I often wonder if "old school" analysts like Tim McCarver and Joe Morgan are oblivious to the criticism launched in their direction. Or do they read it, and then find new and zanier ways to attract it? I am starting to think that it's the latter, given what was offered to us as analysis of the Subway Series.
On FOX's broadcast of the Mets/Yankees Saturday game, McCarver extolled the virtues of running hard to first base - sort of. Here is how the game played out at the time: Fernando Martinez hits a ground ball to first that has the potential to be a double play. The Yanks get the out at second. Throw to first...safe. We have seen this play a thousand times in our baseball watching careers.
Now the McCarverism (I'll throw quotes around it if someone Tivoed it and can provide it verbatim) - It is less virtuous to run hard to first base for a base hit than it is to prevent a double play. This in and of itself is baffling, but perhaps defensible. Just be quiet now, Tim, and we'll get to the sixth with our credibility intact. When you are running for a hit, that helps you, whereas avoiding the double play helps the team. Face. Palm.
Let me understand this concept correctly. Let's walk through an example. Following the averted double play, had Jose Reyes hit a gapper, Martinez would have scored. One run posted for the Mets. Had Martinez hit a dribbler to A-Rod, and he beat the throw to first, and later scored on the same gapper, is that merely half a run?
Offensively, your goal is to avoid outs. Intuitively, you understand that an inning continues, so long as the offense avoids the third out. Here is the evidence:
Both events would seem similarly virtuous. In fact, if we are assigning virtuousness to baseball acts, then we should see if the base hit is the more virtuous of the plays. Nobody wants to hit into a rally killing double play. Running hard prevents that stigma. It's not exactly virtuous when the intent is to avoid ridicule.
Let's go one step further. Isn't the better team play to allow your teammates to hit in lower pressure situations? For instance, what if Martinez struck out? Now Reyes is batting with one more out than Martinez was, and with the runners in the same position. So now the "nine ways to score from third" philosophy is reduced to a "get a hit" mandate.
Let's try this on for size as well. Let's leave the infield. What if Martinez hit the ball down the third base line? And what if Xavier Nady quickly cuts off the ball, but supplies a half-hearted throw to the infiled. And what if Martinez, having taken the wide turn, takes advantage of this to stretch his hit to a double? Is this not a virtuous play because doing it means a better slugging percentage? It would seem more virtuous, since the next hitter gets to bat with the pitcher at a disadvantage.
I have never understood the concept of selfish hits, homers, and walks. We hear so much (from managers whose names rhyme with Crusty Faker) that some guys need to get "more aggressive at the plate. Walks are nice. Hits are better. Yadda yadda." The problem is that analysts project walks or whatever else is perceived as selfish as something possibly greater had something else been done. Of course, they fail to realize that there are worse outcomes as well, which can be easily realized by jamming square pegs into round holes. Martinez's job was to safely reach base. The ends would justify the means. Barring that, Martinez's plan B was to prevent the inning from ending. Resorting to plan B wasn't more virtuous, but a necessary component of completing his job.
From Baltimore's version of The Fan to DC's 980 to four letter radio, I hear the same thing as it relates to the NCAA tournament. People theorize that what we, the uninformed public want, is a chalk bracket. A television personality was on 1570's "Playmakers" talking about how people want upsets in the first weekend, but chalk after that.
I guess I'm having a hard time reconciling all this chatter about what we want from the tournament. I think we like tournament because it doesn't always provide us with a cookie cutter outcome. If the five always beat the twelve, why watch? What makes the tournament special is its unpredictability, yet at the same time, leaving the viewers satisfied with the conclusion.
Think about it. Since the tournament expanded to include at-large teams, how many winners left us saying "That's an undeserving champ?" The two that I can think of are NC State and Villanova. Even so, recall that in 1985, the Big East had three entrants into the final four. Perhaps Villanova's loss ledger was slightly inflated due to the power of the conference that year. NC State entered the tourney at 20-10 with two wins over Ralph Sampson's Cavaliers and a win over Jordan's Heels under their belts. It should be noted that NC State may have been undervalued heading into the big dance, as Derek Whittenburg suffered an injury during conference play.
Even if "people" do want total chalk after the first weekend, let's examine who these "people" likely are. For one, they're fans of the respective teams still in the field. Fans are agenda driven. You know who else is agenda driven? Office bracket guy is driven by an agenda. If our elite eights are going out in round two, we can't win.
In the end, to say that this tournament is "what the people wanted," is an insult to everyone and the event. This is the first time that the top three seeds have gone this far in the tournament. So if this is what we want, then the ratings will be markedly higher, yes? The one conclusion we can draw is that the selection folks did a good job in seeding the tournament.
Now, if they could have just organized the women's tourney, that would be great. I'm all for Duke losing. Even if it's tac-tac-toe. But why was a #1 seed playing a true road game?
Let me give credit where credit is due. Gregg Easterbrook was all over the AIG thing before any of us, and he's a football columnist. I'm not sure what's worse - the millions of dollars in performance bonuses awarded to employees of a company whose recent record can only be described as anything but performance. Or the faux disbelief in DC that these were coming. "Quelle surprise!" said everyone between Constitution and Independence, but for a person from Maine and another from Oregon. Unfortunately, we're 533 people short of a forward thinking bunch.
Of course, AIG doesn't have the C..O. Jones to call them performance bonuses. They are retention bonuses. After all, with unemployment at a two decade high, these folks could leave and work anywhere! For a bunch of financial wizards, how that last sentence makes any sense is beyond me.
If we had to select the AIG of the NFL, it would likely be the Washington Redskins. IJWMFTT had so many messages during its hiatus asking, "When will you cover Haynesworth?" "This Haynesworth signing just screams to be covered on Economy Watch Wedensday." "Should we hold a mirror to your nose. Ya know, to see if there's a reflection."
Albert Haynesworth signed a seven year, $100 million deal to leave Nashville for Landover. In NFL speak, this is a 4 year, $41 million deal, as that's the guanteed portion. Hearsay around writers circles was that Haynesworth would have stayed for a third of the amount. Of course, I think those people got contract value and guranteed value mixed up a bit. The Tennessee offer was 4 for $36 million with $25 million guaranteed. Seeing as he turned this down, "a third' may be referring to all money guranteed - perhaps a little less.
At the very least, the Skins offered $5 million more than the next bidder. If the figure that Haynesworth wanted was around $33 million, then the Redskins gave $8 million more. I'll give the Redskins some slack and call the $5 million figure a "gotta get him" bonus. If it's closer to $8 million, then that's $3 million in "AIG money."
Of course, this is nothing new in Landover (well, Monday-Saturday, it's Ashburn). Adam Archuleta got seven for $35 million. Archuleta wanted to play for the Bears (with whom he currently has a three for $8M contract). When he heard the offer from his agent, he said to call the Redskins back "before they change their mind." When the athlete thinks they're overpaid, maybe that should serve as a burgundy flag.
In 2007, the Redskins gave the 49ers a third and a fourth for Brandon Lloyd. Okay, you have these picks, and the draft apparently isn't your strong suit. Trade unkown quantities for a known quantity. Don't they get it? The picks were the value. Giving Lloyd a $10 million bonus on a new deal was the Redskins twisted way of somehow selling the fact that they got a $30 million man for two second day picks.
Lav Coles asked for $30M. He got $35M. You get the idea. The Redskins often bid against themselves. Of course, the club will contend that they are always under the cap. Well, yeah, that's why they call it A CAP! Many players, who come with a lower price tag for the same level of percformance, are shown the door to make way for the new guys. Or, the other method, trade your picks so that you don't have to pay that slotted money.
To better articulate the point, please see the linked diagram:
The biggest college broadcasting snafu is repeated on a weekly basis. Finally, I decided that last night's Baylor/Georgetown match-up was the most egregious instance I have heard in quite some time. Normally solid Brad Nessler is the offender.
Nessler saw the lofy shooting percentages posted by the teams and remarked that Georgetown was seeing shades of Villanova. My first thought was, "No. He can't be. Well, maybe he's referring to a game that happened earlier this season." So I looked up the GU/VU match-up to find that 'Nova shot 33%. That's not impressive. That can only mean: He was referring to the 1985 NCAA Championship. Naturally, no members of Georgetown's 1985 squad are playing on the 2009 squad. Furthermore, to my knowledge, none had been born.
Way too much emphasis is placed on college teams' histories. Those who buy in to it will become its victim. For the most part, we're talking about programs. A program is generally a success, or a failure. Regardless of how many times North Carolina has defeated Clemson in Chapel Hill, Oliver Purnell should not concern himself with it come gametime. As a franchise overdog, North Carolina has high winning percentages against most teams whilst playing in Chapel Hill.
Preserving your alma mater's history is fine. It's fine to tell folks that at one time, San Francisco wasn't just another stepping stone for Gonzaga en route to the WCC title. It's fine for Oregon fans to remind us that the Ducks were the first NCAA tourney champions. It's also fine to remind us that Georgia leads the all-time football series against Florida. But in an environment of "high employee turnover," the focus should be on the here and now.
Talk Tuesday is usually reserved for critical posts on professional assertions. Since all has been said in the talk circles that can be said on steroids and free agency, I'll grab hold of an argument and take a side. The four letter's radio spots feature Colin Cowherd's take on why the NBA is better than NCAA basketball. The outcome should surprise no one. The four letter worships at the altar of the athlete, and the best ones who play basketball are playing in The Association.
The argument we are presented is the fact that the "no defense" theory holds no water, since the best scorers will always get their points. That is true. No scheme short of "the Jordan rules" or "Hack a Shaq" will fully eliminate an elite NBA player from doing what they do best. I do wonder how players can effortlessly put that ball in the hoop. It is a marvel. Their abilities should not be minimized.
The no defense argument has some merits. In order to foster scoring, the NBA had long outlawed off the ball double-teams and zones. This has been relaxed during the new decade - perhaps because the NBA loves dynasties, and Shaq always getting easy dunks was not good for competition. This decade's dynasty is the San Antonio Spurs. So defense has its place in the NBA, but rule changes made it relevant.
On the other end of the spectrum is the fact that the college game is defensive anarchy. What Temple does is different from Princeton, which is different from Loyola-Marymount, which is different from BYU. The college game lends itself to UNC-Georgetown, irresistable force-immovable object pairings. Occassionaly, this leads to the ugly basketball we see in the BigX(I). Aestetichally, the NBA game is more pleasing than this version of college basketball.
What college ball has that the NBA doesn't, is a sense of urgency with each possession. Getting that orange ball into the orange hoop sounds easy for 6'8" college guys. Of course, both sides are on scholarship. College ball is scrappier because the season is thirty games, and playoffs are single elimination. NBA ball is eighty-two games, with a herky-jerky postseason. There is always tomorrow in the NBA.
College basketball also has a sense of authenticity. Instead of piped in organ music, or a snippet of TI's latest, the pomp and circumstance at a college game is provided by the folks who would normally play "Pomp and Circumstance." The crowds don't need a center court scoreboard to get them fired up. And the adulation stemming from the crowd at an Oklahoma victory over Texas would be greater than if the Thunder beat the Mavericks.
So leave no doubt that NBA players are superior. But definitely doubt that the NBA product brings you the same sense of closure that the NCAA tournament brings.
Send Message
Add Friend
Block User
All Star