Ron Karkovice Fan Club

So Long, And Thanks For All the Fisch

2008-01-28T11:51:00.000-06:00

There's a pointless inside joke in the title of this, the final post in the Fan Club's illustrious, um not entirely unmeritorious, history. Yes, the Ron Karkovice Fan Club will be no more in 3, 2, 1.

Well, ok, there is one more piece of business to take care of before we shut off the lights. For those of you who can't stand the thought of a baseball season without my sparkling wit and dazzling insights -- um, anyone, hello? -- I will be blogging away at a new home this season: Life in the Cell. It can be found at www.lifeinthecell.com

The Cell features a group of talented, experienced writers who will give you more funny, brilliant Sox coverage than one should be allowed. How I fit in evades me. So, stop by, check us out at the new home, and enjoy the upcoming season.

Throwing the Iguchi Out With the Bath-Water

2007-07-27T16:35:00.000-05:00

The trade of Tadahito Iguchi was inevitable. The White Sox acquired Danny Richar to be their every day second baseman by next season. Best to let him get his feet wet now. Iguchi is a free agent at the end of the season, and was barely above replacement value now.

But this is all we get for him?!? Three teams -- the Phillies, Mets and Pads -- all had targetted Iguchi as their first priority at a position of need. How is an 18th round pick, striking out less than a batter an inning in Low-A ball the best possible return here? Michael Dubee's professional career sounds like a favor to his dad, Rich, who just happens to be the Phillies' pitching coach.

Maybe the Mets and Pads weren't offering a real prospect for Iguchi either. But would the Mets or someone have offered to take Jose Contreras off our hands if we also threw in Iguchi? Quite frankly, that seems like better use of our asset. Also, rumor has it that no one is offering more than a B-level prospect for Jermaine Dye. Would someone have been willing to give us a guy with some real upside in exchange for both Dye and Iguchi? Could he have been packaged with Rob Mackowiak -- a lefty utility guy who clearly has more value on the bench of a contender than on a sinking Sox ship?

I'm not upset they dealt Iguchi. Heck, I'm now looking forward to seeing Richar this weekend (you hear that Ozzie, if I see Alex Cintron at second this weekend, I'm going to be really irritated). But you have to consider the move in the context of an overall strategy to be competitive again next season. Richar was going to be at second next year no matter what. So, I'm not sure how this move helps at all. It seems like we just wasted an asset.

Say it ain't so, Kenny!

2007-07-20T09:31:00.000-05:00

First, Kenny Williams tells the Tribune that he's excited to see what the White Sox can do when Scott Podsednik and Darrin Erstad come back. Then, the Trib start murmuring about how the Sox can win 90 games if they just play .700 ball the rest of the way. Today, Ozzie tells the Sun-Times that there are no trades on the horizon. Maybe this is all just a smoke screen, but if it's not, then oy vey.

Contrary to Herm Edwards otherwise brilliant diatribe, you don't actually play to win the game. You play to win the championship. And, the White Sox can't do that this year. If they proceed as if they do still have some hope, instead of preparing now for next season, then all they can accomplish is to set the franchise back.

According to Baseball Prospectus's play-offs odds report, which runs the rest of the season a million times (based on current winning percentage and an expected winning percentage that starts with a team's third order winning percentage so far, and then allows for regression) the Sox have a .02% chance of making the play-offs, or one in 5000 chance if that makes the team's dire straits clearer. Yes, they can win 90 games if they play .700 ball the rest of the way. But 90 wins probably won't get them into the post-season. The AL wild card winner has averaged 95 wins. Plus, even the best teams don't play .700 ball. And, has this team done anything to indicate it has that kind of talent? That last point is emphasized by BP's Pecota-adjusted play-off odds report. If you adjust the teams' expected winning percentages the rest of the way based on Pecota's expected performance by the team's individual players, then the Sox chance SINK to .01%. Kenny, that's 1 in 10,000. In other words, the Sox are much more likely, based on their current roster, to fall further out of the race, than charge back into it.

This has implications. First, if the Sox allow guys like Podsednik and Erstad, and even the red-hot Rob Mackowiak, who should not be part of the team's future, to take at-bats from guys like Jerry Owens and Ryan Sweeney, then they shouldn't be allowed to run a franchise anymore. Owens and Sweeney, and even Brian Anderson, may not be the answers in the Sox outfield next year, but shouldn't we find out? It was reassuring to hear Ozzie say that Andy Gonzalez will play significant time at shortstop the rest of the way. I doubt he's the answer there. But let's find out because we know that Juan Uribe isn't.

Second, I don't care how little future value we can get for Jose Contreras, trade him now for whatever you can get. He has NO future value to this team, especially at his price tag going forward. As for Dye and Iguchi, if someone wants to give up a good prospect for them, grab him. If the team thinks those guys are better answers than anyone else they're likely to find at the right price next season, then great, keep them, but make sure you get them signed. If you're not going to re-sign them, then trade them for whatever you can get. But don't let guys with value leave for nothing.

The White Sox need to be realistic. They CANNOT contend this season. What's the point of wasting at-bats on Erstad, Podsednik, Uribe, or even Dye and Iguchi if they're not coming back? Why make a futile run at respectability. I think White Sox fans are smart enough now that they would be more excited about watching the kids play the rest of the way than watching this crew's last gasp.

Just How Good is Mark Buehrle?

2007-07-19T09:46:00.001-05:00

The White Sox lost season has left me largely bereft of topics to write about. And then, all of a sudden, today I've got 437 ideas. Oh well. We'll get to them over time. But let's start with this one: just how good is Mark Buehrle?

Last night was typical of the dilemma Buehrle presents. In 6.1 innings, Buehrle gave up only one run. Anyway, you cut it, that's a good outing. But he gave up 10 hits and struck out only three. Even Buehrle admits that those kinds of numbers usually don't add up to six-plus innings and only one run. But that's how Buehrle has lived in the majors: too many hits and too fews strikeouts, and yet very few runs allowed.

Readers know I was critical of the recent extension for Buehrle. Yes, the Sox got him for $30 million less than market value, but that's just because the market had him overvalued by $50 million. Buehrle doesn't miss a lot of bats. He has good command, and he gets hitters to put the ball in play on the pitch he wants them to hit. It forces ground balls and pop ups. But when a guy like that ages even a little, loses just the tiniest bit off his stuff, hitters turn those pitches into line drives and home runs. Guys like Buehrle have steep declines. Some have countered this argument by pointing to the extended decline phase of Greg Maddux's career. The comparison is flawed. Buehrle's best seasons have been comparable to Maddux's decline phase. Even if the two really were similar, what does that mean Buehrle's decline phase would look like?

And they're not that similar. In his career, Buehrle has struck out around five batters per nine innings. Maddux struck out six or seven hitters per nine innings at his peak. During his long slow decline, he's come down to Buehrle's strikeout ratio, but for his career he's still a full K per nine better. Buehrle really is comparable to Old Maddux (distinguished like Old Elvis from Young Maddux).

General perception aside, however, do pitchers like Buehrle really fade fast? According to PECOTA, Beuhrle looks a lot like two guys who briefly pitched for the Sox: Jerry Reuss and Jim Kaat. Let's take Kaat, who is PECOTA's closest comparable, and a really strong one at that. After turning 28 during 1967, Kaat went on to win 14 or more games another five times, including winning more than 20 for the Sox in '74 and '75. Reuss also won 14 or more games three times after turning 28, and picked up another 13 wins for the Sox in 1988, when he was 39. So far so good. As you continue down the list of Buehrle's comparables there are some more ominous comparisons. For example, number three on the list is another Sox hurler, Jim Abbott, who was pretty much washed up by the time he was 28. So, Buehrle's future is a gamble, but it is certainly one with some upside.

And, whatever Buehrle's future holds, unlike Abbott, he is definitely not washed up at 28. In fact, by some measures, he's having his best season of his career. His 2.98 ERA is the lowest of his career, and he has his second lowest walks and hits per nine innings. Only in 2001, his first full season in the bigs, did he allow fewer base runners per nine overall. Only the team's anemic offense and shoddy bullpen have kept Buehrle's win total down, and name out of the Cy Young discussion.

That's right, Buehrle is fifth in the majors, and third in the AL, in VORP among pitchers. I was shocked when I looked that up and saw how high he ranked. In the AL, only Dan Haren and Johan Santana have higher VORPs. Yes, those are the two guys everyone is talking about for Cy Young. Nor is it luck. Buehrle's batting average on balls in play is actually higher than Haren's or Santana's. But how exactly he is as effective as those two is a mystery. Haren strikes out nearly two more batters per nine than Buehrle, gives up two fewer hits per nine, allows fewer home runs, but somehow Buehrle has been almost exactly as effective as Haren overall. Santana also gives up fewer hits than Buehrle, and he strikes out more than four more batters per nine. Buehrle shouldn't even be in this guy's league, but he is.

Yesterday, as I marvelled once again at the fact that Buehrle was struggling to get anyone out, and yet no one could score on him, I began to become more optimistic about the next few seasons of Mark Buehrle. Maybe this guy just has a way of maximizing the utility of the skills he has. Statistics explain big picture developments, but there are always individual outliers who don't fit the model. Buehrle seems to be one of those guys. His peripherals suggest an ERA almost a run higher than his is. How does he do it? Maybe it's smoke and mirrors, but then Buehrle is one of the greatest and most consistent illusionists in all of baseball. Would I have bet $56 million dollars on Buehrle keeping this illusion going? No, but Buehrle's fooled me before.

What You Get For The Money

2007-07-13T09:46:00.000-05:00

$20 million a year for Ichiro. $35 million a year for A-Rod? $17 million dollars a year for Big Z, who will play in, at most, 35 games each season? Even Mark Buehrle's contract just seems ridiculous to me. And, I don't mean in an, "Oh my God, these guys make so much money," kind of way. From a baseball perspective, it just doesn't make sense.

These contracts are part of a bigger problem though: baseball people seem entirely incapable of valuing baseball talent. And don't give me that, "If the market will pay, then they're worth it," nonsense. If you can get the same production for less money, then it's not worth it.

I think the problem stems in part from the lack of a salary cap in baseball. I'm not advocating for a cap, that's another debate for another day, and anyway, if I had to give a knee-jerk reaction, I'd say that I'm against having a cap. But the absence of a cap has allowed GMs to become lazy about valuing production. If you know you have exactly $100 million dollars to spend, then you have to carefully determine whether a player is worth X percentage of your payroll. But without the cap, you can pay a guy you like whatever you have to in order to sign him, and it doesn't feel like you're sacrificing anything.

But you are. See, every team, even the Yankees, has a budget of what they can afford to spend for on-field talent. And every dollar you spend at one position IS a dollar you can't spend elsewhere. So paying more for a player than his production is worth will eventually kill you. Not so quickly if you're the Yankees, immediately if you're the Twins.

Say two teams are getting the same production out of one spot in their starting rotation -- let's say a VORP of 28. One team signed their guy off of waivers, and will pay him $380,000 this year. The other team signed their guy as a big name free agent, and will pay him $6.3 million this year. Both teams are really happy with their signing, but team A now has an extra $5.5 million to spend on talent somewhere else, that they might not have had if they signed the expensive free agent. Now, in this example, baseball's financial imbalance, and the incompetence of some of its GMs, are relevant. Team A is the Orioles, who while they made a great signing when they grabbed Jeremy Guthrie off of waivers, generally have no clue about how to spend the money they saved by acquired an ace for less than half a million bucks a year. Team B is the Red Sox, who being at the top of baseball's financial heap, can afford to spend serious cash for a guy Daisuke Matsuzaka without sacrificing a whole lot at another position.

But for a team like the White Sox -- among baseball's "haves," but not obscenely wealthy, and blessed with a GM who generally seems to spend money in a way that is at least somewhat productive -- having an extra $5 million bucks to spend at, say, second base, could be the difference between returning to contender status, or languishing in the cellar for a few years

You could put together a near all-star team for the $30 million a year A-Rod will get paid next season. If the Mets can get fairly comparable production from David Wright for $1.2 million, as someone is getting from A-Rod for $30 million, then the Mets are better off, even if A-Rod's production is somewhat better. Which is why, no matter how good A-Rod and Ichiro are, overpaying for their services -- as measured by how much similar production would cost on the open market, as opposed to how much the market is willing to pay for that specific player -- is a mistake.

The inability of GMs to properly value production is hamstringing the trade market too. Teams are starting to value their own young prospects more. Pre-arbitration talent is key in the current economic scheme because that's where you can most readily find players whose salaries are actually below the cost of comparable production on the open market. It's why the Mets are paying $1.2 million bucks for Wright, whose production would cost about $26 million a season on the market (using BP's MORP stat, which measures, coincidentally, the value of a player's production on the open market). Anyway, all of a sudden teams won't offer their top prospects for average big leaguers. No one wants to be the next guy to trade Jeff Bagwell. Nevertheless, when another team offers a good prospect for an average established player, the GM with the established guy often feels as if he's being offered 30 cents on the dollar. "They won't offer their top prospect for this guy because they value their prospects, so the prospect they are offering is a low-ball offer."

It doesn't work this way. While teams are starting to properly value their own prospects, they continue to undervalue everyone else's prospects. People always value that which they have more than that which they want. Plus, GMs are more familiar with their own prospects. But part of the problem is that GMs continue to underestimate the value of cheap, young, productive talent.

How does this play out? Jose Contreras makes about $9 million a year. His production is worth about $4 or $5 million a year. So, if the Sox can trade him for a decent prospect, one who can give comparable production even, but for less money, then they've won the trade. The Mets won't give the Sox a top prospect like Lastings Milledge for Contreras, but they might give up Mike Pelfrey. Pelfrey has struggled mightily this year, but clearly has the talent to be a middle of the rotation kind of guy: 10-15 wins a year, and ERA in the 4.00 to 4.50 range. That sounds a whole lot like what the Sox get out of Contreras, but because Pelfrey is still young, it comes at a lot lower price. Pelfrey may have lost some of his sheen, but that doesn't mean that he's a low-ball offer. In fact, if the Sox could get him for Contreras, they should jump at the opportunity.

Or take another player the Sox covet: Dodgers outfielder Matt Kemp. The Dodgers won't cough up Kemp for Contreras straight up. Kemp can play all three outfield spots and has top of the order skills, all for the low, low price of $380,000 a year. Signing a guy who could give the team comparable production on the open market this off-season would run about $16 million a year, based in MORP. So, if the Dodgers want Contreras and Jermaine Dye for Kemp and some lesser prospects, the Sox should do it. They cut $16 million dollars from their payroll and replace Dye's production in the outfield. That leaves a whole lot of money to both replace Contreras's production on the mound (which remember, should only cost about $5 million a year), and to upgrade at SS, 2B, or one of the other outfield positions. That's how you build a winning baseball team for the long haul. I sure hope Kenny Williams gets that.

Woe, Oh, We're Half Way There! Woe, Oh . . .

2007-07-09T09:38:00.000-05:00

I've returned to the country, we've reached the All-Star Break, and frankly, other than rumors of a horrible on-field melt down last Friday, the White Sox are pretty much as I left them. Hrm. Obviously, this is a bit of a lost season at the big league level, but that makes it extremely important as a season for building a foundation for the short and intermediate term future. Obviously, the biggest step, one way or the other is the new Mark Buehrle contract. We'll get to that, but let's touch on some other things first.

Speaking of the future, he's coming, and his name is Faustino De Los Santos. He's a couple years away still, but in Low-A ball this season he has 96 Ks in 77 innings, and only 42 hits allowed. He's got a devastating fastball/slider combo, and looks like he could someday lead the rotation or bring up the back end of the bullpen.

Another pleasant development on the farm, and one that could make an impact by next season, is the continued potential, and improved production of Gio Gonzalez. There's a reason they like the prodigal prospects best. Gonzalez has a 2.91 ERA and 110 strikeouts in 92 double-A innings. Depending on what happens with Jose Contreras, Gonzalez may be in the rotation by next season.

Speaking of rookie members of the rotation, perhaps the best development at the big league level is John Danks demonstration that he belongs. Danks has a 4.62 ERA and 68 Ks in 89 innings of work. His PRAA (pitching runs above average) is two. In other words, he's been two runs better than an average big league starter so far this season. Being almost exactly league average, if not the tiniest bit better, is really good for a rookie who many believed was pushed into the bigs too soon this spring.

Also showing he belongs in the bigs is third base prospect Josh Fields. His .252 batting average, five home runs and 18 RBIs don't look great. And, he still strikes out at an alarming rate. But Fields has also been almost exactly league average. He's -1 BRAA (batting runs above average) and 1 FRAA (fielding runs above average). I suspect his numbers will improve during the second half as he gets into a real rhythm and comfort zone with the big club. He's raised his batting average and on-base percentage 20 points, and his slugging percentage 40 points, in the first 10 days of July. Fields has always been a little slow to settle in at each new level as he moved through the organization. His emergence gives the team some flexibility, along with Joe Crede, in its approach to third base and left field next season. They could keep both and send Fields to the outfield, or trade Crede to fill a need in the outfield.

Part of the reason the Sox very much need to address the outfield this off-season is the refusal of their top outfield prospects to develop. Brian Anderson is forgotten and Ryan Sweeney may be headed that way. His potential has always been based partly on his physical build, which suggests that a lot of home runs are locked away just out of sight. Well, another season is passing, and those home runs still haven't emerged, at AAA or in the bigs. He hit one home run in 45 at-bats with the Sox and five home runs in 244 at-bats for Charlotte. He is still very young, but he is also still all potential and no production.

And so we come to the Sox biggest move so far: re-signing Mark Buehrle for four years, 56 million dollars. I'm torn about the decision. Buehrle's value will never be higher to someone else, or lower to the Sox. If he could have been turned into Lastings Milledge or Jacoby Ellsbury, then I think that would have meant more long term to the team. With this new deal, and its trade escalator and no-trade clause, that can never happen now. On the other hand, the price on the extension sure seems right given the cost of starting pitching these days. That's a lot less than guys like Barry Zito are getting. And yet, it's still too much. Buehrle is a finesse pitcher. The slightest loss of stuff with a guy like that and pop-ups become home runs, ground balls become line drives. As Buehrle ages and his stuff declines just a little, he figures to go down hill fast. I can't express joy that the team is strapped on for that ride. As Baseball Prospectus pointed out last week, Mark Buehrle's career numbers are almost identical to the downside of Greg Maddux's career, from 2001-2007. What will the downside of Buehrle's career look like?

I know the Sox got Buehrle for 30 million less than the market would have dictated. I still think they paid too much. Yes, better to spend 50-plus million dollars on Mark Buehrle than Ted Lilly or Gil Meche, but I like that Kenny Williams has always refused to succumb to the market pressure to overpay for starting pitching. So, I don't like that he abandoned his usual philosophy here.

What's a Buehrle Worth in American Dollars?

2007-07-02T16:26:00.000-05:00

It is becoming ever more apparent that Mark Buehrle will not be with the White Sox next season. If they could have resigned him at a significant discount, then I was fine with that. But the truth is that evidence shows most finesse guys don't age well, especially ones who can't miss bats with their breaking stuff either. Just the slightest decline in quality and guys like Buehrle go from giving up ground balls to giving up line drives, from giving up pop ups to giving up home runs. So, rather than be saddled with a potentially fading and untradeable player (it was Buehrle's demand for a no-trade clause that apparently torpedoed negotiations), I agree with Kenny Williams that his best course is to maximize his return on Buehrle now.

So, what is that maximum return? The Mets, Braves, Cardinals, and Dodgers are apparently after our dependable lefty. So, I've compiled a quick wish list of prospects from these teams. I leave for Italy tomorrow. I return on the 8th. I'd be a happy man if one of the following guys was in a White Sox' (or Charlotte Knights') uni by the time I re-enter the country.

I'm going to cover the teams in the random order I listed them above. From the Mets, I want outfielder Lastings Milledge. The White Sox will need to replace at least one corner outfielder this off-season (unless Jermaine Dye makes a shocking return for '08). Milledge was on a 13 for 39 streak at AAA before being sidelined by injury. And PECOTA projects a WARP on 19.9 for him from 2008-2011.

From the Braves I covet shortstop Brent Lillibridge. He runs, he draws walks, he plays D. He also strikes out a lot, but not enough to stifle his numbers too badly. He's probably a little further away than Milledge, as he seems to be struggling somewhat from the move to AAA from AA. But the Sox will definately need to address the short stop spot this offseason, and short stops are a lot harder to come by than corner outfielders. Also, the Braves have a shortstop prospect they like even more ahead of Lillibridge (note, I prefer Lillibridge, which I suppose is obvious from the column), so he should be quite available. PECOTA projects a WARP of 21.2 over the next four seasons, which is pretty remarkable.

The Cardinals have always seemed like a likely landing spot for Buehrle, a St. Louis native, when he reaches free agency. Knowing they have a better than most chance of signing a new deal with the lefty has put the Cards squarely in the derby. The name going around is Anthony Reyes. Reyes is 0-10 with a 6.40 ERA this season. His PECOTA projection is an 11.6 WARP for the next four seasons, which is well below Milledge and Lillibridge. I'm not sure the Cards have the young, nearly-ready prospect to entice the Sox when their are so many other possible trading partners out there.

Finally, the Dodgers have been discussed as a possible destination for several Sox players, including Dye and Buehrle. On interesting piece in play is Chad Billingsley. Billingsley is 5-0 with a 3.44 ERA in a swing role. PECOTA projects an 11.6 WARP for him as well, but his greater success this season makes him more attractive than Reyes to me. The Sox will need a starter or two over the next couple of years. Billingsley may be a piece of a package to acquire Buehrle. I'd be a lot more interested, however, if the Dodgers made talented outfielder Matt Kemp part of the package.

Anyway, as I mentioned, I'm off for the next week to Florence. Wine, food, spectacular art and architecture, and the Redhead will just have to suffice to keep me from pining to badly for another week of exciting White Sox baseball. The face of the team may have changed significantly by the time I return. I'll be hoping someone like Milledge, Lillibridge or Kemp is part of that new look.

Reports of the Fan Club's Demise Have Been Greatly Exaggerated

2007-06-29T09:04:00.000-05:00

The other day a buddy of mine observed that all his favorite blogs seem to die. Well, the Fan Club is not dead. I've just been really, really busy. Oh, and I'm out the country for a couple weeks starting tomorrow, so this is a one-off post until I get back and back on track for real in mid-July. But the Bulls' draft deserves a mention. . . Wait, what do you mean he wasn't talking about the Fan Club when he said "favorite blogs?"

I hate the Joakim Noah pick. I really dislike the guy. The goofy suit at the draft, the overacting after every halfway decent play, the fake thug routine in his post-game interview after Florida's second NCAA title, the HAIR -- it all annoys the shit out of me. I like quirky athletes. This guy is not quirky, he's desperate for attention and doesn't trust his performance on the court to earn that attention. And, not to knock a guy for staying in school, but he's old for a modern rookie. Other guys will have years of experience under their belts by the time they're Noah's current age. I hope we trade him. Besides, for the moment he may be duplicative of Ben Wallace on this team.

Having said all that, it's too bad he acts like a schmuck because there would be a lot to like about this pick. First, I'm not sure the Bulls need a post scorer. Luc Longley never scared anyone on the block. Second, I'm not sure Luol Deng or Tyrus Thomas can't become that post scorer. The Bulls can get easy baskets by posting up Deng and by getting transition buckets. They already play at a high pace. Noah blocks shots, rebounds, is a great outlet passer, and runs the court. He could flourish with the Bulls and really improve the team's already potent fast break attack. If this were Roy Hibbert I'd probably be exstatic. And, there are some really good signs for Noah's potential too. All those blocks and steals in college show that Noah is athletic enough and quick enough to really make it in the NBA. Maybe his play will win me over.

Mark Buehrle Trade Partners

2007-06-18T09:02:00.000-05:00

The speculation around baseball is that Mark Buehrle will be the first major asset moved this trading season. It makes sense. Buehrle is a valuable asset, so the Sox will get a good return on him. He is a free agent at the end of the season, and by both rumor and logic (the Sox refuse to overpay for starting pitching) it seems clear he won't resign in Chicago. And the White Sox are objectively, irreversibly out of the race in the AL Central. Plus, Kenny Williams is uber-aggressive. He knows what he wants and goes and gets it. He usually moves before his colleagues in the GM fraternity.

So what does he want? Well, Williams has never been one to dress up trades with major league relievers and journeymen, the kind of names that appease fans, but cripple franchises. He'll get prospects he likes for Buehrle and Jermaine Dye, as well as Juan Uribe and Tadahito Iguchi should he choose to part ways with them. But the Sox should aim for nearly major league ready prospects. First, they're safer. Second, with the right haul, the Sox can be contenders again next season. Positionally, the Sox need to get through trades, as well as next season's market, a young starting pitcher, a short stop, a second baseman, and an outfielder. To me, the easiest positions to fill on the market will be outfield and second base (it wouldn't be the end of the world if they just resign Iguchi to man second). So, between Dye and Buehrle, the Sox should aim to produce a young shortstop and young pitcher, each of whom can start next year.

The leading name in speculation as a trade partner are the New York Mets. The Mets have need of both a starter and an outfielder. The two prospects most likely to be targeted by the Sox are Lastings Milledge, a corner outfielder, and Philip Humber, a starting pitcher. Coming into this season, PECOTA pegged Milledge as having a SuperVORP of 135.3 over the next five years, and an Upside of 140.9 (these numbers will come into perspective as we discuss more prospects, but suffice to say, this guy is an almost surefire everyday outfielder, and a potential star). Milledge has been hurt most of this season so far, and only has 42 at-bats between AAA New Orleans and the bigs. Humber, on the other hand, doesn't look like much more than a swingman, fifth starter type to PECOTA. And, after a hot start this year, he's cooled off to 7-5 with an ERA near 5.00 for New Orleans this season.

All in all, it would be a mistake to send both Buehrle and Dye, as some have speculated, to the Mets. They don't have the depth of young talent to make it worthwhile. Mike Pelfrey would be slightly better than Humber, but he's still probably a middle of the rotation guy at best. It wouldn't be a mistake to trade Buehrle and Dye for Milledge and Pelfrey, but I think they'll get more value splitting the two and picking the top of the prospect heap from two teams. So, is it worth it to send Buehrle to New York for Milledge? Milledge is a stud, and an outfield of Fields, Sweeney and Milledge next season would look pretty good, and be a major improvement. But is corner outfield too easy a position to fill through free agency? The only way to really answer that question is to see if the Sox could get a top short stop prospect for Buehrle.

Whether or not its the Mets, the speculation is that one of the rich, competitive, but flawed teams in the NL East will strike first in the trade market. Baseball Prospectus has hypothesized about the Atlanta Braves. The Braves have two shortstop prospects. Yuni Escobar, who PECOTA sees as an almost certain big league starter, and almost certainly not a star. His SuperVORP ove the next five seasons is 39.7, and his Upside is 37.5. This year, Escobar has continued a career long trend of hitting for a good average, but doing it without much power or drawing many walks. On the positive side, he almost never strikes out. The same cannot be said for Brent Lillibridge, the Braves' prospect at AA Mississippi. Nevertheless, he is BY FAR the more interesting prospect. While his projected SuperVORP of 123.9 is lower than Milledge's, his Upside of 149.1. With his strikeout rate, there's a maybe 20% chance this kid never makes it, but his ceiling is high. PECOTA's comparables include Julio Lugo, Orlando Cabrera, and Michael Young, but it also includes Joe Jester. You get the idea.

Either way, the Sox should keep Dye out of it, and trade him to a team like the Dodgers, who are searching for offense (maybe for Chad Billingsley -- Vazquez, Garland, Danks, Billingsley and Gonzalez could be a heck of a rotation by August of next year, and then for a long time to come). Me, I'd take the chance on Lillibridge, assuming both partners are willing to dance, just because I'm not sure they can get a shortstop in free agency. But the Sox aren't making a mistake taking either one.

Random Musings

2007-06-15T08:58:00.000-05:00

It's a slow day. The White Sox didn't play yesterday, so they couldn't lose. We're too far from the NBA draft or NFL training camps to say much about that. The NBA Finals themselves were uninspiring, and have been a foregone conclusion for weeks. But I do have a couple of random thoughts to share, while we're gathered here.

First, I can't stop the Mike and Mike juggernaut, not that I thought I could. They were still going on this morning about how they had once again added a word to the sports vernacular. As I discussed yesterday, there is nothing new about the word ridonculous, or its use in a sports context. I have to imagine thousands of listeners have e-mailed this fact to Mike and Mike. And, yet, they ignore this fact and continue with their self-aggrandizement. Actually, the two of them are becoming increasingly self-aggrandizing, a fact which they hide by pretending to be self-deprecating. It's irksome and pathetic. So, if you think of it, take a moment to drop the two of them a line and let them know we're on to them, at least as far as ridonculous goes.

Also, there was a great article about how the White Sox can be competitive again by next season at Baseball Prospectus. BP is a subscription site, but articles like this make it worth it. Suffice to say none of Tadahito Iguchi, Jermaine Dye, Mark Buehrle, Darrin Erstad or Juan Uribe are part of the picture. Joe Crede and Josh Fields both are, as well as Luis Castillo, Chad Billingsley, Brent Lillibridge, and some Japanese slugger. It's good stuff.

I figured I would round this column out with a smattering of interesting columns and articles from my Chicago blogging brethren. And there are some good ones out there. But we're all writing the same depressing things about how bad the Sox are. I do like Life in the Cell's zombie photo though. You can check out all of their stuff by clicking on the links to the right.

It's Not New, You Numbnuts!

2007-06-14T09:03:00.001-05:00

Ok, I love Mike & Mike. Call me a sucker, but their shtick amuses me. I listen every morning while getting ready for work. But, Mike, Mike, ridonculous is not a new word. You cannot copyright it, trademark it, patent it, or even debate its spelling because it already exists. Here it is in Urban Dictionary.

You see, this morning Mike and Mike attempted to establish a new word to replace "filthy" when describing a pitcher's outstanding stuff. Each of their options was flawed, but I have a solution. We'll get to that in a bit. First, there options: ridonculous, schnizzily, savage, fecalicious, and unkempt.

As mentioned, ridonculous is not a new word, which is largely what had Mike and Mike excited about it. I admit it sounds good. And that's why I, and I assume thousands of others, have been using it to describe spectacular, or "filthy," sports plays for years. In fact, here it is in sports discussion from back in '05 where a Red Sox fan inaccurately predicts the divisional playoffs: "Because we wear down pitchers like nobody's business. We drive pitch counts insanely high and have some guys with ridonculous OBP's. That being said I don't think the ChiSox can beat us in the playoffs." Point is, if the goal was to add a word to the sports lexicon, they failed. They merely discovered a word the rest of us have been using for years.

As for the others . . . Schnizzily is kind of fun, but really, it could mean anything. It doesn't even sound like it means "filthy," or outstanding. It is, as Tim Kurkjfjksgnvjkian, or someone, pointed out this morning, too soft.

Savage is nothing new. Saying a curve ball is savage is just like saying its nasty, or wicked, or any other word that means really, really mean. So to all the people who voted for savage, and nearly made it the winner: congratulations. You have voted to maintain the status quo, to uphold the dominant paradigm. America has always thrived on an aversion to new ideas and an unwillingness to embrace progress and change. So, thank you. Oy.

Fecalicious? Let's face it, almost all of us are just uncomfortable with the word fecal, and any of its iterations. First off, there's the uncomfortable association with, um, fecal matter. Then, there's the fact that the word just sounds gross, like yeast or moist. Yuck. Fecalicious just won't work.

Finally, unkempt is just too mild, too polite. Replacing filthy with unkempt is like replacing nasty with mildly unpleasant. Justin Verlander didn't strike anyone out with a mildly unpleasant curve ball. Unkempt is weak.

So, what is to be done? I have a solution. Some of you know, and some of you don't, that I'm a prosecutor at an unnamed county, state or federal agency somewhere in Chicagoland. (Actually, I'm an appellate prosecutor, hence the user name, uh, Criminal Appeal. Anywho . . .). Occasionally I have to deal with briefs, motions or petitions from actual prisoners: pro se filings. Occasionally these prisoners are insane. Recently, I had a prisoner who liked to invent words for his filings. This man has provided us with an answer to the question, how else can we describe a pitcher's filthy stuff. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you:

SUPERSEGOGATORY. A couple nights ago, Justin Verlander's stuff was just supersegogatory. You'll note that not only is supersegogatory not a word, neither is plain, old segogatory. So, it can't just mean something is extra segogatory. In fact, I have no idea what he meant. Even in context, it was just nonsense. But now, this word has purpose.

So forget filthy or nasty or even ridonculous. The new word for the sports lexicon is supersegogatory. Remember, use it three times today and you'll own it for life.

Whose Fault is it that Donald Rumsfeld Wears White Sox?

2007-06-13T09:20:00.000-05:00

With the White Sox sputtering through another lost series -- this time in Philadelphia, Joe Crede likely done for the year, and Jose Contreras looking every bit his 83 years' of age, I thought now would be a good time to highlight a category in which the Sox actually lead the AL: Rumsfelds.

Rumsfelds are a new Baseball Prospectus statistic. Donald Rumsfeld once famously said, "You go to war with the army you have, not necessarily the army you want." Ok, so I may be paraphrasing a little, but you get the idea. Rumsfelds measure how far the army you have is from the army you'd ideally want. A team's Rumsfeld Number is the percentage of that team's at-bats handled by players with a negative VORP, ie. a value below that of a freely available replacement player.

The Tigers grade out best in the AL at 4.2%. Less than one in 20 at-bats for the AL champs goes to a guy with a negative VORP. The White Sox? They grade out worst in the league. Their 49.6 Rumsfeld Number is the highest in the AL. Go Team! Yes, this is just one more statistic that confirms the Sox have the worst offense in baseball. Half of the team's at-bats go to guys who could theoretically be replaced by a career minor leaguer or waiver-wire pick-up, and the team would get better.

So, how do we explain this abyss? Last year the Sox were a good offensive club. This year, with the starting pitching improved, the team should be right in the thick of things. But they've fallen off a cliff offensively. Could management have seen this coming? Should they be blamed?

First, even if this disaster was predictable, and even if management should have acted to avoid it, I'm not suggesting anyone lose his job over it. This management team put together a World Series Champion. They deserve a lot of leeway. It will take much more than this to undermine their credibility.

But this year's collapse was largely predictable. Now, a chunk of the blame lies at the feet of Jermaine Dye. His 240 plate appearance represent 10% of the team's total, and his -1.8 VORP makes him the biggest contributor to that Rumsfeld Number. You can't blame the team for Dye. He was outstanding last year, and has been good his whole career. This year, he's an offensive black hole into which rallies are sucked, their light forever extinguished.

Many of the team's other black holes were all to obvious. Juan Uribe and Rob Mackowiak have each collected more than 100 plate appearances with sub-zero VORPs. Pablo Ozuna and Alex Cintron also have below replacement-level numbers and just under 100 PAs. The offensive ineffectiveness of all four of these Rumsfeld contributors is hardly shocking, and the team never should have committed to a plan in which each received major playing time. When the team's big boppers were playing their best, the ineffectiveness of the rest of the line up didn't derail the offense as a whole. But the shallowness of the lineup made it very vulnerable to slumps by the team's offensive forces. With Dye and Paul Konerko struggling, the team has been sucked into a quagmire of easy outs that team management should have seen coming.

Ok, so the team though Scott Podsednik would be the everyday left fielder, not Rob Mackowiak. But that points to another problem. They also expected Darrin Erstad to play every day, rather than sub-zeros Brian Anderson, Ryan Sweeney, and Jerry Owens. And, they expected Joe Crede to play every day, rather than sub-zero youngster Josh Fields. But the team should have realized that aging, injury-prone, (overrated) players like Erstad, Podsednik and Crede were a risk to spend substantial time on the injured list. Not only did the team have too many weak hitters, it had too many question marks at other spots in the order.

Speaking of Crede, he has struggled to play through his ailing back. It's a valiant effort, but he did contribute 178 negative VORP plate appearances before finally succumbing. And, I wouldn't rush to get Erstad back. He's only .5 VORP from adding his 200-plus at-bats to the Rumsfeld Number and driving the team above 60%.

So, yes, management could have largely seen this coming. A shallow line up with too many weak spots and injury risks was asking for this kind of collapse. But now that the team has fallen out of the race, I don't think they should worry about their Rumsfeld Number creeping even higher. As mentioned, right now guys like Fields, Sweeney, Owens and Anderson are contributing to the Rumsfeld Number. These guys need all the at-bats they can get now, so that the team knows whether they can be a part of the next contender. Hopefully, their VORPS will climb above zero, and they'll cut into the Rumsfeld Number, but if they get a bunch of at-bats, don't find success, and that Number creeps even higher, it doesn't necessarily mean the team has done something wrong. Alex Gordon, the Royals best prospect has contributed 9.4 to that teams Rumsfeld Number of 29.8. First, it's depressing how much higher the Sox' Number is, but second, can you fault the Royals for giving Gordon every chance to prove he's the real deal? Of course not. And no matter how it plays out, the Sox should give their young guys the same opportunity.

So, yes, it is Sox' management's fault that Donald Rumsfeld wears White Sox, but they shouldn't worry too much about continuing to allow him to do so. The team's Rumsfeld Number at the end of the year will tell us less about management's decisions the rest of the way, than who contributes to it. If it's Erstad, Uribe, and Mackowiak, for example, then they should be criticized for wasting at-bats on aging, ineffective players. If it's Sweeney, Fields and Owens, on the other hand, then at least they began evaluating their assets moving forward.

No Surrender

2007-06-08T09:29:00.000-05:00

It's not a white flag when there's nothing left of your season to surrender. With the MLB draft underway, Josh Fields getting his first extended taste of the bigs, and another lost week at Comiscular dragging the '07 Sox deeper into the depths, it's time for this team, and this blog, to look to the future.

I know it's still relatively early; we're only about a third of the way through the season. But let's face it, the White Sox are playing terrible baseball. They're 26-30, nine games behind the Indians in the division and 6.5 behind the wild card leading Tigers. And, when you look at the Sox stats -- be it runs scored and allowed, or the peripherals that lead to runs scored and allowed -- you see that the Sox deserve to be three of four games worse than that. When Baseball Prospectus ran the rest of the season a million times, the Sox made the playoffs 1.2% of the time. If they adjust player performance for pre-season predictions of production, the Sox make it only .4% of the time. This season is over.

What does that mean? Well, first the Sox should deal any future free agents whom they won't resign. That includes Mark Buehrle, Jermaine Dye, and even Tadahito Iguchi if they don't plan to keep him (Iguchi is the only one of the three who they probably should keep based on performance and likely market rates). They should also move any overrated veterans behind whom they have a young replacement. Fields, Brian Anderson, Ryan Sweeney, Jerry Owens, and Luis Terrero may or may not be the Sox answers at third base and across the outfield, but the Sox believe they are. Now's the time to find out. If guys like Scott Podsenik, Darrin Erstad and Joe Crede can get back on the field, establish that they're somewhat healthy, and seduce some other team, then the Sox should trade them now and get what they can. The same probably goes for aging pitcher Jose Contreras.

The Sox system is one of the weaker one's in baseball. Fields is a nice player, almost certain to be the team's everyday third baseman, and with a decent shot to develop into a star. But Eric Hinske is the best player on PECOTA's list of comparables for the guy. In another system, he wouldn't stand out so much. The Sox need to restock, especially offensively. Use the value in current players to do so now. The window on this group is closed. We got our World Series win while it was open. That's the best thing to happen to Chicago baseball in nearly a century, but let's not set the franchise back by clinging to that core now that it's time is gone.

The Sox have built up some depth of talent on the mound. It's not great, but it's better than their offensive prospects. Lance Broadway, Charlie Haeger, Heath Phillips, Gavin Floyd, Adam Russell, Gio Gonzalez, Jack Egbert, Kyle McCulloch, and Clayton Richard are all prospects who may someday start for the Sox. Few of them have top of the rotation potential though, even if they reach their ceilings. So, even here the Sox have work to do.

They resumed that work yesterday, on day one of the MLB draft. Aaron Poreda was exactly what the Sox needed. He's a high upside guy. While his development has been slow, he has the frame and stuff to end up being outstanding. After overly safe picks like Broadway and McCulloch, the Sox needed to take a bit of a risk, and get a guy who might someday be an ace. Plus, Poreda was allegedly atop Oakland's board, as well, and they've shown a penchant for finding good young pitching, so that's a good sign, right? And, Nevin Griffith is another upside guy (although awfully scrawny at this point) who Bryan Smith thought would go much higher. There's no right way to draft anymore, but it's important for a system to have balance between reliably producing average players and occasionally producing busts and stars. The Sox helped balance their system yesterday, and that's a good thing for the future.

The Sox face the Astros tonight at Comiscular. It's hard, therefore, not to think about the fact that this same group of guys basically won a World Series against these same Astros less than two years ago. But teams age. Injuries take their toll. This group won't reach that summit again. The goal of every team should be to win a championship, and the fastest way for the Sox to reach that goal is to clean house now. And there's no need to wave a white flag when doing so. You can't surrender when you're not even part of the fight.

Night At The Ballpark

2007-06-05T09:02:00.001-05:00

Well, there was no Roger Clemens, but it was still an interesting night at the ballpark, nevertheless. Without Clemens around, attention returned to the two proud, but struggling, franchises on the field. Ozzie Guillen expressed his dismay, jokingly one assumes, towards the Yankees for failing to come through on their promised distraction.

He was probably doubly irritated that Clemens wasn't there to take the heat (as my buddy Scalia's Gavel observed, Clemens is such a prima donna that he didn't even give us a chance to make fun of him in person for being a prima donna) in the ninth inning. With the Sox leading 6-1, one on, one out, Ozzie emerged from the dugout to pull starter Jon Garland. At that moment, despite the five run lead, every ounce of frustration built up this season came forth. Thirty-thousand plus fans let Ozzie know they didn't approve of the decision. Now, part of that was fear of the bullpen, and part of it was frustration on Garland's behalf. But the decision was somewhat defensible -- Garland had thrown 120 or so pitches -- and regardless, this time a year ago people would not have booed Ozzie. It's that simple. Whether or not he's lost the team, Ozzie has lost the Sox' fan base, and that's remarkable given that he delivered the city's first World Series championship in nearly a century.

Speaking of the bullpen, Matt Thornton was one of the few guys on the team actually getting people out. Now he's getting lit up? Can we not catch a break out there? I think Bret Prinz has proven that he can be a league average reliever, which is a heck of a lot better than what we have had, and Ryan Bukvich is a former prospect who throws very hard, but the pressure on these guys to come through is immense. While we're making short observations: the woman behind me brought a sign to get ESPN's attention. She was the only female along with a few guys -- some Yankees fans, some Sox fans -- and she was so proud of her sign. The she opened it up and realized that it read: Hey Yanks, prepare for an Especially Serious Poundig Now!" Yes, I mean for that to read "Poundig." She forgot the "n." Sox fans make me so proud. Also, to the guy sitting in front of me: making fun of her lisp was probably not the best way to pick up the chick sitting next to you.

Anyway, returning to our scheduled blog: last night also brought together two players often mentioned in trade rumors together. Rumors swirl that the Sox and Yanks may deal Jermaine Dye and Bobby Abreu straight up for one another. I'm skeptical, but if it's for real, I like the deal for the Sox. Dye is 33 years old. For the moment, he has a remarkably reasonable contract. He is making $7 million this season, while PECOTA projects his value at $14.5 million for 2007. But this is the last year he'll be a value. After this year he'll be a free agent, and probably cost more than the $9 million a year that PECOTA says he'll be worth over the next three seasons. Abreu, on the other hand, is making a robust $15.6 million this season. He too is 33, and his salary is also not out of line. PECOTA projects his value at $16 million this year. PECOTA projects that Abreu will be worth $11 million a year for the next three seasons. Obviously, one thing you can take from this is that PECOTA thinks Abreu will be more valuable over the next three years. In fact, PECOTA says Abreu will have a SuperVORP (think of it as total value) of 42.8 from 2008-2010, as opposed to 39.7 for Dye. It projects comparable value for this season. Next year, Abreu will still be under contract at $16 million, when PECOTA projects his value at around $14 million. Still, not crazy. And, as mentioned, as a free agent, Dye will probably command far more than the $11.5 million PECOTA says he'll be worth in 2008.

Still, all in all, this is a fairly close match-up. So, is it just moving pieces for the sake of moving pieces? Well, having the option to lock Abreu up for 2008 at a reasonable price gives Abreu slightly more value. The likely slower decline to Abreu's skills gives him another edge. Abreu's skill set is one that typically serves a player much later into his career. PECOTA sees a remarkable resemblance between a 2007 Dye and a 1991 Dave Henderson. Henderson was out of baseball 1994, never played 110 games in a season after '91, and hit a grand total of 25 home runs over the last three years of his career. In '91 Henderson was a year younger than Dye is now. And the comparison is not unique. Other comparables for Dye -- relatively nonathletic, pull-hitting sluggers -- include the rapidly fading 2006 version of Cliff Floyd, and the washed-up 1986 version of Jim Rice. There are exceptions. Dye also looks like a 1985 Dave Winfield to PECOTA. Winfield played until he was 43 and hit 186 home runs from 1986 on.

In contrast, Abreu's comparables include still in their primes 2000 Kenny Lofton, 1972 Carl Yastrzemski, and 1992 Ricky Henderson. Abreu's speed and patience generally bode well for a long, relatively successful twilight to his career. On the other hand, there are no guarantees. His top two comparables are a 1994 John Kruk and a 1991 Von Hayes. Neither was in baseball two years down the road.

So what does all of this add up to? I guess this: Bobby Abreu and Jermain Dye have comparable value, but Abreu is a little more valuable, more likely to have a long, productive tail end of his career, and locked up for 2008. Plus, we have pieces that duplicate Dye's power. We lack pieces that can duplicate Abreu's on-base prowess. So, if the Yankees really asked about a straight swap, then I say do it. But no one should think that move alone will drastically change the team's fortunes this year.

And, as I saw last night, those fortunes, bleak as they appear, are starting to wear on the patience of Sox fans. And, on their spelling.

Throw Me A Bone Here!

2007-06-04T09:24:00.000-05:00

It is developing to be a long, slow summer for Chicago baseball fans. Another series, another team, another country, same stupid results for the White Sox this weekend. Well, at least I get to see Roger Clemens return tonight. Huh, what was that?

A couple of weeks ago I was reading an article about how many minor league starts Clemens wanted to make. I started counting forward starts and realized that he might very well make his first big league start at US Comiscular. So I bought a couple tickets (my season tix are weekend-only). I got them a face value. Then, it was confirmed that he would indeed debut tonight, and prices at the club's ticket exchange doubled. I would have re-sold for a profit, but I was too excited to finally see something exciting at a Sox game this season.

Then, in the third inning of yesterday's Yankees-Red Sox game, Roger Clemens called Brian Cashman to inform him that he would have to miss his start Monday because of a fatigued groin. WHAT?!? Who the heck calls the GM during a game to have this discussion? And, did Clemens self-diagnose; why was he making this call and not a team doctor? And, what the hell is a fatigued groin anyway? Does the Rocket need a fluffer? Viagra? The Yanks have a minor league deal with Clemens. They can cut bait right now without owing another cent. They'll save 28 million dollars; Clemens can't save this season anyway; and he's apparently becoming an ever-increasing prima donna. Plus, if I don't get to see his debut, no one should.

Anyway, instead, I'll be off to see Matt DeSalvo take on the Sox tonight. It's ok. I enjoy going to see the Sox under almost any conditions, so I'm still looking forward to it. Of course, it's probably going to rain, so I won't even get the booby prize. Like I said: it's shaping up to be a long, slow summer.

He Gone?

2007-06-01T08:58:00.001-05:00

The White Sox have now lost five games in a row, slipped below .500, and appear headed down the slippery slope so many of us feared before the season even began. The Sox are hardly out of it -- the Twins, for example, were in much more dire straits (Brothers in Arms is now stuck in my head) last year at this point -- but the situation is grim. The Indians are really good. They've opened a seven game lead on the Sox. And, perhaps most disturbing, there are two other teams who seem better equipped to contend with the Tribe than the Sox are.

So, naturally, speculation is beginning that Ozzie Guillen may not be long for his job. Normally, I don't take that stuff too seriously. I'll think about when it actually happens. But when the Great Peter Gammons says it may be coming, as he did on the radio this morning, I take notice.

So, should Ozzie be fired? Well, on the one hand, Ozzie is obnoxious, arrogant, homophobic, and a dinosaur when it comes to offensive baseball. I don't think managers have too much of an effect on a team's performance, so all things being equal, I'd rather have the team be managed by someone I respect as a person -- *cough* Harold Baines *cough* -- than someone I don't like. I don't like Ozzie. Plus, he really is in the dark ages offensively. Last night, for example, the Sox ran themselves into out after out in an effort to manufacture runs. I thought we had crossed that threshold where everyone realized that outs were the most precious commodity in baseball. You don't give them away.

On the other hand, as Gammons said, Ozzie only gets fired if the team believes that their performance is not matching up to their talent. He's not sure that's the case. He's not sure the team thinks that's the case. I'm almost certain that's not the case. This is a .500 team. In fact, they've won more than their fair share of games this year. They're 24-25, but based on peripheral stats, they look more like a 21-28 team according to Baseball Prospectus. That's starting to look an awful lot like the 72-90 team PECOTA thought the Sox would be before the season started. Based on performance so far, BP says the Sox have about a 4% chance of making the play-offs. But if you adjust performance the rest of the year for what PECOTA expected of guys before the season started, they have a 1.6% chance. In other words, any way you slice it, the Sox are over-achieving this year. Yikes.

And, as archaic as Ozzie's offensive attitudes are, he's pretty creative in player usage, finding ways to get the guys he believes are his best players on the field. I may not always agree with his analysis of who to get on the field, but getting his guys out there is a skill. And Ozzie is usually pretty good at managing his pitching staff. He has certainly demonstrated a willingness at times to use his best pitchers in the highest leverage situations, even when "The Book" might suggest something different. And, as I mentioned, I'm not sure that any manager has much of an impact on team performance, so what exactly do the Sox accomplish by firing Ozzie?

I don't like Guillen. I'm tired of his act. But, truthfully, I think it's unlikely he'll be fired. Even with Gammons's speculation, I'll believe it when I see it. And even if it does happen, I don't expect it to make any difference in the Sox slide into temporary irrelevance in the AL Central.

Dog Days Starting Early

2007-05-30T09:10:00.000-05:00

Keep it interesting. That's all I ask. Ok, the World Championship in 2005 changed my expectations level somewhat, but still, all I really ask on the White Sox each season is that they keep it interesting. Be part of the race until September. Be part of the conversation on Baseball Tonight. I fear that won't be the case this year. I've feared that all along. The White Sox look like a .500 team. And that's how they're playing. Some days the pitching is there, some days the hitting is there, and some days they have it all and look like contenders. But they lack the depth on the mound or at the plate to do it consistently and truly compete with the Indians in the Central.

Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong. Look the Sox have played even worse than their record this season, but that record is not so bad. They are at the moment above .500, and only one game out of the Wild Card in the loss column -- a preposterous observation a quarter of the way into the season, if I do say so myself. But I just feel "blah" about the whole thing. Maybe going to Minnesota does it to me. That dome is one of the most soul-less places left in baseball after the recent wave of stadium construction and rehab. And, the team is the kind of group you'd love to root for, but who you absolutely hate to play against. They sap your will. It's not getting beat by Johan Santana and Justin Morneau that bugs me; it's getting beat by Nick Punto and Jason Tyner. It's losing because of ground balls that bounce 75 feet into the air off the green concrete that passes for a field there.

These doldrums are bad. I'm actually excited about inter-league play. Inter-league play is the kind of thing that's needed to drum up interest in places where they don't really care about baseball. Usually I view inter-league play as an annoying interruption of the divisional race. This year, I bought tickets for an extra Cubs-Sox game at Comiscular, and I find myself contemplating who excites me on the Houston Astros. A couple of weeks ago, I bought tickets for the Sox-Yanks game Monday because I heard that Clemens might be making his first start then. It paid off. But I find myself more excited about seeing Clemens start than going to a Sox-Yanks game.

Maybe this team will get on a role. As much as they lack depth, the top of their roster is very good. Unlike most .500 teams, the Sox have the talent to put together a really good record with the right combination of health and luck. Maybe the Sox will show passion and fire, and I'll get fired up, too. But I fear that the dog days of summer may drag a little more than usual this year.

No Such Luck

2007-05-23T10:59:00.000-05:00

Long shots were all the rage at last night's NBA draft lottery. Unfortunately, the Bulls weren't one of the teams cashing in. The Portland Trailblazers and Seattle Sonics each overcame long odds to jump to the top of the draft. Aside from the joy that I take (bizarrely) in seeing Bill Simmons and the rest of the Celtics' fan base suffer, I lament that the Bulls were an Eddy Curry tip-in from having Portland's odds of winning. Oh well.

The ninth pick remains an insanely valuable chit given this year's deep draft. Rumors are that Roy Hibbert will withdraw from the draft, which is a shame. I thought an athletic front line of Hibbert, Ben Wallace and Tyrus Thomas blocking shots, grabbing rebounds, and throwing outlets to Kirk Hinrich, Ben Gordon, Luol Deng and Andres Nocioni was probably the Bulls' best bet to be something unique and very, very good.

Nevertheless, good options remain. I suspect the Zach Randolph rumors are nonsense. Still some kind of sign and trade packaging Andres Nocionin and whoever the ninth pick is for Randolph would make a modicum of sense. Portland will have Greg Oden and Lamarcus Aldridge to man the middle, and Nocioni would allow them to part ways with Darius Miles, which the Blazers would apparently love to do. The Bulls meanwhile would have Wallace, Randolph and Thomas up front, with Deng, Sefolosha, Gordon, Hinrich and Duhon in the back court. That team contends for the Eastern Conference title.

A more realistic option, I believe, is the Bulls moving up, probably with the Celtics, to take Yi Jianlian. John Paxson apparently loves the tall, versatile Chinese forward. He is big, and can score from anywhere on the floor. Yi will not be a foreign bust. I also think he'd fit in well with the Bulls high paced attack. If Thomas can guard centers, and there are few in the league right now big enough and skilled enough to be a problem, then he and Yi could make a dynamic duo for the future. Thomas, Yi and Deng might be the most athletic, exciting, and talented front line in the NBA one day.

But what would the cost be to move up? And is it worth paying when a player meeting the Bulls' immediate need will likely be available at nine? The Bulls need a guy who can settle on the block and score in the half court when teams slow it down and take away the Bulls pick and roll/pop game. Spencer Hawes is the most gifted post scorer in this draft, and he's a really good one at that. Everyone compares him to Vlade Divac. Don't you think Divac would have helped this team? Plus, he's a good enough face-up jump shooter to play pick and pop with Hinrich too. Again, Wallace, Hawes, Thomas, Deng, Nocioni, Gordon, Hinrich, Sefolosha and Duhon is the rotation of a legitimate contender.

The ping pong balls may not have bounced the Bulls' way last night. But that's no reason not to be very excited about this off-season, and the team's future.

David Aardsma: Traitor

2007-05-21T09:37:00.000-05:00

David Aardsma must still be being paid by the Cubs. He must be a traitor to the White Sox' cause. That's the only explanation for the suddenly flammable nature of the previously effective reliever. His ERA went up 3.37. Not his ERA went up to 3.37, it went up that much. He entered the weekend with a 1.64 ERA and exited with a 5.01. Actually, Aardsma had an ERA over 5.00 in day games last year, so maybe that explains it. The sample size is too small to read much into, but Aardsma's ineffectiveness in day games may reflect some sort of truth about his pitching.

Anyway, Aardsma's ineffectiveness was just one odd aspect of an odd weekend. What else would you expect from this Crosstown Garbage. (I detest this series by the way. I relish the tribal aspects of sports. There is unity when everyone in US Comiscular is pulling together for the Sox to beat the Twins. There is much less enjoyable about the hostility felt at the ballpark when a third of the fans are suddenly rooting for the other team. And I certainly had no interest in being at Wrigley this weekend as part of a vocal minority). The Sox entered the series with one of the more effective bullpens in baseball. The Cubs saw the pen as their principle question mark. But it was the Sox' pen that blew up.

As expected, NL pitching provided something of a tonic for ailing White Sox bats. Paul Konerko has even found his way above the Mendoza line. What was less expected was the effect of Cubs' bats on our pitching. Oh well. Honestly, the Cubs have played better than the Sox this year. The Cubs have the stats and run differential of a pretty good team. The Sox have the numbers of a .500-ish team, and they're only that good because of heroic pitching so far. The bats really better wake up at some point.

Speaking of which, as much as Ryan Sweeney and Brian Anderson would make more valuable parts of the outfield picture than Luis Terrero and Darrin Erstad, its hard to fault the club for returning the struggling Sweeney to Charlotte. If it helps his long-term development into a starting major league outfielder, then the marginal loss of production is worth it. Sweeney wasn't doing much with the big club anymore anyway.

In other interesting prospect news: Joe Crede left Sunday's game with back problems. He's been playing with two herniated discs for two years. As the Redhead (Official Wife of the Fan Club, for those with short memories) can tell you: ouch. Anyway, I wonder if Crede is going to miss extensive time whether Josh Fields might not get a taste of the big time in his absence. Fields has been struggling early this year at Charlotte, but he's heated up of late, and offers some intriguing pop when he doesn't swing and miss.

Anyway, the Bulls are through. The Sox have reached the quarter pole above .500 and 4.5 games back of the Indians and Tigers. And, the Crosstown/interleague nonsense has begun. Sounds like baseball season is finally here.

The Matadors Are Singing

2007-05-18T10:27:00.000-05:00

The end of an opera is supposedly marked by a fat lady singing. The closest I can think of in the case of the Chicago Bulls are The Matadors -- the Bulls' dance team consisting entirely of fat, old guys. Anyway, those fat guys have sung. The Bulls are done.

It is odd that the Bulls led four of the six games at the half, and three games by at least 19 points, and yet lost the series four games to two. I should also note that the Bulls were outscored dramatically during this series when the Redhead wasn't watching. Last night she watched her Tivo'd episode of Ugly Betty during the third quarter. Somehow, she refuses to take responsibility for her role in the end of the Bulls' season.

The Bulls shot five of 18 from three point range last night. That's 27.8%, sad for a team that shot 39% during the regular season, second best in the league. Some credit goes to the Detroit defense on that front. They held opponents to 34% from behind the arc this year, fourth best in the NBA. Still, flat out bad shooting was part of it too. Kirk Hinrich was the worst offender, going 0 for three behind the arc and three of 13 overall. Given how poorly he was shooting, it's hard to criticize Hinrich for becoming pass happy in the second half. Nevertheless, this marked the fourth time this series (at least) that Hinrich played scared at key stretches of the game.

Maybe Hinrich will mature past the yips that plagued him this series (his over-passing resulted in a handful of turnovers in the second half). However, as the Bulls now begin their off-season, I think it's clear that if the team is going to move a member of its core group in a deal for an interior scorer, that guy should be Hinrich. Luol Deng is the team's best player. Andres Nocioni's value is at an all-time low coming off his injury. And, Ben Gordon brings a unique skill (the ability to score explosively) that no one else on the team can duplicate. I'm not sure the team needs to make a deal (Spencer Hawes should be available when the Bulls pick, and he's been compared favorably to Vlade Divac as an offensive minded center), but if they do, Hinrich has value, and his skill set can be replicated by Chris Duhon and Thabo Sefolosha.

The other guy who didn't bring much to the table last night was Ben Wallace. Wallace had six points and seven rebounds, and shot a brutal two of eight from the charity stripe. He was a team-worst minus-17 on the night. His achy back may have played a role in his struggles, but age, and the likelihood of injuries, are one reason why the contract the Bulls gave him was a mistake. He's also one dimensional, and when he can't control the game defensively, he offers nothing on the offensive end. Nevertheless, this contract is well structured as these things go, and Wallace is a valuable part of the front-court rotation going forward. He's just not worth max money. The Pistons have a similar component in Antonio McDyess at a much more reasonable price. In fact, McDyess's player efficiency rating was much higher than Wallace's this year. McDyess scored twice as many points per 40 minutes as Big Ben, and grabbed nearly as many rebounds per 40 minutes (11.5 to 12.2), all for $10 million less, this year alone.

This was a good year for the Bulls. They improved in the regular season, and advanced further in the play-offs than any time since MJ roamed the United Center floor. They discovered a stud scorer in Gordon, a budding all-star in Deng, a potential defensive stopper in Sefolosha, and a energizing, shot blocking, game changing young big man in Tyrus Thomas. But they also discovered some flaws that must be addressed. Namely, they need an offensive minded big man to add to Thomas and Wallace in their front court rotation. The Heat have gotten old, the Pistons will age, the Nets may be dismantled this off-season, the Cavs appear to be as flawed as the Bulls, and the Raptors probably even more so. The Eastern Conference will be wide open next season. Hopefully the Bulls will be ready to claim it.

NBA Ramblings

2007-05-16T09:35:00.000-05:00

So, I wrote a brilliant (trust me) 1000 word post earlier this morning, and Blogger ate it. Now, you're all going to be deprived. But I will put together a shorter version, touching on my key points.

First, the Bulls played well, and shot the lights out, and return to the United Center down three games to two. It's tough not to ask what if. What if, during game three, Scott Skiles remembered that teams get timeouts in the NBA? What if Skiles wasn't the last guy in Chicago to realize that Tyrus Thomas had an important role to play in this series? The Bulls have led three of the five games by at least 19 points: what if they were coming home up three to two?

It's pointless to ask. Game four wouldn't have played out the same way if the Bulls held on in game three. Or maybe it would have. The point is that there's no way to know. At this point, I'd put the Bulls chances at less than one in four to win the series, but that's a heck of a lot better than as of Sunday morning.

Kirk Hinrich largely shed the fear and panic that have plagued him in the fourth quarter earlier in the series. I'd like to thank the league for not suspending Captain Kirk for what may or may not have been a below the belt shot to Flip Murray (although it was clearly above Kirk's belt, since Flip's bait and tackle were about forehead high on Hinrich at the time). Anyway, it was also nice to see Ben Gordon finally have a good shooting night. Luol Deng continued to quietly be the Bulls' best player. And, Thomas brought energy, athleticism and complete chaos to the proceedings, all of which the Bulls thrive on.

It was also fun to see a classic Rasheed Wallace melt down. It's not clear why Wallace's antics warrant a single tech, whereas standing in the wrong spot can bring down a full suspension. Of course, the NBA has a moral code designed for fourth graders. You can't walk too far from the bench, um, because I said so. The Spurs have now been rewarded -- two Phoenix starters suspended for a game versus one Spurs reserve suspended for two is a win for San Antonio -- for thuggishly trying to injure the Suns' best player. Stu Jackson has explained this travesty by saying that any rule applied consistently is fair. He has also explained that the NBA can't possibly have a rule that requires officials to make a judgment call about the severity of a player's infraction or his intentions in leaving the bench.

First off, this argument is complete bullsh*t in this setting. This is a court of basketball, not law. The only goal is to create an even playing field on which the best players and team can prevail. That goal has been thwarted here. Considerations of rule of law, procedural and substantive due process, and equal protection are out of place in this context. Second, the rule sucks. Officials are asked to make judgment calls all the time: was that defender still moving, who initiated contact, does Sheed's tantrum deserve a second T? Even this rule asks the league to determine whether an altercation was on-going when the players left the bench. That judgment call is why Tim Duncan wasn't suspended when he wandered out to the key area from the bench while the game was going on the other night. And if the NBA wants to pretend that it has formal legal system to govern player's actions, well the law is full of judgment calls. Prosecutors decide whether or not to prosecute a crime, judge's weigh the relevance and improper prejudicial value of evidence, and juries (notoriously terrible decision making bodies) determine defendants' intentions all the time. Instead of sticking to their arena of competition, the league seems to be trying to govern itself by playing at something it doesn't really understand. The end result is that the Suns got screwed, and whether the rule was applied consistently or not, the integrity of this year's playoffs are undermined.

Um, now that that rant is over, we return you to your regularly scheduled blog. Go Bulls.

Staying Alive

2007-05-14T09:31:00.000-05:00

Well, that was a stupid title. Now I'm going to have a disco song stuck in my head the rest of the day. If you do too, I apologize. Nevertheless, it is what the Bulls were doing on Sunday. The Bulls are still almost certain to lose the series, probably in game five in Detroit. Still, it was nice to get a win.

The Bulls once again built a big lead, more than 20 points this time, but unlike Thursday, they held on to win yesterday. I can identify three differences between Thursday's game and yesterday's. First, Skiles actually called a time out early enough to slow Detroit's roll at a crucial moment. Second, Skiles inserted a fresh Tyrus Thomas into the line-up at a key time, and the rookie brought energy and fearlessness to the floor. And, third, the Red Head stayed awake. The Red Head, Official Wife of the Fan Club, fell asleep Thursday with the Bulls up by 19. Yesterday, she made it through the game. You tell me if you see the difference.

Anyway, a correction from my post about game three. The Official Father of the Fan Club -- it's family week here, apparently -- reminded me that it was Greg Anthony, and not Anderson Hunt, who had the testicular fortitude to keep taking shots against Duke in 1991. Hunt froze up as bad as Larry Johnson and Stacey Augmon. That's why it was so devastating when Anthony fouled out. Also, my friend Eisy would like me to clarify that Grant Hill wasn't really a bust as a pro, he was just injury prone. The point remains, however, that he was a better college player than pro player. We now return you to your regularly scheduled Chicago Sports Blog.

Hubie Brown yesterday, in a rare moment of lucidity, called the Bulls' guards out for over-passing, leading to too many turnovers. He mentioned it while Detroit was making a run, and I pointed to the same problem as a big part of the reason why the Bulls blew their lead in game three. The Bulls are a ball movement team, so it's tough for Skiles to criticize his players for passing too much. However, all series the Bulls, especially Kirk Hinrich and Ben Gordon, have been prone to take tough passes over easy shots. It shows in the turnover numbers, and it cost the team game three.

Luol Deng has been the one fearless guy this series, and has reinforced my belief that he is on the verge of joining the league's elite. For everyone clamoring for a post scorer who can demand a double team, Deng will be that guy soon. Keep in mind that Michael Jordan was that guy when the Bulls won six titles. It doesn't have to be a power forward or center, it just has to be a guy who creates a mismatch. Deng, with his long arms and increasing strength and knowledge of how to use his body, is becoming a mismatch for small forwards on the block. And he's too quick for a power forward. Throw in smart passing out of double teams, and you have your mismatch guy. Starting next season, the Bulls offense in the half court should probably flow through Deng first and foremost. And when they need to create a good, quality shot, the ball should go to Deng on the block.

Anyway, he got some help finally last night in the form of Tyrus Thomas. Thomas had 8 points, 4 rebounds and a block in 9 fourth quarter minutes. He actually led the team in 4th quarter shot attempts. Thomas has actually been the Bulls' most aggressive player this post-season. Usage measures the number of possessions a player "uses" per 40 minutes. A player "uses" a possession if he attempts a shot or free throws, or makes an assist or turnover. Thomas's 26.3 per 40 minutes leads the Bulls. Deng and Gordon are next at 23.0 and 22.8 respectively. Obviously, usage isn't necessarily a good thing. Missed shots and turnovers are uses of a possession. But in a series in which the Bulls have been too passive, Thomas's aggressiveness serves a purpose. I hope he gets more minutes in game five. Skiles should put him in whenever the Bulls show signs of being scared or passive.

One final note: my friend Purd thinks Hinrich intentionally punched Flip Murray in the ball-sackal region on Murray's facial of Captain Kirk. To examine the evidence, go here. I think he flailed wildly and happened to "pick a peach," as Purd put it. Purd believes the most damning evidence is around the 20 second mark of the footage. What do you guys think?

Out Manned

2007-05-11T09:26:00.000-05:00

This isn't about who has more talent. This isn't about who has more skill. This series is about a lot of things the importance of which I normally downplay in sports. The Pistons have out manned the Bulls -- not in a their players are simply better than ours kind of way, but in a their players have more courage, determination and savvy than ours.

It almost makes me feel nostalgic. Before there was MJ, Scottie, and Horace winning championships, there was the Bulls getting maimed by the Pistons. The Bulls would get knocked down, and they wouldn't get up again. The early 90's Pistons were the fiercest team I've ever seen on a basketball court. I'm not sure the Bulls ever overcame that. It's just that by the time the Bulls swept the Pistons in 1991, the Bulls were so sublimely talented that no degree of toughness could slow them down. Plus, the talent half of the Pistons' talent plus toughness tandem was fading due to age and injury.

This year's Bulls were always much better at home than on the road. Opening against the Heat at home they gained confidence and momentum, and were able to keep it going in Miami. Opening against the Pistons in Detroit, the Bulls were beaten down and embarrassed. It was apparently enough for Chris Duhon to punch his own ticket on the end of his Bulls' career. He no-showed a film session and collected a DNP-Coach's Decision in game 3. Ben Wallace has taken to mixing spurts of energy and production with periods of skulking about, both on and off the court. He showed up late for game 3, played well early, but spent much of the third quarter not getting back on D.

Returning home, the energy and confidence of the crowd, which remains one of the best in basketball even in the UC can't channel that energy the way Chicago Stadium could, got the Bulls off and running. The Bulls needed to stake the Pistons last night. Up 19 points in the 3rd quarter, the Bulls needed to not only hold on to win, but to put the Pistons away. Instead the Bulls played scared, the Pistons came back, and we can all start debating Roy Hibbert vs. Spencer Hawes.

Actually, last night's game reminded me of something other than the old Pistons-Bulls rivalry. Ironically, this memory comes from March of 1991, the same year the Bulls finally toppled the Pistons in the east. In 1990, UNLV mauled Duke in the NCAA finals 103-73. Entering the national semi-final in 1991, UNLV was on a 45 game winning streak and heavily favored over Duke again. But this Duke team was a group of stone cold killers. As much as Christian Laettner, Bobby Hurley and Grant Hill have disappointed in the NBA, the three were the toughest, most confident, savviest group of college players that I've ever laid eyes on. Guys like Brian Davis and Thomas Hill had also picked up that swagger, allowing them to play far above their talent and skill. In fact, it was Davis who would connect on the three point play (the old-fashioned way) that gave Duke the lead for good down the stretch. But what I remember most about that game, and what I was reminded of last night, is how scared UNLV looked down the stretch.

UNLV led at the half. They led by four with three minutes left. And then they fell apart. Greg Anthony may or may not have been scared, but he fouled out fairly early. Moses Scurry probably wasn't scared, and in any event looked like a hardened criminal (probably a good guy and gentle soul, just scary looking), so no one would say he was anyway. But Larry Johnson and Stacey Augmon were quaking in their free sneakers. The two best players on what some were calling the best team of all time, and they were terrified. They were afraid to shoot. They dribbled too much, passed too much, and when they did shoot, hesitated first and then missed because they were out of rhythm. Johnson missed free throw after free throw down the stretch, and their final possession deteriorated into complete chaos.

Ladies and gentlemen, playing the roles of Johnson and Augmon last night: Ben Gordon and Kirk Hinrich. From the mid-third quarter on, the two of them looked terrified. They dribbled too much, over passed, and were afraid to take big shots. Luol Deng, like Anderson Hunt in 1991, kept firing away, but his teammates lacked the guts to back him up. I wonder if energy guys like Tyrus Thomas, Thabo Sefolosha and Andres Nocioni could have helped lift a flat team in the third quarter. We'll never know. Skiles never called their numbers. Nocioni entered with less than three minutes left in the period and neither Thomas nor Sefolosha played in the second half.

This is not a condemnation of Gordon, Hinrich or the current Bulls. They're young. Unlike the Rebels on 91 who were done after that year, the Bulls can learn and grow from this experience. Hopefully they will. The Pistons are ageing. Chauncey Billups is a free agent. They'll probably resign him, but that may mean they can't resign guys like Carlos Delfino and Jason Maxiell, who were necessary pieces to eventually replace ageing guys like Rasheed Wallace, Chris Webber, Antonio McDyess, etc. A window will open for this Bulls team, and hopefully they'll be more ready when that time comes.

Better Luck This Time

2007-05-10T09:08:00.000-05:00

There's nothing like a series against the hated Twins to re-focus attention on the South Siders. In fact, win, lose or draw (well, no decision, at least), I was planning to take a look at White Sox rookie John Danks this morning. As it turns out, the young hurler (the Baseball Writers' Association of America requires that label to be placed on all pitchers under the age of 26) came up big for the Sox in Minnesota.

Danks has had a weird year so far. Before collecting his first big league win last night, Danks was 0-4. Clearly, he had pitched better than that. But his ERA was hovering above 5.00, so he hadn't pitched that well, right? Last night he gave up one run in six and a third innings. Suddenly, he is 1-4 with a 4.33 ERA. So, does a 1-4 record with a better than league average ERA indicate he's still a tough luck starter? Or, has he not really been as good as his 4.33 ERA indicates?

Prior to last night's game Danks had a normalized runs allowed of 4.63. League average is 4.50. He had a defense-adjusted ERA of 4.73. Again league average is 4.50. What that tells us is that the Sox defense has been playing well behind Danks. Danks has pitched well by some measures. His 7.2 strikeouts per nine, and 2.1 walks per nine are both much better than league average. Even his 10.0 hits allowed per nine is just slightly worse than average. Danks's problem, before last night, has been the long ball. He's allowed 1.5 HR per nine, much higher than the AL average, which is less than one per nine innings.

Last night, Danks didn't give up any home runs, so even though his strikeout totals were typical, and his total base runners allowed was typical (fewer hits and more walks than his normal outing), the results went from below average to above. Wins don't tell you much about a pitcher because offense and bullpen play such a large role. But the bottom line is that Danks had been below average (but close enough for a fifth starter) before pitching really well last night.

So, can Danks sustain last night's success, or is he more likely to return to his slightly below average form prior to last night? Well, Danks's .279 Batting Average Against on Balls in Play (BABIP) is the worst among White Sox starters. On the other hand, that's still better than his 90th percentile projection from PECOTA. And, PECOTA expected Danks to be as homer happy as he's been. Two things speak especially well for Danks's future: he misses more bats than expected, and he misses the strike zone less than expected. My expectation is that Danks will be an even better piece of the puzzle than we expected when we acquired him. But for this season, I think we'll be seeing the slightly below average pitcher from his first five starts more often than the really good pitcher who showed up last night.

Not Just a Fugly Mascot

2007-05-09T09:04:00.000-05:00

Southpaw, the White Sox thing-a-mabob mascot, is fugly. He's also apparently the only southpaw on the team. That's the only way to explain how Justin Morneau wound up hitting against righty Nick Masset in the 10th inning last night. Oh wait, there's another explanation -- more on that in a second.

Between work and the Bulls' run, I haven't dedicated much time to the White Sox yet this season. And, frankly, it's still too early to get any real big picture answers about this team. But it's not too early to focus on Ozzie Guillen's inexplicable bullpen usage last night.

Obviously, it's not Ozzie's fault that Mike MacDougal couldn't get his job done last night. There will be nights like that. Anyway, MacDougal's off night wasted a great start by Javier Vazquez. However, thanks to a solid outing from David Aardsma (who leads the league in consecutive a's), the Sox reached the Twins' half of the 10th still tied at four.

Ozzie called on Andrew Sisco at this point to fac Luis Castillo. Castillo is awful against lefties. Ozzie had now turned to a lefty to get him out twice in one game. In the eighth inning, Matt Thornton induced a run-scoring ground out from him. Now in the 10th, Castillo came through with a double off of Sisco. With another lefty due up in Jason Kubel, Ozzie stuck with Sisco, who rewarded him with a strike out.

One out, man on second, and Torii Hunter due up. Hunter is a righty, and he's been crushing the ball this year, but he's hit righties nearly as well as lefties. He's followed by another righty, Michael Cuddyer, who over the past three seasons has had nearly identical success against righties and lefties. And just behind him sits the Twins' best hitter (with Joe Mauer out injured), left handed first baseman Justin Morneau. Unlike Hunter and Cuddyer, Morneau has a distinct platoon split. He kills righties; he's mortal against lefties. One other note, Sisco has nearly identical numbers against righties and lefties as well.

But Ozzie chose Nick Masset. And then he intentionally walked Hunter. So, if we take Hunter out of the equation, Ozzie's choice was between Sisco against Cuddyer and Morneau, or Masset against Cuddyer and Morneau. Obviously, the match-up most likely to kill you here is the righty killer Morneau against Masset, which is exactly what happened. Wouldn't you rather take your chances with Sisco against Cuddyer than giving a favorable match-up to the reigning MVP in the 10th inning?

But Ozzie even had a third option. See, the Sox are carrying a bloated 12 man pitching staff. Among this dirty dozen is the mysterious Boone Logan, last seen on May 4th, when he threw a taxing inning in which he unleashed eight whole pitches. But it must have been taxing because even though the Sox have three lefties for no discernable reason except when a guy like Morneau surfaces in the 10th inning of a game, Ozzie didn't use Mr. Logan. Might Cuddyer have beaten Sisco? Sure. So, Ozzie used Masset to get him. He still could have brought in Logan to face Morneau. Do I like Logan? Not especially. But lefties are only two of seven off him this year, and as I mentioned, Morneau kills righties.

Did I mention Morneau is the defending MVP? Presumably Ozzie is aware that Morneau's OPS was 140 points higher against righties than lefties from 2004-06. Certainly he's aware that his OPS is a full 200 points higher against righties than lefties this year. So, Ozzie, armed with enough relievers to defend Sparta, what the heck were you thinking last night?

Oy Vey

2007-05-08T09:22:00.000-05:00

I'm too busy at work to really write today. However, I don't want anyone to accuse me of going away and hiding following the Bulls' lost weekend in Detroit. I argued loud and long that the Bulls were simply a better team than Miami. And I've insisted that the Bulls are about as good as Detroit, so we should expect a long series. Um, about that last part . . .

Actually, I still maintain that the Bulls were about as good as Detroit during the regular season. After all, they had a better scoring margin than the Pistons. And I still expect this to be a six or seven game series. Actually, I'm not sure how much you can learn from a couple of 25 point blowouts. I mean, I don't think the Pistons are really 20 points better than the Bulls.

Nevertheless, at this point the Pistons are more likely to sweep or win in five than the Bulls are to come back and win the series. So, work beckons, but for anyone who needs it, here's an opportunity to rub the last three days in a Bulls' fan's face.

Just Like Old Times

2007-05-04T08:13:00.000-05:00

Okay, so maybe it's not quite like old times. Ben Gordon can get as hot as any scorer around, and I love Luol Deng's all-around game, but they're not exactly MJ and Scottie yet. Plus, while Bulls' fans remain among the two or three smartest, most enthusiastic groups in the NBA (where else would fans cheer extra loud when Thabo Sefolosha is the first guard off the bench just because they believe he's a better third guard than Chris Duhon), the intensity has never been the same at the United Center as it was in the barn. Chicago Stadium was a hot, hazy shoe box of an arena, where you could feel the hot breath of the crowd bearing down on the Pistons at the height of their battles with the Bulls.

Come to think of it, while this iteration of the Pistons has accomplished a lot, they too don't quite measure up to their predecessors. Chauncey Billups is great, but he's no Zeke. Rip and Prince are dynamic, lack the steadiness of Joe Dumars and frightening explosiveness of the microwave. Rasheed, Chris Webber and McDyess are a formidable front court rotation, but they're not evil-incarnate like Lambeer, Rodman and James "I Look Like a Convict" Edwards. And no one on this era's Pistons can match the unique talents of an Adrian Dantley or Mark Aguire. But most of all, I never remember Pistons' fans in the 80s needing that asinine "Deeee-troit Basket-baaaaaaalll!" call to get them going.

Still, there is something reassuring about a Bulls-Pistons playoff series. Order has been restored to the NBA universe. So, while an insane work week has kept me from writing all week, I couldn't let this series begin without comment. Against Miami I was telling anyone who would listen that the Bulls were likely to win because they were simply a better team than Miami. After sitting in the stands with me for game 2, the official brother of the fan club even agreed with me. This is remarkable. He never believes anything I say (he's older, it goes with the territory). His affectionate nickname for me is Shithead. Plus, he's a Pistons' fan because he grew up with his mom outside Detroit.

Anyway, it's certainly not the case this time. The Bulls are definitely not a better team than the Pistons. Of course, the Pistons aren't a definitely better team than the Bulls either. In fact, I'd say the Bulls have been, by the slightest of margins, the better team this year. They've outscored opponents by 5.2 points per game, whereas the Pistons have only outscored the opposition by 4.2 points per game. Both team's finished strong. The Pistons upped their scoring margin to 5.8 points per game over the last quarter of the season. The Bulls were even hotter, beating opponents by 7.3 points per game over that stretch -- second best in basketball behind the Spurs.

So, the Bulls outscored opponents by a little more than the Pistons all year, and finished even hotter than Detroit. But not by enough. Because one area where the Pistons outpaced the Bulls slightly was wins: 52-49. And that means four of the next seven games will be in Detroit (and I do think there will be seven games). And that edge is more than the razor thin difference between the teams. So, as much as it pains me, I have to take the Pistons in seven. And this is one time I hope I'm wrong.

The Bulls, Too, Are Who We Thought They Were

2007-04-27T09:25:00.000-05:00

As the Bulls and Heat gear up for game three tonight in Miami, I've been hearing a lot of people talk about why the Bulls can't sustain what they've been doing. Some of these arguments are wishcasting. The last time the Heat were down 2-0 they came back to beat the Mavs for the NBA title. Who cares? Among many other variables, Dwayne Wade was healthy then. The last time the Bulls were up 2-0 they blew the series to the Washington Wizards. And, all of four players from that team will suit up tonight. These arguments tell us nothing more than that, yes, teams do sometimes overcome 2-0 deficits.

Some of the other arguments have more of a ring of truth. Except they're wrong. The most common argument is that the Bulls are too perimeter oriented to remain consistent on offense. Over the course of the year, the Bulls took 68% of their attempts as jump shots. In comparison, their opponents took a minuscule 66% of their attempts as jump shots. Wait a second. That's almost exactly the same. Yeah, but the heat only took 63% of their attempts as jump shots. Oh, that's almost the same too. I hate when facts interfere with a perfectly good rationalization. Based on the rate the two teams play at, and their turnover percentages, we can expect each team to take about 77 shot attempts a game. For the Heat, 48 of those 77 can expected to be jump shots. For the Bulls, 52 of those 77 attempts can be expected to be jump shots. In other words, the perimeter oriented team takes on average one more jump shot per quarter than its opponent. The Bulls have been a little more perimeter oriented so far in this series, but don't let two games fool you Heat fans, they're taking jumpers because its working, not because they have to.

Well, say Heat apologists, perimeter oriented or not, there's no way the Bulls stay as hot as they have been. Well, this is interesting. The Bulls have been "hot" in the playoffs. In reality, the Bulls won one game in which they shot poorly, and torched Miami in one game when they got hot. But to give the argument the benefit of the doubt, we'll instead pretend that the Bulls have been consistently hot. So far in the playoffs, the Bulls have .531 effective field goal percentage (e%) from the floor, including .513 e% on jump shots. That is a step up from the team's .493 e% in the regular season (.462 e% on jumpers). But this is not blind luck. The Bulls have been getting more open shots in the postseason than they did in the regular season because their ball movement has improved. 60% of the team's regular season baskets were assisted, 65% of its made jumpers. In the postseason, a shocking 71% of its made baskets have been assisted, 74% of its outside jumpers. Yes, the Bulls are making a lot of baskets, but they're doing so because they're moving the ball around and getting wide open looks. If the Heat continue to look a step slow getting to jump shooters, and the Bulls continue getting the ball to guys when they're open, there's no reason the Bulls can't continue to light Miami up.

I'm not saying the Bulls will beat Miami in game three the way they did in game two. I wouldn't be surprised if Miami wins tonight. I wouldn't be surprised if the series comes back to Chicago. Given the chance involved in a short series, I wouldn't even be shocked if the Heat come all the way back to win it. But the Bulls aren't up 2-0 because they've been lucky. The Bulls have merely done what they've done all year: move the ball, get good looks, knock them down. They made a lot of jumpers all year, most of which were assisted. They're doing the same thing in the playoffs. The Bulls are who we thought they were, and that's a better team than this year's Miami Heat.

The View From Section 122

2007-04-25T09:16:00.000-05:00

Actually, the view from Row 14, Section 122 at the United Center last night was largely of the top of Jesse Jackson's head. The high profile politician, activist, etc., was seated in the seat right in front of me. He good naturedly kibitzed with neighbors, shared a tub of popcorn, and cheered on the Bulls. Overall, he seemed to enjoy the game. But then again, how could he not? The game was highly enjoyable for just about everyone in the UC. Maybe not so much for the Heat, or for the Heat fan in my row who, even as the Heat trailed by double digits, kept prattling on about how Dwayne Wade was going to beat the Bulls single handedly even though he was playing with only one arm and one leg.

Let's talk about Wade for a second. The man is a warrior. The official brother of the Ron Karkovice Fan Club last night questioned why the Heat would even allow Wade to play this post-season. I think the situation is this: Shaq doesn't have much time left, and when he retires, the Heat become the 2006-07 Lakers. In other words, the Heat's window is now, and when Shaq leaves, the team may be locked into a half-decade of mediocrity. Wade has to suck it up now, no matter how banged up he is, because he's looking at a dry spell in terms of championship calibre teammates starting very soon. And Wade is banged up. Everything he does, he does tentatively. He can't fight through picks, so he can't guard Kirk Hinrich or Ben Gordon. Relegated to guarding Luol Deng, he's a defensive liability because of his size. He can't attack the rim. Watch his break away dunk last night. There was no explosion, and he finished with one wing pulled tightly to his body. Even passing the ball, he's out of synch because a crisp, two-handed chest pass (you know, fundamentals) is not an option. It's sad, and national experts understated the importance of Wade's injuries when they universally picked the Heat in this series.

That's especially true because Shaq, as good as he is, is no longer the absolutely unstoppable, put his team on his shoulders and carry them, force that he once was. He is still the strongest man in basketball. If he gets good position, he is nearly impossible to contain. But his lateral mobility, an underrated strength in his prime, is fading fast. Defensively, penetrating guards don't need to worry about him unless they take the ball right into his chest. Offensively, if he kicks it out to re-post, a wily defender like Ben Wallace can often beat him to his spot and take away the angle on the entry pass. He gets everywhere he's going a step slower than he used to, and that's why he's getting in foul trouble more often.

As for the Bulls, their two best players were the two best players on the floor last night. Ben Gordon had nine first-quarter points as the Bulls built a 10 point lead after one period. He finished with 27 points, and the Bulls outscored Miami by 18 while he was on the floor. But the player of the game was Luol Deng. Deng had a slow first half, but he scored 20 points in the second half, most of them during a 15-2 fourth quarter run that put the game away. Deng was an astonishing +21 on the night.

One other player deserves special mention for the Bulls. The not-so-secret x-factor in this series so far has been Bulls' rookie Thabo Sefolosha. He played only 12 minutes last night, but had a disproportionate effect on the game. At one point I mentioned to my brother that Sefolosha had seemed very involved in the game for a man who, at the time, had 2 points, no assists and no rebounds. The raw numbers got better -- nine points on four of five shooting -- but still don't capture his full impact. Somehow, despite the Bulls winning the game by 18 points, every Bulls' reserve had a negative +/- except for Sefolosha. Thabo was +12 in only 12 minutes. And, it's no coincidence. His harassing defense, and surprisingly steadying hand on offense made the Bulls a better team when he was on the floor.

My brother insisted at dinner last night that he expected the Heat to win the series, and wouldn't be surprised if they won last night. Only one quarter into last night's game he turned to me and said, "You're right, the Bulls are just the better team." There's no question about it. Now, anything can happen in a short series. The Bulls blew a 2-0 lead two years ago to the Wizards. But this much I know for sure: the Bulls are just the better team.

Just Shut Up

2007-04-23T09:12:00.000-05:00

I was delighted to hear this morning that Shaquille O'Neal has been nominated for Mike & Mike's Just Shut Up Award. Shaq's sin was b*tching and moaning about the officiating during the Bulls game one win over the Heat. I actually agree that officials remain, all these years later, somewhat baffled by how to call a game in which Shaq participates. He's too big and too strong to really tell what's happening when he makes contact with a mere mortal. He is both the unstoppable force and the immovable object.

But come on! You're on a team with Dwayne Wade, the single most overprotected player in the league. You cannot complain about officiating. Furthermore, in this particular game, Shaq was in foul trouble because he was consistently a step late getting where he wanted to go. And his sixth and final foul was a no-brainer. Set or not, Shaq had a foot in the circle when he and Nocioni collided. Shaq was dismissive of the call as if this hard and fast rule should not have been applied to him in this particular circumstance. Deputy O'Neal should know though, nobody is above the law, not even him.

Anyway, after hearing Shaq's whining, I surfed around a little on-line to see how people in general were responding to the game. The consensus seemed to be that the Bulls were clicking on all cylinders, and that as soon as the Bulls cooled off, lost some intensity, or stopped seeing favoritism from the officials, then the Heat would stomp them. What game were these people watching?

Look, anything can happen in a short series (the NBA's two best teams each stumbled in game ones at home over the weekend), but game one between the Heat and the Bulls confirmed what I've always believed: this is one of the biggest mismatches of the first round. First off, Shaq and Wade's foul trouble was irrelevant to the outcome. The Bulls won by five. They outscored the Heat by seven while Wade was on the floor. The Heat were plus-2 when Wade sat. The Heat were minus-2 when Shaq sat, but obviously that means the Heat were minus-3 with him on the floor. A few extra minutes of playing time for Shaq and Wade and the Bulls might have won by double digits.

And the refs didn't favor the Bulls overall either. Each team shot 27 free throw attempts. Kirk Hinrich was in every bit as much foul trouble as Wade or Shaq. He played fewer than 20 minutes because of fouls. Then there is the case of Luol Deng. Deng took 22 shot attempts. They were his usual assortment of inside and medium range shots. About 40% of Deng's attempts this year were going to the hoop. But Deng shot only five free throw attempts to go with 22 shots from the floor. Compare this to Wade, who takes a slightly lower percentage of his shots going to the basket (38%), but who attempted 7 free throws despite attempting only 16 shots from the floor. Of course, this disparity just reflects the way things always are. Wade draws fouls on more than 19% of his shot attempts. Deng draws fouls on 11% of his shot attempts. This despite the fact that Deng is, in fact, more aggressive about going to the basket than Wade. Believe me, by the time the series is over, it won't be the Heat who have a legitimate complaint about the officiating.

As for the contention that the Bulls did everything right while the Heat struggled, and yet the Bulls only won by five: well, that simply has no connection to reality. For example, the Heat shot 7 for 20 from three point range, or 35%. That's not especially good, but it's actually better than the 34% the Heat shot in the regular season. Meanwhile the Bulls shot 17% (3 of 17) from beyond the arc. That's dreadful, which is especially surprising because the Bulls were second in the NBA in three point shooting this year at 39%. None of the Bulls' advantages should surprise anyone either. The Bulls won the battle on the boards with ease, but the Bulls were one of the better rebounding teams in the NBA this year, while the Heat were out-rebounded on the season. Turnovers were even, which was not surprising because each team had a similar turnover rate in the regular season. The Bulls had more assists, again not surprising because the Bulls had a much better assist rate during the regular season. See, everything about this game went as one would have expected, except the Bulls were ice cold from beyond the arc.

And despite the Bulls' uncharacteristically terrible shooting, they won the game and looked to be in control most of the way. Could the Bulls lose this series? Of course. But its hard not to feel pretty good about things right now. So, Shaq, I take the "Just Shut Up" thing back. Complain all you want about the officiating. But remember this if the Bulls send you home earlier than expected for summer break, the refs didn't beat you, a better team did.

Wha' Happened?

2007-04-19T09:39:00.000-05:00

Forgive me, I'm a little overwhelmed. I left my house last night at half time of the Bulls game, and with the Sox in the 4th inning, leading 1-0. I had a rec league basketball game (in which we fell to 0-3 on the season, but I swear we're making major progress), and by the time I came home 90 minutes later, all kinds of heck had broken loose on the Chicago sports landscape.

The seeds of each event had already been planted, of course. First, the Bulls never win in New Jersey, so I had sort of been anticipating that collapse before the game even began. By the time half time arrived, the five seed almost seemed to be an inevitability. Still, during my temporary media blackout, I held out hope that either the Bulls had saved themselves, or Milwaukee had saved our bacon for us. I had also watched Joe Crede making a diving stop to preserve Mark Buehrle's nascent no-no, and at that time thought, that's the kind of play that people look back on at the end of a no hitter. But who actually expects a no-no after 12 outs?

Anyway, I'm out of town tomorrow, so I need to say my piece about both issues today (and I'm having an annoyingly busy day today -- I've written this over about a four hour period). Let's start with the Bulls, whom most experts expect to be one and done again in the playoffs. Understandably, experts are giving the benefit of the doubt to the defending NBA champs, the Miami Heat. The Bulls have no one as glamorous as Shaq or D-Wade.

I, however, expect the Bulls to beat the Heat fairly easily. This isn't about flipping a switch. Shaq is one year older, D-Wade's not healthy, the Bulls nearly beat the Heat without Ben Wallace or home court advantage last year, and the Bulls have the third best record in the league since the all-star break. Only Dallas and San Antonio have been better since the break. That's right, the Bulls have a better record than the Suns in the second half. The Bulls are one of only four teams in the league with a scoring margin of more than 5 points a game. The others are the Spurs, Mavs and Suns. That's elite company. Over the last quarter of the season, that margin has increased to 6.3 points per game. Only the Cavs are better over that span. Only the Spurs and Warriors have been better out west. The Bulls should still be heavy first round favorites. Reputation trumps performance in the mainstream media.

As for Buehrle, what is there to say? He not only threw a no hitter, he only walked one guy. And he promptly picked him off (that's just Mark being Mark), so he faced the minimum of 27. He also struck out eight guys, which is a lot for him. It's too bad he doesn't work slower, or I could have made it home for the last inning or two. But instead, I turn off the TV for 90 minutes, and it's chaos.

What Do Ya Know?

2007-04-17T10:54:00.000-05:00

After two weeks of the baseball season, not much. Or at least nothing more than you did before the season started. Heck, you don't really know much more than you did way back before spring training started. If you think you do, then you've fallen victim to that dreaded disease: Small Sample-Sizephyllia.

The fact that you--and I, and everyone else--know no more today than three months ago is not some side effect of a factor unique to this season, be it frequent game cancellations or anything else. No, all this amounts to is a statement that a couple weeks of baseball, even a month plus of spring training, doesn't amount to a hill of beans (and what does, really? I mean, I've never seen an actual hill of beans) when compared to hundreds of at-bats, or batters faced, over the course of a career.

Which is why I find Lou Pinella's roster shuffling so amusing, as well as Cubs fans' embracing of his wild panic approach. I'm not saying the changes are bad. I don't care enough about the Cubs to analyze in too much detail, but some of them make sense on their face. For example, if yesterday's outfield flip flop indicates that Matt Murton will play everyday while Jacques Jones and Cliff Floyd form up (AND I'LL FORM THE HEAD!) into a relatively useful Jaff Joyd, then that's great. But if that is the right alignment for the Cubbies outfield corners, then why in the hell was it not the right alignment two months ago?!? We knew every bit as much about what these gentlemen could do in February as we do now. I keep hearing Cub fans lauding the fact that Pinella will "tinker" with his line-up. What they should be doing is lamenting the fact that he was suffering from dumb up until now.

Of more concern, the moves reflect that Pinella is more than ready to panic, or otherwise make decisions, on the basis of a very small sample size. Ryan Theriot is hot, and if he continues to put up numbers like those amassed in his first 21 at-bats, then he'd be a decent option at the top of the line-up, be it in the one or two hole. But we're talking about 21 at-bats. This decision was based on 21 at-bats in which a guy out paced his 90th percentile PECOTA projection by 120 points in the on-base department. Yes, he even had a really good 160 at-bats with the Cubs last year. But even that is a tiny sample size in the face of more than 1000 minor league at-bats that say this guy won't crack .330 in on-base percentage. Theriot makes a great utility infielder, who might even deserve an everyday gig for a year or two somewhere on an infield. He's Esteban German. He's not the lead off hitter in a high powered major league line up.

Or maybe I'm wrong. But at least I'm not basing my judgment on a whopping 21 at-bats. Which is more than can be said for the guy the Cubs are paying millions to finally guide them to the promised land. And Cub fans are happy about this!!! Of course, the new line-up produced 12 runs and a victory last night. So, undoubtedly, the Cubs will now cruise to a World Series championship behind the most high powered line-up in baseball history.

We Come to Bury The Knicks

2007-04-11T09:23:00.000-05:00

I was going to take the day off from writing. But this is too fun to pass up. The Bulls thrashed the Knicks 98-69 last night and afterwards the Knicks were really, really angry. As most of you know, Bulls' fans get a free Big Mac if the Bulls win the game and score 100 points. So, whenever the Bulls close in on 100 points the crowd gets really into the chase for a free burger. I'm a season ticket holder, and honestly I, like a lot of people, give the voucher for a free burger to one of the homeless people who try to scrape together some change outside the stadium on game nights. Almost anyone who can afford to be at a Bulls game doesn't need a free Big Mac. The 100 point challenge is just a fun way to cap off a Bulls' win.

So, a big thumbs down to Rosenbloom, who on AM 1000 this morning was bashing the Bulls for going after 100, and the fans for caring. First, who is he to bash Chicago sports fans for anything. He has a career because people in this town love sports. Get down from your soap box and kiss my feet for caring enough about Chicago sports that I'll even listen to your craptastic show. Second, neither the team nor the fans are making a serious commitment to the idea of a free burger. The cheering, and last night's booing when Michael Sweetney missed a tip in as time wound down, are just in fun. The booing did not, as Rosenbloom suggested in a serious tone, indicate that a 98-69 thrashing of the Knicks "wasn't enough for you people."

More amusingly, however, the Knicks had their knickers all in a twist over this. Steve Francis and Nate Robinson confronted Thabo Sefolosha and Tyrus Thomas on the floor after the buzzer, and Jerome James tried to go after Thomas in the hallway outside the locker rooms. For the record, Francis played 30 minutes, shot 2 of 8 for six points, collected 1 assist to go with a turnover, and the Knicks were outscored by 18 while he was on the floor. Robinson actually made some contribution, shooting 8 of 17 in his 40 minutes of action. He finished with 24 points. Of course, his four turnovers and no assists (what position do these guys play again?), as well as his inability to guard a chair, contributed to an impressive -21 +/-. James, in contrast, actually broke even in +/-, but of course, that's because he DIDN'T EVEN PLAY!

The Knicks were embarrassed? The Knicks feel disrespected? I have an idea: show the f**k up! The Knicks shot 37% percent, turned the ball over 24 times (to 8 for the Bulls), and had 27 points at half time. It was the worst performance I've seen by an NBA team in a long time, maybe ever. And I remember not only the Brent Barry era, but the original Reggie Theus era here in Chicago, so I know bad basketball. The Bulls have become a model organization again, and appropriately, their players were more concerned about having fun with their extremely loyal fans than hurting the feelings of the most selfish, least competent group of players in the league. Yeah Stevie, there's a reason you've only played five playoff games in your eight year career. And no, it's not everyone else's fault.

Things are so bad in New York that I actually feel a little bad for Stephon Marbury. But as little respect as I have for this team, I hope this organization maintains its current structure for the foreseeable future. First, they provide endless amusement, as demonstrated last night. Second, they're useful to have around as a trading partner. Now, if we can just figure out what to do with the Knicks first round pick this summer.

Will The Real Jose Contreras Please Standup?

2007-04-10T09:22:00.000-05:00

It couldn't possibly be as bad as last Monday. Heck, I faced guys in high school who if given a handful of starts would have put together a couple better than Jose Contreras's opening day outing. Last night Contreras retired the first five Oakland A's whom he faced, and it was already his longest outing of the season.

Of course, for those who watched last night's game, you also know that it was not nearly as good as the stats suggest. Contreras got a win, going six innings, giving up only one run on four hits and four walks, while also striking out four. Even the stats tell you the outing wasn't as good as it seems. He walked four guys, and allowed a lot of fly balls, which is a potential problem in homer happy US Comiscular.

But the biggest warning signs last night are the ones that don't show up in the box score. Jack McDowell, subbing for Ken Harrelson who was off being celebrated in Boston, pointed out two major red flags. As an aside, it was a delight listening to a game called by Blackjack instead of Hawk. Anyway, McDowell's first red flag was about Contreras's mindset. A lot of Contreras's trouble was self-induced when he walked guys with overly cautious 3-2 breaking balls. Contreras clearly doesn't trust his stuff right now. That was his downfall with the Yankees, and early in his Sox tenure, before Don Cooper straightened him out. It can be overcome, but the second red flag might impede that process, and is more concerning. Contreras's fast ball lacks the late tailing action right now that usually makes him effective. That late movement causes balls to miss the sweet spot of bats, and instead find the end or the handle. Doubles and home runs become pop ups and weak fly outs. Only Contreras and Coop know whether the loss of that tailing action can be fixed with a mechanical adjustment, or whether Contreras is just losing something on his stuff.

Whether Contreras can consistently get that movement will go a long way to determining what kind of season he has. Who knows how old he is -- he could be anywhere from 18 to 72 -- but on his word, Contreras turns 35 this year. A decline would not be unusual at that age. On the other hand, Contreras is not far removed from winning 17 straight decisions and he's had three straight seasons with better than league average PERAs (expected ERA based off of peripheral stats like hits, walks and strikeouts per nine innings) for the Sox.

My guess is that the Sox have a guy who will put up league average numbers this year, but do it in maddeningly inconsistent fashion. So maybe there is no "real" Jose Contreras.

Too Much of a Good Thing

2007-04-09T09:17:00.000-05:00

Ordinarily one wouldn't consider the return to health of one of the top sixth men in basketball and an all-NBA quality defensive center to be a "problem." But the Bulls responded to the return of Adres Nocioni and Ben Wallace with their worst outing in quite some time: a 103-89 loss to the Toronto Raptors.

If the season ended today, the Bulls would have their dream scenario: home court advantage through two rounds, and Detroit, Cleveland and Miami safely on the other side of the bracket. But Sunday's loss to the Raptors shows just how tough it may be for the Bulls to maintain or discover some cohesion and momentum working key players back in at this late date. As Coach Scott Skiles admits, it's tough to establish a rotation with this many guys used to playing minutes.

There are all kinds of questions to be answered. What role will rookies Tyrus Thomas and Thabo Sefolosha play now that the vets are back? The two emerged during their absences, and the team played its best basketball of the year. What kind of player will Andres Nocioni be? Healthy, he's one of the team's three best players, but if he's not healthy, what can he bring to the table? And what's to be made of the team's continued excellence when Ben Wallace is not on the floor? He was brought over for this time of year, but up until now, the team's been at its best without him. The same can be asked on a smaller scale of veteran role-players like Adrian Griffin and Malik Allen. They were brought in for the play offs, but surely Skiles can't give Thomas's and Sefolosha's minutes to them now, can he?

The Toronto game didn't really answer any questions because several players -- Nocioni, Wallace, and Thomas -- were limited by sickness, bumps and bruises. The Bulls will have four more games to work this out. That's not a lot of time, and not only do they risk entering the play offs our of sync, they could lose the number two seed.

So, who should play? There is a case to be made that Skiles should stick with the young, athletic lineup that has had recent success. But it would be foolish not to take advantage of Nocioni's return and Wallace's health. Let's start in the back court because it's a little easier. Ben Gordon and Kirk Hinrich are each having career years, and deserve to play the bulk of the back court minutes in the playoffs. And, while I'm less fond of Chris Duhon than some, he's done enough to maintain his job as the number three guard. The only real dilemma is who should play the role of "big" guard when the Bulls need one. Thabo Sefolosha has played well of late, but Adrian Griffin actually had a better year. He shot and passed much better than the Swiss rookie over the course of the season. In the playoffs, Skiles should probably defer to the consistent veteran. But overall we're talking about few minutes here. The truth is that come playoff time the Bulls would be well-served by a whole lot of Hinrich and Gordon, with Duhon getting most of the leftover minutes.

Up front, minutes start with the Bulls best overall player, Luol Deng. After that though, there are a lot of ways to go. When healthy, Nocioni is the team's second best front court player. He and Deng can play together because each is a good rebounder despite being undersized. Assuming Nocioni is healthy, the Bulls should play the bulk of the time, and certainly finish games with he and Deng together at the forward spots. As for the "center" spot, that depends somewhat on match ups. I put "center" in quote marks because so few teams play with a true center now. Against Shaq and Miami, or Zydrunas Ilgauskas and the Cavs, the Bulls will probably need Wallace's bulk for most of the game and down the stretch. Against smaller teams that focus on skill and athleticism, the Bulls can play Thomas in the middle. Thomas actually had a better year than Wallace, doubling him in points per 40 minutes and nearly matching him in rebounds per 40. When the Bulls can afford to, they should probably spend as much time as possible with the athletic, quick front line of Deng, Nocioni and Thomas. One man whose minutes should be greatly reduced with Nocioni's return is PJ Brown. Brown contributed nicely during Nocioni's absence, but he brings less to the table than the other four.

Establishing a rotation will be hard on this short notice. But to wrap this rambling into a concise answer, I'd like to see Skiles establish a seven man rotation with occasional minutes for two more guys. Hinrich, Duhon, Gordon, Deng, Nocioni, Thomas and Wallace are the core group who will win or lose for the Bulls in the playoffs, and Griffin and Brown can give the team reliable minutes when necessary. I just hope they figure it out in time for the postseason.

Ben Who?

2007-04-05T09:06:00.000-05:00

Apparently at some point during the Bulls' 106-88 win over the Detroit Pistons last night, a fan behind the Chicago bench observed to Scott Skiles that the Bulls play better "without the $60 million bum." Pistons fans were undoubtedly frustrated with the absence of Ben Wallace -- the alleged $60 million bum -- who had the flu. Detroit fans, who ordinarily require the efforts of sports' most annoying public address announcer to get fire up about anything, have mustered the energy to heckle and boo a man who played a key role in bringing the town an NBA championship. Odd.

Anyway, after last night's thrashing of the Pistons, it is tempting to believe that the Bulls do, in fact, play better without their $60 million center. Even in games he's played, I've often thought that the team seemed to function better with PJ Brown and Tyrus Thomas on the floor, than with Wallace out there. And, I confess to wondering whether the Bulls might end up closing out playoff games with Thomas, Andres Nocioni, Luol Deng, Ben Gordon and Kirk Hinrich. But before I conclude that the Bulls are better without Wallace on the floor I want to take a closer look at the actual numbers.

Wallace's numbers look pretty good on the surface. No, he's not scoring, but he never has. Expectations of 10 points per game were always foolishness. He is seventh in the league in rebounding at 10.8 a game. He's also ninth in the league in blocks at 2.1 a game. Finally, he's 15th in the league in steals at 1.5 a game. Not bad. But also not all that telling because traditional per game stats don't tell much of a story.

Based on John Hollinger's player efficiency rating (PER), Wallace is only the 37th most productive center in the league. PER does seem to undersell a player with Wallace's particular skill set somewhat (or perhaps we overrate such players), but Wallace's performance level in Detroit put him in the top-20 for his position. Even allowing for the expected regression of a 32 year-old big man, Wallace is not performing up to expectations. And, while he's never been particularly adept at the offensive end, he's been especially bad this year. Not only is his shooting percentage down, but his turnovers are up. Wallace has always been under-appreciated for his ball handling. Unlike, for example, Tyson Chandler, who doesn't score and often turns the ball over when teammates try to involve him, Wallace functions as a conduit for ball movement. He's a good passer, and until this year rarely turned the ball over. Wallace is still not Chandlerian in his butterfingery ways, but he's turning it over far more often than in the past, further diminishing his value on the offensive end.

Then there is this odd stat: the Bulls not only score one more point per 48 minutes when Wallace is not on the court, they give up two fewer points per 48 minutes when the big man sits. Huh? This guy is supposed to be the intimidator who takes the Bulls' defense to the next level, but they're actually a better defensive team with him on the bench. Part of that may be that Wallace and Thomas rarely play together because neither one boasts diverse offensive skills (Thomas is on the floor for about 10% of Wallace's minutes). The Bulls are much better on defense when Thomas is on the floor -- four points per 48 minutes better. But if Skiles won't play Wallace and Thomas together, and the Bulls are better on defense with Thomas in there, then maybe they are better off without Wallace.

For this year, I'm willing to give Wallace the benefit of the doubt until the playoffs. Wallace has been through this marathon. He's 32 years old. Maybe he is coasting a little so that he can bring his "A" game in the postseason. He was criticized last year for fading in the playoffs after putting together another stellar defensive regular season. We've seen glimpses of what that might mean, such as in late February when Wallace collected 14 points, 19 rebounds, seven blocks, five assists, two steals, and only one turnover against Cleveland. If he's taking it easy now so that he can bring that consistently in the playoffs, then the Bulls will go far and Wallace will be well worth his price. But if Wallace's post-season performance mirrors his regular-season effort, then the Bulls will have to hope someone is willing to relieve them of the burden of a $60 million "bum."

161-1

2007-04-03T09:44:00.000-05:00

It's one of the hardest things to do as a sports fan: don't read too much into the opening day of the baseball season. Your instincts pull in two divergent, but equally irrational directions. Let's take the example of an opening season loss because, well, that's what the White Sox did on Monday. They lost. Actually, they lost ugly. One half of me wants to scream in terror, and fears we may never win a game this season. The other half of me, oddly, is far more optimistic today than I was before the loss. Remember the year Mike Sirotka gave up like 14 runs on opening day? We won the division that year. We're totally going 161-1.

Or not. The truth is no different today than it was Sunday. The Sox strike me as a mediocre team. The hitting will be good, but it would be hard pressed to match last year's explosive offense. The pitching will be below-average, at least the starters, but probably not as bad as last year. Add it up, and I think the Sox are a .500 team.

Many, of course, are prognosticating far worse than .500 for this year's White Sox. One Baseball Prospectus analysis predicted 72-90. And that has Cub fans gloating. I heard a number of talk radio callers yesterday arguing that the Sox slide to mediocrity is proof that the Sox owners are every bit as terrible as the now departing Tribune Company, who has owned the Cubs for a couple decades. (It's worth mentioning, by the way, that our owner bought their owner -- Sam Zell is a minority owner of the Sox, which is one of the reasons the Trib now needs to sell the Cubs). They blew off the 2005 World Series, "You won one in 85 years, great." Of course, that's infinitely more than the Cubs have won in the last century.

More importantly, the Sox have been consistently competitive under Jerry Reinsdorf and his buddies. The Sox have had winning records in 17 out of the last 25 years. That's legitimately 17 chances to win a World Series. A couple of lucky breaks and an 85 win year is a 90 win, playoff season. And, as last year's Cardinals proved, any trip to the post-season is a chance to win it all. In contrast, over the past 25 years, the Cubs have had only 8 winning seasons. That's half as many.

If you're not sure what my point is, that's fair because I'm a little hazy on it. I guess I have two points. One, the Tribune Company was a disaster as an ownership group, leading the team to losing records two-thirds of the time for the last quarter century. Two, whether this turns out to be a long summer or not, it's worth remembering that Reinsdorf has been a pretty good owner who deserves the benefit of the doubt over the long haul. The Sox may take a step back this year, but if history is a guide, they'll be competitive again by next season. So, if we're not going to go 161-1 this year, we can at least take solace in that.

Gators Bite

2007-04-02T09:34:00.000-05:00

Take the title how you will, but they do, you know. Otherwise, how would they eat? Anyway, the Florida Gators are obviously a very good basketball team. They deserve to be the favorite in tonight's match-up with Ohio State. Two thoughts though: (1) I hate the idea of one team winning back-to-back-to-back major college championships; and (2) this isn't the clear cut situation that the mainstream media is making it out to be. (Also, yes, I know baseball season starts today and that this site is named after White Sox' GREAT Ron Karkovice -- as an aside to this aside, the Red Head had a cab driver in Austin, Texas this weekend who claimed to have attended high school with Kark -- but the NCAA Championship game trumps the baseball season opener).

Florida is one of the two best offensive teams in the nation. Their offensive scheme reduces the game to two things: three point jumpers and dunks/layups. Rarely do they attempt a jumper worth only two points. As a result, they lead the country in effective field goal percentage. They also lead the country in shooting percentage on 2-point attempts. Lee Humphrey and Al Horford symbolize this approach. Humphrey shoots threes, 231 of his 288 attempts this year were from long range, and Horford dunks the ball. The two approaches are equally effective. Each is in the top-50 in ORtg, and each is in the top-40 in effective field goal percentage. Throw in the underrated Taurean Green and you have a bit of a juggernaut. Interestingly, Joakim Noah, the face of the team, and possibly its best pro prospect, is only the fourth, or even fifth, best college player on the Gators.

But Ohio State is no bunch of scrubs. Today on Mike and Mike, Golic picked the Buckeyes, and then he and Greeny laughed as if it was the most ridiculous reach in the history of prognostication. And that mirrors the general attitude of the mainstream media. The Gators are huge favorites against Ohio State. But that shouldn't be the case at all. Ohio State needs to do three things to beat Florida: win the turnover battle, control the defensive glass, and attack the basket at the offensive end. Staying out of foul trouble wouldn't be a bad idea either.

All of this is easier said than done, but Ohio State has the manpower to do it. They were also among the nation's top-5 offenses this year. A big part of that was not turning the ball over. And, Ohio State was good, if not great, about keeping opponents off of the offensive glass. Also, despite Saturday's evidence to the contrary, they usually did an excellent job of staying out of foul trouble this year. The one thing they didn't do as much of this season as they'll need to tonight, is attack the basket and get to the line. Which brings us back to the key man for Ohio State, Mike Conley. I've said before that he was the one guy on all of the Final Four teams most likely to put his team on his back and win a championship. Tonight has to be the night. He's the guy who can get easy shots, and free throw attempts, for both himself and his teammates.

Will Florida win tonight? Maybe. I'd say the chances are slightly better than 50/50. But to treat this game like a match-up of a Goliath against an over matched underdog is silly. And since I've already professed my confidence in Conley, I'll stick with him, and say he get the job done.

Friday Round-Up

2007-03-30T11:56:00.000-05:00

There's actually too much going on right now for one column. Add in that I couldn't post yesterday because I was dealing with some familial health woes (fear not, everyone is now fully operable again), and I'm almost overwhelmed. (By the way, has anyone ever been just "whelmed?" Everyone is always overwhelmed or underwhelmed. No one is ever whelmed.) So, I'll purge some random thoughts from my brain, and we'll call it a week.

The Sox open their season Monday, and only one of the three youngsters I was rooting for before camp opened has made the team. Yes, Ryan Sweeney's and Josh Fields's demotions to Charlotte are old news. I was happy to see that John Danks was named the fifth starter. Still, he's the least exciting of the three, in my opinion, so while it's nice that he's with the Sox, I'm still a little bummed that youth will not be served more generally. I'm down on the Sox right now, so I hope I'm proven wrong about this team.

Elsewhere, I'm feeling pretty good about the Bulls right now after their win over the Pistons. Obviously, one game doesn't tell you more than an entire season, especially when Detroit was missing two key starters, but still it's always fun to beat Detroit. And, last night aside, I do think the Bulls are the second best team in the conference, especially if Nocioni gives them something when he returns. Speaking of which, I do have two questions. One, how will the minutes be distributed once Nocioni returns? Most people are asking whether Tyrus Thomas will lose minutes to the Argentinian, but if Nocioni is healthy, the guy whose minutes should vanish is P.J. Brown. Brown has done some good things, but both Thomas and Nocioni contribute more. Second, why was the national crew from TNT obsessed with Kirk Hinrich last night. They acted as if he was the Bulls' lone superstar. Everyone here in Chicago has figured out that Luol Deng and Ben Gordon are this team's best players. The portrayal of Hinrich as the team's key player is out-dated and lazy on the part of the national press. (The same criticism goes to whichever "personality" it was on The Score last night who said it would be near impossible for the Bulls to be the number two seed in the East because they would have to win their division. The NBA changed the seeding system for the play-offs this season. This is basic stuff.)

Turning to a third, local, pro team: one "mainstream media" type who does deserve credit today is the Sun-Times Greg Couch. Couch has bucked local trends by analyzing the Lance Briggs-Chicago Bears showdown from a football perspective instead of a moral one. And, I agree with his conclusion: the Bears have the money to get Briggs signed long-term, and from a football perspective, that's the best thing they could do.

Finally today, outside of Chicago, all three of the big pro sports are dwarfed nationally be anticipation for the Final Four. I love this Final Four. Four of the top six teams in the country are here. Kansas and North Carolina are probably the two best teams, and I was looking forward to their showdown, but a Final Four without a single weak link will do nicely. Ohio State against Georgetown is a true toss-up game. Greg Oden versus Roy Hibbert, the outstanding point guard play of Mike Conley, the outstanding all-around play of Jeff Green: there is a lot to like about this game. Ohio State needs to do two things: force turnovers and avoid foul trouble. They struggle without Oden on the floor, so he needs to avoid fouls, which won't be easy against Hibbert. Plus, their defense thrives, in part, by never giving up freebies. When they aren't their usual stingy selves with opponent's free throw attempts, that's when they falter on defense. Georgetown's offense and defense struggle when they turn the ball over, and unfortunately that's something they do all-too-often. Georgetown shoots a preposterously high percentage and grabs a ton of offensive rebounds. When they turn it over before a shot goes up, both advantages are lost. Plus, it often denies their outstanding shot blockers to get involved at the defensive end. Ohio State doesn't force a ton of turnovers, though. As good as these teams are, the game will come down to weakness against weakness. Can Georgetown protect the ball better than they usually do; can Ohio State force and take advantage of turnovers better than they usually do?

In the other semi, Florida meets UCLA. Again, both teams are excellent, but unlike the other match-up, this game has an actual favorite. Florida is the most balanced of the Final Four teams. They're also the best offensive team remaining, relying on a combo of dunks and threes to dominate opponents. But UCLA is far from a significant underdog. When I say Florida is a favorite, I mean a one point favorite. It's that close, it's just not a pick 'em like the other game. UCLA can win this game. There's not much fancy too it either. UCLA plays great defense. They're not great on offense. If Arron Afflalo and Darren Collison are excellent, UCLA will win. If they're not, then UCLA will lose. The match-up between Florida's attack and UCLA's defense will be fun. I'll pick Florida because their defense is better than UCLA's offense.

The baseball season starts, the Bulls play the Cavs for the number two seed in the play-offs, the Bears-Lance Briggs showdown approaches resolution, and oh yeah, the Final Four. Have a fun weekend everybody.

"Bear" Knuckle Brawl

2007-03-28T09:04:00.000-05:00

Gee whiz, that's a clever title. Anyway, the time has come for me to comment on a distasteful story I have thus far avoided: Lance Briggs vs. the Chicago Bears.

The consensus around town seems to be that the Bears have done everything right so far, and thus not only have the high road in this show down, but all the leverage as well. But I'm not sure this is as clear cut as people are making it out to be.

The following is true: NFL players get the shaft relative to owners under the league's collective bargaining arrangement with the players' union. But the franchise tag arrangement actually seems to be one of the deal's more even-handed arrangements. And, regardless of how you feel about the franchise tag, it is part of the deal. It's a tool for teams to use when they feel a player is worth the average salary of the top-five guys at his position, and the Bears have used it here. The Bears have done nothing wrong. They even offered Briggs a long-term deal a year ago. It wasn't for as much as Briggs wanted, but the Bears had all the leverage at the time. Why? Briggs was under contract for one more year either way, and after that the Bears could use the franchise player tag.

So far, this is exactly how the system was designed to work. But the system is designed to give an inordinate amount of leverage to the teams. So Briggs, and Briggs's agent, Drew Rosenhaus, got frustrated. Every player does when he gets franchised. And Briggs and Rosenhaus have unveiled the list of threats that every player uses in this situation. "We're going to hold out." "We're only going to play the last six games. That way we don't risk getting hurt, but we still get a year's service time." (Notice how the agents always uses "we" in these situations, as if his livelihood is actually at stake along with the players? Rosenhaus has cost his clients millions in recent years. When will he finally lose credibility with the players?) Anyway, these threats are all the leverage the player has, and its usually not worth spit.

That's why if a team plays its cards right, it can grab all the leverage and the moral high road. The Bears have played their cards right. They just keep saying that they want Briggs in a Bears uniform next year, they think he's a great player, and if you need proof, just check out the 7 million dollar deal they've offered for next season. As long as a team doesn't cave to the pressure and trade the guy, they'll usually win out. It's hard for the player to really turn down a big, guaranteed salary for the upcoming season. NFL careers are too short to take that risk. (It's easy for Rosenhaus to take that risk because his career will last more than six years, and he's getting a bite of every player's deal who he represents. Rosenhaus repeatedly plays these situations with his interests in mind, rather than his client's interests.)

And here's the deepest, darkest secret of all -- one no NFL player will admit to himself -- NFL general managers know that just about every player, even one good enough to franchise, is replaceable. The replacement might not be quite as good, but this isn't baseball or basketball, and for the most part, no individual can make that much of a difference, especially if he doesn't have talent around him. So, it's certainly not worth it to overpay to keep a guy long term just to ensure he takes the field next year. The biggest mistake an NFL GM can make is to overpay for a replaceable part.

But here's where Briggs v. Bears gets more complicated than most of these situations. The second biggest mistake a GM can make is refusing to pay market price for a difference-maker. There are very few irreplaceable parts in the NFL, but Briggs might just be one of them. According to Football Outsiders, Briggs led the league last year in stop rate among linebackers. In rough language, that means he gets to the ball carrier before the ball carrier gets where he needs to go more than any other linebacker in football. He creates second and nines, third and sevens, fourth and ones. Those are the defensive plays that win football games.

The Bears should definitely not trade Briggs for less than value "just to make sure they get something for him." I suspect that if the Bears keep playing this the way they are, Briggs will end up playing the entire season. Within the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, and even morally, the Bears don't appear to have done anything wrong here. But from a football perspective, shouldn't they be offering the moon to this guy to get him signed long term?

The Contenders

2007-03-27T09:25:00.000-05:00

I've heard two interesting theories about the Chicago Bulls this week. One held that the Bulls aren't really contenders because their only true scorer is Ben Gordon, and thus they're too dependent on jump shots. The other held that Ben Gordon hasn't really grown as a player since he came into the league.

Last night's game brought both theories into focus. The Bulls beat the Portland Trailblazers 100-89. Gordon had only 17 points, and shot just 1 of 7 from 3-point range, but the Bulls won anyway because Luol Deng had 38. It was a pretty ordinary game for Gordon. But the Bulls won anyway because Deng was dominant. Deng shot 18 of 25 from the floor for 38 points. So, how much has Gordon grown as a player? And, are the Bulls too dependent on him to really contend?

The argument that Gordon hasn't grown as a player is premised on the theory that his numbers only look better this year because he's getting more minutes. So, to compare, we need to look at rate based stats -- stats that don't depend on playing time. Across the board, Gordon has improved as a player. In his first two seasons, Gordon shot 41 and 42%. This year he's shooting 45%. His true shooting percent (TS%), which accounts for free throws and the extra value of three pointers, has risen from around 53% his first two years, to 57.0% this season. As a result, his points per 40 minutes is a career high 26.1. That has nothing to do with extra playing time. Gordon is more productive per minute than ever before. He's also setting a career high in assists per 40 minutes at 4.4. It's still not great for a guy who sometimes plays the point, but it's a full half assist better than his previous best. Overall, Gordon's player efficiency rating has jumped from 14.59 last year (league average is 15.00) to 18.37 this year. Gordon didn't grow much from his first to his second year in the league, but he has unquestionably developed significantly this year.

More importantly for the Bulls' chances, they're still not especially dependent on Gordon, his jump shooting, or jump shooting in general. First, Gordon is not the Bulls' best player. Deng is. Deng's PER is 19.09, among the top 50 in the entire NBA. He's shooting 52.3% from the floor. His TS% is 56.5% and he is scoring 20.1 points per 40 minutes. He also grabs 7.4 rebounds per 40 minutes. Deng takes 40% of his shots from near the rim. As a team, one-third of the Bulls' shots come near the basket. Neither the Bulls, nor their best player, are especially dependent on jump shooting. Sixty-seven percent of the Bulls' shots are jumpers. Sixty-five percent of their opponents shots are jumpers. And the Bulls' effective field goal percentage on those jumpers is 46.1% to just 42.8% for opponents. The Bulls take about the same number of jumpers as their opponents and are considerably more efficient than their opponents in that aspect of the game. All of this goes to show that it's no fluke that the Bulls are more than 10 games over .500.

We've established that Gordon is a legitimately better player this year than last. And, we've established that the Bulls are no more dependent on jump shooting than their opponents in general. I'm pretty comfortable in saying that we've debunked both myths, and that the Bulls are absolutely legitimate contenders in the East. The only remaining hurdle is whether the other contenders are especially not dependent on jump shots. A quick tour through the six of the top teams in the conference -- Detroit, Cleveland, Miami, Chicago, Washington, and Toronto -- reveals that each takes between 61-68% of its attempts as jump shots. Cleveland is the least jump shot dependent, while Washington and Toronto are the most dependent on jumpers. But it's all pretty close. It seems that this is just one more example of conventional wisdom that is bigger on convention than wisdom.

Big Man on Campus

2007-03-26T08:57:00.000-05:00

As I was driving to work this morning, the wacky odd couple duo of Mike and Mike began discussing the following question: which player in the NCAA Final Four is most likely to carry his team to victory? Their top two were Joakim Noah and Jeff Green, in that order, with Arron Afflalo and Mike Conley, Jr., following, although they couldn't decide who was two and who was three. On its face, the choice of Noah for number one struck me as preposterous. But my subjective judgment may be clouded by my general dislike for the pony-tailed one's tired act. So, I decided to come up with an objective way to answer this question.

To carry a team to victory a player needs to be on the court. You can't be on the bench, whether it be because of foul trouble, fatigue, match-ups or simply a coach prone to over-use of his bench. So, we'll start narrowing down the list by focusing on guys who play at least 74% of their team's minutes, which is just below the cut-off for the top 500 players in the nation in percent of team minutes played. That gives us at least two core players from each team: Taurean Green and Lee Humphrey from Florida; Jamar Butler and Mike Conley from Ohio State; Jessie Sapp, Jeff Green, and Jonathan Wallace from Georgetown; and Arron Afflalo and Darren Collison from UCLA. While Noah is a good player who might carry his team to victory, he isn't the guy most likely to do so because too often, whether it's because of foul trouble or Florida's general depth, he's not on the floor. He only plays about 26 minutes a game. A couple of other contenders can't top our list -- such as Al Horford, Roy Hibbert, and Greg Oden -- for the same reason.

Most people associate carrying a team with offensive production. To measure our contenders' offensive contributions we'll use Dean Oliver's "Offensive rating" stat (ORtg). Good players can become great players for a short period of time, but someone with limited offensive skills can't be considered "likely" to suddenly carry his team. Run all the numbers through Oliver's complex equation, and anything above a 110 is good (we're going to trust Ken Pomeroy's math on that one), and therefore a candidate to get hot and carry his team. This cut off knocks off Jessie Sapp, which conveniently leaves every team with two contenders because Green and Wallace remain in contention for Georgetown.

Of course, being on the court and being effective on offense aren't likely to add up to much if you're never a go to guy for your team. We remember the guys who make things happen on the court -- good, such as hitting shots or making great passes, and bad, such as turnovers or tons of missed shots (call it the John Starks effect). The guy most likely to "carry" his team, and be the face of this Final Four, is going to be someone who is out there trying to make things happen, not someone prone to fading into the background. Percent of possessions used measures how often a player is involved in the final action of a play -- from made basket to missed basket to turnover. A player needs to be above 20% in %Poss to be even above-average here, which will be our cutoff for being involved enough on the offensive end to potentially be remembered as "The Guy" for the 2007 Final Four. Drawing this line in the proverbial sand gives us our top five contenders (in no order, yet): Taurean Green for Florida, Mike Conley for Ohio State, Jeff Green for Georgetown, and Arron Afflalo and Darren Collison for UCLA.

It seems that other than Noah, Mike and Mike's list wasn't bad. Three of their top four will make our top five. So, how do we sort out the best of this group? Well, this is the Final Four, the paradigm of bracketology. And, I just watched a fascinating story of CBS Sunday Morning about the book The Enlightened Bracketologist: The Final Four of Everything. It advocates determining the best of the best in any category -- for example, Best Bald Guy (Gandhi wins) -- by making a bracket. We will follow its lead.

First, a play-in game for UCLA's spot. Arron Afflalo plays 82.3% of his team's minutes, has an ORtg of 114.5, and uses 23.6% of his team's possessions while on the floor. Darren Collison's numbers are nearly identical, but slightly lesser, in each category: 79.0 %Min, 114.1 ORtg, 23.2 %Pos. Afflalo plays more, is more productive on offense, and is more of a go to guy. It's all very close, but since Afflalo gets the edge in each category, he moves on.

For our Final Four match-ups, I'm borrowing the NCAA's match-ups. So Afflalo next matches up with Florida's Taurean Green. Green plays 81.7% of his team's minutes, has an ORtg of 114.5, and uses 20.6% of his team's possessions. His offensive production is identical to Afflalo's, and the difference in court time is negligible. Afflalo dominates the ball more while he's on the floor, but Green's team is more likely to win this game (although it's nearly a toss-up), and no one who's team is knocked out in the semis can be the face of the tourney. Still too close to call. So, here's the tie breaker: Green is much more turnover prone than Afflalo. I only mention this because a fair share of Green's %Pos is turning it over. Taking that into account, it becomes apparent that Afflalo is much more likely to take over a game for his team, than Green is for the balanced Gators. I think Florida is the favorite to win it all now (although none of the four teams would be a shock), so it pains me not to have a contender from the Gators. But is it any surprise that no one player on the deepest team in the Final Four stands out as the most likely to carry his team? Anyway, Afflalo makes our finals.

In the other semi, Jeff Green matches up with Mike Conley. Ohio State's freshman point is a stud. Conley plays 77.2% of the Buckeyes's minutes, has an ORtg of 117.1, and uses 21.2% of his team's possessions. Green is slightly less productive on offense, with an ORtg of 113.6, but he plays more (81.6 %Min), and he is more of a go to guy (25.6 %Pos). The game itself is a toss-up, so how can we separate these two? Conley's ability to pass the basketball is the single best skill of any of the players in this bracket. No matter who is scoring for Ohio State, it's likely to be because Conley is getting him the ball (when he's not doing the scoring himself). So, Conley moves on.

In fact, that passing ability, and general edge in offensive production (117.1 to 114.1 in ORtg), gives Conley the overall edge over Afflalo. Add in that I think Ohio State is slightly more likely to win it all than UCLA, and we have our winner. So, here's my list of the guy most likely to carry his team to victory: Mike Conley is first, Arron Afflalo is second, and Jeff and Taurean Green are third and fourth. Mike and Mike never settled on an order for third and fourth, so I won't either. Obviously, there's a lot of overlap. Conley, Afflalo, and Jeff Green make both lists. The order is different, and I replace Noah with Taurean Green as the most likely contender from Florida, but given the number of talented players in this Final Four, I'm actually surprised by how similar these lists are.

Hoop Dreams

2007-03-23T09:09:00.000-05:00

I would have called this Basketball Diaries, but in deference to Fornelli at Foul Balls, I sought out another overly obvious cultural reference for this collection of basketball related thoughts.

I went to the Bulls-Nuggets game last night. It was one of the more exciting games I've seen in quite a while. I must admit that I turned to the Red Head with about six minutes remaining and declared the game over. The Nuggets were up seven, and the Bulls were showing no signs of life. Then Tyrus Thomas re-entered the game. In that final 6:13, Thomas scored five points and grabbed four rebounds, including of course, his tip in with 0.2 left to give the Bulls a one point win. It was a perfectly appropriate ending to the game, as the Bulls collected 21 offensive rebounds to 28 defensive rebounds for Denver. Nearly half the time when the Bulls shot and missed, they grabbed the rebound and got a second opportunity. Anyway, after his tip-in Thomas went insane for several seconds. I mean, he looked like all he was seeing was white noise as he made strange facial expressions and even stranger, circular hand motions.

On the night, Thomas was a plus-seven. In comparison, Ben Wallace, who sat out the entire fourth quarter, was minus-10. The Bulls were down only two when Wallace left the game for the last time, and yet every Bulls run had occurred with him on the bench, every Denver run with Big Ben on the floor. He sleep walked through the game. It was obvious to everyone, including Scott Skiles, and it's why PJ Brown and Tyrus manned the middle in crunch time. Wallace finished with six points, six rebounds, five assists, two blocks and two steals. But he also finished with four turnovers and a whole lot of moping around. I'm pretty sure that we'll see Brown and Thomas finishing play-off games, as well. And, even if there are nights when Ben is everywhere, at his price, anything less than consistently controlling games on the defensive end makes Big Ben a the Big Problem for this team. The challenge of the off-season for John Paxson may be fixing this, and I certainly can't think of a valid solution.

As a quick, final note, one other "player" in last night's game stunk up the joint. I've never witnessed a ref melt down the way Violet Palmer did last night. As bad call after bad call mounted up, and her frustration mirrored it, she entirely lost her self-confidence. Yes, Denver attempted 24 free throws to the 13 for the Bulls, but it's more than that. She T'd up Skiles about 3 seconds into an argument about one especially egregious call, and then refused to allow Nuggets reserve Eduardo Najera enter the game because he headed to the scorer's table a few seconds too late. How many times have you seen a player bounce up just before the ref hands the ball to a player to inbound it, and be waved into the game? Palmer had lost control of her whistle. Fortunately, her crisis of confidence caused her to fade into the background somewhat after the first quarter or she could have destroyed the flow of what turned out to be a great game.

Speaking of great games, last night's NCAA action was full of them. I still control my own destiny in my pools. Regardless of who wins the Ohio State-Memphis game (where we know it won't be my pick -- Texas A&M), and the Oregon-UNLV game (again, Wisconsin is not a likely candidate), I still win both of my pools if my remaining picks work out. Nice, right? Anyway, I correctly picked three of last night's winners, and as I said yesterday, Memphis-Texas A&M was the only toss-up game of the Sweet 16.

After last night's close games, all won by favorites, you'd have to figure there will be at least one blow out and one upset tonight, before the round is over. The most likely blowout candidate is UNC over USC, I believe. The canonization of Tim Floyd aside, UNC is elite on offense and much better on defense than the Trojans. Anything can happen in a single game, but UNC is the heaviest favorite going into the night, and the team most likely to win by double digits.

As for an upset, UNLV over Oregon is the most likely contender. I expect that game to be close, and while it's not quite a toss-up game, a UNLV win would not surprise me. This is not an anti-Pac 10 thing. Oregon is very good, but Carolina, Florida and Georgetown are three of the five best teams in the country, so it is less likely that one of them gets upset. (Incidentally, of the three, I think Florida is the most vulnerable, though I expect they'll win by 7-10 points). As for USC, they were overseeded as a five, but deserve credit for taking advantage of the seed. I think, however, that if you flipped Arizona's and USC's spots in the bracket, Arizona would be playing UNC tomorrow, and USC would be home already.

Rock Chalk Part Two

2007-03-21T09:13:00.000-05:00

We now resume our regularly scheduled March programming. Monday, we covered the Midwest and West regions. Today, we'll turn our attention to the East and South regions.

Like Florida in the Midwest and Kansas in the West, North Carolina is a true favorite to win the East region. However, North Carolina faces the toughest challenger of the three in the form of the red hot Georgetown Hoyas. Let's start with the Tar Heels against USC, and Chicago's old friend Tim Floyd. The Tar Heels are the best offensive team in the country, with a handful of dangerous, efficient offensive threats. The two best are Tyler Hansbrough, who seems to have fully recovered from having his face smashed in, and Ty Lawson, who may just be the best "little" man in the college game right now. The offense will do its part. The key for Carolina is it's defense. Their defense is also elite, but it can be vulnerable when an opponent protects the ball and hits the offensive glass. You need to maximize your possessions against these guys. Unfortunately for USC, they're just average when it comes to protecting the basketball, and they're pretty dreadful on the offensive glass. Truth be told, this Sweet 16 match-up is a total mismatch.

Should Georgetown await Carolina in the Elite 8, however, the days of Carolina blowouts will end. Georgetown's big, talented front line could pose problems for the team in light blue. Georgetown is also a tremendously efficient offensive team, though you might not notice because of the Hoyas incredibly slow pace of play. Seven-two center Roy Hibbert is an absolute beast, and that slow pace maximizes his impact on both ends. Georgetown's key is staying away from turnovers. At their speed, every possession is precious. Vanderbilt shouldn't pose much of an obstacle to the anticipated UNC-Georgetown showdown.

The South region is the only one without a clear cut favorite at this point. Ohio State is probably the best bet, but only because Memphis and Texas A&M have to play each other in the Sweet 16. I actually am picking A&M to emerge from this pack. Ohio State's advantage is in a soft match-up with Tennessee in the Sweet 16, but THE Ohio State University is also a very good team. Mike Conley is an elite distributor of the basketball and Greg Oden is an outstanding shot blocker and offensive rebounder. Tennessee was overseeded at number five, and was fortunate to find itself in a pod with an overseeded Virginia squad. The Volunteers are good, but not great on offense, and only average on defense. They were among the luckiest teams in the land when you compare their actual record to their expected record based on statistics. Chris Lofton is a stud, but he'll need to have the game of his life to carry Tennessee past Ohio State.

Meanwhile, Memphis and Texas A&M meet in the best Sweet 16 match-up. Obviously, since I'm picking A&M to win the region, I'm picking them in this game. Most people notice A&M's defense, which is good. But their offense, obscured by a slow pace of play, is even better. They're outstanding on the perimeter, both shooting the three and defending against the three. Josh Carter is one of the least known, most effective outside weapons in college basketball. And wide body Joseph Jones provides balance. Memphis plays at a different speed entirely. That's why, conversely to A&M, people don't often notice that Memphis's greatest strength is its defense. The force turnovers, block shots, and don't give up easy baskets. Joey Dorsey and Robert Dozier are a very effective pair at protecting the lane. The game may be won by whichever team forces the other into more mistakes on offense, and I trust A&M's offense to execute more than Memphis's.

So, I'm picking Kansas, Florida, UNC and A&M. More chalk, basically. Some people think that's not exciting. I, however, love when the best team's meet in the Final Four. Other than Syracuse's win, my favorite recent Final Four was UConn over Duke because the level of play was so high. This year could set a new bar for quality basketball at the end of March Madness.

We Interrupt Our Regularly Scheduled March Programming

2007-03-20T13:02:00.000-05:00

We interrupt our regularly scheduled March programming. Tomorrow, I promise, we'll return to the tourney. But last night marked the draft in the first ever fantasy baseball Sox Blogger Showdown. There are twelve teams:

Team (Owner @ Website)
Phil Bradley (Jim @ Sox Machine)
SSS Torpedo Boat (Cheat @ South Side Sox)
A Useful Perez (Keith @ South Side Sox)
Omaha Black Sox (Jay @ Black Sox Blog)
ChiSox Daily (Buda @ ChiSox Daily)
(Marc) Hill St. Blues (DT Kelly @ Life in the Cell)
Rock Raines' Rascals (Jeeves @ Life in the Cell)
Steve Kemp All-Stars (James @ Life in the Cell)
Craig Grebeck (Tom @ Foul Balls)
Zeke Bonura (Panger @ Foul Balls)
LeBilly Jo Robidoux (Jake @ The Bard's Room)
Uribe's Legal Defense (Me @ Here)

You can find links to all of these outstanding websites in the links list here at the Ron Karkovice Fan Club. Well, except of course to this site because, well, you're already here. Anyway, the list is right over there. No, there. To your right. Good.

We drafted 21 players in a relatively speedy two hours. There was no indication of collusion between the 47 representatives of Life in the Cell. Although, Panger from Foul Balls, did threaten to use her feminine wiles to get her way in future dealings, if need be. There was also a general display of displeasure when Keith drafted Michael "Boom Boom" Barrett. I'll have to punish him for that transgression when Uribe's Legal Defense meets A Useful Perez in the season opener. We also chided Cheat for not putting Mark Prior on his "Over My Dead Body" list, which resulted in the computer auto-drafting him when Cheat was unable to attend. I laugh in Cheat's general direction. Then, I realize that I somehow wound up with Orlando Hudson at second base.

Anyway, here's my team:
C -- Russ Martin
1B -- Prince Fielder
2B -- Orlando Hudson
3B -- Miguel Cabrera
Garrett Atkins
SS -- Troy Tulowitzki
OF -- Matt Holliday
Dave Roberts
Adam Dunn
Chris Young (who I took immediately after Jay took, uh, Chris Young. Very confusing.)
Util -- Frank Thomas
SP -- Curt Schilling
Kelvim Escobar
Anthony Reyes
Dave Bush
Freddy Garcia
Greg Maddux
RP -- Brad Lidge
Brian Fuentes
Pat Neshek

It's a good team, not a great team. As you can tell, I went after offense early. The pitching leaves a little to be desired.

Speaking, of which, we interrupt our interruption to ask the following very important question: who in the heck is Adam Russell? He's come out of nowhere to put himself squarely in the battle for the fifth starter. Baseball Prospectus did have the foresight to give this guy a PECOTA card. We know this: he's huge. Six foot, eight inches, 250 pounds. He's also fairly young, at just 24 years of age. His projection isn't pretty, featuring an ERA of more than 6.00 in 18 starts. I'm just as hopeful as the next guy that someone emerges to lock down the fifth starter spot. But I'm loathe to make the choice based on a strong spring. What happens in limited spring innings doesn't say much about what will happen over the course of a year. I thought Danks was the best choice before the spring started, and Russell's strong spring hasn't changed my mind.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled interruption. There's also something of a stars and scrubs approach to my roster, which is odd because it was a straight draft, rather than an auction. Anyway, now that you've got the background, rest assured that I will provide much anticipated updates throughout the season. I also will not hesitate to talk trash, even as my season inevitably goes down in flames.

Rock Chalk

2007-03-19T09:21:00.000-05:00

No, I have not decided to become a Kansas fan. But higher seeds, chalk, are dominating this year's tournament. I had a fine, but hardly spectacular first weekend in my pools. I'm in 6th in Foul Ball's pool. Not great, but close enough that if my remaining picks are right, I win, no matter what else happens. In other words, I don't have to root for UNLV to upset Oregon just because I have Wisconsin in that game. So, that's nice. Anyway, other than Wisconsin, my Elite 8 picks remain in the tourney, so Thursday and Friday will be fun. By the way, I'm sure Camp Lambeau will have an appropriately angsty Badgers rant up soon enough. So, enjoy that as well.

Anyway, I'm going to go through the four brackets this week and share my apparently good, but not great, analysis. I'll do two today and two on Wednesday. Tomorrow, I'll take a break from my regularly scheduled programming to discuss the results of tonight's draft in the first ever Sox Bloggers Fantasy Baseball Showdown.

Let's start in the Midwest region, where Florida has the easiest road to the Final Four of any top seed. The Gators meet Butler in the Sweet 16, and they should handle the small conference "Cinderella" fairly easily. Florida may be the best offensive teams in the country, led by Lee Humphrey and Al Horford, who are two of the more efficient scorers in the NCAA at their positions. That's a theme for Florida, who leads the nation in effective field goal percentage. When Florida wins the rebounding and turnover battles, and they usually do, they're almost unbeatable. To pull an upset, Butler needs to control the pace. Butler is pretty efficient on offense too, but they play at one of the slowest tempos in the country. When they lose that battle, they can get in trouble.

Florida's Elite 8 opponent is likely to be Oregon, although the Ducks match-up with UNLV is much closer than the Florida v. Butler game. Oregon is another efficient offensive team, but they win when they force turnovers on defense. That allows them to cover for a half court defense that otherwise allows too many easy shots. Ken Pomeroy's favorite player, Maarty Leunen, sparks that defensive effort. What makes this match-up so interesting is that UNLV's key is protecting the ball. When they don't turn the ball over, they win games. So, the whole game may very well come down to one question, can Oregon force UNLV to cough the ball up?

The West is the second easiest bracket now. Truthfully, other than Florida, none of the top seeds have a cakewalk to the Final Four, which is one of the upsides of favorites dominating the tournament so far. Kansas though is a pretty good bet, thanks largely to the easiest Sweet 16 match-up. Kansas is in even better shape against Southern Illinois than Florida is against Butler. Kansas plays pretty fast, so their final scores can obscure the fact that they're the best defensive team in the country. They're third in effective field goal percentage against, and second in shot blocking. The defense is a given, so if Kansas doesn't turn the ball over, they win games. The danger is that they are fairly turnover prone. Russell Robinson, the team's best distributor, will be the key player, as he can't succumb to SIU's defensive pressure. And, SIU does apply a lot of defensive pressure to ball handlers -- they're 25th in the country in forcing opponents to turn it over. But if Kansas avoids that one pitfall, they'll move on.

The reason Kansas is not a Final Four lock though is UCLA, who figures to await the Jayhawks in the Elite 8. UCLA versus Pitt should be a fun game, but UCLA has some distinct advantages. UCLA is one of the better defensive teams in the country. Darren Collison is one of the better ball hawks in the game, and he gets help from Luc Richard Mbah a Moute, one of the better all-around defenders in college basketball. Ironically, Pittsburgh, who has more of a defensive reputation, has actually been a better offensive team this year. This is another case of slow tempo obscuring a team's real strength. Aaron Gray gets the most possessions and shot attempts on offense, which works out well, because he's the team's most efficient player. One x-factor who could key the mild upset: Ronald Ramon. Ramon has the all-around offensive game best suited to give Gray some support against UCLA. Two other keys to watch for with Pitt: control the glass on the defensive end and stay away from too many fouls.

A Fine Start

2007-03-16T09:12:00.000-05:00

Yesterday I overheard someone mention that there is no worse feeling than being the first team eliminated from the NCAA tournament. Similarly, from a tourney pool perspective, there is no worse feeling that watching one of your Sweet 16 teams go down to the first upset. And sure enough, there was Duke, who I had picked to upset Pitt and advance to the Sweet 16, losing to Virginia Commonwealth in the first round. It was the first real upset of the day.

Sure, Xavier beat BYU and Michigan State beat Marquette, but 8-9 games are really toss-ups, not upsets. Of course, I also got both of those games right. In fact, I got every game but Duke right yesterday. But they had all seemed pretty obvious to me, so I wasn't viewing this as any grand accomplishment.

Still, before getting too depressed about somehow convincing myself to pick Duke, who I despise, over Pitt, who I kind of like in the absence of Syracuse, I logged on to see how I was doing in my pools. I'm in three. One is run by a friend in the office. One is Foul Ball's pool (ok, that just sounds wrong). The last one is Deadspin's Pants Party Pool. Lo and behold, Scurvy (my entry reflects the absence of non-gendered citrus fruit in this year's tourney), is doing pretty well.

I'm in first in all three pools. It seems some of these obvious picks weren't so obvious. Anyway, this is like the contrapositive to the first team knocked out emotion. There is an irrational exuberance that goes with escaping the first round of the tourney. Similarly, there is an irrational exuberance to being in first after one day. Everything will obviously change between now and the final bell on this race. As soon as Texas A&M goes down in an all too predictable ball of flames, for example, I'll be starting my long slide to pool punditry mediocrity. But for one day at least, Scurvy is riding high.

We're All Gonna Get Scurvy

2007-03-12T10:35:00.000-05:00

The NCAA tournament has a vitamin C deficiency, and we're all going to get scurvy. Ok, I may be overstating the impact of the snubbing of the Syracuse Orange. And, honestly, while the Orange do have a beef about missing the tournament, it's hard to get too worked up. If Syracuse beat Drexel or Witchita State at home, or Oklahoma State or St. John's in their second home (Madison Square Garden), then they'd be in. So Syracuse can blame themselves for getting snubbed.

What makes the tourney great is that one can say with complete confidence that the best team in the nation is somewhere on the bracket. No one who missed the tourney was going to win it. So, complaining about the last at-large bids is just picking at the technicalities on the fringe of the enterprise. Over- and under-seeding is a more serious error, but the committee's mistakes can be corrected by play. If an under-seeded team plays well, then they'll be the higher seed and move on. Still, analyzing the committee's mistakes on the edges of the bracket and in terms of seeding is part of the fun.

Let's start with the small conference over-seed. This is a recurring problem. The committee seems unsure how to sort out various small conference winners. But a 12 seed playing a five seed has a legitimate chance to move on. A 15 seed doesn't. So, sorting this out matters. This year Long Beach State got an inexplicably good 12 seed. The Big West champs managed such impressive feats as getting blitzed at Temple by 25 points, losing to Cal State Northridge and UC Irvine, and getting beaten by Hawaii by 15 at home. Does this sound like a team capable of winning an NCAA game.

Meanwhile, Oral Roberts got a virtual death sentence 14 seed. I don't think Oral Roberts is all that good, mind you. They too have six bad losses, including Utah State at home and Loyola-Marymount to open the season, but they did knock off Kansas and Seton Hall this year. Long Beach State's best win this year was at Cal Poly, and yet they get the higher seed.

Related is the BCS over-seed. This is the big conference team who should be on the bubble, but instead develops a buzz resulting not only in a ticket to the dance, but a preposterously high seed. Take Virginia, for example. The Cavaliers are a four seed. They're 2-3 in the their last five games with losses coming to Miami, Wake Forest and North Carolina State. Earlier this year they lost to Appalachian State and Utah. I'm not saying they didn't belong in the tourney, though I'm not certain they did, but a four seed?!? That's just crazy talk.

And this one can't be blamed on ACC bias. The most under-seeded major conference team is probably Georgia Tech. Tech is a 10 seed with a stronger resume than Virginia. Yes, Virginia finished ahead of Tech in the ACC. But we're told consistently that the committee ignores conferences and looks at individual team resumes in picking teams and seeding. Yes, Virginia beat Tech head-to-head . . . by six at Virginia. That doesn't tell me much about how the teams will perform on neutral courts. Tech's non-conference schedule includes wins over Purdue, Memphis, Georgia, and UConn. They also beat Carolina. Virginia's only good non-conference win was against Arizona in the season opener and they never topped the Tar Heels. Which one is a four and which one is a ten again? We're not talking about mis-seeding 7-10 here, Virginia is a FOUR seed!!!

Then there are the at-large teams that clearly don't belong. Maybe I'm not cool enough to appreciate the so-called mid-majors, but they're simply held to a different, lesser standard than big conference teams. Old Dominion has no business taking an at-large bid. ODU has losses this year to powerhouses Marist, Hofstra, James Madison, Virginia Commonwealth, and George Mason (not to be confused with last year's version, which was good), as well as a home loss to Winthrop. A big conference team would be toast with those kinds of losses on their resume. Plus, ODU has only one good win: against Georgetown.

Which brings us to Syracuse. Syracuse won six of its last eight, including wins over UConn, Providence and Georgetown. UConn and Providence may not jump of the page because they're only average by Big East standards, but they're far better than VCU, Toledo and Hofstra, who are ODU's most impressive recent opponents. And that's a serious understatement. If we made a conference with Syracuse, Georgetown, UConn, Providence, ODU, VCU, Toledo and Hofstra I know who I'd pick to finish in the top four every season (including this one). Anyway, Syracuse also has wins over Villanova, Marquette and DePaul. The DePaul win is probably Syracuse's fifth or sixth best win. It would be ODU's second biggest accomplishment (and I'd take DePaul in that game anyway). The Orange do have bad losses to Witchita State, Drexel, Oklahoma State, and St. John's. But those bad losses pale in comparison to ODU's defeats. Heck, Oklahoma State would have been ODU's fourth best opponent all year.

As I've said, this is all tinkering at the margins, but some of the errors are pretty egregious. Some of the blame can be directed at the terribly imprecise RPI. Objective statistical analysis is great, but the RPI is a blunt instrument, like using batting average, when we're capable of calculating WARP or VORP. And as a result, we're all going to get scurvy.

Super Bowl Shufflin' Out of Town

2007-03-06T16:06:00.000-06:00

I've been gone too long. Sorry. I've been quite busy at work, which figures to continue through the middle of the month due to upcoming oral arguments at the Illinois Supreme Court down in Springfield. Anyway, the good news is: (a) that puts me back at full speed in time for the baseball season; and (b) I'm not gone for good.

Thomas Jones, on the other hand, is gone for good. (In the business, we call that a segue.) I think I'm happy with this trade. Jones carried 296 times for 1210 yards last year. He had six touchdowns and one fumble. Cedric Benson, who will replace Jones as the team's workhorse, carried 157 times for 647 yards. He also had six touchdowns, and did not fumble (until the Super Bowl -- nice time, Ced).

In terms of overall production above replacement level, Jones has a DPAR of 25.5, while Benson was worth just 17.9 DPAR. But Jones got the bulk of the work. To measure their per play performance, we need to look at their value over average, or DVOA. Here, Benson's 15.1% out paces Jones's 5.6% by a wide margin. It actually places Benson among the league's elite, just ahead of the now retired Tiki Barber.

And that's why the deal makes sense on it's own. The Bears up grade at running back by giving more carries to Benson. So, getting anything of value, and moving up 3o spots in the second round has a lot of value (at least according to Jimmy Johnson's well-groomed draft trade chart, which everyone in the NFL now uses), for a player who the Bears don't need, is a good thing.

Part of me wonders whether the Bears got as much as the market would have been willing to pay for a solid starting running back. Prices for running backs are inflated right now. The Broncos shelled out good money for Travis Henry. But how do we know what the market was willing to give? The Bears got an early second round pick for a late second and Thomas Jones. The Patriots got Wes Welker for a late second and a late seventh. Presumably an early second rounder is worth a lot more than Welker. It better be, otherwise the Bears got no more for Jones than they could have gotten for their seventh round pick.

Anyway, finding it beyond myself to deduce Jones's market value, I'll stick to looking at the trade in isolation. On that front, I'll take it. The Bears got something of substantial value in exchange for a player who either doesn't play, or keeps an even more valuable player off the field. That's a good trade, right?

Skiles Irks Me

2007-02-26T16:57:00.001-06:00

"Tough Loss Irks Skiles," proclaimed the Sun-Times headline. It's hard to get too irked about anything when the Bulls have beaten the Wizards and Cavs, and played the Pistons even in Detroit in recent days. But this headline irked me.

Skiles was indeed irked after Sunday's loss to the Pistons, in which the Bulls blew a 16 point second half lead. "To cough the game up in the third quarter with some of the plays that we're making, there's no excuse for that at this level," said the coach. "We can't keep saying we have young players and all that. At some point, we have to develop some poise. It's costing us too many games, and it cost us tonight."

Um, Scott, the lineup you had in for the key stretch of the third quarter: there's no excuse for that at this level. The Bulls blew their lead over the last four minutes of the third quarter. This is a traditional time to rest starters for the 4th quarter. And the Bulls had some foul difficulties. But Skiles road a line up of Ben Wallace, Tyrus Thomas, Luol Deng, Adrian Griffin and Chris Duhon for much of that time, as the Bulls were outscored by 11 points in less than four minutes. How exactly did he think that fivesome was going to compete? Deng is a nice option, but not a guy who can carry the offense. No one else in that group does anything offensively. And it showed. Alleged veteran leader Adrian Griffin dribbled hopeless into traffic before turning the ball over on more than one occasion.

The loss of Andres Nocioni makes Scott Skiles's job a LOT harder. Without him, Skiles needs to learn to make better use of his players. At the very least, when he's going to berate his players for losing the game, he should look in the mirror and ask himself whether he put them in a position to win.

Just Wondering

2007-02-23T09:13:00.000-06:00

Three events converged yesterday that got me wondering. Actually, a couple of the events have been percolating, and my epiphany has even been battering around the recesses of my mind for a couple of days. But yesterday, for some reason, the intersection of events brought this thought into focus.

Event One: The trade deadline passes without, well, anything. The Memphis Grizzlies allegedly wanted two of Kirk Hinrich, Ben Gordon, Luol Deng, or Andres Nocioni, plus a first round pick in exchange for Pau Gasol. I like Gasol a lot, probably more than most. And, I've argued that the Bulls should have been willing to give up a lot to get him. But that's too rich for even my blood. What's the point of adding Gasol if it strips the team of the pieces needed to contend? So, the Bulls passed. Nor did they reach agreement on lesser deals for Shareef Abdur-Rahim or Bonzi Wells. The Bulls would have liked to add someone, be it a forward or guard, who could post-up and create his own shot, especially when their back court is struggling from the perimeter. They couldn't accomplish that, so they enter the stretch drive unchanged.

Event Two: The Chicago Bulls beat the Cleveland Cavaliers 84 to 78. This was actually the last event to occur chronologically. The Bulls beat the Cavs by playing stifling defense, especially in the second quarter. The charge was led by Ben Wallace, who truthfully, has been disappointing this year. A number of experts correctly predicted that Wallace wouldn't continue to be the same player he's been the last four years. But I don't think anyone expected the fall off we've seen so far, at least not this season. Wallace is averaging 7.4 points per 40 minutes, which is low, even for him. Worse, he's averaging just 12.3 rebounds per 40 minutes -- that's half a rebound less than last season, and nearly 3.5 fewer than in his heyday in 2002-03. But last night Wallace had 14 points, 19 rebounds and seven blocks. It was his second strong game in a row, following a 14 rebound effort against the Atlanta Hawks. With Wallace playing like that, the Bulls can compete with anyone in the Eastern Conference, and may be only a piece or two away from legitimately contending for an NBA Championship.

Event Three: Scottie Pippen announces he wants to make a comeback and help a contender. This is actually the first event to occur, but it's potential relevance wasn't totally clear to me until yesterday. The word is that Scottie has a handful of potential bidders calling around, with the leading candidate believed to be the LA Lakers. The Lakers view Pippen as a possible solution to their need for a big guard to back up Kobe Bryant and play good defense. Pippen was certainly quick enough in his prime to guard back court players. His defense on Magic Johnson won the Bulls their first championship. But at 41, while he probably retains his deceptive strength, and certainly retains his knowledge of the game, isn't it likely his quickness has deteriorated somewhat? Pippen always had the speed and size to play anywhere from point guard to power forward, but his perfect spot was the small forward. It seems to me that at his age, he's more likely to still be able to play either forward spot than to still be able to play in the back court. And, he always knew how to score around the rim. So, how is it possible that no one has suggested that Scottie might provide a cheap solution to the Bulls' need for a front court reserve with some offensive punch? I mean, aren't the Bulls the first team everyone thinks of when they hear "Scottie Pippen?" And don't the Bulls need a forward with some offensive skills? Wasn't that the point of all the Gasol talk? Shouldn't the Bulls at least bring Scottie in for a workout and see what kind of shape he's in? If the team was willing to give something of value in exchange for Abdur-Rahim, isn't Pippen worth a free look? Scottie could be 70 and I'd still be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt versus Shareef Abdur-Rahim. And, yet, I haven't heard anyone suggest that the Bulls are one of the teams even considering whether to consider Scottie.

Look, I'm not suggesting Pippen can solve all the Bulls' problems and vault them to an NBA crown. I don't think a 41-year-old who hasn't played in three years can do that for anyone. But if Wallace is going to play with the passion and focus necessary to be a defensive force down the stretch, then the Bulls are pretty close to be an elite team. Am I crazy to think Scottie might bring them just one little step closer?

Say It Ain't So, Ozzie

2007-02-21T10:35:00.000-06:00

There it was in black and white: the scariest quote I've seen this year. Buried in the middle of a Sun-Times story about Tadahito Iguchi, this quote from Ozzie Guillen:

"I would really like to have 'Igu' down in the lineup. On the days Erstad hits first and Podsednik hits second, then maybe I put Iguchi down in the lineup at seventh."

Run. Scream in terror. Apparently, Ozzie has gotten it into his head to rotate Darrin Erstad into the one and two holes. The most important skill for a guy at the top of the order is getting on base. The rest of it -- stealing bases, bunting, whatever -- is at best secondary, and arguably meaningless. Those guys have to get on-base. Last year Erstad posted the remarkable on-base percentage of .279. It's remarkable in its craptacularity. He's 32, injury prone, and clearly in a fade. He has exactly one season with an OB above .331 this century. In 2005, his last injury-free season, he drew 47 walks and struck out 109 times. I don't think Erstad should even make the team, but he's clearly the least (no more italics, I promise) qualified guy to hit leadoff on the entire roster. PECOTA expects a much better .292 on-base percentage this season, which would be outstanding for a pitcher.

In contrast, Iguchi projects to have a .355 on-base percentage. Last year, he was at .352, and his rookie campaign, at .342, would beat all but Erstad's career best season. If anything, this is the guy who ought to be moving to the top of the order. I have an idea, Ozzie, let's not give 100 extra plate appearances to the guy who can't find first base with a personal navigation system. The theory that moving Iguchi down in the lineup, and thus depriving him of numerous plate appearances, somehow enables him to better use his skills is ludicrous. How about instead we leave him at the top and stop pissing his at-bats away with meaningless early-game sacrifice bunts, or have him stand around watching strikes while he waits for Podsednik to be thrown out stealing. Let him do his thing, and get the extra 100 at-bats.

It's bad enough that Ozzie's comments seem to indicate that Podsednik, Erstad, and Brian Anderson are likely to get at-bats that should be going to Ryan Sweeney and Josh Fields. But the idea of Darrin Erstad, lead off hitter, is enough to make me wet myself in fear.

The Running of the Bulls

2007-02-20T10:05:00.000-06:00

The NBA Slam Dunk competition is behind us, as are those events on Saturday night before the big throw down. (Do you see what I did there? Clever, huh?) Anyway, it's time for the second half of the season, and the final push to the playoffs. For a couple of years now the Bulls have been treading water: a playoff team, but not a contender. That was great, and a whole lot better than the wasteland following Michael's departure. But now there are expectations, especially since the team spent big bucks to bring in Big Ben. The general feeling is that the best way for the Bulls to meet those expectations is to acquire a legit post presence, most likely Memphis's Pau Gasol. To get a star like Gasol, the Bulls will have to give up players they want to keep. PJ Brown, Chris Duhon, Tyrus Thomas, and #1 pick are probably not enough. One guy from the Bulls' core will probably have to go too to make this happen.

The Bulls have four legitimately intriguing chips. The "least" of these, and the guy the Bulls would probably be most willing to part with, is Andres Nocioni. Nocioni is a good player, and he's only 27 years old. But to get quality, you have to give quality, so that's what we're dealing with here. Nocioni has established this season that his second year in the league was more indicative of his abilities than his rookie season. He has an effective field goal percentage (efg%) of .536 and averages 21.6 points per 40 minutes. He also averages 8.6 boards per 40 minutes. Still, he's the least valuable of the Bulls' big four. In fact, I wonder if he'd be enough of an incentive for Memphis to make the deal.

If Nocioni isn't enough, the Bulls would be wise to unload the player who is in many ways the face of the franchise. Kirk Hinrich was the first guy to give Chicago fans hope at the end of the franchise's dark age. He's only 26 and played on Team USA this summer. He averages 18.0 points and 7.0 assists per 40 minutes, and he's actually pretty good protecting the ball. He's having the best season of his career statistically. Still, he' the least valuable of the Bulls' perimeter studs. And, his progress has slowed dramatically if not stalled entirely. Hinrich is probably as good as he'll ever be, and that's not as good as Luol Deng or Ben Gordon.

The 23-year-old Gordon has stepped up his scoring this season, and not just because he's playing more minutes. His 26.8 points per 40 minutes is 5 points more than his previous career best. And he's shooting better than 45% from the floor. Then there's Deng. With a full off-season to prepare, Deng is having a career year. He's averaging 20.0 points and 7.7 rebounds per 40 minutes. He's shooting .523 from the floor, as compared to .463 last year. The improvement stems from a determination to take the ball to the basket. Forty-two percent of his shots are coming on the inside. AND HE'S ONLY 21! Sorry for yelling, but holy crap.

The Bulls might be unwilling to part with Gordon or Deng, and I'd feel really uncomfortable about giving up Deng, who may be an elite stud by the time he would have used up his eligibility at Duke. Still, you'd have to consider anything for Gasol. Gasol is also only 26. Though he's coming off an injury, he's averaging 23.5 points and 10.7 rebounds per 40 minutes, and shooting a career best 53% from the floor. The single guy in the history of the NBA whose stats most resembled Gasol's at that age? Tim Duncan. What wouldn't you give up to add a youngTim Duncan to your line-up?

So, let's be optimistic for a minute (not Sam Smith, Duhon for Gasol straight up, optimistic), and assume that Hinrich can serve as the centerpiece for a deal. Based on my understanding, and with a big assist from ESPN's trade machine, the following deal could happen under the league's cap: The Bulls send Kirk Hinrich, PJ Brown, Tyrus Thomas and their #1 pick (which should be protected if its in the top 2 or 3 because the Knicks figure to be in the lottery) to Memphis for Pau Gasol and Damon Stoudamire (or Brian Cardinal).

I'd make that trade in heartbeat. The Bulls would be left with Ben Wallace, Pau Gasol, Luol Deng, Ben Gordon and Chris Duhon, with Malik Allen, Andres Nocioni, Thabo Sefolosha and Damon Stoudamire on the bench. To me that's a team that can make the next step. And, it's time to make the next step, for which we should be grateful. This is a lot more fun than just hoping not to sink further into the abyss.

And All Is Right In The (Sports) World

2007-02-16T10:06:00.000-06:00

I originally left the word "sports" out of the title, but so much is not right in the world at this moment (starting with young American men and women dying on the other side of the world every day), that I felt uncomfortable even looking at the title. Nevertheless, it is true that I feel better just knowing that the White Sox report to spring training this weekend. So, in the spirit of usual spring optimism tempered with the knowledge, especially acute this year, that baseball is just a game: The White Sox report to spring training Saturday, and all is right in the sports world.

The White Sox enter camp with at least three major positional battles. Let's start in center field. The incumbent in Brian Anderson, who is undoubtedly an outstanding defender, and last year was offensive on offense. Anderson hit only .218 last year, with an on-base percentage under .300. He was, however, 12 full runs above average in center field over the course of the season. That's outstanding. Projecting this year, PECOTA anticipates a more realistic .250 batting average, with an on-base percentage near .320, and 15 or so home runs. However, Anderson's defense will likely regress towards average as well. More importantly, the White Sox have a better option in my opinion. No not, Darrin Erstad, who is far too old to play center and likely too washed up to contribute at all. Ryan Sweeney is one of the few legitimate prospects the Sox have. He struggled in limited plate appearances at the major league level last year. But he hit .288 with an on-base percentage near .350, and a bit of power last summer in Charlotte. And, based on that performance, at the tender age of 21, PECOTA sees pretty big things for him this summer: a .277 batting average, .330 on base percentage, and 10-15 homeruns. He's an above-average corner outfielder, and can probably play an average center field. If he can, he's the answer there for the Sox, so I'll be rooting for him to win the job.

I'll also be rooting for a kid to win the job in left field. The incumbent, and the best of the Sox' veteran options out there is Scott Podsednik. Pods had a much detailed struggle in left last year. He hit .260 and his on-base percentage slipped below .340. And his defense, stellar in 2005, was below average in 2006. Next year PECOTA expects a further decline, with a batting average in the .250's and an on-base percentage below .330. Meanwhile, Josh Fields, another of the Sox few good prospects, is athletic enough to bring his impact bat to the lineup in left. Like Sweeney, Fields struggled with the big club last season. But he had an outstanding year at AAA. He hit .300 with a .370 on-base percentage, 19 homeruns and 28 stolen bases. PECOTA expects him to struggle reaching base if he spends the season at the big league level: .253 batting average, .325 on-base percentage. But it also expects more than 20 homeruns. Given Podsednik's fade, Fields seems like a better choice.

Finally, the most crowded battle is for the fifth rotation spot. Mark Buehrle, Javier Vazquez, Jose Contreras, and Jon Garland are an outstanding top four guys. But for the first time in a few years, a slot is open for a youngster to join the rotation. I'm not thrilled with the options here. The first shot will be given to Gavin Floyd, acquired in the trade that sent Freddy Garcia to Philly. Floyd, once highly touted, struggled mightily last year with the Phillies, posting an ERA over 7.00 in 11 starts. Nor was he much better at AAA, where he had an ERA of 5.64. PECOTA projects an ERA over 6.00 for Floyd this season if he makes 20 starts. A slightly better option is knuckle baller Charlie Haeger, who was terrible in his big league debut last season, but then pitched well out of the pen down the stretch. PECOTA has marginally better expectations for Haeger than Floyd: an EqERA around 5.30 (that's ERA adjusted to assume a league average of 4.50) over 20 starts. But again, the best option is to hand the ball to the youngster with the most upside. In this case, that's John Danks, the Rangers prospect acquired for Brandon McCarthy. Danks has only 13 starts at the AAA level, posting an ERA of 4.36 there. But Danks strikes a fair number out, and until AAA had never had control issues. PECOTA anticipates an EqERA of 5.09, with about 7 k's per 9 innings. Not great, but better than the alternatives. And Danks has the best upside.

The continued health and production of the Sox' big hitters and front-line starters will have more to do with the team's success than who wins these position battles. But maximizing team value at the margins is what spring training is all about, so this spring, I'll be rooting for the kids.

This Is Priceless

2007-02-09T16:18:00.000-06:00

There's no real sports connection here. But this video is priceless. It's almost on a par with the bear and the trampoline video. The last squirrel is the best.

Finally, Sports! Or not.

2007-02-09T09:28:00.000-06:00

I've sat idly this week since finishing my last Bears post. The dominating news stories of the past week just don't float my boat, so to speak. Tyrus Thomas is only in the dunk contest for the money? No s**t. He's just the only kid still naive enough to say it out loud. Olin Kreutz lives in Hawaii and can't be bothered with playing in the Pro Bowl, but because he says the right things in dropping out, no one bats an eye. We all know that All Star Weekend and the Pro Bowl mean more to the players as a vacation, party or rest break than anything else, but we don't want it rubbed in our faces. Except I couldn't care less. Nor could I care less about tension between the Notre Dame and Illinois football programs, or college football recruiting in general. Unlike college basketball where the instant impact or lack of impact -- I'm looking at you Paul Harris -- of a talented freshman can make or break a season, incoming freshmen rarely make a difference on the football field. Rex Grossman, David Carr, Jeff Garcia? It's too soon to generate much excitement about next football season. And, spring training, while tantalizing close, has yet to begin.

Which is why I was so excited this morning to sit down and write about an actual sporting event. I sat down last night to watch the Bulls play the Sacramento Kings waiting for a fun storyline to emerge. Luol Deng, Kirk Hinrich, and even Ben Wallace contributed early, and the Bulls led by five after a quarter. And, then I watched the ugliest half of basketball I've seen in a very long time. The two teams scored 31 points combined in the second quarter. The Suns and Mavericks could score 31 points getting off the team buses. So after all that, here is my sum observations from last night's game: the bench played well in the third quarter.

So, the Bulls game failed to get me out of my rut. What now? And, does this happen after every football season, but I've never been self-aware enough to notice. I mean, do we all kind of go into a post-NFL sports depression every year? I'm not sure. But I do know this: there is a cure. I'm going to Vegas. No, really, that's not a joke. My buddies from law school and I happen to be going to Vegas this weekend, and I believe that nothing can better disrupt this malaise than "investing" heavily in several college basketball games. So, thank goodness for modern medicine, and, uh, the sports book at Mandalay Bay.

New Generation of Bears Fans Not So Thrilled With T Formation

2007-02-05T07:45:00.000-06:00

I said before the Super Bowl that I could see the game playing out in just about any way. One possibility that I did not anticipate was the Bears playing poorly, but still having the ball down less than a touchdown in the fourth quarter. But that's what happened. It was an odd game. In fact, after the game, the Official Father of the Fan Club, aka Hawaii Mike, said that if the two teams played again, he still would have no idea what outcome to expect. Hawaii Mike is no Bears fan. But none of this changes the fact that the Bears were badly outplayed, probably worse than the score indicates.

Some things went as expected. The Bears got a big play in the return game. The Bears were excellent all year in the return game and the Colts were bad all year in coverage. No surprises there. And both teams ran the ball well. The Colts picked up 191 yards on 42 carries. Finesse team, huh? Actually, I think Dominic Rhodes should have been the run away MVP winner, but sentiment prevailed there. Anyway, the Bears ran for 111 yards of their own on 19 carries. That's 5.8 yards a pop.

And yet on what I believe was the key series of the game, the Bears got pass happy. The Bears were lucky to go into the break down 16-14. And, the Colts came out to open the second half and moved the ball at will. Their drive lasted 13 plays and more than seven and a half minutes. But the Bears managed to hold them to a field goal and remained, luckily, one score down at 19-14.

The Bears needed to answer. They needed to give their D time to rest. Their first two plays were passes that picked up 23 yards and put the Bears at 2nd and 1 in Indy territory. I begged the TV for a simple run. Pick up the first down and you have a whole new set of downs to get cute with. It is a widely held misconception that second and short is a free play. Throw and incompletion and you can pick up the first on the next play. The Bears demonstrated why that's a fallacy. A sack, a fumble, and 22 yards later the Bears were punting on 4th and 23 from their own 33.

The game, I believed, was over, especially when the Colts scored again on the ensuing possession to make it a two score game. And yet, the Bears had the ball, down only five points, in the 4th quarter. The holding call against John Tait that erased a 12 yard Thomas Jones run to start the drive was huge. Three plays later, Evil Rex arrived, and the game really was over. The interception run back for a touchdown was a huge mental lock-up. Rex didn't try to make a throw, he just threw it up and prayed. The second pick a few minutes later was a good play, but a terrible throw. The ball was underthrown and delivered too late, wasting a wide open Bernard Berrian. The truth is Grossman looked scared and overwhelmed all night, even if his numbers weren't terrible. Maybe he'll grow out of it, but next year is his last chance.

Despite everything that went wrong, the Bears had a chance to win in the 4th quarter and couldn't come through. Whoever won this game was going to be one of the weaker teams to ever win a Super Bowl, either deeply flawed at QB or on defense. And appropriately, the game was one of the sloppiest, most turnover laden in Super Bowl history. But all that aside, the Indianapolis Colts are Super Bowl champions. Excellence on one side of the ball is enough in today's NFL to be a legitimate contender. Which should give Bears fans hope for next year.

All About Rex

2007-02-02T09:04:00.000-06:00

We've put all the pieces together but one. Each team should have success running the football. The Bears' pass D can match up well with Peyton Manning and the Colts, if the Bears use their run game to limit Manning's opportunities. We haven't discussed special teams, but the Bears have a huge advantage in that area. Believe me, Devin Hester against the Colts' punt coverage is a good thing if you're a Bears fan. If we could stop right there, I'd pick the Bears in a close game, say 20-17.

But there's one player on the field we haven't talked about yet, and he could make all the difference in the world. Rex Grossman is not the WORST QUARTERBACK EVER, as the mainstream media would have you believe. Nor is the NFL's Player of the Month from September the GREATEST QUARTERBACK EVER as the national media would have had you believe back then. What he is, is unbelievably inconsistent.

He attempted 459 passes, completed 55% of them for 3,052 yards and 23 touchdowns. He also threw 20 picks. On the surface those numbers don't look so bad. They don't look great, either, but certainly passable. The problem was that Grossman poured on big numbers against some teams -- he was second in the NFL with seven games with a passer rating over 100 -- and could do nothing when the team needed him to in other games, such as against the Patriots and Dolphins.

As a result, the Bears' offense had the widest variance during the regular season of any team in football. It wasn't even that close. Now, in the play-offs Mediocre Rex has suddenly emerged. He struggled against the Saints, but he didn't throw the game away and he came through with one good drive to seal the deal against New Orleans. Against Seattle his numbers look better, but the truth is that he struggled on third down when the stakes are highest. Still, he did enough on first and second down, and minimized his mistakes, allowing the Bears to win.

But two weeks of consistent mediocrity don't override 16 weeks of roller coaster ups and downs. I can't say with any confidence whether Grossman will be fantastic, horrible, or less likely, average. And, as a result, I can't say with any confidence what will happen on Sunday. If he plays great, the Bears could dominate with their superior defense and special teams. If he plays terribly, the Colts could run away with this. If he plays average, I think the Bears have the advantage because of their strength in the running game, defensively and in the return game. Even though he may be the most important guy on the field Sunday, he's also the toughest to analyze. So, I'm going to pretend Grossman doesn't exist. And I'm right back where I started: Bears 20 - Colts 17.

Smash Mouth Sucked

2007-02-01T09:34:00.000-06:00

Seriously. "So don't delay act now supplies are running out. Allow if you're still alive six to eight years to arrive. And if you follow there may be a tomorrow. But if the offer is shun you might as well be walkin' on the sun." What the hell does that mean?!?

Anyway, leaving behind the world of musical commentary, we turn now to the front page of the Chicago Sun-Times, which declares in huge letters: "SMASHMOUTH". The paper declares that the "smashmouth" Bears need to turn the game into a "brawl" to beat the "finesse" Colts. I'm usually skeptical of words like smashmouth and finesse because they're the kinds of subjective words that don't really tell you much when they're uttered, and in retrospect, can be twisted to match whatever reality turned out to be.

What is true is that the Bears need to run the ball to win on Sunday, which may be the Sun-Times' point anyway. The last two days I talked about how the Bears' D matches up with the Colts' offense. As good as the Bears' D is, however, the truth is that the Colts' offense is so dynamic that they will put points on the board if given enough opportunities. So, how do you limit those opportunities? You get off the bus running the football.

And the Bears should have some success running the football. (Incidentally, the Official Brother of the Ron Karkovice Fan Club, Sh*thead, wants the Bears to come out in the wishbone. He may be on to something.) Anyway, based on Football Outsiders' nifty DVOA (once again for anyone new: Defense-adjusted Value Over Average), the Bears had the ninth best running attack in the NFL.

The Bears may have a mediocre to poor offense, but they do one thing very well on that side: run the football. Thomas Jones gained 1,21o yards on 296 carries, with six touchdowns. Cedric Benson gained 647 yards on 157 carries, with six touchdowns of his own. Benson ranked 10th and Jones 19th in the league in DVOA among running backs, which here measures a back's contributions on a per play basis. Jones ranked 11th and Benson 18th in overall production (measured by Football Outsiders' DPAR: Defense-adjusted Performance Above Replacement).

And, generally speaking, we know Indy wasn't very good at run defense this year. In fact, they were 31st in DVOA. But more than that, they're most vulnerable where the Bears are strongest. Indy ranked last in football against runs between the guards. They're also last on runs behind right tackle, and 26th on runs behind left tackle. On the other hand, they're in the top 10 against sweeps to either side.

Meanwhile, 78% of Bears' carries this season were between the tackles, 44% between the guards. That's not that unusual, only a few teams run outside more than 25% or so (the Colts being one of them). But the Bears run between the tackles better than most. They ranked first in the NFL in adjusted line yards on carries between the guards, and eighth on carries behind left tackle John Tait.

So, the Bears can take advantage of the Colts' weakness against the run, just like they can contain Manning and the Colts' passing attack. And, as I said Monday, the Bears must contain Manning, and similarly must run the ball. Running the ball is the best chance the Bears have to put points on the board, and can help limit the Colts' offensive opportunity. And, there's the formula for the Bears. Run the ball, control the clock, make Indy's passing attack one dimensional, and don't let Joseph Addai do too much damage. At this point, I'd be willing to predict a 20-17 Bears' win, which is out of line with what the "experts" are predicting both in terms of total points and who has more of them. But there's a wild card in this game: Rex Grossman, aka Variance Man. More on his potential impact on this game tomorrow.

The Colts' Scariest Player

2007-01-31T09:33:00.000-06:00

Yesterday I boldly predicted that the Bears could stop, or at least contain, Peyton Manning. I'll probably be really pissed that I wrote that Sunday evening when I'm curled up fetal on my couch. Nevertheless, I'm pretty confident in how the Bears match-up with Manning and the Colts' passing game. As for the Colts' running game, not so much.

The Colts had the sixth most efficient running attack in football to compliment the league's best passing attack. They use that passing attack to set up their running attack. The Colts often spread Dallas Clark and their other tight ends out into the slot. Most teams respond by sending on their nickle defense. Then the Colts up the tempo. The defense is trapped in a nickle alignment while the Colts' no-huddle offense runs through them with a variety of traps, draws and delays. It has certainly appeared from watching the Bears, especially against the Seahawks in the playoffs, that they're vulnerable to this strategy.

The Bears ranked as the number five run defense during the regular season. Most observers of the team, however, felt that their best days came early in the season before Mike Brown and Tommie Harris were lost for the year. So, can the Bears' run defense answer the bell in the Super Bowl? The Bears' defensive tackles have continued to play well against the run all year. Tank Johnson and Ian Scott is as strong a duo against runs between the guards as the Bears can put on the field, even when Harris is healthy. Right defensive ends Alex Brown and Mark Anderson have held up fairly well, as well. And, left outside linebacker Hunter Hillenmeyer is at his best playing the run.

The problem is that Hillenmeyer may spend most of the Super Bowl standing on the sidelines because of the Colts' spread out, no huddle attack. Thus, one of the Bears' best run stoppers is absent. Also, teams have had success attacking Adewale Ogunleye, a defensive weakness that may be even more exposed without Hillenmeyer backing up Ogunleye at the point of attack. And, when teams have attacked the edge on Lance Briggs's side, they've often been able to overpower him at the point of attack. So, their are holes in the Bears' run D.

The good news is that the Colts have enjoyed their greatest success running between the guards and behind left tackle Tarik Glenn, which is right into the strength of the Bears' defense. The bad news is that the Colts have been pretty good running the ball in just about any direction, and if they test Chicago's run defense, they're likely to find its flaws, especially if they succeed in keeping the Bears' nickle package on the field.

And here's where it gets really scary. The Colts' scariest player is just 5'11", 215 pounds. Joseph Addai was the NFL's fifth most productive and sixth most efficient runner this year. Twice this year, the Bears faced comparably productive runners. Tiki Barber carried the ball 19 times for 141 yards against Chicago. Stephen Jackson carried 18 times for 81 yards and a touchdown. And, Addai is actually more consistent than either Barber or Jackson. In fact, he's the most consistent back in football. He gained 1,074 yards and seven touchdowns on just 226 carries. He led the league with a 62% success rate, which represents a player's consistency, measured by successful running plays (the definition of success being different based on down and distance) divided by total running plays.

I'm having nightmares about Briggs racing back into coverage against Clark or Ben Utecht, who often line up in the slot, as Addai takes a delayed hand off around the left end. Before the night is over, I suspect Addai will hurt the Bears badly. Of course, the Bears beat both the Giants and the Rams despite giving up good to great days to New York's and St. Louis's runners. Addai's presence and the Colts' deceptively deadly running game hardly spell doom for Chicago. But if anyone was wondering what's making my stomach churn waiting for Sunday, now you know, its a little rookie from LSU.

Hidden Match-up Advantages

2007-01-30T09:33:00.001-06:00

Asked to name all the times the Chicago Bears will have an advantage of Sunday, one of the least mentioned times would be when Peyton Manning drops back to pass. And yet, the Bears match up quite well with the Colts' passing attack. More over, it's a match-up the Bears must win if they're to win this ball game.

Peyton Manning had a phenomenal season. His DPAR (defense-adjusted performance above replacement), which measures his overall contributions, was 75% higher than the next highest quarterback in football. His DVOA (defense-adjusted value above average), which measures his efficiency, was 50% higher than the next best quarterback in the league. He completed 65% of his passes for 4,305 yards and 31 touchdowns, and he only turned the ball over 10 times all year.

And Manning was not alone in his excellence. Reggie Wayne was the most productive, and third most efficient wide receiver in the NFL. He caught 63% of the passes thrown his way for 1,314 yards and nine touchdowns. Marvin Harrison was the next most productive, and fifth most efficient wide out. He caught 64% of the passes directed at him for 1,366 yards and 12 touchdowns. Among running backs, Joseph Addai was the fifth most productive, and fourth most efficient, threat out of the backfield in football. He caught 80% of the passes targeted for him for 325 yards and a touchdown. Not to be left out, the Colts' trio of tight ends did their fair share as well. Ben Utecht, Dallas Clark, and Bryan Fletcher were 16th, 17th and 18th respectively among tight ends in overall productivity. Fletcher ranked third at the position in efficiency. Combined, the three caught 63% of the balls thrown their way for 946 yards and six touchdowns. Everywhere you look there are weapons. And the line gave the passing attack time to operate, ranking second in the league in lowest adjusted sack rate allowed.

But in the playoffs the Colts' passing attack has faltered just the slightest bit. Manning has thrown two touchdowns and six picks. He's been sacked five times. And, Clark suddenly has replaced Wayne and Harrison as Manning's most reliable receiver, and that is a good thing for opponents. There's just enough sign of weakness to believe that the right defense can win the aerial match-up with the Colts (See Ravens, Baltimore).

And, the Bears are the right defense. The Bears had the second pass defense in the league, behind only Baltimore, who dominated Manning in the Ravens' play-off match-up with the Colts. The Bears led the league in shutting down opponents' tight ends and were third against opposing running backs. It's not hard to see why. The Bears have unique speed at linebacker. Also, the Bears were second in the league at stopping teams' second wide receivers and sixth against third, fourth and fifth receivers. Again, it's not hard to see why. Ricky Manning, Jr. is excellent for a nickle back, and whichever starter -- Peanut Tillman or Nathan Vasher -- doesn't draw the opponent's number one, usually has a match-up advantage. The team's only weakness is defending truly elite number one wide outs. The Bears rank only 21st in the league in stopping opponents' number one wide receivers.

The Bears' pass defense is outstanding because it takes away an opponent's options. They may not have a true shut down corner for an opponent's top guy, and the scheme doesn't provide a ton of protection is Vasher or Tillman are over matched. But the team's depth and speed reduces opposing QBs to looking in only one direction. The Colts thrive on spreading the field and spreading the ball -- Clark's emergence in the playoffs is a sign that this has been especially true this post season. That plays right into the Bears' hands as a pass defense.

Make no mistake about it: the Colts' passing attack is outstanding, the best in the league. But the Bears' pass defense is also outstanding. Despite the national media's coronation of Manning and the Colts' aerial assault, this is a match-up the Bears can win. More importantly, this is a match up the Bears must win. The Bears' rushing attack can control the clock and limit the Colts' chances, but it won't mean a thing if the Colts can strike fast and at will when they do have the ball.

Biggest Fish in the Littlest Pond

2007-01-29T09:56:00.000-06:00

One of the recurring stories of the next week, and indeed a story that has already been overplayed in the previous week, is the dominance of the AFC over the NFC. The AFC's superiority is the reason why the Colts, with a worse record and much worse scoring differential than the Bears, are overwhelming favorites to win the Super Bowl. I think any AFC playoff team, except possibly the Chiefs and Jets, would have been favored over the Bears.

The AFC was 40-24 in interconference match-ups this season. That's the second best margin ever. But that doesn't necessarily tell us anything about what will happen in the Super Bowl. The most lopsided season in interconference history was two years ago: the 2004 season culminating in Super Bowl XXXIX. In the single most dominant season in the history of the AFC, the Patriots edged out the Eagles by only three points in the Super Bowl.

Of course, a single occurrence proves nothing. In Super Bowl XII, the Cowboys beat the Broncos by a healthy 27-10 margin. That game capped the 1977 season, in which the AFC had a nearly .700 winning percentage head-to-head. It was one of the four most unbalanced seasons in the history of conference play. But that game came in the midst of a streak during which the AFC won eight of nine Super Bowls while also besting the NFC head-to-head in nine straight years.

So, there is some evidence on each side. Some evidence, such as the AFC's dominance in the 1970's suggests that we should pay attention to the conference's head-to-head records. Other evidence, however, such as Super Bowl XII, St. Louis's win in Super Bowl XXXIV, or the seven NFC teams that won Super Bowls during the 80's and 90's in years in which the AFC won the head-to-head battle, suggests that interconference records don't mean much.

The truth is, there has been nothing cyclical about the balance of power between the conferences, and yet dominance in the Super Bowl has been cyclical. For three decades now the AFC has owned the NFC when it comes to interconference play. The AFC has had the better record in 22 of the 31 seasons since the merger. But the NFC has won 17 of the 31 Super Bowls.

The superiority of the AFC will be a common story this week. It's an easy way to say something about the game, look like your providing insight, but avoid any actual in-depth analysis. Don't let the simple story fool you. Like Tom Brady's clutchness or Peyton Manning's inability to win "the big one," analytical story lines that fell by the wayside in the conference championship game, the balance of power between the conferences is a red herring. Those who try to glean something from the AFC's dominance this year are wasting their time. Only actual analysis of the two teams involved in this specific game will shed any light on the proceedings. So, for the rest of the week, we'll leave the obvious story lines to the highly paid columnists, and focus solely on breaking down key match-ups between the Bears and the Colts, who, unlike the NFC and AFC, will actually meet on the field in Super Bowl XLI.

And Now For Something Completely Different

2007-01-26T09:09:00.000-06:00

There may be some local law that I'm violating by writing about something other than the Bears. But when the home team puts the hurt to the NBA's best team (they're #1 or #1A depending upon how you feel about the Suns), that deserves some attention.

The Bulls out hustled and outplayed the Mavericks early, and opened a big lead in the first quarter. But for a brief scare (scare is probably too strong a word) in the fourth, the Bulls were never even challenged.

The Mavs entered the game on an 8 game winning streak. They had won 21 out of their last 22 games. Their 7.33 scoring margin is third in the NBA behind the Suns and Spurs, and they're second in the league in scoring margin over the last 10 games. They are third in the league in offensive efficiency, and sixth in defensive efficiency. The Mavs are a very good basketball team.

And yet the Bulls manhandled them. The Bulls' starting five was plus-15 in their first stint together to start the game. Ben Gordon had 12 first quarter points and Luol Deng had eight. The Bulls led 23-6 before the Mavs started to chip away. But just when the Mavs climbed to within single digits mid-way through the second quarter, the Bulls stretched the lead back out. This time, starters Gordon, Deng and Ben Wallace, were joined by Chris Duhon and Andres Nocioni.

One of the keys to the Bulls success last night, and this season in general, is that they have nine legitimate contributors. Wallace, PJ Brown and Tyrus Thomas have become a productive-enough front court rotation, and its one that rebounds and plays excellent defense. The forward combo of Deng and Nocioni provides a little bit of everything, and their aggressive drives produce most of the Bulls' easy baskets. And in the back court, Gordon has become a quality scoring threat, Kirk Hinrich remains the team's "veteran" leader, and Duhon and Thabo Sefolosha provide depth that most teams would be envious of.

Twice more the Mavs would make runs. In the third quarter the Bulls starters posted an 8-0 run late in the quarter to reestablish a double digit lead. In the fourth, the Mavs crept within three late, before the Bulls starting five once again put the game out of reach with five unanswered points, and then a 10-2 run.

Since the reinsertion of Brown and Gordon into the starting line-up, that group has been playing well. Brown looks much more comfortable, following up a double digit performance against Atlanta with 12 points last night on 6 of 11 shooting. Brown is now +10.8 per 48 minutes, the best among Chicago's regulars. Gordon has become a legitimate NBA scorer. Efforts like last night's 30 point outing are becoming routine. Among the starters, only Wallace didn't score in double digits last night, and he had 17 rebounds.

The Bulls are pushing the ball successfully, shooting earlier in the shot clock than their opponents, which is when teams tend to have their highest effective field goal percentage. In the Bulls' case, their eFG% in the first 10 seconds of the shot clock is .534. They're under 49% at every other segment of clock usage. So, it's a good thing that the team is now taking 41% of its shots early in the shot clock.

Quality depth, a consistent starting five, aggressively pushing the ball -- these are just a few reasons why the Bulls are emerging as the team to beat in the Eastern Conference. Now, that's sort of like being the team to beat in the NFC, but look where that has gotten the Bears. (See, now I've fulfilled my civic duty to mention the Bears).

The Bulls have the best scoring margin in the East by a mile. They've done this mostly by winning blowouts. They're 11-5 in games decided by 15 points or more. Research has shown that blowing out opponents, and not getting blown out yourself, is a much better indicator of a team's quality than its record in close games, which are often decided by luck. Their blowout flow from their defense. They rank second in the league whether you measure by field goal percentage against, or defensive efficiency.

There are plenty of teams who can derail the Bulls in the East. Washington, Cleveland, Detroit, Miami, maybe even Orlando or Toronto. Always bet the field against an individual team. But right now the Bulls are the best team in the Eastern Conference, and you saw all the reasons why last night.

What A Bear Can Learn From A Fish

2007-01-24T14:52:00.000-06:00

Bill Parcells retired this week, but his impact on the NFL will continue long after he's coached his last game. In fact, his shadow will loom large over Super Bowl XLI between the Bears and Colts. Why will Fred Miller, Adewale Ogunleye, and John Tait be among the five highest paid Bears on Super Bowl Sunday? Why are Tarik Glenn, Ryan Diem, and Dwight Freeney among the highest paid Colts? Because in 1981 Bill Parcells unleashed a new concept on the NFL: the blindside rusher. The impact of this move and the various counter moves attempted by Giants' opponents on personal decisions and on-field strategy are immense, and detailed in Michael Lewis's book, Blind Side. No question Parcells benefited from picking the right guy, Lawrence Taylor, to plug into his new scheme. But teams pay edge rushers, and the unnaturally large, athletic men meant to stop them, huge sums of money today because of how Parcells changed the game.

But it's another moment from Parcells' career that I look to as I consider how the Bears might beat the offensive juggernaut Indianapolis Colts. In 1990, Bill Parcells took a 13-3 Giants team into the Super Bowl. And yet, NO ONE respected the squad. The Giants finished that year among the league's dregs in points scored. Ottis Anderson led the team in rushing, but didn't top 1,000 yards. No one on the team had 30 catches. They had a quarterback controversy on their hands, with the inexperienced Jeff Hostetler retaining the reigns after collecting 614 yards and three touchdowns.

Meanwhile, arrayed against the might of this successful, but underwhelming Giants squad, was a STRONG Buffalo Bills team. 1990 was the best team of the Bills' run atop the AFC. They too went 13-3. They scored 95 points in the two pre-Super Bowl playoff games, including winning the AFC Championship by 48. Thurmon Thomas topped 1800 yards from scrimmage, and had 13 touchdowns. Jim Kelly had the highest passer rating of his career. Andre Reed and James Lofton were unguardable on the outside. The Bills were favored by more than a touchdown.

Sound familiar? If you know how this turns out, you're a happy Bears fan right now. Of course, I just asked one of my law school buddies if he saw the obvious parallels with Super Bowl XXV, and he replied, "Dude, I don't remember that game; I was eight." Ouch. That's what I get for trying my hand at journalism before going to law school. So, for those of you born after 1980: The Giants controlled the clock for 40 minutes and won 20-19. They ran the ball 40 times for 172 yards. While the Bills averaged nearly a yard and a half more per play than the Giants, the Giants limited the Bills opportunities by playing mistake free, ball control football. They ran nearly 20 more plays than the AFC champs.

These Bears are better than those Giants. And these Colts aren't as good as those Bills. The Bills led the NFL in scoring that year and were sixth in the league in scoring defense. While this year's Colts were also the best in the league on offense, their defense was in the bottom five to ten units no matter how you measure. Both the 1990 Giants and 2006 Bears were one of the top two defenses in football in the relevant season. And each was in the bottom half of the league offensively. But the Giants entered the Super Bowl without star quarterback Phil Simms. No remaining weapon on that team compared to the Bears' two-headed rushing attack.

All next week, I'll look at this game match-up by match-up. But for now, if anyone tries to tell you that the Colts will destroy the Bears on Super Bowl Sunday, remind them of Bill Parcells finest coaching hour.

Kibbles and Bits

2007-01-23T09:29:00.000-06:00

The urge to begin analyzing every aspect of the Bears/Colts match-up is nearly overwhelming. But we have two long weeks of build-up, so it's essential that we pace ourselves. It is only great will power, and the fact that I'm somewhat swamped and afraid I'm going to flunk out of work, that empowers me to show restraint. Rather than begin the obsessive analysis of the game, I'll mention only three small bits of newsiness today.

First, nothing says class about an organization more than waiting eagerly to find out whether a judge will let your star defensive tackle leave the state. A Cook County judge put Tank Johnson on home confinement until he could determine whether Johnson violated the terms of his probation when he was charged with 10 weapons-related counts in Lake County earlier this season. A Lake County judge has already ruled that Johnson can travel with the team while his case their is pending. Under Cook County's order, however, Johnson can only leave his home to travel to a game or practice, and must return home immediately without making any stops. It's not clear whether that contemplates travelling to Miami. Travel restrictions on probationers are fairly common, entirely legal, and pretty much at the discretion of the presiding judge. We'll find out today whether Johnson will be anchoring the middle of the Bears' D-line, or anchored to his couch.

[EDIT/UPDATE: The judge has decided to allow Johnson to travel with the team, apparently without any further restrictions. I still suspect the Bears will keep a close eye on the Tank. Apparently crucial to the decision, that the travel was for a legitimate work reason (do you think the judge asked for evidence to corroborate Johnson's story that he was a member of some organization that was having a crucial meeting in the Miami area?), and that Johnson has complied with the terms of his house confinement up until now. Good Tank. Sit. Stay. Now kill the quarterback. NO! Not literally! Oy.]

Another story making the rounds today that doesn't fit into the warm and fuzzy category when it comes to Super Bowl hype is that Bears' coach Lovie Smith may be headed to Dallas to replace Bill Parcells. Smith is underpaid for the market, and seems to be fairly far apart from team management on a contract extension. Smith is from Texas, and would seem to be a hot commodity. Smith does have one year left on his contract, and I've heard some speculation that the Bears would gladly take a couple of first round draft picks in exchange for Smith before naming Ron Rivera head coach. While this story may give hope to Cowboy fans, and leverage to Smith, I doubt Smith will be replacing The Tuna. The Cowboys have spent several drafts targeting players specially suited for their 3-4 defensive scheme. Smith's greatest asset is the 4-3 based scheme he brings with him. I don't think the Cowboys will bring in a coach who forces them to abandon the talent they've been collecting over the past few years. Tomorrow, I'll explain why I do think Parcells is a relevant discussion point for this Super Bowl. (We call that a tease, in the business.)

Finally, I was delighted to hear that 57% of Americans voted to give today's Just Shut Up Award on Mike and Mike to ESPN's "football experts," all of whom picked the Saints to beat the Bears handily. It doesn't fix the problem that the so-called experts pushed by the mainstream media are generally clueless, but it was nice of someone at the World Wide Leader to at least admit it.

Super Bowl Shufflin'

2007-01-22T09:47:00.000-06:00

There'll be plenty of time for analysis, both of the Saints game and the Colts game, in the LONG weeks to come. Right now, time and work are conspiring to abridge my work. That's probably for the best as far as you, the readers, are concerned. But, in case any of you are inexplicably waiting on my impressions, I'll offer a few observations now, and I promise a full analysis lies just a day away.

The defense responded in a big way. They heard all the talk of getting gashed up the middle, and answered. In fact, they were stout enough that the Saints gave up on the run entirely. I'm not saying the Saints were right to do that, but nevertheless, the D accomplished its mission. The one thing that surprised me was Reggie Bush's speed. I didn't expect him to hurt the Bears catching the ball out of the backfield because the Bears' linebackers and safeties have done a great job in coverage on running backs all season. But he killed us, even beyond that really well designed pick play that went for 85 yards.

Marques Colston also hurt us, but overall the Saints' offense didn't have too many chances to punish the Bears, in large part because the Bears' offense, especially the rushing attack, came through when they had to. The only time the Saints slowed the Bears' rushing attack is when the Bears got cute, and used draws or delayed handoffs. The Saints penetrated and disrupted those plays. But when the Bears ran straight at the Saints, the Bears' front five manhandled New Orleans.

Also, Ron Turner has learned to minimize the damage when Rex Grossman is off. The Bears ran the ball two-thirds of the time Sunday. Grossman didn't kill the Bears early when he was cold, and got hot just long enough to help the Bears to one score. The Bears will probably need a little more than that against Indy, but that was a 25 point beating administered in the NFC Championship Game with BAD Rex on the field.

I took nominations on what to talk about today around my family room yesterday. The Official Wife of the Ron Karkovice Fan Club, aka The Redhead, suggested I analyze why every touchdown seemed to be scored by someone doing a somersault, be it Bernard Berrian, Thomas Jones, or most conspicuously, Reggie Bush. Bush's somersault didn't bother me, but his pointing routine before that certainly did. I was glad to hear he apologized after the game. Young men get carried away sometimes in the heat of the moment. It says more about his character that he recognized his mistake than if he had never taunted at all. Now, don't do it again.

Hideki Matt Suey's wife suggested I discuss the bizarre referee track pants. Now, for regular football fans, the odd new officials' uniforms are old news. But for some of the people watching Sunday, this was a first exposure. Some in the family room suggested they were borrowed from the closet of an old lady in Boca Raton. She'll need them back to go to dinner at the club tonight. Others suggested the refs moonlight as exotic dancers, and that their pants are actually of the tear away variety, much like those basketball players wear to warm-ups. Regardless, the new unis look terrible, but we knew this. More importantly, the refs got all the tough calls right yesterday. They deserve credit.

One other note on The Redhead. She had to be temporarily banned from the room yesterday. With the Bears leading 16-0 she declared that she felt sorry for the Saints, and that the Bears should just let them score once. Following Drew Brees's touchdown strike to Marques Colston, we booted her from the room until the Saints' second touchdown, during which she was absent, proved conclusively that the first had not, in fact, been her fault.

The announcers were, of course, annoying yesterday. Troy Aikman spent the entire game being shocked that Cedric Benson was getting as many carries as Thomas Jones. Benson averaged more carries per game than Jones from week 10 on. Way to do your homework, Troy. At least the experts, all of whom picked the Saints, should be amusing today as they try to explain why they bought, without reservation, into the warm, fuzzy story of the Saints even though the Bears had been a superior team all season.

Finally, I'm enjoying watching the various Packers' fans with whom I'm in direct or indirect contact enter a flurry of resentful, irrational activity. So far, I've heard them explain that the Bears are mortal locks to lose by double digits, explain away the team's Super Bowl berth as the result of "an historically bad NFC," and refer to Grossman as Mex Grossman because QB'ing the Bears is a job that no American would want. Their angst merely adds to my pleasure.

For now, let's enjoy the moment. Two weeks of obsessive analysis begins tomorrow. Just remember this in the meantime: Bears' yards per carry on runs between the guards -- first in the NFL; Colts' yards allowed per carry on runs between the guards -- 32nd in the NFL.

Insert Lame Saints Pun Here

2007-01-19T09:06:00.000-06:00

When the Saints come marching . . . oh, never mind. Though it appears to be required this week, I can't bring myself to engage in the lame pun-ditry involving the Saints and references to New Orleans food, music and culture. I'm just too freakin' excited. I mean, holy crap, I'm wound up. Last weekend, I spent the entire game rocking slowly in my living room chair. This week I may have to investigate how my insurance policy handles ulcer surgeries.

It's just that we, Bears fans, have rarely been in this exact position. I guess some people felt the 1984 Bears had a chance against San Francisco after a magical win at Washington, but I never felt like the Bears were going to the Super Bowl that year. Conversely, in 1985, I never doubted that the Bears would dominate the Rams. Again in 1988, it was clear to most that an overachieving Bears team, with no healthy quarterbacks, could never beat the mighty 49ers. So, this is the first time the Bears sit one game from the Super Bowl, and I feel a mix of hope and anxiety.

These are two very closely balanced teams. Though the Bears were three games better in the standings, the Bears played their best football at the beginning of the season. That Bears team, from before the Arizona game, would handle the Saints, even on their best day. But that Bears team ceased to exist when Mike Brown and Tommie Harris went down. Still, the team that remains is at least as good as the Saints, who are excellent in some facets, and deeply flawed in others.

When the Saints have the ball the two teams will pit strength versus strength. No, the Bears defense is not as good as it was before losing two stars, but it's still one of the better in football. New Orleans had the 4th most efficient passing attack and 10th best rushing attack in the NFL this season. Drew Brees was one of the top two quarterbacks in the NFC. He completed 65% of his passes for 4,322 yards and 26 touchdowns. He did turn the ball over 13 times. His best receiver was Marques Colston, who caught 61% of the passes directed his way, for 1,038 yards and eight touchdowns. The Saints also got big contributions from Devery Henderson (59% completion, 745 yards, five touchdowns) and Joe Horn (61% completion, 679 yards, four touchdowns). Then there's running back Reggie Bush, who caught 73% of the passes directed his way, for 748 yards and two touchdowns. You get the idea. Lots of weapons.

The Bears had the 2nd best pass defense in the league this year. People have lamented the recent lack of a pass rush, but the Bears compiled that ranking despite not getting much pressure all season. When you adjust the Bears' sacks for the number of pass attempts by their opponents, the Bears rank only 21st in the league rushing the passer. The Bears' pass defense is keyed by their ability to cover people. You can put away Henderson and Horn. The Bears ranked second in the league stopping #2 wide receivers, and sixth stopping #3 wide outs. And, you can take a breath about Bush. The Bears' excellent linebackers and safeties combined to post the 3rd best numbers in football stopping running backs in the passing game. But this whole game could hinge on the Bears' ability to control Colston. The Bears were just 21st in the league against top receivers, and Colston has become a true #1 as a rookie. Peanut Tillman did an excellent job when the Bears asked him to take away the New York Giants' Plaxico Burress, who many see as a model for Colston. The Bears need Tillman to do it again, but make no mistake, Colston is already a far better player than Burress.

Of course, if you stop the pass, you still need to deal with New Orleans' top-10 rushing attack. Deuce McAllister, once one of the most overrated running backs in football, returned from his knee injury a new, and much better back. He gained 1,061 yards on 245 carries, and 11 touchdowns. But most impressively for the former boom or bust specialist, he was seventh in the league in success rate, which measures a back's ability to consistently get the yards his team needs -- four yards on first down, three yards on third and two, etc. Conversely, Bush, who gained 559 yards on 154 carries, ranked 39th in success rate. As dangerous as Bush is in the passing game, he's a serious risk in the ground game. I doubt you'll see Bush carry the ball often as the Saints try to avoid third and long situations. So, it'll be a lot of McAllister straight ahead. Why do I say straight ahead? More than half of New Orleans' runs this year were between the guards. And, that's where they enjoyed their most success, ranking 10th in the league in yards per carry on those types of runs. Of course, that's where teams attacked Chicago most often this year too. Forty-two percent of runs against the Bears targeted the middle of the line. Fortunately, it's a myth that the Bears' vulnerability lies up the middle. The Bears ranked fifth in the entire league stopping runs up the middle.

No matter how well the Bears' defense plays, and unless Colston explodes I suspect they'll play pretty well, they're going to give up some points to the Saints' offense. The Saints are just too good on that side of the ball. So, the Bears' offense will need to do some producing of its own. When the Bears have the ball you'll see the 18th ranked offense face off against the 19th ranked defense. Scintillating. The Bears' offensive strength is their ninth ranked rushing attack. Thomas Jones was 11th among running backs in overall production, and the 19th most efficient back. Cedric Benson was 18th in overall production, and 10th in efficiency. Together, they combined for 1,857 yards and 12 touchdowns. Most of that damage came between the guards, although the Bears actually had a better inside/outside split than the Saints. But the Bears led the league in yards per carry between the guards, where the Saints are only average defensively. Plus, the Bears also enjoyed success running off-tackle behind John Tait. Meanwhile, the Saints ranked 20th in run defense and were 25th against off-tackle runs to their right. In other words, the Bears can use John Tait to attack the Saints' pass rush specialist Will Smith to great effect.

The potential for the Bears to move the ball on the ground means they won't have to rely too heavily on their 23rd ranked passing attack. Rex Grossman finished the season with 3,052 yards and 23 touchdowns, but he also turned the ball over 25 times. He played pretty well last week, but was terrible on third down. The Bears should minimize his exposure, even against the Saints poor pass defense. The Saints were only 22nd in the league on pass defense, and a miserable 32nd defending opponents' top receivers. But the Bears' top wide out is the mediocre Muhsin Muhammad, who caught only 51% of the passes thrown his way this year. No, the key for the Bears when they have the ball will be to stick the ball in the capable arms of Jones and Benson as often as possible.

A run heavy attack will have the added benefit of minimizing the chances of Brees connecting with Colston for a big play. I'm guessing the game plan works. The Bears run the ball, "stay on schedule" offensively, control the clock, and avoid the big play largely by limiting New Orleans' opportunities. The Bears advance to the Super Bowl 20-17. Now, I'm going to go throw up.

A Tale of Two Faces

2007-01-17T09:40:00.000-06:00

I flipped the Sun-Times over this morning, and was struck like Shaun Alexander on 4th and 1. On one side of my paper stood Barack Obama. On the other, Rex Grossman. Oh, how their worlds are about to collide. Don't worry, I'll explain.

Once upon a time, I was a "real" sports reporter for a short time. I got bored. Also, I was covering the Yankees a lot and John Wetteland scared the crap out of me. Anyway, when I decided sports reporting wasn't for me, I moved on to politics. I covered politics for a number of years, and it struck me that they were pretty much the same field. The only major difference is that politicians are better at thinking up consistently interesting things to say. Both elections and the legislative process are essentially sporting events. They qualify at least as much as pool or poker.

Anyway, within these parallel universes being a team's quarterback or a party's presidential candidate are essentially parallels. It's a bit of a stretch, but bear with me. Each is his team's leader, it's public face. And each comes under whithering attack, not only from opposing teams/parties, but also from his own team's fans.

Today, Obama is what Grossman was before the season. He's young (though older than Kennedy was when he became president), largely unknown, but highly promising. As I looked at Grossman, weighed down by criticism and expectation, and read Grossman's lament about the pressure and scrutiny directed at him, I felt a pang of sympathy for Obama.

Obama looks bouyant on his cover. He's ready to stand astride the free world as it's leader. I'm a big Obama fan, with much less reservation than I support Grossman. But if Obama emerges on the other end of this presidential campaign victorious, he will nevertheless be worn and weathered by the process he's about to go through.

The political punditry may be the one group capable of grinding up a man of character even more than sports wags. And let's be honest, the stakes for Obama and his "fans" are much higher than Grossman. Although, for one week at least I care more about Grossman's fate than Obama's.

Anyway, I know this is something of a stretch, but we're in the middle of a long tense week of Bears' anticipation, and I can't stomach spending any more of it deciding whether we saw good or bad Rex last Sunday. Besides, like I said, the comparison struck me when I looked at the front and back pages of my paper this morning. So, as Obama looks at his picture this morning, and contemplates a glorious future in the White House, I hope he also flips the paper over and contemplates Rex's roller coaster ride. Each must brace himself because their defining moments are upon them, and I'll sincerely be rooting for each to emerge forged into something greater, rather than beaten into submission.

That's The Chicago Way, And That's How You Get Capone!

2007-01-16T10:04:00.000-06:00

I'm not sure what's happening to my hometown. Once the rafters shook at Chicago Stadium when Jordan was introduced, or Wayne Mesmer sand the national anthem. Once Bears fans believed bad weather and Soldier Field posed too great an obstacle for even the mightiest foes. Today? Feh.

At the United Center on Saturday, as the Bulls laid waste to the Memphis Grizzlies, I watched in horror as the fans did the wave. THE WAVE!!! Come on, people. Have some dignity. The thing actually made three circuits of the building before 18,000 people noticed that a basketball game was taking place. Then, on Monday, as the Bulls ran the mighty San Antonio Spurs into submission, the fans reserved their loudest cheers for the water truck and donut races. As the buzzer sounded on a 99-87 win, fans booed because Ben Gordon's final bucket was a two, not a three, and thus failed to procure a free hamburger for the apparently starving masses in attendance. Most egregiously, 6,000 paying Bears fans failed to show up at Soldier Field Sunday for the Bears play-off game with the Seahawks.

I think the faltering enthusiasm, optimism, and sports IQ of Chicago sports fans is directly attributable to a toxic soup of sports columnists and sports talk radio. Chicago fans have always been irrationally upbeat about their sports fans. "Wait 'til next year," wasn't a cynical catch phrase for Cubs fans, it was an honest belief. In 1988, we were shocked when the 49ers, and the greatest pass-catch duo ever, actually managed to put points on the board despite the combined presence of the Monsters of the Midway and some genuine Bear weather.

In the last two days, I've listened to every voice on the radio tell me that: (A) the Bears aren't that good; (B) the Bears were lucky to win Sunday against an inferior opponent; (C) the Saints are an unstoppable force; and (D) the Bears are going to get rolled this coming weekend absent a miracle. One pundit declared that the Bears will be at a disadvantage at every single position on the field this weekend. Another said that he would take the Saints' defense over the Bears' defense at this point. If I'm contemplating spending money on tickets, or time in the elements, to support this team, why would I when all I'm hearing is that the Bears will leave me disappointed and heartbroken. For that I can sit at home, or better yet, head to a sports bar where I can have a few beers with my buddies while the game plays in the background.

The worst thing about it is that it's garbage. For once some honest optimism is warranted. The Bears now stand with the door to the Super Bowl, and even a Super Bowl win, thrown wide open. The Ravens, Chargers and Eagles -- three teams who had clear advantages against the Bears -- are all gone. Remaining are deeply flawed Saints and Colts teams, and Patriots team that the Bears played tough in Foxboro despite an appearance by Evil Rex. Even more importantly, this Bears team is actually really good.

There will be plenty of time to analyze this game between now and Sunday, but let's dispel a couple of myths. First, the Bears will have match-ups they can take advantage of. The Bears led the NFL in adjusted line yards on runs between the guards at 4.8 yards a run. That's 4.8 yards on every run up the middle, discounting any long runs that are more attributable to the running back's break away ability. The Bears are the league's best inside running team. The Saints were only middle of the pack stopping inside runs. This is just one match up the Bears can take advantage of.

In fact, the Saints D is pretty mediocre all around. It's certainly not on a par with the Bears' D, which is the second myth I've heard on the radio this week. Even weighted for late season performances to the point where the first four weeks of the season are basically ignored, the Bears were the second best defense in the NFL, according to Football Outsiders' DVOA metric. They were 2nd against the pass and 5th against the runs. The Saints, on the other hand rank 17th in weighted defensive DVOA. Their 22nd against the pass and 20th against the run. For all the talk about their defense coming on towards the end of the year, weighting for late season performance, the Saints are an average defense.

Which brings us to the biggest myth of all. The talking heads in town are building the Saints up into an unstoppable steam roller. They were 10-6, people. Win-loss is not the best predictor of future performance, but weighted DVOA is an excellent predictor. The Saints finished the regular season 8th in weighted DVOA. That would be four spots behind the Bears. The Saints' offense was 5th, their defense 19th, and their special teams 14th. Some juggernaut.

I'm not saying the Bears will beat the Saints. But they certainly can. I'll analyze the match-ups more later in the week, but my first reaction is that the Bears should be slightly favored. And yet the local media is covering this as if the mongol hordes are descending to destroy our hapless band of plucky villagers. With such pessimism, and lunacy, on the airwaves, is it any wonder that Chicagoans have become more cynical, less interested, and less intelligent about our teams?

Bears v. Seahawks 2: This Time It's Personal in 3D

2007-01-12T09:11:00.000-06:00

Back on October 1 the Bears crushed the Seahawks as Rex Grossman completed 17 of 31 pass attempts for 232, two touchdowns and no interceptions. Those were heady days. Since then Rex's season has resembled a ride at Great America, and Bears fans have started popping open bottles of Pepto instead of Old Style while watching the games. Don't get me wrong, I love me some Great America, but a nice, steady performance from Rex would be a wonderful thing this weekend.

At the end of the year, the Bears were ranked 23rd in the league in passing efficiency (as judged by Football Outsiders' DVOA statistic). It seems hard to believe it wasn't lower. But Grossman had seven outstanding games this year, and another four that were good enough. His five bad games stand out because they were awful, and the Bears went 2-3 in those games. If Grossman is just "good enough," then the Bears are in good shape. But he can lose the game for the team. When it was all said and done, Grossman ranked 31st in the league in total contribution among quarterbacks (as measured by Football Outsiders' DPAR statistic). He completed only 55% of his pass attempts, but collected more than 3000 yards and 23 touchdowns. His big problem was a barrage of turnovers in those five bad games. In all he threw 20 picks, and lost five fumbles.

The Seahawks aren't very good in pass defense, so it doesn't make sense to shut Rex down completely. Rex will look to his top target, Muhsin Muhammad, plenty. The Seahawks struggle against #1 wide outs, and Muhammad is a good, big target. But the Seahawks struggle even more against tight ends. They rank 26th in the league defending the tight end, and the Bears have a good one. Offensive coordinator Ron Turner has had an up and down year, but he can't afford to miss this opportunity this week. Desmond Clark had one of the better years of any tight end in football. He caught 56% of the 80 passes thrown his way, for 626 yards and six touchdowns. Rex seems most comfortable when he is using Clark a lot, so the big man should see the ball early and often.

Of course, the Seahawks aren't very good defending the run either, and that is the heart of the Bears' attack. The Bears featured a top-10 rushing attack this year, combining the skills of Thomas Jones and Cedric Benson. There should be plenty of carries for each back this weekend. Jones ranked 11th in DPAR and 19th in DVOA among running backs this season. He ran for more than 1200 yards on 296 runs. He scored six touchdowns and fumbled only once. Benson ranked 18th in DPAR and 10th in DVOA this season. In other words, he had fewer opportunities than Jones, but did more per carry. He ran for 647 yards on 157 carries, also scored six touchdowns, and did not fumble. Adjusted line yards (ALY) measures a teams success gaining yards near the line of scrimmage. It's sort of yards per carry, but discounting all the yards picked up down field by break away running backs. The Bears led the league in ALY on runs between the guards at 4.80. That's nearly five yards every time the Bears run the ball up the gut. The Seahawks were middle of the pack defending against these kinds of runs. Note #2 to Ron Turner: Benson, straight ahead, may be the Bears' best play this weekend.

The Seahawks actually had a considerably worse offensive season than the Bears. Not only did they finish well behind the Bears running the ball, they actually managed to finish behind the Bears passing. Matt Hasselbeck was barely better than Rex Grossman this season. He completed 57% of his pass attempts for 2,220 yards, 18 touchdowns, and 15 picks. The Bears do a great job of taking away a team's various weapons in the passing game. Their one weakness is in stopping an opponents #1 wide receiver. While the Bears rank in the top-5 against other wide outs, tight ends and running backs, they are only 21st against lead receivers. Fortunately, the Seahawks are kind of without one now. The team's best receiver, D.J. Hackett, is listed as questionable. So is their second best receiver, Darrell Jackson. The Seahawks are banged up at exactly the position they need to excel in order to take advantage of the Bears defense.

The most obvious difference between now and October 1st is that the Seahawks have Shaun Alexander (who, a friend recently pointed out, looks like the lost Barber brother). Alexander missed the first meeting with a flat tire. But he hasn't been running all that well on the spare anyway. Alexander finished 47th among NFL running backs in both DPAR and DVOA. He ran for 900 yards on 252 carries, scored seven touchdowns and fumbled five times. Seattle wasn't particularly effective running anywhere, but they had their most success on the 14% of running plays classified as sweeps to the left side. This was the most vulnerable area of the Bears run defense, as well, though the team still finished in the middle of the pack. There is some truth to the notion that a team should run at the speedy Lance Briggs, but he holds up well enough at the point of attack that it's not a glaring weakness.

The Bears are beatable this post season. Even the most deluded Bears' fan must realize this. But the Seahawks aren't the team to do it. Bears 23 - Seahawks 14.

You Want Fries With That Big Mac?

2007-01-10T10:36:00.000-06:00

It's now official, the Baseball Writers Association of America (BBWAA), who have an inexplicable monopoly on determining immortality for the grand game, have rejected Mark McGwire. He didn't even come close to the 75% of the vote needed for enshrinement in the Hall of Fame. Baseball writers may attribute their rejection to some kind of moral statement, but it's really just the embarrassed reaction of a bunch of children. Years ago, baseball's beat reporters failed to ask the obvious questions. The balls were juiced, not the players, right? They were sucked in by the glamour of the home run record chase, and stopped being reporters (if they ever were). Now, embarrassed by revelations of widespread steroid abuse, these same reporters have decided to punish everyone who made them drop their usual shield of cynicism because in their enthusiasm they were made to look foolish. Shortly before Jose Canseco's book was published, Dan Patrick confronted him on the air, and asked why Canseco would want to damage the game that made him rich. So exposing steroid use is damaging the game, but punishing suspected users is protecting it? That makes a lot of sense.

It would be one thing if we knew exactly who used. But we don't. We have no idea who was using. Maybe McGwire was pursuing an unfair advantage, or maybe every other guy he faced was also taking steroids, and it was, in fact, an entirely "level" playing field. I don't agree with the decision of Paul Ladewski to refuse to vote for anyone from the "Steroid Era," but at least there is more consistency to the Daily Southtown (ignoring the north side seven days a week) columnist's reasoning than his colleagues. McGwire doesn't belong because we suspect he was using. But Cal Ripken gets the 4th highest percentage of the vote in history. No one suspected Rafael Palmeiro was using until he was called out. Then he vehemently denied using, and we believed him, before he tested positive. Ripken played day in and day out, no matter how banged up he got. Isn't speedier recovery times one of the benefits of steroid use? Let me be perfectly clear, I'M NOT SUGGESTING RIPKEN USED STEROIDS. But we're idiots if we pretend to know for sure.

Moreover, I don't care. It appears that steroid use is bad for the body over the long haul. I'm actually sympathetic to the argument that if a professional wants to risk his long term health to earn millions today, then we should let him. But if the pros use, then high school kids use. And no matter how much they use, and no matter how much long term damage they'll tolerate, 99% of them will never play college or pro ball. Steroid use for high school athletes is crack for a pipe dream. So, we should control use among pros to protect kids. Great let's do it. But I don't care who used back in the pre-testing past. And, I don't think steroids do one bit of damage to the integrity of the game.

First off, the Hall is full of alcoholics, drug users, and bigots of all stripes, among others. The Hall of Fame voters are supposed to consider "a player's record of achievement, contributions to the teams, the game, their character, longevity, and sportsmanship." As far as character goes, the racists and wife beaters bother me a heck of a lot more than the steroid users. Some argue that these other offenses didn't unfairly affect on-field performance. The problem is that we don't yet know that steroids did either. Again, there is the problem that we don't know whether the pitchers were using too. But we also don't know if it made a lick of difference. We assume it did, but mankind is historically terribly inaccurate in its assumptions (see Earth, Flat). We only know "for sure" about a handful of users, so there isn't enough data to really evaluate the issue. What global data we have, looking at the "Steroid Era" as compared to other periods in baseball history, shows that while more home runs started being hit around 1993, the gap between the big sluggers and the rest of the league actually narrowed. If steroid use was wide spread, it didn't help the big sluggers like McGwire put up record shattering numbers as much as it helped average players look more like the McGwires of the world.

Maybe steroids helped McGwire hit all those home runs, but maybe they didn't. In fact, the evidence right now (statistical analysis of the impact of steroids, questions about whether all the pitchers were using too, etc) leads me to lean towards the idea that steroids are largely irrelevant in analyzing McGwire's on-field performance. Now, if McGwire were a borderline candidate for the Hall, I could understand denying him the benefit of the doubt because of the steroid issue. He's obviously not though. He averaged 50 home runs and 114 walks per 162 games. His home run total is seventh in history, his slugging percentage is 10th, and his EqA (which measure overall offensive contribution) is eighth. The guys in front of him are: Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Barry Bonds (oy), Lou Gehrig, Albert Pujols (boy, is he good), Frank Thomas (boy, is he underappreciated), Mickey Mantle and Roger Hornsby. Um, that's good company. All-around hitters like Jeff Bagwell and the Big Hurt were better, but Willie McCovey, another pure slugger who is already in the Hall of Fame, was certainly not as good as McGwire.

McGwire belongs in the Hall of Fame. The only intellectually honest alternative is the route Ladewski chose. The only good news is that McGwire appears to be safely above the 5% cutoff. If a player get less than 5% of votes, then he falls off the ballot for ever. At least, now, there is time for more information to come to light, and for voters to reconsider their decision.

Wild Card Extravaganza

2007-01-05T09:12:00.000-06:00

It's wild card weekend, and everyone is getting excited for some playoff football. Unfortunately, I don't expect many close games this weekend. There's no reason for any of you to care about or give credence to my predictions for these games, nevertheless, this is my blog, and I'll maunder if I want to. Maunder, by the way, is a great word. It's like the word "wander," but for when you're talking. See, I'm maundering right now. Anyway . . .

The playoffs kick off with Kansas City at Indianapolis. There is a theory going around that this is the worst possible match-up for the Colts because they can't contain Larry Johnson. The Colts can't contain anyone's running game, and they'll dominate an otherwise deeply flawed Chiefs team. The Colts offense is the second best in recent history, behind only their 2004 vintage. The Chiefs D is below average. The Colts are by far the best passing team in football, led by should-have-been-MVP Peyton Manning. Manning completed 65% of his passes for 4305 yards, 31 touchdowns and only 10 turnovers. And their running game, sixth most efficient in the league, isn't shabby. Joseph Addai collected more than 1000 yards and seven touchdowns on only 226 carries. Sure, the defense is weak, but I say the Colts score early and often, take the Chiefs out of their game, and win going away.

Saturday night sees the Cowboys visit Seattle. How do I put this nicely? Seattle sucks. Everyone keeps saying the Seahawks are dangerous because they were good last year. What does that have to do with anything? They're not good this year. They have only the 27th most efficient offense, and 20th most efficient defense in football. The Cowboys win this one easy, although both teams will put plenty of points on the board because neither team's corners can cover a rocking chair.

Sunday begins with the Jets at the Patriots. The Jets are a nice story. But the defense is overrated because their opponents were a collection of terrible offensive teams. Plus, the Jets play slow on offense, limiting their opponents possessions, and since the Jets are vulnerable to the run, other teams ate clock on offense too. Thus, Jets games have fewer possessions than most, and the defense artificially ranks sixth in fewest points allowed. This strategy does work to give a lesser team a chance to stay close against a superior foe. And the Jets did beat the Pats once this year. But the Pats are flat out better. In fact, they're the most consistent team in football right now across all three phases of the game. Tom Brady may not see the ball a ton in this one, but he'll be effective enough when he does have it to lead his team to an easy victory.

Sunday's late game features the team most likely to forget about the game and beat the crap out of each other. Ladies and gentlemen, your New York Giants. They travel to Philly to face a team that was expected to crumble after Donovan McNabb went down, adding injury to the insult of some terrible early season luck. Some of that bad luck came against the Giants, who beat the Eagles in one of the more preposterous games of the season. It won't happen again. The Eagles now rank first in offensive efficiency and seventh if defensive efficiency in the second half of close games. They'll play well when the game is on the line. But this game may be over fairly early, too. The Giants have been the very definition of an average football team, and the Eagles are much better than that, especially on offense. Look for a huge game for Brian Westbrook, and an easy Philly win.

By the way, I've been on the Bears' bandwagon all year. I'm not quite jumping off yet. But this week, for the first time, when I take a careful look, I see a better team in the NFC. So, as we enter the play-offs, I'll unveil my new Super Bowl prediction, and it kills me to say it, but the Bears are no longer part of the equation: Baltimore Ravens over the Philadelphia Eagles 24 to 17.