fielders, and he can't perform the most important function with a baseball: pitching it. Or maybe it's more Hollywood B-list road movie vehicle, like those Cannonball Run movies. Juan Gone, Ugie Urbina, Chan Park, Palmeiro, Jeff Zimmerman... don't they kind of remind you of Roger Moore, Dom DeLouise, Adrienne Barbeau, Farrah Fawcett, and Jamie Farr? To an idiot like Hicks, a list of recognizable names may appear to have substance. Given that this franchise was once run by a politician, I guess we shouldn't expect people there to understand the concept of "substance."

Hicks is some guy who got rich through luck or fleecing innocent people, and now has convinced himself he's a baseball savant. He seems like the kind of guy who can conveniently forget that his team has averaged 71 wins a year since 2000. And his own boorish behavior is the only thing holding up the A-Rod deal which will save him bundles of cash and give his baseball people at least a slim chance of building a team that can win three games a week or so.

Saturday, December 20, 2003

Pats Fans No Longer Yearning to Breathe Free

There's a plausible argument to make that Bill Belichick is the most valuable commodity in the NFL, and that his impact on Boston sports will rank up there with only Bird, Russell, Auerbach and the remaining Celtic dynasty makers. And it goes something like this: Belichick has divined an innovative system for managing an entire organization geared toward maintaining success in an arena where nobody stays at the top for long. This system could spurn one hell of a winning streak for an organization that only knew ridicule before Belichick arrived.

Super Bowl winners come and go as interchangeably as Arizona Cardinals coaches. In fact, few teams seem to be hanging around the upper echelons of the NFL for very long. A year ago, Pittsburgh, Tampa, Oakland, Green Bay, San Fran and the G-Men were among the nine teams reaching double digits in wins; two years ago, Pittsburgh and Chicago won 13 games, and San Fran 12; in 2001, the behemoths of the NFC were the Giants and Vikings. On the flip side, top 2003 teams like the Pats and Chiefs won nine and eight games, the Seahawks and Panthers seven; etc. More than other major sports, it seems the balance of power is extemely fluid in the NFL. Only Philly, Indy and Tennessee seem to be hanging around every January -- and their collective nine playoff appearances in three years has yielded one lousy super bowl appearance.

Meanwhile, in baseball the Yankees have won four World Series since 1996 and made two other appearances; the Braves have won the NL East every year since the Truman Administration, and the Red Sox, A's and Mariners have divvied up the remaining AL slots almost every year since the Wild Card was introduced. In hockey, the Red Wings, Devils and Avs seem to be slinging dead octopus at each other every spring/summer. And the NBA title is the exclusive property of dynasties, which is why about two percent of America pays any attention.

In my mind, the best explanation for this is that in the NFL teams rely on 50 guys performing to win, rather than 20 (hockey), 15 (baseball) or two (NBA). I don't agree that salary caps or free agency is responsible for parity; salary caps affect basketball (and hockey?); and even if player movement in the NFL is up from the '70s, free agency is more meaningful in every other sport besides football. You don't see the Expos making Vlad Guerrero their "franchise player." Nor can one cite injuries in football; attrition is an issue for every team, not just the losers.

Thus, the challenge for a team to stay on top is to assemble a good group of people every year, and motivate them to play as a team. My premise is that "quality people" means all 53 or so guys, because if you load up too much in one area and skip another, most coaches know how to find your weakness and exploit it. Have you invested 60 percent of your defense dollars on linemen? Be ready for lots of 4-receiver sets and pass interference calls. Got no passing game? You better be able to block all nine men in the box every week. In order to field a complete team you can play games with the cap and put recognized talent all over the field for a year or two, and then blow up your roster for five years til the dead money comes off. Or you can put a sustainable collection of good-not-great players everywhere and try to get the best from them. I call this the Statue of Liberty approach: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free..." There are at least 20 NFL coaches who could bring a star-laden team to the playoffs, and then get fired in three years when the cap and roster explode. There are very few who could take the Statue of Liberty team -- a stable but uninspiring collection of talent -- to the mountaintop. We know for certain Belichick is one, because he's already done it.

How has the Statue of Liberty approach been transformed into success under Belichick? By both its design and execution. Regarding design, the key is roster flexibility: don't tie up too much in one player, so you can constantly plug your needs. Rather than making cap decisions based on the player in front of you, Belichick appears to have made his cap decisions first, then gone after players who fit the mold. Oh, he has an occasional stud here and there to put pressure on the opponents, but largely gone is the Carroll/Grier top-heavy salary system that had paid outrageous sums to Ted Johnson, Milloy, McGinest, Bledsoe, Glenn, Armstrong, Slade, Coates and a couple others. McGinest and Johnson stayed by taking cuts; only Ty Law's salary remains from the old regime, and that's due to come down this spring. The Pats will always carry a few big numbers (Brady, Colvin {sigh}, Law) and be close to the limit, but not so many that roster decisions become imprisoned by the cap.

Putting the cap before the players requires a certain ruthlessness, but if anyone wasn't buying this system before, look no further than the Milloy affair which cost them one game, saved millions of dollars, and resulted in better play at strong safety. Another part of the ploy is drafting, where Belichick has had decent success finding guys who can play. By comparison, I dare you to name one decent player besides Damien Woody who was drafted in the Carroll/Grier era. Moreover, Belichick has constantly stockpiled picks, giving him flexibility on draft day and a regular influx of talent. How? Again, by not going after the high-dollar stud player when he could have two quality guys at the same price. It's called trading down.

Regarding execution, the Statue of Liberty blueprint requires a coach who knows how to use the interchangeable parts to maximum effect. One advantage of the Foxboro Regime is that the guy implementing the plan is the same one who designed it. For all his alleged faults as a communicator, it's safe to say that at least he knows what he's trying to say. And he can do what few other coaches can, taking this middlin roster of moving parts and molding them into a machine. Everyone looking at this space needs no explanation of his prowess as a game planner, and the effect that has on every single game. But the key to his complex schemes is that he has handpicked guys who are versatile and smart, even if not cut from the all-American hero mold.

Add it all up and what you've got is a team that is flexibly designed, has no pronounced flaws, functions well as a team and is efectively plugged into a brilliant game scheme each week. The practice of avoiding stars and focusing on solid guys and solid players results in a team that buys into the system. And now the Patriots are 13-2... but more importantly, this type of system can do what the star-studded teams cannot: sustain itself indefinitely. The team can produce the same quality of play from year to year, and presumably will have the same sideline advantage until someone cracks the Belichick code.

The league knows that the Patriots are on to something. Guys like Harrison and Colvin are examples of how good football players around the league are starting to see Belichick as a guy you want to play for. Result? I'm not saying they're going to win ten super bowls, but I can't think of any reason the Patriots won't be among the challengers year after year. Who relishes the prospect of having to win a big game in Foxboro in January? Who else can mold a team from this level of talent? Who else has the sideline advantage on game day?

There are other moving parts on which the Franchise relies. Kraft has stabilized the organization, created clear channels of authority, and seems willing to spend whatever is necessary to win -- hell, the cap limits it anyway. He's not going anywhere. But Romeo Crennel and Charlie Weis do a lot of heavy lifting and will eventually get H.C. offers. If the Patriots become the class of the NFL, teams will emulate them and try to buy off pieces of the team. Maintaining success becomes harder every year. There will be temporary challengers built in the old star system who will be solid, popular favorites even as dark clouds gather over their horizon. Success will dampen motivation from time to time (like, all last year). Like I said, they may not win ten super bowls, but it promises to be an era of sustained excellence nearly unprecedented in Boston sports history.

Tuesday, December 16, 2003

Beached again

Short posts until we get a handle on this baby thing, but... why do the Dolphins choke every single November/December? There is one interesting theory/excuse: that they practice in whithering heat through sometime in October, and tend to run down as the season wears on. This could be true of the defensive and offensive lines and backs... but even Jay Fiedler can't blame fatigue for overthrowing receivers in crunch time. I know, this is like the sound of one hand clapping... but what thoughts do y'all have?

Friday, December 12, 2003

FYI...

It's a boy! 10 pounds, 4 ounces. More of a catcher's body type...

Tuesday, December 09, 2003

NFL Power Rankings (BCS Style)

Blood is flowing in the streets yet again over a supposedly bogus BCS Poll which, described below, attempts to use fair and balanced mathematical formulae to sort out who is the best team in the land. As you know, unlike the NFL which uses a playoff system to settle its hash, and all is right in the world, Amen, colleges still cling to the antiquated notion that its football players are students who don't have time for a seventh month of football on their academic calendar. So instead of settling the issue in hand-to-hand combat, they rely on the BCS, which I think remains a pretty decent attempt to settle this score amicably. However stupid a goal that may be.

In the meantime,in a vaguely parallel universe NFL fans, safe and secure in the knowledge that all matters will be handled in a manly fashion, happily chatter amongst themselves debating who is really the best team. In a related development, each week ESPN posts its Power Rankings which essentially give us a writers' poll of the best teams in the NFL. Each week they include some snarky note about how they are sick of being bombarded by email from Patriots fans, and this week waive the white flag at both us and our squad. Fair enough. But the main purpose of the power rankings is to go beyond records and say who's top dawg. Well, this is essentially asking the question that the BCS is designed to answer: among teams who may or may not have played each other, many of which have the same record, how do you rank them? So I have taken the liberty of applying a makeshift formula based on the BCS to provide you with the following results:

---team----------ESPN/Loss/Schd/QW---- TOTAL
1) New England 1 + 2 + 3 - 3.8 = 2.2
2) Kansas City 2 + 2 + 10.6 - 1.0 = 13.6
3) Baltimore 7 + 5 + 3 - 1.0 = 14
4) Philadelphia 3 + 3 + 10.6 - 1.0 = 15.6
5) Indianapolis 4 + 3 + 10.6 - 1.6 = 16
6) Denver 8 + 5 + 7 - 1.2 = 18.8
7) St. Louis 5 + 3 + 12.6 - 1.0 = 19.6
8) Tennessee 6 + 4 + 10.6 - 0.8 = 19.8
9) Miami 9 + 5 + 7 - 0.8 = 20.2
10) Minnesota 11 + 5 + 10.6 - 1.0 = 25.6
11) Green Bay 14 + 6 + 7 - 0.8 = 26.2
12) Carolina 10 + 5 + 12.6 - 0.8 = 26.8
12) Seattle 12 + 5 + 10.6 - 0.8 = 26.8
14) Cincinnati 13 + 6 + 10.6 - 1.8 = 27.8
15) Buffalo 19 + 7 + 3 - 1.2 = 27.8

The rest, in order: San Fran, Dallas, Tampa, New Orleans/Pittsburgh (tied), Jax, Houston, J-E-T-S, Washington, Chicago, Atlanta, Giants, Cleveland (hello!), Detroit, San Diego, Oakland, and Arizona.

The methodology: The BCS adds up the team's standing in the polls, plus computer polls, plus schedule strength (actual rank multiplied by 0.4), losses, and subtracts quality wins worth (minus) 0.1 to 1.0 each. I mimicked this as best I could. I added the ESPN power poll rank, skipped computer polls (there aren't any), schedule strength (rank x 0.4), losses, and subtracted quality wins. So, for example, the Dolphins were ranked ninth by ESPN, have five losses, got 7 points on schedule strength, and had 0.8 subtracted for quality wins, totalling 20.2 ranking points.

Admittedly, schedule strength is the weak point of my methodology: I ranked schedules by the number of games against teams currently possessing a winning record -- be it 7-6 or 11-2 -- rather than figuring out the precise winning percentage of all opponents. I couldn't find opponents' win% in blogosphere, don't employ any interns, and barely had the patience for the tedious task of tallying it the way I did. You're welcome. Anyway, the quality win deductions tend to counterbalance this weakness -- I assigned scores of 0.2 to 1.0 for wins against teams with 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 wins, i.e. beating the 11-2 Pats is worth a 1.0 deduction, whereas beating the 7-6 Bengals will only knock off 0.2.

Observations:

* The obvious one is how far ahead of everyone the Patriots are. Now, this poll measures what a team has accomplished thus far, not necessarily where they are headed or how strong they are. But the Patriots have played seven games against winning teams, and won them all. The Patriots are also the only team in the top 6 of ESPN's poll with a remotely difficult schedule; only Pittsburgh and San Diego have played more winning teams and therefore get a nod in schedule strength (though all of the Pats' winning opponents have at least 8 wins). The seven quality wins is more than double the runners-up: seven teams have three quality wins; the Bengals' QW deduction was second to New England's 3.8, at 1.8. Second to the Pats' 7-for-7 in efficiency in tough games are the Rams at 3-for-4, and five teams at 3-for-5. (Miami: 2-for-6. Have a nice vacation.) Bottom line: if you don't believe they have great talent, then you have to admit they have soul.

* Some movers compared to ESPN: Baltimore jumps from 7 to 3, with a tough schedule; Denver from 8 to 6 due to schedule and a win over KC; Buffalo from 19 to 14 (schedule; allegedly beat New England); and Pittsburgh from 23 to 19, with the league's toughest schedule. The Rams, Panthers and Titans drop two places each, the former two for playing the softest schedule in the league. Much as I've gone off on the Chiefs' soft slate, they are actually in an 8-way tie (with Philly, Indy Tennessee, etc.) for third-easiest.

* Interestingly, the NFL is much more of a zero-sum affair, so the crap teams tend to have stronger schedules while the good teams have weaker ones. For one simple reason: nobody gets to play themselves.

So, what do you think of this system?

Monday, December 08, 2003

From Wedding Bells to Alarm Bells

Interesting story in today's Globe about Nomar's honeymoon being marred by finding out that the Sox were talking to Texas about A-Rod. Everybody likes a peaceful honeymoon, but Nomar shouldn't take this one so personally. This isn't about him, it's about Manny and A-Rod. The recent attempt to waive Manny was a clear signal that the Sox brass will do anything to get out from under this contract, which was a shackle even when Manny was hitting and behaving well. The only possible way to do this is by trading his burdensome salary for someone else's horrible contract. And the only other contract worse than Manny's but containing a player the Sox would swallow is A-Rod's. It is not clear to me that the Sox have decided Nomar must go, and it's possible they have no intention of trading him even if A-Rod comes along. They may actually mean to ask one of the two shortstops to consider another position. Just a hunch.

By the way, did anyone notice in the ESPN story about the Rangers setting a Dec. 16 deadline for dealing A-Rod that Texas GM John Hart used the word "resolvement"?
Pats Best in Snow

OK, I stole that headline from the Post. But yesterday was a great day for the readers, or at least the writer, of this blog, in the sports viewing sense (translation: no baby yet). Thanks to the Patriots, or at least their defense. So this is more or less an open thread for pro-Pats blogging. But I'll add a few points.

* I was wrong when I said below that the Patriots play the Jets next week; it's in two weeks, which makes it much less of a trap game. They have a week to recover and take care of business at home against a fairly average Jacksonville squad, a team that spends even less time in the cold and snow than the Dolphins. Jax has beaten Tampa and Indy at home, and played tough, close road games against the Jets and Titans. So, since their 1-7 start they have improved. But victory will be a more business-like manner for the Patriots, rather than the emotional affair the divisional games can be.

* KC probably won't lose again. As discussed below, their schedule is pathetic. So, the Pats need to win out to grab the top seed, in all likelihood. The downsides of being #2 are that a game with #1 is on the road, and you play the second-worst team in your first game rather than the worst. The former point should not scare anyone; after yesterday it should be clear that KC is a mirage, and the Patriots can beat them in any venue. But the latter point may be the difference between playing Indy or Baltimore first.

UPDATE: Kansas City is ranked 27th in the NFL against the run. Look at their schedule and contemplate that fact. This team will not win a playoff game, I don't care who it's against. The worst team in the AFC playoffs -- Tennessee, Miami or Denver -- will run it down their throats.

* Watch out for: Baltimore. Great champions tend to leave a trail of blowouts in their wake in December and January, as the Ravens did in their Super Bowl year. Last two games? 44-6 over the Niners, 31-13 over the Bengals. And their calling card is defense, which doesn't fold on the road. Not saying they are primed, but keep your eye on them. Also (or on the other hand?) they are the only AFC playoff team the Pats have not already beaten. Despite their games being on TV in my home every Sunday, I can't say I know much about them.

Thoughts? Gloats?
BCS + Jeff Sagarin = Confusion

Unless you live in a media free zone, like Luray Caverns, you've heard someone or ones screaming about the BCS by now. So, you don't need this space to help you with the basic facts: some mysterious set of computers has hijacked the college football National Championship. Again.

'Twas ever thus. I, for one, see no particular problem with the outcome, for several reasons. Which I will outline below. But, let me just say that the disconnect between the BCS and its intended audience is perfectly predictable. Yes, the subjects of the poll are institutions of higher learning, and the use of computers is a natural match for the college presidents who apparently voted it in. But the audience is the average American football fan, or more precisely, the average football fan from places other than the Northeast, Steel Country, and Great Lakes, where the NFL is the preferred opiate. They not only don't have much patience for complex formulas, particularly when the formula fails to tell them what they want to hear, they also don't see how they are responsible for the mess that is college football.

Now, blaming fans for the game is like blaming voters for the politicians we have, in that 1) it's woefully unpopular to do; and 2) it's completely accurate. My basic point is, the formula was invented because the old system was too subjective, and for every fan who liked the outcome there was another who didn't, simply due to their own loyalties. [I also blame the fans for the appearance of the "conference championship" game, a meaningless post-season obligation to settle a point that for 100 years was settled in a perfectly reasonable matter: by playing each other during the season and seeing who had the best record, with tiebreakers determined on head-to-head results. So 9-3 K.State plays 12-0 Oklahoma, because we couldn't already tell who won the conference. Or, more accurately, because fans want one more game to watch, to spare them from The Hours. Thusly does college football place entertainment value over any rational meritorious system.]

So now the Men of Troy are out (somehow, this is not gay code). But why all the griping?

* The coaches and writers voted USC #1 because they lost to Cal (7-6) on September 27, while Oklahoma lost at the end of its season (unless you consider the regular season to be its season). That, and that alone, is why this argument is going on. But I thought one of the main purposes of the BCS was to eliminate the bias against losing in later months, because a loss is a loss!? Well, that is exactly what the BCS system does, except to the extent that it factors in the coaches and writers polls. So, USC would be even further behind LSU but for this absurd bias in its favor.

* LSU and Oklahoma overcame this bias in the BCS system by playing tougher schedules, and schedule strength is the bottom line (after losses) in the BCS system. Now, it's not USC's fault that its schedule was a bit of a cupcake. Yeah, they didn't need to play Hawaii and BYU, but everyone has a couple of breathers. And Notre Dame is one of those TV games they can't -- of $houldn't -- avoid. Plus they won at Auburn. That Auburn, Notre Dame, and the usually strong Pac-10 turned out to be mediocre across the board isn't their fault. But, hey, when three teams have the same record, we gotta separate them somehow, right? Schedule strength and the computer average (which I believe mimics the BCS formula, equalizing all losses regardless of when and accounting for schedule strength) separated LSU and Okie from USC. They played tougher schedules. End o' story.

* Lastly, three teams have the same record. Two of them will play each other. Does it matter which one gets left out? Is there any system for choosing who loses that won't cause vicious arguments? Yep, a playoff system, something that has been discussed more than who shot JFK, and which I will discuss no further. For now, when three teams enter the bowls with the same best record, you must either hope the bowls decide (dare we say, Michigan 31, USC 17?), or accept a disputed title. 'Twas ever thus.

Friday, December 05, 2003

Open Thread: Patriots

The only prediction I've heard for Sunday that matters is about 20 degrees at game time. What else??
The New Pedro?

The last time a young, tough, hard-throwing, up-and-coming pitcher from the Caribbean was dealt away from the Expos was... well, you remember. So, is Javier Vazquez the next Pedro?

Check the numbers from Pedro's 6th major league season, his last with the 'Spos, versus Vazquez in his sixth season, 2003.

Martinez: 241 IP, 158 H, 16 HR, 67 BB, 305 Ks, 17-8 W-L, 1.90 ERA, 13 compl gms, 4 shutouts
Vazquez: 230 IP, 198 H, 28 HR, 57 BB, 241 Ks, 13-12 W-L, 3.24 ERA, 4 CG, 1 SHO

The numbers, as always, show that there is only one Pedro (and he might be in better shape if he hadn't thrown thirteen complete games in 1997. But, judged on his own merits, Vazquez is a reliable workhorse whose hits and ERA were way down, and strikeouts well up, last year. He's our problem now.

Thursday, December 04, 2003

Peak Performances?!?

The 2003 Red Sox hitters reached heights of offensiveness previously reserved for their bullpen, front office demeanor, and general late-season antics. Yep, this is a new era in Boston, from the top down. The bullpen has been repaired, the post-season antics were more often courageous than outrageous (though it was close), and "Theo" has surpassed "Duke" among the most popular boys' names on the Social Security Administration's Popular Baby Names website.

But the real story of 2003 was the hitting. Armed with outrageous factoids like the hitters in the #9 hole had 24 homers, 93 RBIs and a .910 OPS -- better than the cleanup hitters in LA, Baltimore, and Tampa -- friend and foe alike are wondering: where am I going with this? And, Can the Sox do it again? The implication (and sometimes blunt statement) directed at this team has been that the Sox got some nice career years out of a lot of people, so while they were setting new team batting highs beyond the '27 Yankees, fans in the Nation shouldn't get used to it. 2003 was, in effect, a fluke.

Hogwash. Let's go down the lineup.

Johnny Damon: Subpar year. As the leadoff hitter, his most important stat is on-base percentage, which at .345 was right around his career average (.347). In fact, his 2003 numbers across the board look a lot like his career average, or a reduced-fat version thereof: .273 (18 points lower than avg), 12 HR (-1), 67 RBIs (-1), 68 BB (+8), 73 Ks (-1), 30 steals (-1), .750 OPS (-.22). The lingering perception is, he was signed for his peak value, which includes 46 steals, a .290 average, and .380 on-base average. At 30 years old, he should be at his peak, and be an elite center fielder. Ah, the curse of expectations. Still, he contributes, sacrifices his body a lot, and can be forgiven for minor statistical slippage. He hits lefties and righties equally, so he's good to go every day. He should be counted on to play at about his 2003 level, and it's not his fault Duquette threw all that money at him.

Todd Walker: No longer officially a member of the team, though getting him back will be the subject of a future blog. He also had a slightly subpar year, posting a batting average (.283), on-base average (.333) and OPS (.761) below his career averages, and well off his peak on-base of .372. Throw in a glove that was a geologist's envy, and you can see why the Sox are taking their time re-signing him. But he set career highs in RBIs, and more importantly he cut his strikeouts by 30 percent or so -- two related factors. Walker apparently concentrated on making good contact, not a bad idea when you've got men on in front of you all the time. He set career highs in sacrifice flies and double plays (caused, not turned). And knocked in 85 runs. Not too shabby, but as a #2 hitter, where you're expected to get on and occasionally go deep, his OPS is more telling, and those numers were off a tick. If he continues to be the selective hitter he was last year, he can do as well or better in '04, if he's in Boston.

Nomah: Up in steals and homers, but otherwise a down year. I beat this one to death last week (scroll down). Bottom line is, most guys would kill for his down years, but most guys weren't putting up OPSs over 1.000 a couple years earlier either.

Manny: Typical year. This guy is a freakin metronome. His statistics are as reliable as the rotation of the planets. In the last five years his OPS has ranged from 1.097 to 1.154, a five percent variation, e.g., a couple intentional walks here and there. People who cause off-field problems and put up a .620 OPS are called "cancers," or "Mike Lansing". Once the OPS rises above 1.000, they're usually called "colorful," or "Ted Williams." Manny's homers and RBIs are slightly off his averages, but that's because teams used to pitch to him, whereas in Boston he's the guy you don't allow to beat you. His high with the Indians in intentional walks was 9; in three years with the Sox those numbers went to 25-14-28 (AL leader). Only Bonds got more free passes (uh, 61 -- not a typo). In other words, he's the same player he's always been, with slightly fewer good pitches to hit. Remarkably, he hasn't responded by going fishin'; he's cut his strikeouts by thirty percent from his career average.

Kevin Millar: No better than average year. His average, on-base and OPS were down, strikeouts and double plays up. He set career higs in homers and RBIs -- by plunking himself out of Japan and into the most prolific lineup in baseball. And setting a career high in at-bats, by 100. Now that he's settled into the AL, why wouldn't he continue at this rate, or improve a bit?

[Interestingly, there is no meaningful difference in his performance versus lefties and righties. So why did he manage no more than 450 ABs in Florida? Perhaps by doing his Todd Walker impression in the field. Hey, welcome to the American Leage Kevin!]

David Ortiz: Career year... sorta. Poppa set highs in homers, RBIs and OPS -- an MVP-esque .960, .120 better than his previous best. Still, those who would call this a fluke should consider... he's had outrageous lefty/righty splits for a few years, hitting righties like Lou Gehrig (1.048 OPS) and lefties like Lou Merloni (.674). In previous seasons the Twins left him in to hit against lefties a bit more, almost a third of his at-bats; while the Sox limited him to facing righties in three-fourths of his appearances. In other words, they left Poppa in to do what he does best -- destroy righties -- and he did it. At age 28, why can't he continue making righties miserable for years to come?

Bill Mueller: Career year. This one is a slam-dunk. Mueller obliterated his career averages in every meaningful statistic. He won a batting title at .326 (+33 points), 19 homers (+8), 85 RBIs (+22), .938 OPS (+.140). He was always a good on-base guy, but at 32 his power surge is a surprise. Can he do it again? Uh, sure.... Hitting in the 2, 7 or 8 hole, he probably will continue seeing plenty of pitches. But this is one performance I wouldn't quite expect to see repeated next year.

Trot Nixon: Career year... sorta. Serious career highs where it matters -- .306 average (+30 points), .974 OPS (+.120). Homers and RBIs on target, due to at bats reduced by injury and increased platooning. Nixon's splits are almost identical to Ortiz's: 1.058 OPS against righties, .678 against lefties. Three of his 28 homers were against southpaws. And you wonder why 80 percent of his at-bats were against righties. But at 29, he is peaking, so his increases are not an illogical progression by any means. His career has been slowly trending upwards since 1999.

Varitek: Career year... sorta. His power numbers were coming on before his elbow cracked on the on-deck circle in 2001, so the fact that they reached their apex as his health and maturity peaked is no shock. His slugging (.512, 21st in the AL) was up .120 over the previous season, but his average and on-base percentage were about on target. He broke out, to some degree, but he's also only 31, around the age where catchers often hit their stride. More than the other players who broke out this year, I would expect Varitek to pick right back up where he left off.

Conclusions: Assuming similar circumstances (i.e. level of competition) and that the Sox stay healthy next season, the same lineup can be expected to keep bashing away at about the same rate. Only Mueller's performance could be considered out of character. There are two primary factors at work in the Sox' great rise in scoring: having a sum that's greater than the whole, and using people no more or less than the way they should be used. The former point is a good illustration of the Bill James/ Billy Beane/ Moneyball philosophy -- if people make fewer outs, they tend to score more runs. The Sox have guys at every position who get on base with average-to-exceptional proficiency. And this is more than statistical probability: it means opposing pitchers have to hold runners, work out of the stretch, run up pitch counts, and generally be placed under more pressure throughout a game with the Sox than any other team. That they subsequently threw twice as many gopherballs to Bill Mueller than in previous years is no accident.

The latter point is equally significant. Nixon and Ortiz are one-sided hitters, and that would be a liability if they were righthanded. But I would estimate that nearly three-fourths of the pitches thrown in the AL last year were by righties. A rough sample, using Vernon Wells, Ichiro, A-Rod and Soriano, four AL leaders in appearances, shows that these guys cumulatively faced 74% righties, 26% lefties. So guys like Nixon and Ortiz can be used to post Bonds-esque numbers in 120 games, and either do their best or give the bench some playing time every fourth day. By assembling a roster with some moving parts and a couple key bench guys, the Sox have the flexibility to play to their strengths, every day, every at-bat. This was the master plan, and it worked brilliantly last year, even with a manager who didn't really buy it.

Wednesday, December 03, 2003

Breaking News: Heras to Leave Postal

Yep, we'll track a bit of cycling here from time to time. Heras wants out. Makes sense, I suppose. Thoughts?

Tuesday, December 02, 2003

The Shoe Drops, At Last

The Patriots cut Ken Walter. Despite the persuasive power of my week-old blog, I have no reason to believe I am responsible for this decision. Rather, I like to believe this is a positive sign, not so much that Walter failed but that his replacement simply proved him or herself worthy of a chance. That no replacement has been named should not be taken as a bad sign. Hell, maybe it's a contract ploy. Was Walter's $8 million signing bonus going to count against next year's cap unless he was cut by week 14?

Anyway, on the plus side, the player to be named later can surely do better than 18 yards indoors. The gamble is that this person can also handle placement for Vinatieri... unless Belichick has had someone already on the roster (backup QB?) doing it in practice and ready to take over. With a month to go, they can survive this change if the people involved are competent.

So...? Does this make Sunday a lock?
NFL Playoff Math

There is a natural order to the universe which balances out various factors to create harmony. One proof of this is that women in the late stages of pregnancy tend not to sleep so well... preparing them (and by extension their partners) for what everyone says is the hardest part of parenthood. Myriad other examples can be seen in the natural world, where one species eats another species which tends to impact the trees which give us air to breathe, yadda yadda yadda. And there's the National Football League -- a sport that caters to a, um, unique sector of the American public by using a merit system that anyone who can count to 16 will find user-friendly. So simple, it's poetic.

From my view here in the Washington, D.C. Sattelite office of Patriot Nation, I will now use numbers ranging from 0-16 to predict the outcome of the NFL regular season. For my regular readers, following along is a snap. For charter members of the Cleveland Browns' Dog Pound and subscribers to Pro Football Weekly, pay close attention.

After Week 13 all NFL teams have now played 12 games. [Have I lost anyone yet? No? Let's keep going.] From reading the national commentary ranging from Salon.com's King Kaufman (subscription required) to the bobbleheads at ESPN, I have determined that the balance of power resides in the AFC, and virtually no NFC team has a prayer of succeeding, except that the Super Bowl is required to pick one team from the NFC, guaranteeing them at least an any-given-Sunday's chance at glory. Even still, nobody cares, at least not in New England, so let's move on to the AFC.

The Chiefs lead the AFC at 11-1, followed by the Pats at 10-2, Indy and Tennessee at 9-3, the Dolphins at 8-4, and an AFC North team to be named later at 7-5. That's the playoff picture for now, unless the Dolphins tumble and open up a wild card to one from among the barbarian hordes lingering in the 6-7 win range. Let's go team-by-team.

Chiefs: There is virtually nothing that can prevent the Chiefs from securing one of the first round byes. First, given the normal AFC infighting, 11 wins is usually enough, with a few tiebreakers, for one of the spots. Secondly, check out the Chiefs' schedule. Not only is there nobody remaining who should cause them to break a sweat... there never was before either. Their divisional opponents range from miserable (Denver) to horrible (San Diego, Oakland), and their non-divisional schedule focused on the two worst overall divisions in football, the AFC North and the NFC North. Other than sweating out a solid win in Green Bay, they have fattened themselves on more creampuffs than Dom DeLouise.

But there is no BCS computer to factor in strength of schedule in the NFL; that's for pointy-headed college types. No, here the line says KC played 12 games, and won 11. End of story. This raises interesting questions such as, what will they do when they have to play a real AFC powerhouse? But that's what playoffs are for.

[Speaking of playoffs, is it a coincidence that the NFL settles its hash in the postseason by making teams play each other and giving the spoils to the team who scores more points, rather than the pointy-headed college bowl system?]

Our Brave Patriots: Ten wins, including eight in a row. 6-0 against teams with winning records. Headed down the home stretch. In effect, it all comes down to this Sunday against Miami. Win and they clinch the division, and probably a bye. They already lead Indy and Tenn by effectively two games, having won head to head with both and therefore possessing all mano-a-mano tiebreakers (but beware the three-way ties). Since those two play each other Sunday, we know one will hold and another will fall off by one more game. Trust me, this isn't as complicated as it sounds. Anyway, after Miami the Pats play at the Jets (major trap game) and home against Jax and Buffalo. Win against Miami and they need to win no more than two of three very winnable games to sail into a January bye week.

Lose to Miami, and they have a dogfight on their hands. After all they've accomplished, this would be a bit of a shame. But then again, Patriots fans and players alike should recognize that this Sunday is the game everyone circled on the calendar last spring. Regardless of the circumstances, losing at home to Miami in winter was NEVER an option. Good teams think this way, and the Patriots are supposed to be a good team. So, like I said, it all comes down to this Sunday.

Indy: It all comes down to this coming weekend for the Colts too. They thrashed Tennessee at home in week 2, so winning in Nashville means they hold a lead and all tiebreakers. Plus their subsequent schedule includes three modest workouts at home with Atlanta and Denver, and at Houston. However awful last Sunday's loss to New England may have been, if they can shake it off they can cruise home to the #3 seed, and at least have the pleasure of thrashing the lowest wildcard team around the Hoosierdome carpet. Lose in Nashville, as they almost surely will, and they need help getting a home game, most likely settling for a wildcard and a road date in the AFC North. In other words, they should be fine.

Titans: The owners of the league's most bewildering name are in a win-or-pack-your-bags scenario, as described above. But even a win doesn't take the pressure off, since the tiebreakers would be, uh, tied. Instead, the Titans would have to defend the one-game lead they'd earn over the next three weeks, against the Bills, Texans and defending Super Bowl champion Bucs. [Honest!] One slip and Jeff Fischer could find himself home on the couch watching the Bassmaster Network by mid-January, again.

Dolphins: As discussed above, losing this Sunday means they're looking for a wild card. They enter the week as the wildcard leader, up a game on Denver and the AFC North leaders Cincy and Baltimore -- who, incidentally, also go head-to-head this weekend, leaving one astride the division and the other barely breathing in the wildcard race. Somehow Miami skated past a meeting with Denver even though the divisions were facing each other (and in contrast to the Patriots, who can be forgiven for thinking of the Broncos as a division rival). So, lose Sunday and they have to play out the season, watch the scoreboard and see what transpires.

Win Sunday, and suddenly they are a game behind our boys for the division with the tiebreakers neutralized for now. There would be hope in So. Fla., strange as that seems, but then again, they've won two-thirds of their games thus far, so they can't be dismissed out of hand simply by saying the words "Jay Fielder" or "December." But the Patriots are the first of two games against the NFL's hottest teams, as they line up the following Monday against the Eagles. Then there's a short week to prepare for Buffalo on the road in late December, and a final game at home against a Jets team nobody wants to play. Prediction: wild card.

Comments? Jeff Fischer jokes?
Housekeeping notes

It occurs to me that my bent is evolving into a lot of statistical analysis. That's not to say we can't go off on people, say, for leaving a pitcher in when he's tired, or explore important subjects like, as one reader pointed out, whether Nomar's marriage to Mia means that, by comparison, Jeter is more the "player's player." But it does mean that this site will work better if I provide more hypertext links to statistics.

So, from this point forward, I will generally put links to the statistical summary page for any player or team under discussion. Perhaps you've already noticed the blue text (the links); it might help if I underscore them to be sure. So, when Drew from Liege comments that he thinks the Pats rank high in various team defensive statistical categories, he won't have to guess, he'll just have to click on Patriots to determine for himself.

Any other suggestions?

Monday, December 01, 2003

Whither Jeter?!?

Longtime reader and Bro-In-Law Kenny from Hoboken writes, "Chris, I loved your A-Rod versus Nomar piece, right up to the point where you said Jeter was slipping, at which point I stopped reading. I know it's not easy to be impartial when you've grown up eating Fenway Franks and drinking that special Kool-Aid they give out up there, and believe me, the whole family praises you for your courage in this long struggle. But seriously...in your lucid moments can't you see that Jeter is still the best of the Holy Minion, I mean Trinity? Thanks for taking my question, and be nice to my sister or I'll have to play for real on the basketball court next time."

Kenny raises a troubling question: Does my dismissal of Jeter make me a typical homer who'll swallow any line in which a Yankee is slandered? Should my in-laws bring me a nice humble pie for the freezer next time they visit? Where does the dude with all the rings on his fingers fit into the AL Shortstop Pantheon? TV is dull, and Stacey is napping, so... let's break it down!

First, all of this started about a year ago, after Jeter completed a season in which his numbers were basically down across the board, and the Yankees crashed out in the ALDS for the first time since the wild card was invented. Unaccountable sportswriters* began pitching the story that Jeter was slipping, and to make matters worse, Miguel Tejada had just bagged the MVP, and was pronounced ready to take Jeter's place in the pantheon. Nobody questioned Jeter's leadership; they were too busy questioning his hitting, fielding and baserunning. This year, he became that injury-prone Jeter as well. But this Blog is devoted to Fairness above All Else (except the Red Sox and Patriots), so Jeter deserves a trial by his peers. Namely, us. For convenience's sake, let's keep this within the AL East; I've said enough about A-Rod, and Tejada is ... listen carefully here... not in the same class (career high OPS: 862).

[* Sportswriters often conceal their email and hardly ever allow comment threads after their on-line articles. Reason #256 why blogs are better than mainstream media. There are exceptions; Bob Ryan, for example, writes thoughtful emails in return, as long as your question isn't from Sully from Southie asking "so shouldn't the Pats have kept Bledsoe?"]

2003 Stats
Nomar: .301, 37 dbls, 28 hr, 105 rbi, 19 sb, 61 k, 39 bb, .345 obp + .524 slug = .869 OPS
Jeter: .324, 25 dbls, 10 hr, 52 rbi, 11 sb, 88 k, 43 bb, .393 obp + .450 slug = .843 OPS

Career averages per 162 games
Nomar: .323, 47 dbls, 30 hr, 117 rbi, 14 sb, 68 k, 47 bb, .370 + .555 = .925 OPS
Jeter: .317, 32 dbls, 17 hr, 82 rbi, 24 sb, 117 k, 69 bb, .389 + .462 = .851 OPS

For starters, do the numbers show that Jeter is in decline? His OPS dropped from a career high of .990 in 1999 to .794 in aught-two, rebounding a bit to .843 this past season, mere percentage points off his lifetime average. His production has fallen from a peak of 24 HR and 102 RBI to 2003's paltry numbers -- but in 119 games; calculate them over his norm of about 152 games and they'd be roughly 14 HR, 70 RBIs. Since his breakout in '99, his homers are 15, 21, 18, 10; RBIs are 73, 74, 75, 52. His OPS has fallen from the '99 peak of .990 to .897, .857, .794, .843.

Incidentally, Jeter's circumstances have not changed much over the sample period; the Yankees as a team have scored 871-897 runs a year, except for a dropoff in 2001 (804 runs). The team OPS varied from .804 to .810, except for 2001's .769. Jeter's worst season in 2002 coincided with the team's most productive year since 1999. But... although he's generally hit in the same spot in the order, his RBI opportunities have probably dropped off. Chuck Knoblauch posted on-base averages in the respectable .360-.390 range before he went insane; Soriano's on-base is in the .330s, and he knocks himself in almost 40 times a year. Jeter's run totals have generally been in the 115-120 range, and if he'd played a full season in '03 that would've been the case again.

Conclusion: Jeter's reality is probably somewhat below his peak, like most people, and his 1999 peak seems a bit extreme compared to his career averages. But although his homers are clearly falling off, his OPS and runs are pretty steady right around his career average. And pretty respectable. People say he's lost a step defensively, but much as I'd like to take that bait, I'll leave it to people who actually watch him to decide. If he has some better luck with his health, he should be an elite top-of-the-order guy for some time. He's only 29.

But is he as good as Nomar?

The numbers favor Nomar virtually across the board. Nomar is much more productive, averaging 30 HR, 117 RBI, and 120 runs compared to Jeter's 17-82-124. Nomar's career OPS is 74 points higher (.925) -- but only 26 points higher in '03. Perhaps the biggest difference is Jeter's strikeouts and walks average of 117-69, compared to Nomar's 68-47. Moreover, until Manny's arrival, and let's face it, until 2003, Nomar played for a crappier offensive team, shouldered much more responsibility, and got pitched around more. Nomar's career high in intentional walks is 20 (in 2000, pre-Manny); Jeter's is 5. The park factors help Nomar a bit: Fenway yields 8% more runs than the norm, whereas Yankee Stadium's averages are about 8% below the norm. So Fenway giveth, but Tony Clark and Jose Offerman taketh away.

The inevitable conclusion is that they are slightly different hitters, Jeter more of a scrappy on-base guy and ideal #2 hitter or even leadoff, Nomar more of a middle-of-the-order type. The latter is more valuable in most people's books. Don't get me wrong, teams need both types to win. But Nomar is a fair slugger and a two-time batting champ who can run and field to boot. Nomar's peak seasons of 35 HRs, 122 RBIs, .372 average, 1.033 OPS are elite numbers, and significantly better than Jeter's peaks. Jeter gets on base slightly more and scores a few more runs, but he strikes out almost twice as much, meaning Nomar is a better contact hitter. Advantage, Nomar.

But Jeter's value sometimes can't be measured, they say. Hell, even this column has to admit it's true. He's clutch, right? Well, his last four post-seasons saw him register OPSs of .850, 1.401 (!), .566, and .998. Not too shabby, though the 1.401 was the year they crashed in the first round. He works the count much better, feeding into the Yankee system of stretching pitchers to their physical limits. Over his career Jeter has seen 3.78 pitches per at bat, while the hyperactive Garciaparra averages only 3.19. A difference, but only of about three pitches in four at-bats. Hm, maybe the Yankees are only patient against Pedro. Still there's something about the guy, he's a winner. Let's face it, there's no denying this: he's the motor on an extremely successful team on a historic 7-year run. Does he deserve credit for doing what he does, like being there to flip an errant throw home in time to catch Jeremy Giambi? Or getting timely hits? Or sharpening that winning edge in the clubhouse? Yep. No doubt. Put up a brick wall between him and the championship, and he'll knock it down.

But does this put him over the top against Nomar? Totally subjective question. I say no. It's not in the numbers, and it's not fair to compare his postseason accomplishments to Garciaparra's. Nomar has had to lead mediocre teams into October, and he's had mixed results. I don't have post-season numbers going back before 2000, but I recall he carried them in the 1998 and '99 ALDSs. This year his horrible September Funk carried over into the postseason, though he eventually started hitting, including starting key rallies in Game 4 vs. Oakland, where he doubled before Ramirez walked and Ortiz delivered the winning blast; and in game 6 of the ALCS, where he chipped in 4 hits and got the winning rally started with the triple that Matsui turned into a run. Put him on a championship-caliber team every year and maybe we'd be talking about his intangibles too. Not Jeter Magic, perhaps, but not the second coming of Calvin Schiraldi either.

And looking forward, as in, who would you take right now? Um, it depends. [OK, I'm an attorney.] If Nomar's last two seasons were part of the process of overcoming the wrist injury and re-establishing his peak form, he's better, without a doubt. But if his last two seasons are his future norm or the sign of early decline, the numbers gap narrows, and there's an argument for Jeter's intangibles over Nomar's slugging and contact hitting. I expect Nomar to keep producing in the post-Duquette atmosphere where he and Pedro don't have to do it all by themselves, even if he's as healthy as he's ever going to be. He'll never be the leader Jeter is, but his superior offensive production under more trying circumstances and respectable contributions in all other phases of the game, to me, means Nomar is more valuable than Jeter.

Thoughts? Votes? Predictions? Will domestic tranquility lower Nomar's slugging percentage?
Open Thread... Pats??

Not sure what I can add, other than see my post below from last week about Walter. What do y'all think, where is this headed? Is the good ship Patriot taking on some water, or was yesterday a step up?
Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?