I love this question posted by a reporter to Goodell today: "And why aren't you available to the media every week, as Richard Sherman suggested?"
Not to mention his answer - I'm available nearly every day - is god damned laughable. Clearly the NFL just forgot to ask him to comment the last two weeks.
Plus the long line of tweets from reporters who don't get interviews is kind of awesome.
posted by dfleming at 03:33 PM on January 30
Right, but like many other people, his paycheck became contingent on his not drinking when he got arrested due to a problem with it. Lots of punishments in the judicial system are reduced contingent on stopping the problem behavior.
Again - it doesn't really matter if he's a volume alcoholic, or a guy with a really bad luck streak when it comes to booze and substances. If I was him, with that track record, I'd have probably put a lot more distance between a Las Vegas party trip and the last suspension by my team a few days earlier.
I hope the guy gets it - owning the mistakes is good, but changing the behavior is what is going to keep him on an NFL roster. He's probably got zero room for error now.
posted by dfleming at 02:44 PM on January 30
He says this:
As a strict condition to my reinstatement in Week 12, I had to agree not only to abstain from drinking for the rest of the season, but also to submit to an alcohol screen as part of my in-season drug testing under the league's substance-abuse protocol. Did I think that was excessive given I had never had any issue whatsoever with alcohol? Yes. Did I think it was hypocritical that a professional league making hundreds of millions of dollars off beer sponsorships was telling me not to drink? Yes. Did I so much as blink at the condition? No.
He thinks these conditions were hypocritical, and doesn't think he's ever had issues with drinking despite getting caught drinking and driving six months ago. I don't know how to take that - other than someone else has the problem (the NFL's hypocrisy), but not him.
You don't have to be a volume consumer to have a problem with the stuff - one of the telltale signs being, when you touch it, your life goes to shit.
I think it's an impassioned essay, and Josh Gordon deserves a ton of respect for utilizing his talents to get out of a world I don't at all know. That must've been a huge struggle.
But - Josh Gordon was suspended by his team a few days earlier, then decided it was appropriate to go to Vegas drinking on a private plane. He's free to do what he wants, but the consequence is that people are going to rightly question why it is you can't make the rational decision to keep your head down, kill it, and get a massive deal that makes you set for life.
Either that's a problem with your decision making skills, or a problem with substance, but regardless, it's not a problem with perception, and that's all this essay is trying to fix.
posted by dfleming at 12:35 PM on January 30
One of the tell-tale signs of addiction (vs. recreational use) is an inability to see the problems associated with your use as related to the use - but rather, a product of the environment around you. But that's also the case for people who are just generally unable to make good long-term value judgments on their own behaviour. In Gordon's case, it seems as though the latter is going to be what kills his career.
Yes - people are human, and make mistakes - but Josh Gordon's gone from being one of the elite WR in the NFL on his way to a huge payday to a guy who may get cut because he violated the terms that got his suspension reduced the first time around. All for the sake of a single beer? Doesn't it make that beer, for the duration of your "make-good" period, totally not worth it?
Fact is, I don't like the draconian NFL view on pot and alcohol. I think nature will take its course and guys who can't cut it because they're high too much will naturally get (sic) weeded out.
But Josh Gordon's found a way to violate even the things I don't like - drinking and driving, and not being committed enough to make a team walkthrough while trying to make it up to your team for getting suspended. Fact is - a lot of us avoid getting caught drinking and driving by never doing it. We show up to work every day, knowing that we don't have a right to get paid. Those are patterns of behaviour that people want to invest in, and do. Greatness is not about skill - it's about continued and predictable execution, and unfortunately Josh Gordon at 23 is not great.
I hope the guy can get out from under the spectre of the NFL's ire and make it right. But - focusing on whether or not you're an addict is again focusing on things other than what the actual problem is - that Josh Gordon needs to learn how to make decisions with a long-term view if he is going to deserve the investment of a team past high-risk, short-term contracts. Clock starts now on that.
posted by dfleming at 07:50 AM on January 30
This, and having to defend Fred Wilpon being appointed to the finance committee, is a pretty epic way to introduce yourself to the public. Heck of a low bar to start from.
posted by dfleming at 04:37 PM on January 27
Jay Glazer is reporting the NFL is zeroing in on a locker room attendant who took balls somewhere between the officials room and the field and has video.
posted by dfleming at 04:43 PM on January 26
League statement - so far, they know the balls in the first half were under inflated despite a pre-game inspection, balls were re-inflated at halftime and remained inflated in the second half.
This statement on, say Monday night, would seem like an appropriate amount of detail, as all of the cursory measurements and referee actions would've been defined by then. But this is day five. If the Pats are co-operating as the league says, you could assume they would've had all video, plus interviews with all key staff, available at their disposal almost immediately. And yet - on Friday - they're talking about retaining a forensic investigative firm, as though that has just occurred to them?
This is absolutely bonkers bad management on the part of the NFL. At this rate, it is going to dominate into next week - the week that is supposed to be about hyping the biggest game of the year. Is Goodell going to hide from the media until the investigation is complete? Because it's the only thing they're going to want to talk to him about now - not just the facts, but also the bizarrely slow investigation that took at least 4 days to interview Tom Brady.
It'll be a distraction not only for the Pats players, but also for the Seahawks who have to prepare for the personnel they think will be on the field, as well as do a ton of media next week.
posted by dfleming at 02:25 PM on January 23
Tom Brady claimed today he's never been interviewed by the league about the balls. Four days in, and the NFL hasn't talked to him?
That's baffling. I don't even know what else they could be doing the four days previous other than interviewing key people and watching video. Tom Brady is, arguably, the most key person involved. It is incredible that we're four days in with only Troy Vincent's "we're looking into it" statement as the only thing from the NFL.
I get that I'm beating a dead horse nobody really wants to ride (and I'm stopping after this post), but as I said upthread, for me - if this ends up being true, I'm fucking done as a Pats fan. Full stop. So I'd like to at least have one person on the record with access to some information who says that they believe the Pats intentionally cheated, and a sequence of events or confirmation of facts. It isn't Pagano. It's apparently not D'Qwell Jackson. It's not Tom Brady, or Bill Belichick.
So it is coming down to someone in the NFL head office waking from their collective nap to actually confirm exactly what happened, and ideally, by whom. I'm willing to wait for that before I pour a scotch and commiserate over fallen stars.
posted by dfleming at 08:30 PM on January 22
It's unclear what position you are trying to carve out. Sorry if you already did. Would you have me believe that this was accidental? A coincidence?
No - I find it painfully ironic that someone calling for "the fucking truth" is so ingrained in a story that currently has anonymous league sources at the core of it and no actual, you know, report you can read.
11/12 balls has not been confirmed by anyone - it's one story's anonymous sources. 2 PSI has not been confirmed by anyone. Heck, the Mortensen story has a contradiction between two different reports - one that balls were refilled and put back in for the second half, another that different balls were put in for the second half because the first were irregular.
There are sources saying that the Colts noticed balls in a previous game - and others saying the Ravens tipped them off. So forgive me for not rushing to a conclusion on a story where nobody with access to actual information is on the record yet. Nobody on the Ravens, or the Colts, has confirmed anything they did. Wait, sorry - Pagano is on the record saying he didn't notice anything.
Tomorrow, maybe I wake up to a league source, on the record, confirming all of this. Or - maybe it's a story that a lot of the sources were incorrect and it has been blown out of proportion.
So that's my position - Brady's press conference confirmed his position that he knows nothing, to which I would expect some confirmed evidence to prove that isn't true before I indict him as disingenuous, a liar, and a cheat. If he got up and said "yeah, I did something", that would be a new fact, for which we have very, very few at this point. But that didn't happen.
I haven't played football in 10 years and I could easily tell the difference ... anyone on this forum could.
...except that the idea that the Pats have been doing this at least since November has not been noticed by refs who actually do handle the balls every week. How does that figure in to "anyone could" if they couldn't?
posted by dfleming at 07:24 PM on January 22
That's not true, he later qualified that by saying "to his knowledge." Look, I'm not trying to crucify Brady in particular. The guy can play the, "I just throw the ball" card. But Patriots, come up with an organizational response.
The organizational response if they honestly don't know is "we don't know." It really doesn't sound like there's a statement on earth that is going to make you believe anything other than what you already do.
posted by dfleming at 06:10 PM on January 22
You know - one thing has me confused here - one of the key "facts" so far is the 11/12 balls stat - but Tom said he selected 24 balls before this game. Sometimes it's 12, sometimes 16, this one was 24. So - where are the other 12 balls in that "fact"?
He's also saying he didn't alter the balls, but he's not coming out and saying nobody in his organization did.
He said specifically he was comfortable saying nobody in the organization did anything to the balls. About 2/3 of the way through the interview.
But yeah, there's also the one opinion that matters, the fucking truth.
Truth is not an opinion. It is fact.
posted by dfleming at 05:15 PM on January 22
It's fucking nuts how disingenuous Tom Brady is in this interview.
If he doesn't know anything (hypothetically) - what would he say that would be genuine right now to satisfy you?
posted by dfleming at 04:43 PM on January 22
Fines keep me from driving twenty over and they'll keep the Patriots from tossing flaccid pigskins around. I don't care if people drive ten over and I don't care if Tom Brady wants his balls at 11 PSI.
The latter part of your argument negates the first - some things you think are illegal that shouldn't be (otherwise you'd care about them), therefore the fine isn't prevent you from acting however you want to act. So it's useless.
Plus - I am sure you're aware you're way more likely to get caught doing 20 over than 10, which isn't about the fine as it is the likelihood of getting prosecuted for the crime. So yet again, I think the speeding analogy isn't correct.
posted by dfleming at 12:12 PM on January 22
Harbaugh said they never touched the Patriots offensive balls* but Glazer says the Ravens did tip the Colts off which makes the whole "Colts noticed it earlier this year" thing weird.
It's also strange that the balls are seemingly undetectable by officials who are handling them and the Ravens say they never touched them (despite the fact Daryl Smith picked a Brady pass off, so in fact someone did), so either they had no basis to tip them off, or they did because they did in fact touch a game ball. Either way - something in that story is incorrect.
posted by dfleming at 11:55 AM on January 22
Sure, but I think we disagree on the severity of the crime. I think it's speeding, punishable by fine if it gets out of hand.
But the point of penalties is to prevent - not to punish - otherwise, they're just revenue generators (which is most people's big problem with speeding fines and how they mysteriously happen at the end of the month.)
posted by dfleming at 11:47 AM on January 22
J. Glazer is reporting that the Ravens tipped off the Colts about the Patriots' footballs inflation issue.
John Harbaugh came out and say they noticed the kicking balls were underinflated and didn't think it was a conspiracy. Kicking balls don't get handled by the teams pre-game.
Which means there is some clandestine shit happening behind the scene or some incongruity going on between sources.
posted by dfleming at 11:39 AM on January 22
If I thought they would throw me in prison for speeding, I wouldn't speed, but they never have before so I knowingly break the law and drive ten over.
So we're in agreement that the right punishment might prevent an act from happening.
Well - if all that happens when you break rules is you pay a fine (which is minuscule compared to the revenue generated by getting to the Super Bowl), there is absolutely no reason for people to follow the rules. Which is the point of a punitive system - to prevent, not to penalize.
posted by dfleming at 11:29 AM on January 22
They intentionally broke the rule but I don't even know why the rule exists.
Equipment standards are not a new thing - as seen here, the spectrum goes from Aaron Rodgers who wants the ball overful, to Tom Brady who wants it underfilled.
So, in order to get some consistency in equipment that doesn't favour anyone, you have a standard for how the equipment is prepared that allows for some variation that would likely occur during typical game play.
People agree to these rules as part of playing to the NFL. You might not like 'em all, but it's implicit upon your receiving a salary that you adhere to all of them, not just the ones you agree with.
Sure, but it should be speeding ticket punishment, not murder punishment.
A more apt comparison is conspiracy to commit a crime vs. the crime itself. Yes - it's not as bad - but we punish severely because when they intended to cheat, they didn't know it was going to be a blowout where the act was inconsequential, otherwise they wouldn't have done it at all.
That is of course assuming that's what actually happened, which is as of yet up in the air.
posted by dfleming at 10:53 AM on January 22
Bill Belichick's statement to the media is interesting, particularly because it doesn't say anything about anyone else (read: the QB who likes his balls deflated) and their role in it. Just that Bill B doesn't really care about footballs.
posted by dfleming at 10:18 AM on January 22
Only if there are rules that stipulate it. Lacking that, the punishment should fit the specific violation.
In this instance, the rule book only really sets a floor for tampering with balls after they've been checked - $25,000, plus discretionary additional penalties subject to other agreements in the game.
I think on the basis of the balls being tampered with, you can't throw Brady and Bellichek out of the Superbowl. That's just appeasing a witch hunt who isn't even waiting for an official NFL investigation report to render a verdict anyways.
If you can provide some evidence (i.e., camera footage, or perhaps a ball boy who is being paid by the NFL who comes clean) that goes from the existence of balls that are not up to standard to a cause/effect relationship with one or both of Brady or Bellichek directing people, yeah, throw them out of the game. That's a fair ways from where the public evidence is today.
"I swear these are the only two times we've ever broken the rules. It's purely coincidental that you've also caught us the only two times we cheated. I guarantee that we've never attempted to circumvent the rules in ANY other case."
I am amused at the juxtaposed view of Bill Bellichek being a Keyser Soze-esque genius mastermind who is so much smarter than everyone else in the NFL and who must be constantly getting away with things, but also the same schmuck who's gotten caught cheating twice as much as virtually everyone else in the NFL. How patently absurd.
posted by dfleming at 09:59 AM on January 22
If he were to suspend Belichick it would ruin the game.
Anyone with a pitchfork in their hand would probably disagree with that statement - whether or not it impacted the end result, I think there's a non-zero number of fans who think an attempt to cheat on the way to the Superbowl should affect your chance of winning the Superbowl. Lots of writers are already talking about this being an *asterick game.
posted by dfleming at 04:27 PM on January 21
Yes - cold air does reduce the pressure, but not enough to drop it 2 PSI below the minimum if it was properly inflated before the game if that is indeed a fact. Thanks, physics classes.
Truth be told, I remain skeptical until a non-anonymous report comes out that contains a variety of facts - right now, there are former referees out there saying even if they were under-inflated, they would've been re-inflated at half-time (i.e., the blowout happened regardless), there are reports that the Colts complained about this in NE in November (i.e, a potential pattern of behaviour on either side), and there are reports the balls were noticeably deflated enough for Colts players to notice them straight away, but not for referees to notice them at all, which to me is a bit of an incongruity as it's the refs who theoretically look at balls for deformities, punctures, or other abnormalities.
Then there's the chain of command and sequence of events, and the need to actually prove someone did something on purpose. The absence of an answer to what happened is not guilt, and there are huge absences in information right now that swing heavily one way or another.
But - I will say this - as someone who's been a Pats fan his whole life, if the conclusion is a credible set of evidence that proved the Pats were attempting (whether or not it actually impacts the results or not) to gain an edge and got caught, I am fucking done with this team. Fool me twice, and all that. But the knowledge base is nowhere near that yet, which isn't really the requirement for axes to be ground in the interim.
posted by dfleming at 12:45 PM on January 21
Don't the refs pick the ball up, wipe them, and place a different one after most plays? Surely if the balls were significantly deflated, the refs had easy access to them during the game to notice themselves and/or confirm, either on the sidelines or in the locker rooms at half.
They heard about it before halftime, and if there was some legs to it, they wouldn't have come back onto the field in "illegal" condition. So the 28-0 second half wouldn't have been affected at all.
That said - after SpyGate, Pats fans just have to accept that writing stories about Pats cheating is good business. Last week, PFT got huge legs out of the eligibility kerfuffle, despite the fact the league acknowledges everything was on the level. For Jets fans, it's every story about dysfunction, and for Raiders fans, it's every story about incompetence that gets blown out of proportion.
posted by dfleming at 11:07 AM on January 20
Telling your team to half-ass it isn't really the answer here - he had his scrubs in the entire second half (where they outscored the opposition 57-1), and the opponents still didn't score a basket.
In leagues where there is this much disparity (the game after, they won 80-19, and in the article there are a number of mentions of winning by tons of points), there should just be a mercy rule where when a team gets up by 50 points, the game is called. There's no point in playing past that point - might as well call the game and the teams can practice instead.
posted by dfleming at 09:06 PM on January 18
Daniel Carcillo's up to his old tricks again.
posted by dfleming at 09:30 AM on January 18
I agree - I think one year of managing Matt Cassell is a lot different than systemically dominating a division year after year. Wilfork, McCourty, Gronk and the other key guys who make this tick right now will likely be retired, elsewhere, or getting on in age.
The pipeline of good talent needs to flow, and a QB to bring some consistent magic is paramount.
posted by dfleming at 12:35 PM on January 14
The combination of Rex and Greg Roman are going to lead to a lot of 7- and 8-man fronts until one of them show they can build the semblance of a consistent passing attack to be feared.
Should be a hell of a D though.
posted by dfleming at 12:05 PM on January 14
Even among Blue Jay first basemen, John Olerud accumulating 14 WAR more than Carlos Delgado over nearly identically long careers makes me pretty shocked. Sorry for ever doubting you, O helmeted one!
posted by dfleming at 04:47 PM on January 13
If that spreadsheet is correct (if you put it together yerfatma, you're a mensch), Brady's lost twice in the playoff with a spread higher than 4 points, whereas Manning's lost four times with spreads larger than 9 alone.
Not surprised it was a bullshit statement, but a bit surprised by big the pile was.
No quarterback who won multiple Super Bowl rings as the starter is ever going to be described as a "yeah, but ..."
Eli's as close as you might get to one, but the way he played those two runs was unbelievable and the Giants would classify as having glaring weaknesses more often than not, if we're adding a multiplier to Peyton's record for that.
posted by dfleming at 04:35 PM on January 12
Come to think of it Brady has lost more games in the playoffs as a heavy favorite than has Peyton.
Is Brady also then a "Yeah, but .." ?
Is Brady also then a "Yeah, but .." ?
Ignoring the fact I don't think this statement is actually true (please cite, and define heavy while you're at it), considering Brady's 19-8 career in the playoffs, is your argument that losing heavy favorite games negates what you do at even-odds or even as underdogs to reach 19 career postseason wins and three rings?
posted by dfleming at 01:40 PM on January 12
The best way I was able to visualize the functional miss was the recognition that two of the guys in my men's league team provided me the majority of my offensive rebounding opportunities. They have soft shots and shoot when they see guys crashing the rim or well-positioned.
As a result, we get a lot more opportunities to get high % second attempts. If they convert 40% of the time, and we get 60% of the rebounds and convert those to points 60% of the time, over the two possessions we're looking at a 76% chance of a points.
Whereas, our madman 2 seems to love to pull up and miss when there are 2-3 of their team surrounding the rim. If he too shoots 40%, but we only get 20% of the rebounds and convert to points 60% of the time, we're now looking at a 52% chance of points over the two possessions.
Same shooting percentage, different team outcome. Functional missers FTW.
posted by dfleming at 12:44 PM on January 12
If it hadn't have been for that game winning drive in 2006 (forgiving an otherwise awful playoff performance that year), Peyton's legacy would be a lot harder to define as one of the best ever.
11-13, 9 one-and-dones, it's not enough to boot him from a top 5 list, but it certainly is something for people to chew on. Plus, it doesn't help that his slack-jawed younger brother went savant twice and got himself two trophies in the same time period.
The reality is, there are dozens of moments to show that he has been one of the most dominant clutch players of all times - but he just couldn't string enough of them together in Jan/Feb. So it goes.
If this is it for him, it's a sad way for him to go, but the back half of this year everyone says he's looked hurt or old or both. It doesn't bode well for 2015.
posted by dfleming at 11:00 AM on January 12
I think they're listening, phaedon.
posted by dfleming at 04:24 PM on January 05
Dean Blandio says the Cowboys got away with one and maybe two, but not the one you expected.
posted by dfleming at 03:21 PM on January 05
The immediate dip on the incompletion was .79 to .69 (the shitty punt bringing it down to.58), but that's not including any WP bump they would've gotten from even a first down at Dallas's 31 as a result of one of the penalties.
Actual vs. potential, the swing was a lot higher whether they scored or not, and higher at that time than the same play would've been in the 1st quarter.
That's not to say that I don't agree with you that Det had ample opportunities before or after this play to win the game (and that the 4th and 6 completion wasn't more important statistically, due to the timing and the nature of the completion being a 21 yarder), but scenario 1 vs. scenario 2 was a big statistical swing for one play, and particularly poignant when you saw a reason for it to be called a different way.
posted by dfleming at 02:52 PM on January 05
Gerry Austin's take: Not a penalty, but once the flag was thrown it should've stayed thrown, and Bryant left the field quickly so no flag there.
The problem is people get flags taking their helmet off arguing a call while actively leaving the field pretty regularly. Very rarely is it the demonstrable "take helmet off and throw it" example.
He came on to the field with it already off, which means his intention was not to actively leave the field for the duration of his helmet being off. That's why I think it's a guaranteed flag - it's one thing to be on your way off, another to be on your way on. The leeway has to be based on the perceived intent of the player (i.e., a player who's become less of a risk is given it, those increasing their risk are not), otherwise reffing descends into anarchy.
I get there's a nuance to all of the rules, but the nuance in this instance seems to be leeway in favour of a team that had just received a very favorable call reversal.
Although Detroit fans won't want to hear it, because the non-call is a great scapegoat and I would blame it too in their position
It is a universal truth in all close games that teams could have done things differently to avoid needing a call to go their way at the end. It doesn't negate that controversial calls at the end of the game are magnified in their importance to the end user of the product.
Anything can happen always, but the statistical probability of victory getting one of those two penalty calls in that instance was pretty damn high. That's what smarts, whether or not it's an objective look at 60 minutes worth of football. The same call earlier in the game has less of an immediate probability of victory swing as it does there.
posted by dfleming at 01:00 PM on January 05
Whether or not it was interference, Dez Bryant had his helmet off and ran onto the field to argue the call. That one does not need interpretation - that's an automatic first down, and one it's hard to have missed given they weren't even huddling on the previous call.
posted by dfleming at 11:19 AM on January 05
He never had a really good QB and in the current NFL it doesn't seem like you can win without a top tier QB, or at least one capable of playing one for a season or two depending on how you feel about Flacco and Eli Manning.
Is it a lack of natural QB talent or an inability to develop quarterbacks because he isn't very good as an offensive strategist - opting for a continued run-first mentality in a league that increasingly relies on a good air game?
Nearly all of the top QBs took some time to develop, but progressed under good coaching. Rex had two highly-regarded prospects (acknowledging they weren't Peyton Manning sure things, but neither were many in the top 10), both of whom seemed to regress rather than progress under his leadership.
I think Rex gets another head coaching job because he's got the image, but like Dick LeBeau I think some people are specialists and the head coaching job needs to be higher-level than that and not everyone is cut out for it.
posted by dfleming at 10:05 AM on December 30
I don't get his point - does he want people excluded from being on the ballot at all so he doesn't have to make tough moral calls? Because I don't follow the logic train - if he believes that Barry Bonds' offences are egregious enough to warrant being left off a ballot entirely, then he's made a morality judgment in thinking that's true. It's the same as not voting for them - the only difference being he's not the one accountable for the decision.
I think the whole balloting system (and how people have limited eligibility and need to get 5% to stay on a ballot) and the fact that baseball writers are the ultimate judges of who does/does not get into the hall is a lot worse than writers actually having to consider more than straight numbers in their decision on who gets their votes. Forgive me for thinking the BBWAA aren't exactly overwhelmed by the process here - one, as a lay fan, I'd happily take on.
posted by dfleming at 03:03 PM on December 25
I really doubt Nelson stays around - he specifically left Orlando to play for a contender. This seems like the kind of situation where he either gets waived or moved again. That said, the way he played in Dallas, I don't see a lot of playoff-worth teams who'll get a big upgrade by dealing assets to get him.
The first-rounder is reported to be heavily protected and very likely to be 2016 or further and there's not much chance of it being mid-round or earlier. So the likely outcome is a development player who's a couple of years from contributing heavily.
Wright's a niche player - Crowder is more or less a straight wing, with little upside at the 2. Powell's a body.
I think the way Rondo had played this year, the haul they got was more or less what they could expect. It doesn't seem like it's the kind of haul you'd get for a guy with the potential for star play that Rondo has, but a bit like Vince Carter leaving Toronto (with the added deflator of a big, recent injury), if the player isn't playing up to their potential and they're pretty publicly looking to get out, it does tie your hands a little bit.
posted by dfleming at 07:26 AM on December 19
I won a bunch of defensive player awards up to college as a second baseman and I attributed it to the field right around the corner from us (we grew up in the hood) being a horrific mix of gravel, rocks and very little upkeep. My dad/friends would go with me to hit an hour a day's worth of unpredictable ground balls and one-hops.
There were a number of bloody noses from balls that bounced the wrong way, but come game time it made the traditional fields seem like carpet.
posted by dfleming at 01:53 PM on December 16
The current MVP odds according to those invest in their beliefs.
Sure, but the last defensive player being named MVP was in 1986 and 6 of the last 7 were quarterbacks. It's the money decision to bet on the best QB available based on who typically gets voted. There are a lot of people who question whether or not a defensive player can even get fair consideration from many voters.
Arian Foster is a top tier running back. I have a feeling Andre Johnson still has more in the tank than his quarterbacks were getting out of him.
Arian's missed 11 of the team's last 30 games - which is to say he's an elite RB 2/3 of the time. Eddie Lacy is a 24-year-old tier 2 back with 1,300 all-purpose yards and 12 TDs, which puts him near the top of the second tier, if not in the top tier.
At this point in their careers, would you take Hopkins/Johnson over Nelson/Cobb? Even with Johnson having more in the tank than he's showing, I just don't see the gap between the two pairings being that great. They're both elite pairings in the NFL.
posted by dfleming at 07:06 AM on December 16
If the Texans had Aaron Rodgers they would on their way to a division title.
That is crazy talk. The point differential on his own scores, scores called back due to people holding him(another last night against Indy) and the amount of energy teams spend on offence just trying to deal with him is the reason they are winning games at all.
Rodgers has more talent and health on both sides of the field in GB than he would have in Texas without Watt.
posted by dfleming at 03:09 PM on December 15
In the grand scheme of things, a few months of Jon Lester for one year of Rick Porcello is a heck of a deal.
Masterson for $9.5m seems pretty pricey, but at least his alternating horrible season/great season career cycle means he's due for a great year this year.
Allen Webster and Rubby De La Rosa seem joined at the hip - they were traded to Boston together, and are now heading to Arizona together.
posted by dfleming at 05:39 PM on December 11
And Lester is a postseason ace?
3-0 and one earned run allowed in three World Series starts and 21 innings. No slouch for sure.
posted by dfleming at 06:47 PM on December 10
Lester isn't going to bring the additional 17 wins the Cubs need to make the post season even if he has a career year.
Lester, Montero, Hammel, Joe Maddon and a stable of young, talented, and growing players is a damn good way to close the gap, anyways.
Put another way - outside of your completely arbitrary two-year deadline on his effectiveness, at least two of the real contenders for his services - the Giants and Dodgers - were guys it was going to be easier to hurdle for a wild card spot with him than against him. If Lester's a 4.0 WAR pitcher next year, you gain 8 games on the potential outcome that he signs with one of them.
posted by dfleming at 12:19 PM on December 10
I don't really get what the restructuring will do - there's a salary cap in place, and a bunch of big money team in the East who seemed plagued by front-office incompetence. That won't last forever - well, for the Knicks, maybe it will.
In the West, the last two decades have involved foundational players - Kobe, Dirk, Duncan/Ginobli/Parker, Durant/Westbrook, etc - who stayed in one place and were a foundation to build on. In the East, for whatever reasons, players seem more fluid - LeBron, Bosh, Howard, etc. There are obvious exceptions, but the teams who've been good in the West for a while have been stable, and there haven't been a lot of stable Eastern teams recently, with the exception of the big 3 on the Celtics, the Pacers to some extent, and the dream team Heat.
posted by dfleming at 07:23 AM on December 03
76ers regular season wins this season
Flyers match penalties this season
posted by dfleming at 07:12 PM on December 01
I think Lawrie might be one of those guys who gets healthy once he's out of Toronto - he plays the game hard, hits the deck often, and on the turf in Toronto that's a recipe for being continually banged up.
posted by dfleming at 08:23 AM on November 30
Especially with team control for years, totally. The Blue Jays built a stable of young arms and Nolin was buried for the foreseeable future behind other guys.
posted by dfleming at 05:02 PM on November 29
The legend of Masai Ujiri continues - getting Lowry back on an insanely reasonable deal allowed them to pick up Lou Williams and James Johnson to deepen the bench despite Landry Fields' dead weight contract.
posted by dfleming at 09:11 AM on November 23
The Blue Jays get Russell Martin for 5 years, $82m. Martin's 5.5 WAR was third behind Jonathan Lucroy and Buster Posey last year among catchers and he finished 13th in NL MVP voting.
Despite on face value seeming like crazy money for a 31-year-old catcher, the way he seems to call games with piecemeal, young pitching staffs just might be the wisest thing the Jays could've done with that money on the market right now.
posted by dfleming at 01:59 PM on November 17
I've read there is an opt-out in 2019 or 2020 in the deal, which makes oodles of sense getting this deep into bed with Jeffrey Loria. If his end goal was the money, he got there, but if consistently being on a competitive team matters to him, he's perhaps got the leverage to make that happen.
It's hard to imagine with Loria's track record he's going to consistently have someone behind him in the lineup that strikes enough fear for teams to consistently give him eminently hittable pitches.
This also makes Mike Trout's deal even more of a steal for the Angels, considering he's a better player on a similar arbitration-avoiding deal for about $1m/year less til 2020, when in theory they both could be free agents.
posted by dfleming at 11:15 AM on November 17
13 years, $325 million for Giancarlo Stanton. The annual value is 52.5% of the Marlins' total 2014 team salary.
posted by dfleming at 07:51 PM on November 14
Andy Dalton's QB rating of 2.0 last night was the worst for a QB with more than 30 passing attempts since 1983.
Of course, of the things that one could talk about being subpar last night, Jeremy Hill thought it best to focus on the Browns being worse than he thought. Hill of course torched the Browns for 55 yards on 12 carries and a lost fumble, in a performance that left fans saying "....who?"
posted by dfleming at 07:12 AM on November 07
The plot for this alternate timeline where Yost doesn't bunt in the 5th would be interesting - he plays against the data for an entire season which gets them to game 7 in the World Series, then get hit by lightning/a heaved, massive burrito off a bridge/a Motley Crue drumstick at a concert, and when he wakes up is equipped with an entirely different analytical framework.
Because as you all know, if you change it at any other point, who knows what happens in the rest of the timeline. Perhaps he takes up swing dance because that's what the ladies in grade 11 were into.
posted by dfleming at 04:17 PM on October 30
Affeldt really was an unsung hero this postseason - 11 1/3 scoreless innings of relief, 7 holds, and two key wins - the other being the complete bailout job he did for Santiago Castilla that preserved the lead before Ishikawa hit the big home run against St. Louis.
posted by dfleming at 07:57 AM on October 30
If the initial starter is ineffective, doesn't the official scorer have discretion to choose any reliever he or she feels contributed most to the win, even if it was not the pitcher of record when the final lead was taken? I thought it was originally a win, they even mentioned it on air in like the 8th or 9th after Joe Buck mentioned the 5 inning save and corrected himself shortly after. So why did it turn it from a win to a save a while later?
The relief pitcher of record who enters the game needs to be deemed ineffective by the scorers in order for them to pick someone else as the winner. Affeldt was the pitcher of record when they scored the 3rd run and had thrown 2.1 scoreless innings which doesn't qualify as being ineffective.
There are degrees of judgment involved, but Affeldt did a solid job and deserved the win, while Baumgarner deserved the save. I think the scorers got a bit caught up initially in the romance, which to be fair, I would too.
posted by dfleming at 07:53 AM on October 30
See, they would've said that to Ol' Colt a few years ago, but he didn't let a little thing like mediocrity get in the way of an occasional paycheque.
posted by dfleming at 10:38 PM on October 28
Got evacuated out of the downtown core about half an hour ago. Crazy, sad day.
posted by dfleming at 04:09 PM on October 22
Copyright © 2015 SportsFilterAll posts and comments are © their original authors.