In a league where a hard salary cap is king and players are known to have little to no power, no matter their ability, Antonio Brown pulled an unlikely power move that finally resulted yesterday in the Pittsburgh Steelers trading him to the Oakland Raiders for third round and fifth round draft picks. Oakland then gave Brown a $54 million contract extension, and though the full details of the deal have not been made public yet, it would seem that it means he will probably be in Oakland for the next three seasons.
For Brown, and for the Raiders, it seems like this was an instant win. Oakland has multiple first round picks this year and next year, and they were able to add arguably the best wide receiver in the NFL, while also only having to give up mid-round draft picks. And in reality, I think Oakland did definitely win this trade, at least looking at it right now. However, the NFL is a league where the unexpected happens quite often, so only time will tell how this deal actually works out for Brown, and for both teams.
A year ago, Jon Gruden's first offseason back in Oakland was filled with questionable and controversial moves. Khalil Mack, one of the best defensive players in the game, was dealt to the Chicago Bears in the prime of his career. Oakland received one of those first round picks that they will be able to use this year, but the NFL draft is one of the most unpredictable things in all of sports in terms of whether or not early round choices will succeed or fail.
Sure, first round picks are great, but for Oakland to really end up winning that trade, they have to turn those picks into superstar players. For example, if they drafted someone who were to end up being as good as, say, Khalil Mack, then it would be a success. The problem with that is, Mack was the player they just dealt away. Right now, Mack is the best player on a Bears defense that is an elite unit, and while Chicago was playing in the postseason this past year, the Raiders were sitting at home watching with the rest of us.
In this case though, Oakland is on the other end of the trade. They are the ones getting the superstar player, and the fact that they only had to give up a third and fifth round pick makes this trade look even better. Brown clearly wanted out of Pittsburgh, and he spoke out publicly against anyone and everyone there, eventually getting his wish and ending up with a new team and a new contract in Oakland.
Now, if Brown is seeking warmer weather and a lot of money, then he sure came out looking pretty good as of today. However, if he wants a chance to win a Super Bowl and go down as an all-time great wide receiver, we might look back at this move a decade from now and say that Brown made a big mistake.
Don't get me wrong, if a guy wants to play the game for money, then he is more than welcome to. Go ahead and make as much money as you can, and that is totally fine. However, it is likely that Brown was going to get a big contract no matter where he signed, so this move can't only be about money. If he wants to live in warm weather in Oakland as opposed to suffering through frigid winters in Pittsburgh, then he should be thrilled. If he wants all of those things and to win? Well, that might be a problem.
We have seen NBA players force their way out of places and end up coming out good on the other end, at least somewhat so. Kyrie Irving got out of Cleveland, and is on a good team in Boston right now. Jimmy Butler did the same and is now playing for an up and coming Philadelphia 76ers team. There is a difference between the NBA and the NFL though, and in terms of one player turning around a team, the difference is night and day.
We have seen the success levels of basketball teams change due to only one player multiple times in recent memory, and Kyrie Irving and Jimmy Butler have been able to do that to varying degrees of success. Football is very different though. One wide receiver doesn't change an entire team. Antonio Brown is not going to change the Oakland Raiders from a 4-12 team to a 12-4 team by himself. The nature of the game will not allow that. In order for the Raiders to challenge for the playoffs in 2019, they are going to need to address a whole lot of things, and based on recent history, that may not be as easy as stockpiling a bunch of draft picks and thinking it will guarantee instant success.
Derek Carr is a big question at quarterback right now for the Raiders, and the team really could go a number of ways before Week 1 of next season. They might stick with Carr. They might try to draft a new quarterback. They might go after a veteran quarterback who could be available this offseason like Josh Rosen or Teddy Bridgewater. Only the team knows that, and honestly, the team might not even have made a decision on that yet.
Brown is a great receiver, there is no question about that. But, in order for a great receiver to flourish, he needs a reliable guy throwing him the ball. He had that in Pittsburgh. Looking at the Oakland roster right now, I'm not sure that is the case here.
Randy Moss forced his way out of Minnesota years ago, and actually wound up in Oakland, but that didn't work out too well, as Moss was traded to the Patriots not long after. Terrell Owens ended up in Philadelphia after being deemed a problem in San Francisco and being traded. That worked out far better than Moss, but Owens did eventually run into similar problems with the Eagles, and ended up being traded by them as well. Is Brown going to end up with a brief stint in his new destination like those two? Or is he going to end up being the reason the Raiders win a Super Bowl? Right now, we don't know the answer to that question. One thing I do know is that Oakland has more than a few areas they need to address to end up competing for a playoff spot in the AFC, especially in a division with the Kansas City Chiefs and Los Angeles Chargers, both of whom were playoff teams this past season.
There is very little doubt that adding Brown will instantly upgrade the passing game of the Raiders. However, there is also very much doubt that all of those first round picks they have stockpiled will end up panning out. Only time will tell. Brown began his career as a receiver doing nothing but produce, but in recent years, there have been some problems that have followed him. Sure, they have been minor issues compared to problems other guys around the league have been embroiled in, but they seem to have built up enough for the Steelers to tire of him and get him out of town, even for a greatly reduced price. The change of scenery might do wonders for Brown, but right now he is on a team with a far less talented offense than the one he just left, and in the NFL, you can't just snap your fingers and make the entire team around you better. Brown still can do nothing to help a defense that allowed 140 rushing yards per game and almost 4,000 yards through the air, thanks in part to the preseason trade of Khalil Mack.
The Raiders made some very questionable moves both before and during last year, and acquiring Brown is not going to make up for all of them at once. Yes, it will certainly improve the offense, but Brown can't rush the passer and cover the best receivers in the league, and the Raiders will have to deal with guys like Keenan Allen, Travis Kelce, and Tyreek Hill twice each next season.
We still have a long way to go before Week 1. The offseason is only just getting started, and for the Raiders and Brown, it has gotten off to a great start. Success in March does not equate to success once the games begin though. We have seen many, many examples of that.
Is Antonio Brown going to be a rich man? Yes, he most definitely is. Have the Oakland Raiders instantly become Super Bowl favorites? No, they most definitely have not. And maybe Brown isn't too worried about the Super Bowl chances of the Raiders. If that is the case, then he has already won.
With an impending move to Las Vegas, the Raiders actually still do not have a home stadium to play in next year. That means many fans in Oakland, and in Las Vegas, are most likely already frustrated with the team. If this big move ends up not working out as well as it seemingly could, the Raiders could only be facing bigger and tougher hills to climb, in more ways than one.
This is not the NBA. One player cannot instantly take a team from the basement of the league to championship contention. In the NFL, you need a full roster of players to win a Super Bowl, and while the Raiders surely upgraded one of those roster spots yesterday, it is by no means a guarantee that all of those other spots will follow.
Daily Rangers Update: The Rangers played well in a win against the Devils yesterday, and still have very slim hopes to make the playoffs. They will head out west for a road trip that starts in Calgary against a very good Flames team, and unless they can come up with some big wins over the next week, it is likely that the plans for the offseason will begin early.
Daily Giants Update: With the draft getting only closer and closer, it is still unclear what direction the team will go. It seems like for every good thing that happens this offseason, another equal and opposite bad thing has happened, so the draft is going to play a key role in shaping the roster for Week 1.
Daily NBA Update: The Milwaukee Bucks were the first team to clinch a playoff berth and yesterday became the first team to reach the 50 win mark. The fight for the final few playoff spots in the Eastern Conference is far from over though, so although it is likely the Bucks will win their first round matchup, we still do not know who they will be playing.
Sunday, March 10, 2019
Saturday, March 9, 2019
Experimenting in baseball
For many years now, the criticism of baseball has been that the game moves too slowly. Football has physicality and a lot more action than baseball, and basketball and hockey are played at a much higher speed than baseball. Depending on who you ask, this can be viewed as a good thing or a bad thing. Usually, the older generations will say that part of the beauty of the game of baseball is that it is the only major sport we have without a time limit. However, as pro sports leagues now are trying to appeal to younger generations, this is often times viewed as a major reason that the sport is not nearly as popular with young people as opposed to football and basketball.
Football games this past season lasted, on average, three hours and 12 minutes. Hockey games lasted an average of 2:20, and basketball games lasted an average of 2:15. Baseball games lasted 3:05. So, while the average baseball game does not go on for the length of an average football game, the game of baseball has far more periods of inaction, and is still not based on a game clock. Then, in the postseason, when the games matter most, they drag on even longer because of what seem to be constant pitching changes and mound conferences.
When the Chicago Cubs finally won the World Series for the first time in over a century in 2016, Game Seven went on for four and a half hours thanks to multiple pitching changes and substitutions, as well as rain delays. I remember watching the game and feeling as though I was watching something historic, while at the same time just praying that the game would somehow end because I, like many people around the country, just wanted to go to sleep. When the final game of the season is seen as almost a chore to watch, it is obviously not good for the sport, even though the game was actually very exciting. It just took way too long to play, and I would completely understand why many people would just eventually tune out and lose interest because of the unbelievably slow pace.
Another game in that same postseason that was an instant classic was an American League Divisional Series matchup between the Texas Rangers and Toronto Blue Jays. The most memorable part of that game was the seventh inning, that was highlighted by Jose Bautista's monstrous home run and famous bat flip. To baseball fans everywhere, it was one of the most exciting games in recent memory. However, the entire seventh inning lasted a ridiculous 53 minutes of real time. Almost an entire hour for one inning!
As a Diamondbacks fan, I also remember Game Four of the 2001 World Series that the Yankees ended up winning on a Derek Jeter walk-off home run. The game started in October and actually ended in November. It was the first ever baseball game played in the month of November, and went on past midnight on the east coast.
Those two games were unbelievably enthralling, but you cannot deny the fact that their length was a serious problem for the casual fan, and it is likely that all of the casual fans out there watching tuned out before the games ended. Therefore, there has been talk of trying to quicken the pace of the game in recent years, and it seems as though some measures to try to do that will be at the center of collective bargaining talks that will be upcoming between the league and the players.
It was just announced this past week that the Atlantic League, an independent league not officially affiliated with Major League Baseball, but still a fully recognized minor league, will implement a number of new rules changes that MLB will closely monitor in the hopes of possibly eventually adopting in order to improve its own game. Some of the changes have been installed with the hope of speeding up the pace of the game, while others have not, but they do address some things that many people see as problems with the game of baseball today. I thought this was actually a very interesting subject because the game of baseball has been around for so long and remained very much the same. New analytics and ways of thinking have made the modern game much different than the game of not too long ago, and some of these new Atlantic League rules are being used to "improve" the game, at least based on the viewpoint of some people around the game.
In no particular order, here are those changes, and what I feel about each of them...
Robotic Umpires: Baseball is a sport that relies on its officials to be involved constantly in the game, as they affect literally every pitch. While umpires are supposed to all use the same requirements to call balls and strikes, for many years, it has simply been an accepted fact that different umpires had different zones. Some have zones that are higher or wider than others, while some umpires have smaller zones. Since balls and strikes are based only on the calls of the home plate umpire, there is no way to actually challenge their calls, even if they might be wrong.
Many television broadcasts now have on-screen graphics that show what a "true" strike zone for each batter is. By the letter of the law, the strike zone is defined as the space between the letters on the jersey and the top of the knees, and the width is the size of home plate. With the television graphics and tracking technology, we can now get instant shots of whether or not pitches were actually in that "true" strike zone, and we can see how the calls of the umpire actually compare to what should be called a strike and a ball.
The Atlantic League will use similar technology to call balls and strikes, and not rely on the calls of the home plate umpire, so pitches can be judged by an independent piece of equipment that is not subject to change based on the calls of one individual.
On the surface, this seems like a pretty good idea. Having a standard strike zone for each hitter seems much fairer than a zone that may change now and then, from pitch to pitch. However, this still does not account for things other than balls and strikes. Plays on the base paths are probably impossible to judge solely by robots or technology unless some sort of tracking device were installed into each and every player, as well as each and every base, and I am by no means a scientist, but I would venture to guess that something like that could only come at an extremely high cost that leagues would immediately dismiss.
There is also things like home run calls and fielders catching balls that may or may not have hit the ground. Because ball parks are not all standardized, there will always be questionable calls of whether or not batted balls clear a wall and are a home run. Plus, there always seems to be odd and unforeseen plays every once in a while where a fan may or may not interfere with a player trying to make a catch, and I think that would be impossible for a robotic umpire to decide.
I do like using technology like this for deciding whether or not balls are fair or foul, as tennis and soccer use very similar technology, and the calls are decided correctly and almost instantly. Umpires are usually actually very good at deciphering whether or not balls are fair or foul, but technology like this could be used to make every call correct, and I think doing that can only be good for the game.
Maybe some day we will see a robotic strike zone, but I would think that the end game of using that technology would be to eliminate the need for umpires completely, but I can't see how that could ever be possible because of plays like I mentioned before on the base paths and in the field that I think will always need to be judged by actual people, no matter how advanced technology eventually becomes.
Add what I am sure would be an idea that would not be accepted by the professional association of umpires, and I don't see games called entirely by robotic technology ever happening. Maybe it can be used for some aspects as an independent arbiter, but I think it is impossible for it to be the lone judge.
Banning the shift: Shifting defenders is not an idea that is as new as many people would think, because its use actually dates back many years thanks to all-time great hitters like Ted Williams. The difference now though, is that shifting fielders is much more common, and many shifts are now very exaggerated, with vast parts of the field often left wide open based on the tendencies of some hitters.
The idea really began to become more widespread when Barry Bonds was breaking home run records, but with an advanced reliance on analytics and data, it is not just reserved for the best hitters in the league, it is now used in some form for almost every hitter in the game. While some hitters have much greater tendencies to hit the ball in certain directions, it is not uncommon to see fielders positioned differently from batter to batter now. Many of the shifts now are not extreme, but there are also many cases where there are quite extreme shifts.
The rule that will be implemented by the Atlantic League will state that there have to be two infielders on either side of second base during every pitch of the game. This will take away these extreme shifts that some people hate.
In my opinion, this is a bad idea. There are reasons that teams shift their fielders from hitter to hitter. They don't just do it randomly, they do it based on concrete data that suggests certain hitters are more likely to hit the ball to certain places, and if that means moving an extra fielder to combat that, then I don't see why that should be viewed as a problem.
In some ways, this is the same as the intentional foul in basketball. Often times teams foul certain players in certain situations because they are bad free throw shooters. Does it slow the game down? Yes. But does it make sense? I believe that it certainly does, and the case is the same here. No one is forcing hitters to try to pull the ball and hit it 500 feet for a home run on every swing, but if they continue to try to do that, then why should the defense not be allowed to adjust to try to stop it?
I feel like this is a pretty dumb idea, but I actually think that the idea does have some traction, and it could possibly be installed eventually by Major League Baseball, which I would disagree with.
Three batter minimum for relief pitchers: Mound visits and pitching changes are often viewed as one of the main reasons that baseball games often times seem to take forever. If you are watching on television and you get an inning with multiple pitching changes, it sometimes seems like you are watching commercials more than the actual game, and I totally understand how this drives some people crazy.
I never knew the actual numbers here, but last season there were actually over 2,000 (yes, that is 2,000 and not 200) instances of a pitcher facing two or fewer hitters at any point in a game. When you look at that number, it is actually pretty shocking, and you truly get hit with just how often this happens and how it does in fact do nothing but slow down the pace of the game, even if some fans aren't too worried about that.
Again though, teams don't just do this without reason, they do it with the goal in mind of getting batters out. Some hitters have quite different splits when facing right handed pitchers instead of left handed pitchers, so it is understandable that in order to raise the chance of retiring any given batter, you want to play to their biggest weaknesses.
Installing a minimum number of batters that every pitcher would have to face would definitely lessen the trips to the mound and parade of relievers coming in from the bullpen, but I'm still not a huge fan of doing this. I certainly am not a fan of an ever-growing reliance on bullpens, especially in the postseason now, so installing this rule would definitely somewhat change that. However, I think that these pitching changes are made with a larger goal in mind, and I personally am able to overlook some innings that last much longer than others because of multiple pitching changes.
I do understand how some people view sometimes constant pitching changes as a bore and a burden on the game though, so I think we could eventually see MLB implement a rule similar to this.
Changing the distance between the mound to home plate: This rule will add two feet between home plate and the pitching rubber, changing it from 60 feet, 6 inches to 62 feet, 6 inches.
The distance between the rubber and the plate has been the same since 1893, so this would obviously be quite a drastic change, even if two feet does not seem like much. Also, the height of the mound has actually varied throughout the history of the sport, so maybe this change would not be as groundbreaking as it might seem.
I think the goal here is to allow hitters an extra few instants to adjust to pitches, with the hope of possibly more scoring coming from that. However, because many hitters now are so focused on trying to hit home runs, I would say that mindset would probably still not change. Maybe a few extra instants would cause offense to increase because these are professional hitters, and any extra edge they can get only helps them.
One thing about this though, is I think eventually this distance would have to change on every baseball field throughout the world, whether it is one played on by professionals, or one played on by elementary school kids, because I don't think you could use this distance only in professional ball, while keeping the original distance in college, high school, and youth baseball.
I am not really a fan of this change, and if I had to bet on whether or not it would be instituted by MLB any time soon, I would probably bet that it would not occur.
Those are the changes that really headline what the Atlantic League will be doing in the upcoming season, but there are also a couple other possible changes to the game that I would like to talk about since we are already on the topic.
Pitch clock: A pitch clock of 20 seconds is already being used in some minor leagues, and it has actually been used in some major league spring training games this season.
The time seems to be 20 seconds that would be allowed between pitches, and the onus would not be on only the pitcher to resume play in that time, but on the batter as well, with the penalty being either a ball or strike depending on who causes the delay. Some current major league players have spoken out against a pitch clock, with Max Scherzer being the most recent to do so in a very loud manner.
Baseball players are usually creatures of habit, and we have seen many players in the past like Nomar Garciaparra and Derek Jeter go through what some might view as a maddening routine after each and every pitch, as well as many pitchers go through their own routines. Yet, in the games that the clocks have been used this spring, most players have said that they didn't even notice them, and it played little to no part at all in the action.
A rule was instituted not long ago that required umpires to go out to the mound to shorten mound visits by coaches and managers, and while we do see it occur multiple times each game, the rules are very loosely enforced and penalties are pretty much never levied. I think eventually this would be the case with a pitch clock as well. I can't see any way that a buzzer would go off like a shot clock in basketball, so I think the rule would be more like the serve clock in tennis, where it counts down but really doesn't impact the action at all.
I think eventually these clocks will be installed by Major League Baseball, but I also don't believe they will affect the game at all, and eventually players and fans will get used to it and not even notice the clocks at all.
Universal Designated Hitter: This is something that seems will almost certainly exist in the very near future. Baseball is the only sport where a rule like this only plays a part in half of the games, which is actually pretty odd, but it has been in existence so long that it really isn't thought about much. American League fans are used to the DH, and National League fans are used to pitchers hitting. Supporters of the DH point to the very low batting averages of pitchers, and say that most of the time, their at bats are pretty much just a glorified strikeout, with the best possible outcome being a sacrifice bunt. Sure, there are some pitchers that are somewhat respectable hitters relative to most other pitchers, but the majority of pitchers are pretty much a guaranteed out.
Proponents of the National League style point to strategy as the number one reason they don't like a designated hitter, and I used to be of that mindset, but the more you think about it, the more senseless that point of view actually sounds. When was the last time you saw a crowd get up and cheer for a successful sacrifice bunt and double switch? The answer is probably never.
Sure, older players who are often well past their prime and out of shape do hang on a year or two extra as a DH after they are unable to hold down a position in the field, but is that really hurting anyone? No, it isn't. Like I said, I think it is almost a guarantee that in the very near future every team will be using a designated hitter, and I really don't see any reason to be ardently against that happening.
Like a modern baseball game, I think this post has gone on for more than enough time, but I think that this is an interesting topic, and I am glad to see Major League Baseball at least trying to see how some tweaks to their game might help. Using a small minor league to do that will not impact the game at the highest level, but it will at least be able to be used as a barometer to measure how future changes could be introduced to help improve their product on the field.
Many times, people are resistant to change, especially when it comes to things that they love, and I certainly think I fall into that category when it comes to some sports. However, in the long run, I think these changes would only be made to make the game better and more enjoyable for both players and fans, so I can't fault MLB for at least attempting to enhance its game.
Daily Giants Update: The Giants dealt Olivier Vernon and a draft pick to the Browns yesterday for Kevin Zeitler and a draft pick in a move to strengthen the offensive line and get rid of a player who was being paid a lot that might be leaving soon anyway. I certainly like the move, and it seems like the offensive line, which has been a problem for way too long, might actually be getting close to at least league-average. Vernon had a few productive years with the team, but the upcoming draft class is deep on defensive line talent this year, and hopefully the team can find a replacement for him that will be much cheaper, yet still provide similar production.
Daily Rangers Update: In a season that has been filled with tough and close losses, the Rangers suffered another one in a shootout against Detroit on Thursday night. They will play the New Jersey Devils tonight.
Daily NBA Update: The Warriors are still better than everyone. Aside from that, the soap opera that is the rest of the league continues to be both bafflingly popular with many, yet also unbelievably infuriating for me.
Football games this past season lasted, on average, three hours and 12 minutes. Hockey games lasted an average of 2:20, and basketball games lasted an average of 2:15. Baseball games lasted 3:05. So, while the average baseball game does not go on for the length of an average football game, the game of baseball has far more periods of inaction, and is still not based on a game clock. Then, in the postseason, when the games matter most, they drag on even longer because of what seem to be constant pitching changes and mound conferences.
When the Chicago Cubs finally won the World Series for the first time in over a century in 2016, Game Seven went on for four and a half hours thanks to multiple pitching changes and substitutions, as well as rain delays. I remember watching the game and feeling as though I was watching something historic, while at the same time just praying that the game would somehow end because I, like many people around the country, just wanted to go to sleep. When the final game of the season is seen as almost a chore to watch, it is obviously not good for the sport, even though the game was actually very exciting. It just took way too long to play, and I would completely understand why many people would just eventually tune out and lose interest because of the unbelievably slow pace.
Another game in that same postseason that was an instant classic was an American League Divisional Series matchup between the Texas Rangers and Toronto Blue Jays. The most memorable part of that game was the seventh inning, that was highlighted by Jose Bautista's monstrous home run and famous bat flip. To baseball fans everywhere, it was one of the most exciting games in recent memory. However, the entire seventh inning lasted a ridiculous 53 minutes of real time. Almost an entire hour for one inning!
As a Diamondbacks fan, I also remember Game Four of the 2001 World Series that the Yankees ended up winning on a Derek Jeter walk-off home run. The game started in October and actually ended in November. It was the first ever baseball game played in the month of November, and went on past midnight on the east coast.
Those two games were unbelievably enthralling, but you cannot deny the fact that their length was a serious problem for the casual fan, and it is likely that all of the casual fans out there watching tuned out before the games ended. Therefore, there has been talk of trying to quicken the pace of the game in recent years, and it seems as though some measures to try to do that will be at the center of collective bargaining talks that will be upcoming between the league and the players.
It was just announced this past week that the Atlantic League, an independent league not officially affiliated with Major League Baseball, but still a fully recognized minor league, will implement a number of new rules changes that MLB will closely monitor in the hopes of possibly eventually adopting in order to improve its own game. Some of the changes have been installed with the hope of speeding up the pace of the game, while others have not, but they do address some things that many people see as problems with the game of baseball today. I thought this was actually a very interesting subject because the game of baseball has been around for so long and remained very much the same. New analytics and ways of thinking have made the modern game much different than the game of not too long ago, and some of these new Atlantic League rules are being used to "improve" the game, at least based on the viewpoint of some people around the game.
In no particular order, here are those changes, and what I feel about each of them...
Robotic Umpires: Baseball is a sport that relies on its officials to be involved constantly in the game, as they affect literally every pitch. While umpires are supposed to all use the same requirements to call balls and strikes, for many years, it has simply been an accepted fact that different umpires had different zones. Some have zones that are higher or wider than others, while some umpires have smaller zones. Since balls and strikes are based only on the calls of the home plate umpire, there is no way to actually challenge their calls, even if they might be wrong.
Many television broadcasts now have on-screen graphics that show what a "true" strike zone for each batter is. By the letter of the law, the strike zone is defined as the space between the letters on the jersey and the top of the knees, and the width is the size of home plate. With the television graphics and tracking technology, we can now get instant shots of whether or not pitches were actually in that "true" strike zone, and we can see how the calls of the umpire actually compare to what should be called a strike and a ball.
The Atlantic League will use similar technology to call balls and strikes, and not rely on the calls of the home plate umpire, so pitches can be judged by an independent piece of equipment that is not subject to change based on the calls of one individual.
On the surface, this seems like a pretty good idea. Having a standard strike zone for each hitter seems much fairer than a zone that may change now and then, from pitch to pitch. However, this still does not account for things other than balls and strikes. Plays on the base paths are probably impossible to judge solely by robots or technology unless some sort of tracking device were installed into each and every player, as well as each and every base, and I am by no means a scientist, but I would venture to guess that something like that could only come at an extremely high cost that leagues would immediately dismiss.
There is also things like home run calls and fielders catching balls that may or may not have hit the ground. Because ball parks are not all standardized, there will always be questionable calls of whether or not batted balls clear a wall and are a home run. Plus, there always seems to be odd and unforeseen plays every once in a while where a fan may or may not interfere with a player trying to make a catch, and I think that would be impossible for a robotic umpire to decide.
I do like using technology like this for deciding whether or not balls are fair or foul, as tennis and soccer use very similar technology, and the calls are decided correctly and almost instantly. Umpires are usually actually very good at deciphering whether or not balls are fair or foul, but technology like this could be used to make every call correct, and I think doing that can only be good for the game.
Maybe some day we will see a robotic strike zone, but I would think that the end game of using that technology would be to eliminate the need for umpires completely, but I can't see how that could ever be possible because of plays like I mentioned before on the base paths and in the field that I think will always need to be judged by actual people, no matter how advanced technology eventually becomes.
Add what I am sure would be an idea that would not be accepted by the professional association of umpires, and I don't see games called entirely by robotic technology ever happening. Maybe it can be used for some aspects as an independent arbiter, but I think it is impossible for it to be the lone judge.
Banning the shift: Shifting defenders is not an idea that is as new as many people would think, because its use actually dates back many years thanks to all-time great hitters like Ted Williams. The difference now though, is that shifting fielders is much more common, and many shifts are now very exaggerated, with vast parts of the field often left wide open based on the tendencies of some hitters.
The idea really began to become more widespread when Barry Bonds was breaking home run records, but with an advanced reliance on analytics and data, it is not just reserved for the best hitters in the league, it is now used in some form for almost every hitter in the game. While some hitters have much greater tendencies to hit the ball in certain directions, it is not uncommon to see fielders positioned differently from batter to batter now. Many of the shifts now are not extreme, but there are also many cases where there are quite extreme shifts.
The rule that will be implemented by the Atlantic League will state that there have to be two infielders on either side of second base during every pitch of the game. This will take away these extreme shifts that some people hate.
In my opinion, this is a bad idea. There are reasons that teams shift their fielders from hitter to hitter. They don't just do it randomly, they do it based on concrete data that suggests certain hitters are more likely to hit the ball to certain places, and if that means moving an extra fielder to combat that, then I don't see why that should be viewed as a problem.
In some ways, this is the same as the intentional foul in basketball. Often times teams foul certain players in certain situations because they are bad free throw shooters. Does it slow the game down? Yes. But does it make sense? I believe that it certainly does, and the case is the same here. No one is forcing hitters to try to pull the ball and hit it 500 feet for a home run on every swing, but if they continue to try to do that, then why should the defense not be allowed to adjust to try to stop it?
I feel like this is a pretty dumb idea, but I actually think that the idea does have some traction, and it could possibly be installed eventually by Major League Baseball, which I would disagree with.
Three batter minimum for relief pitchers: Mound visits and pitching changes are often viewed as one of the main reasons that baseball games often times seem to take forever. If you are watching on television and you get an inning with multiple pitching changes, it sometimes seems like you are watching commercials more than the actual game, and I totally understand how this drives some people crazy.
I never knew the actual numbers here, but last season there were actually over 2,000 (yes, that is 2,000 and not 200) instances of a pitcher facing two or fewer hitters at any point in a game. When you look at that number, it is actually pretty shocking, and you truly get hit with just how often this happens and how it does in fact do nothing but slow down the pace of the game, even if some fans aren't too worried about that.
Again though, teams don't just do this without reason, they do it with the goal in mind of getting batters out. Some hitters have quite different splits when facing right handed pitchers instead of left handed pitchers, so it is understandable that in order to raise the chance of retiring any given batter, you want to play to their biggest weaknesses.
Installing a minimum number of batters that every pitcher would have to face would definitely lessen the trips to the mound and parade of relievers coming in from the bullpen, but I'm still not a huge fan of doing this. I certainly am not a fan of an ever-growing reliance on bullpens, especially in the postseason now, so installing this rule would definitely somewhat change that. However, I think that these pitching changes are made with a larger goal in mind, and I personally am able to overlook some innings that last much longer than others because of multiple pitching changes.
I do understand how some people view sometimes constant pitching changes as a bore and a burden on the game though, so I think we could eventually see MLB implement a rule similar to this.
Changing the distance between the mound to home plate: This rule will add two feet between home plate and the pitching rubber, changing it from 60 feet, 6 inches to 62 feet, 6 inches.
The distance between the rubber and the plate has been the same since 1893, so this would obviously be quite a drastic change, even if two feet does not seem like much. Also, the height of the mound has actually varied throughout the history of the sport, so maybe this change would not be as groundbreaking as it might seem.
I think the goal here is to allow hitters an extra few instants to adjust to pitches, with the hope of possibly more scoring coming from that. However, because many hitters now are so focused on trying to hit home runs, I would say that mindset would probably still not change. Maybe a few extra instants would cause offense to increase because these are professional hitters, and any extra edge they can get only helps them.
One thing about this though, is I think eventually this distance would have to change on every baseball field throughout the world, whether it is one played on by professionals, or one played on by elementary school kids, because I don't think you could use this distance only in professional ball, while keeping the original distance in college, high school, and youth baseball.
I am not really a fan of this change, and if I had to bet on whether or not it would be instituted by MLB any time soon, I would probably bet that it would not occur.
Those are the changes that really headline what the Atlantic League will be doing in the upcoming season, but there are also a couple other possible changes to the game that I would like to talk about since we are already on the topic.
Pitch clock: A pitch clock of 20 seconds is already being used in some minor leagues, and it has actually been used in some major league spring training games this season.
The time seems to be 20 seconds that would be allowed between pitches, and the onus would not be on only the pitcher to resume play in that time, but on the batter as well, with the penalty being either a ball or strike depending on who causes the delay. Some current major league players have spoken out against a pitch clock, with Max Scherzer being the most recent to do so in a very loud manner.
Baseball players are usually creatures of habit, and we have seen many players in the past like Nomar Garciaparra and Derek Jeter go through what some might view as a maddening routine after each and every pitch, as well as many pitchers go through their own routines. Yet, in the games that the clocks have been used this spring, most players have said that they didn't even notice them, and it played little to no part at all in the action.
A rule was instituted not long ago that required umpires to go out to the mound to shorten mound visits by coaches and managers, and while we do see it occur multiple times each game, the rules are very loosely enforced and penalties are pretty much never levied. I think eventually this would be the case with a pitch clock as well. I can't see any way that a buzzer would go off like a shot clock in basketball, so I think the rule would be more like the serve clock in tennis, where it counts down but really doesn't impact the action at all.
I think eventually these clocks will be installed by Major League Baseball, but I also don't believe they will affect the game at all, and eventually players and fans will get used to it and not even notice the clocks at all.
Universal Designated Hitter: This is something that seems will almost certainly exist in the very near future. Baseball is the only sport where a rule like this only plays a part in half of the games, which is actually pretty odd, but it has been in existence so long that it really isn't thought about much. American League fans are used to the DH, and National League fans are used to pitchers hitting. Supporters of the DH point to the very low batting averages of pitchers, and say that most of the time, their at bats are pretty much just a glorified strikeout, with the best possible outcome being a sacrifice bunt. Sure, there are some pitchers that are somewhat respectable hitters relative to most other pitchers, but the majority of pitchers are pretty much a guaranteed out.
Proponents of the National League style point to strategy as the number one reason they don't like a designated hitter, and I used to be of that mindset, but the more you think about it, the more senseless that point of view actually sounds. When was the last time you saw a crowd get up and cheer for a successful sacrifice bunt and double switch? The answer is probably never.
Sure, older players who are often well past their prime and out of shape do hang on a year or two extra as a DH after they are unable to hold down a position in the field, but is that really hurting anyone? No, it isn't. Like I said, I think it is almost a guarantee that in the very near future every team will be using a designated hitter, and I really don't see any reason to be ardently against that happening.
Like a modern baseball game, I think this post has gone on for more than enough time, but I think that this is an interesting topic, and I am glad to see Major League Baseball at least trying to see how some tweaks to their game might help. Using a small minor league to do that will not impact the game at the highest level, but it will at least be able to be used as a barometer to measure how future changes could be introduced to help improve their product on the field.
Many times, people are resistant to change, especially when it comes to things that they love, and I certainly think I fall into that category when it comes to some sports. However, in the long run, I think these changes would only be made to make the game better and more enjoyable for both players and fans, so I can't fault MLB for at least attempting to enhance its game.
Daily Giants Update: The Giants dealt Olivier Vernon and a draft pick to the Browns yesterday for Kevin Zeitler and a draft pick in a move to strengthen the offensive line and get rid of a player who was being paid a lot that might be leaving soon anyway. I certainly like the move, and it seems like the offensive line, which has been a problem for way too long, might actually be getting close to at least league-average. Vernon had a few productive years with the team, but the upcoming draft class is deep on defensive line talent this year, and hopefully the team can find a replacement for him that will be much cheaper, yet still provide similar production.
Daily Rangers Update: In a season that has been filled with tough and close losses, the Rangers suffered another one in a shootout against Detroit on Thursday night. They will play the New Jersey Devils tonight.
Daily NBA Update: The Warriors are still better than everyone. Aside from that, the soap opera that is the rest of the league continues to be both bafflingly popular with many, yet also unbelievably infuriating for me.
Monday, March 4, 2019
An issue that really doesn't matter
Now that the calendar officially reads March, it means that the beginning of the baseball season is just getting closer and closer. The biggest talking point of the offseason has been the extremely slow-moving free agent market, as even though Bryce Harper finally has a team, star players Craig Kimbrel and Dallas Keuchel still remain un-signed. Another topic that I have heard discussed to a much lesser degree is the case of top prospects like Eloy Jimenez and Vladimir Guerrero, Jr. Because Guerrero is the son of a Hall of Fame player, he has been the primary example of what some people deem to be an awful problem.
According to anyone familiar with the pipeline of prospects in baseball, Guerrero is clearly ready to play for the Toronto Blue Jays. His hitting talent seems to be undeniable, and he has the chance to be a generational prospect and the face of a Toronto franchise that has lacked a face for quite some time now. However, despite that, general manager Ross Atkins recently stated that Guerrero would begin the season in the minor leagues because the organization felt that he still needed work on his defense.
People close to the game have condemned this move because of Guerrero's talent, and said that the Blue Jays were doing a disservice to both the game and their team by keeping him at Triple-A to start the year. Despite the claims of the organization that he still needs to work on his defense, it is pretty clear that the only reason Guerrero will not be on the Opening Day roster is because if he begins the season in the minor leagues, the team gains an extra year of control over his contract. Instead of being a free agent after six years in the big leagues, Guerrero will have to wait until seven years from now before he becomes a free agent. Does that hurt the Blue Jays in 2019? Yes, it probably does. But does it make sense for the organization (both on the field and off the field) as a whole? Despite what people claim, it unquestionably does, and I don't know why anyone would fault the Blue Jays for doing it.
Last year, the Atlanta Braves were in a similar situation with Ronald Acuna, Jr. He wasn't called up until late April for the very same reason, yet he still won National League Rookie of the Year and the Braves made the playoffs. He was a huge reason why they were so surprisingly good, and no one remembered the few weeks he missed at the beginning of the year.
It isn't just Guerrero who will be in this situation either. Fernando Tatis, Jr. will most likely begin the year in the minor leagues before the Padres call him up, and the White Sox will do the same thing with Eloy Jimenez. Those three are arguably the top three prospects in all of baseball and all three of them seem ready to play right now. Is keeping them in the minor leagues to begin the year really doing them a massive disservice though? If you are looking at the situations from the realistic perspective of their teams, the answer is clearly no.
The Padres just signed Manny Machado to a ten year contract for $300 million. Obviously, that means they are planning on contending sooner rather than later. But that ten year deal doesn't mean they are planning on contending in April of 2019 either. They still need to add some pieces before they can legitimately challenge for a title, so isn't having Tatis for seven years instead of six worth it? Yes, it is. And like Acuna proved last year, even if a top prospect doesn't make their debut until late April, it doesn't mean that they can't greatly impact their team that year.
In the NFL, teams that take a quarterback with their top pick in the draft aren't drafting for immediate returns. They are drafting with their eye on the future. Getting a top level prospect at quarterback is the base for what that team hopes will become a contender year in and year out. The case with these prospects is basically the same.
The Blue Jays likely are not as good as the Red Sox or Yankees with or without Guerrero this season. Could they surprise and end up in the playoffs? Sure, of course they could. But don't they have a better shot at competing with those teams seven years down the road than they do now? Yes. Absolutely.
The White Sox tried to spend big money to lure Machado and Harper to Chicago this offseason, but they weren't able to do so. In the present, that was a disappointment for the team and the fans. However, with an extra year of control of Jimenez, he could certainly help them contend in the long run. The same goes for Tatis and the Padres. They didn't sign Machado to a one-year deal. They signed him to a ten year deal. That means they have their eyes on contention in the long-term as opposed to contention right now.
These teams are still going to sell tickets. They aren't going to be playing in front of empty stadiums for the first two weeks of the season. In fact, the anticipation of the debuts of these prospects will almost certainly boost ticket sales when they do actually get called up, and if things go according to plan, those tickets will continue to sell more and more if the teams get better in the future.
Despite what opponents of this might want you to believe, the problem here isn't with the Blue Jays or the Padres or the White Sox. The problem is with the rules and the system that made those rules. Until rules are implemented that make it so that sixth and seventh year of team control isn't based on the Opening Day roster, I don't know why anyone could find any fault at all with these teams. That is something that can be collectively bargained too, and negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement between the owners and players will hopefully begin sooner rather than later, because the current CBA will expire in 2021.
Collective bargaining is always about each side agreeing to concede on points they believe are less important and stand strong on points they believe are most important. If the MLBPA feels like this service time is something very important to them, then they can push for it in upcoming negotiations. If they have other things on their list that they deem more important, then maybe the rules on this will remain.
As it stands now though, the teams are not doing anything that violates current rules. Therefore, I will not criticize them at all for simply following the rules, even if those rules might seem unjust in the eyes of some people. And like I said anyway, if Guerrero wins Rookie of the Year and the Blue Jays are able to win a World Series a few years down the road with him as the best player on the team, no one is going to care that he missed two weeks of games in April of his rookie season. His Hall of Fame eligibility isn't going to be impacted by not playing in the big leagues on April 5th of his rookie year.
If these guys live up to the hype and turn into superstars, none of this will matter one bit.
Daily Giants Update: The team just announced that it would not use the franchise tag on Landon Collins, because they believed that the price tag would be too high. At this point, it seems more and more likely that the chances of Collins remaining with the team are getting worse, and that is not a good thing.
Daily Rangers Update: The Rangers suffered a bizarre loss to the Capitals in a shootout yesterday when it was ruled that Alexandar Georgiev threw his stick at Alex Ovechkin as Ovechkin was trying to score. I thought that what Georgiev did wasn't really on purpose, and he was looking to poke the puck off Ovechkin's stick and just lost control of his own stick, but I do understand how it could have been interpreted the way it was. It was another tough loss in a season that has seen more tough losses than tough wins. When Mats Zuccarello and Kevin Hayes were traded, it seemed like the team was waving the white flag on the season, and while they do still technically have a shot at the playoffs, the odds are not in their favor. It isn't over yet, but it is getting pretty close.
Daily NBA Update: Even though this league has become more and more of a soap opera over the past few years, it seems like that is becoming the case to new and unseen levels day by day and game by game now. The Warriors are still the best team in the league, but all I hear about is off the court drama, and I think that is really a bad look for the game. However, I seem to be in the minority, because the league is arguably more popular than it has ever been, so there must be a lot of people who love the drama of another season that, in my eyes, is going to end the same way it has ended the past two years.
Daily MLB Update: We are less than a month away from Opening Day, so I will have to publicly rant about the offseason of the Diamondbacks soon.
According to anyone familiar with the pipeline of prospects in baseball, Guerrero is clearly ready to play for the Toronto Blue Jays. His hitting talent seems to be undeniable, and he has the chance to be a generational prospect and the face of a Toronto franchise that has lacked a face for quite some time now. However, despite that, general manager Ross Atkins recently stated that Guerrero would begin the season in the minor leagues because the organization felt that he still needed work on his defense.
People close to the game have condemned this move because of Guerrero's talent, and said that the Blue Jays were doing a disservice to both the game and their team by keeping him at Triple-A to start the year. Despite the claims of the organization that he still needs to work on his defense, it is pretty clear that the only reason Guerrero will not be on the Opening Day roster is because if he begins the season in the minor leagues, the team gains an extra year of control over his contract. Instead of being a free agent after six years in the big leagues, Guerrero will have to wait until seven years from now before he becomes a free agent. Does that hurt the Blue Jays in 2019? Yes, it probably does. But does it make sense for the organization (both on the field and off the field) as a whole? Despite what people claim, it unquestionably does, and I don't know why anyone would fault the Blue Jays for doing it.
Last year, the Atlanta Braves were in a similar situation with Ronald Acuna, Jr. He wasn't called up until late April for the very same reason, yet he still won National League Rookie of the Year and the Braves made the playoffs. He was a huge reason why they were so surprisingly good, and no one remembered the few weeks he missed at the beginning of the year.
It isn't just Guerrero who will be in this situation either. Fernando Tatis, Jr. will most likely begin the year in the minor leagues before the Padres call him up, and the White Sox will do the same thing with Eloy Jimenez. Those three are arguably the top three prospects in all of baseball and all three of them seem ready to play right now. Is keeping them in the minor leagues to begin the year really doing them a massive disservice though? If you are looking at the situations from the realistic perspective of their teams, the answer is clearly no.
The Padres just signed Manny Machado to a ten year contract for $300 million. Obviously, that means they are planning on contending sooner rather than later. But that ten year deal doesn't mean they are planning on contending in April of 2019 either. They still need to add some pieces before they can legitimately challenge for a title, so isn't having Tatis for seven years instead of six worth it? Yes, it is. And like Acuna proved last year, even if a top prospect doesn't make their debut until late April, it doesn't mean that they can't greatly impact their team that year.
In the NFL, teams that take a quarterback with their top pick in the draft aren't drafting for immediate returns. They are drafting with their eye on the future. Getting a top level prospect at quarterback is the base for what that team hopes will become a contender year in and year out. The case with these prospects is basically the same.
The Blue Jays likely are not as good as the Red Sox or Yankees with or without Guerrero this season. Could they surprise and end up in the playoffs? Sure, of course they could. But don't they have a better shot at competing with those teams seven years down the road than they do now? Yes. Absolutely.
The White Sox tried to spend big money to lure Machado and Harper to Chicago this offseason, but they weren't able to do so. In the present, that was a disappointment for the team and the fans. However, with an extra year of control of Jimenez, he could certainly help them contend in the long run. The same goes for Tatis and the Padres. They didn't sign Machado to a one-year deal. They signed him to a ten year deal. That means they have their eyes on contention in the long-term as opposed to contention right now.
These teams are still going to sell tickets. They aren't going to be playing in front of empty stadiums for the first two weeks of the season. In fact, the anticipation of the debuts of these prospects will almost certainly boost ticket sales when they do actually get called up, and if things go according to plan, those tickets will continue to sell more and more if the teams get better in the future.
Despite what opponents of this might want you to believe, the problem here isn't with the Blue Jays or the Padres or the White Sox. The problem is with the rules and the system that made those rules. Until rules are implemented that make it so that sixth and seventh year of team control isn't based on the Opening Day roster, I don't know why anyone could find any fault at all with these teams. That is something that can be collectively bargained too, and negotiations for a new collective bargaining agreement between the owners and players will hopefully begin sooner rather than later, because the current CBA will expire in 2021.
Collective bargaining is always about each side agreeing to concede on points they believe are less important and stand strong on points they believe are most important. If the MLBPA feels like this service time is something very important to them, then they can push for it in upcoming negotiations. If they have other things on their list that they deem more important, then maybe the rules on this will remain.
As it stands now though, the teams are not doing anything that violates current rules. Therefore, I will not criticize them at all for simply following the rules, even if those rules might seem unjust in the eyes of some people. And like I said anyway, if Guerrero wins Rookie of the Year and the Blue Jays are able to win a World Series a few years down the road with him as the best player on the team, no one is going to care that he missed two weeks of games in April of his rookie season. His Hall of Fame eligibility isn't going to be impacted by not playing in the big leagues on April 5th of his rookie year.
If these guys live up to the hype and turn into superstars, none of this will matter one bit.
Daily Giants Update: The team just announced that it would not use the franchise tag on Landon Collins, because they believed that the price tag would be too high. At this point, it seems more and more likely that the chances of Collins remaining with the team are getting worse, and that is not a good thing.
Daily Rangers Update: The Rangers suffered a bizarre loss to the Capitals in a shootout yesterday when it was ruled that Alexandar Georgiev threw his stick at Alex Ovechkin as Ovechkin was trying to score. I thought that what Georgiev did wasn't really on purpose, and he was looking to poke the puck off Ovechkin's stick and just lost control of his own stick, but I do understand how it could have been interpreted the way it was. It was another tough loss in a season that has seen more tough losses than tough wins. When Mats Zuccarello and Kevin Hayes were traded, it seemed like the team was waving the white flag on the season, and while they do still technically have a shot at the playoffs, the odds are not in their favor. It isn't over yet, but it is getting pretty close.
Daily NBA Update: Even though this league has become more and more of a soap opera over the past few years, it seems like that is becoming the case to new and unseen levels day by day and game by game now. The Warriors are still the best team in the league, but all I hear about is off the court drama, and I think that is really a bad look for the game. However, I seem to be in the minority, because the league is arguably more popular than it has ever been, so there must be a lot of people who love the drama of another season that, in my eyes, is going to end the same way it has ended the past two years.
Daily MLB Update: We are less than a month away from Opening Day, so I will have to publicly rant about the offseason of the Diamondbacks soon.
Saturday, February 23, 2019
The case of the exploding shoe
When fans are asked what they think the greatest rivalries in the sports world are, their answer usually depends on where they live, and what sports they enjoy the most. People in California might say the Dodgers vs Giants or UCLA vs USC. In the south, you will hear Alabama vs Auburn or Florida vs Florida State. There is the Red Sox vs the Yankees, and Michigan vs Ohio State. Just a week ago, Duke and North Carolina played for the first time this season, and there is no question that the basketball programs of those two schools produce great games and their rivalry will be near the top of anyone's list.
Many Hall of Fame basketball players have been produced by the two schools, and there are surely going to be more of them to come for the foreseeable future. Right now, the biggest star in college basketball is Duke's Zion Williamson, and he has been at the center of many arguments based upon what happened to him less than a minute into the game last week.
The entire country was watching and ready to see another game that could be a classic one in a classic rivalry. However, the greatest equalizer in all of sports, the unpredictable injury, struck Williamson in the oddest of ways. He had the ball and went to pivot and then his shoe broke and he went to the floor in pain. He fell down awkwardly and limped off the court, and just like that, the air seemed to be taken out of the building before anyone had even taken their seats. North Carolina went on to win the game quite handily, but the result has been hardly mentioned since Williamson went down.
The debates began, once again, about collegiate athletics, who benefits from the games, who gets exploited, the worthiness of the college experience, and draft rules. Everyone has their opinions on this stuff, and usually everyone has a stance that they will stick with no matter what, and trying to argue it is pretty much like arguing with a brick wall. No one wants to budge.
Personally, I do believe that college athletes are exploited. Ticket prices for that game were getting close to Super Bowl levels, and the players do not get any paychecks, despite being the reason the prices can be that high. They should see some sort of money for being the ones out there. However, I do think that the value of a full college scholarship is constantly overlooked by many people.
I don't mean going to school and joining volunteer clubs or editing newspapers. I mean the actual cost of living at school and going to class. I know people who are paying back student loans a decade after they graduate college. They would all love to have had a full scholarship. Proponents of paying college athletes throw that aside like it is nothing, and, in my opinion, you can't do that. That isn't the main issue in this case though. The issue here is Zion Williamson, and athletes like him. Starting only minutes after he went down, opinions were flying in from everywhere on what this would mean for him, and what it would mean for college sports in general.
It isn't often that athletes become true box office, must-see attractions before they even become professionals, but Williamson has become just that. We don't know what his professional career will end up looking like, but he is probably going to be the first overall pick no matter what, simply because whatever team drafts him will instantly be must see television, even if they aren't any good. Because of that, I heard plenty of people saying he should not step foot on the court again as a college player, and that by doing so, he is only putting himself in danger of missing out on a life-changing amount of money that would come with being taken first overall. I do understand their point of view, but I can't say that I fully agree with it.
I have always believed that kids should be allowed to enter the draft straight out of high school, and I will always believe that. However, the rule right now is that you have to be one year removed from high school before entering the draft. For most players, that means spending one year in college. Some choose to play overseas as a professional, and I think that is totally acceptable. You can get paid right out of high school, just like anyone else in any other field can. The biggest benefit of going to college in the United States for a year though, is you can put your name on the national map and become a main attraction before you even step on to a professional court, and that is what Williamson, like most other high profile young stars, has chosen to do.
When I mentioned getting a full scholarship to college and getting the true "college experience" before, you have to realize that what that experience is varies depending on the individual. For many, the college experience includes going to class and playing frisbee and living away from home for the first time. For people like Williamson, the college experience is much different. His college experience consists of basketball games in front of millions of people. Those are two vastly different things.
When I hear former athletes talk about what they enjoyed the most when they played, the first thing they usually mention is the time they spend with their teammates and being out on the court actually playing. All of the benefits that come with that are obviously nice, but the brotherhood and relationships are what I hear mentioned most often. That is stuff we as fans don't get to fully see or understand, and that is why Williamson shouldn't listen to any outsiders when deciding what he wants to do.
The fall he took looked a bit awkward, but the injury ended up not being too serious, and he should be able to be back to play by March, and in the college basketball world, the month of March is as good as it gets.
Out of all the people who have come out and stated their beliefs on this, the one I most agreed with was Charles Barkley's. Barkley is known to be very outspoken, and not afraid of the consequences of what he says. In this case, he is far more qualified to give advice to Williamson than most people, and I think what he said was perfect.
He said that these kids want to play. Sure, some college football players have begun to sit out bowl games at the end of the season, but that is different. Those are games that have zero meaning relative to the games Duke could be playing in the very near future. Do you think the star player on Duke wants to sit out a game against North Carolina? Absolutely not. Without question they want to be out there. Right now, Duke seems to be on the way to a high seed in the NCAA Tournament, and they certainly have a legitimate chance to win a national title. I would almost guarantee that if you asked Williamson (which it seems no one actually cares to do), he would want to get back on the court as soon as possible.
There is a difference between a college football player sitting out the Idaho Potato Bowl and sitting out a playoff game. It is why no one on a playoff team has ever sat out one of those games with the sole intention of staying healthy for the draft. When Duke is playing in the NCAA Tournament, do you think that Williamson is going to be content sitting on the bench in the name of cautiousness instead of being out on the court with his teammates? No way.
These kids want to play. It is what they have done their entire lives, and it is what they are probably going to do many years into the future as well. All too often, people want to point to these freak injuries as evidence that every aspiring pro athlete should sit in a bubble and wait until they are eligible to be drafted before even daring to put on a uniform. It isn't like Williamson would be the first player drafted with an injury history either. Joel Embiid and Kyrie Irving had injury problems in college and were still drafted very high. Their injuries were also much more serious than Williamson's. Embiid and Irving sat out extended periods of time, while it appears that Williamson is only going to miss a week or two. He should be fully healthy by the opening weekend of the NCAA Tournament, and I would bet that there is no way he would want to miss any of that if he were healthy enough to be out there with his teammates.
The college experience for Zion Williamson is a very unique one that most of us will never be able to really understand. The same can be said for being the top overall pick in the NBA Draft, and right now it looks like Williamson has a chance to experience that as well. He didn't earn those things by running up and down the court afraid of getting hurt, so why should he change that right now? Coaches coach, players play, and us fans sit and watch and try to act like we know what is best for these people when what we say really doesn't matter at all.
No matter how you feel about Charles Barkley, he is far more qualified to give advice to Williamson than 99.9% of us are. If I had to try to predict what will happen though, I would say that the chances of Williamson playing as soon as he can get back on to the court are very high. People often look back at their college years as some of the best of their lives. For many of us, that means meeting new people and learning new things. For Williamson, it means trying to win a national title and playing against North Carolina on national television.
You don't want to sit and watch your friends have fun in college without you, so why should he be any different?
Daily Rangers Update: The push for the playoffs is certainly underway as we have reached the final 25% of the regular season. The Rangers will play the New Jersey Devils in just about an hour, and this is the type of game that the team really needs to win if they want to reach the postseason. It is still somewhat of a longshot, and I think that we are closer to seeing a few guys dealt at the upcoming trade deadline, but I am still holding out hope that the team can go on a run here and finish the regular season strong.
Daily Giants Update: Reports were out there that Landon Collins may or may not be planning on being somewhere else next season, but the Giants can use the franchise tag on him, and in my opinion, they would be foolish not to do that. Try to hopefully get him re-signed, or at least maybe work out a trade to get something in return for him. I would hate to see him walk away for nothing because he is still very young and could be an anchor on defense for years to come. There is still about a month to go until many of these decisions will have to be made, but the time is getting closer and closer.
Daily NBA Update: I know James Harden has been terrific this season, as have a few other guys, but I really think that Paul George should be the frontrunner for the MVP award right now. He has been absolutely magnificent for an Oklahoma City team that I think has surpassed expectations thus far, even though they looked good coming into the season. Right now, they sit in the third spot in the Western Conference, and George would be my choice for MVP as of today.
Many Hall of Fame basketball players have been produced by the two schools, and there are surely going to be more of them to come for the foreseeable future. Right now, the biggest star in college basketball is Duke's Zion Williamson, and he has been at the center of many arguments based upon what happened to him less than a minute into the game last week.
The entire country was watching and ready to see another game that could be a classic one in a classic rivalry. However, the greatest equalizer in all of sports, the unpredictable injury, struck Williamson in the oddest of ways. He had the ball and went to pivot and then his shoe broke and he went to the floor in pain. He fell down awkwardly and limped off the court, and just like that, the air seemed to be taken out of the building before anyone had even taken their seats. North Carolina went on to win the game quite handily, but the result has been hardly mentioned since Williamson went down.
The debates began, once again, about collegiate athletics, who benefits from the games, who gets exploited, the worthiness of the college experience, and draft rules. Everyone has their opinions on this stuff, and usually everyone has a stance that they will stick with no matter what, and trying to argue it is pretty much like arguing with a brick wall. No one wants to budge.
Personally, I do believe that college athletes are exploited. Ticket prices for that game were getting close to Super Bowl levels, and the players do not get any paychecks, despite being the reason the prices can be that high. They should see some sort of money for being the ones out there. However, I do think that the value of a full college scholarship is constantly overlooked by many people.
I don't mean going to school and joining volunteer clubs or editing newspapers. I mean the actual cost of living at school and going to class. I know people who are paying back student loans a decade after they graduate college. They would all love to have had a full scholarship. Proponents of paying college athletes throw that aside like it is nothing, and, in my opinion, you can't do that. That isn't the main issue in this case though. The issue here is Zion Williamson, and athletes like him. Starting only minutes after he went down, opinions were flying in from everywhere on what this would mean for him, and what it would mean for college sports in general.
It isn't often that athletes become true box office, must-see attractions before they even become professionals, but Williamson has become just that. We don't know what his professional career will end up looking like, but he is probably going to be the first overall pick no matter what, simply because whatever team drafts him will instantly be must see television, even if they aren't any good. Because of that, I heard plenty of people saying he should not step foot on the court again as a college player, and that by doing so, he is only putting himself in danger of missing out on a life-changing amount of money that would come with being taken first overall. I do understand their point of view, but I can't say that I fully agree with it.
I have always believed that kids should be allowed to enter the draft straight out of high school, and I will always believe that. However, the rule right now is that you have to be one year removed from high school before entering the draft. For most players, that means spending one year in college. Some choose to play overseas as a professional, and I think that is totally acceptable. You can get paid right out of high school, just like anyone else in any other field can. The biggest benefit of going to college in the United States for a year though, is you can put your name on the national map and become a main attraction before you even step on to a professional court, and that is what Williamson, like most other high profile young stars, has chosen to do.
When I mentioned getting a full scholarship to college and getting the true "college experience" before, you have to realize that what that experience is varies depending on the individual. For many, the college experience includes going to class and playing frisbee and living away from home for the first time. For people like Williamson, the college experience is much different. His college experience consists of basketball games in front of millions of people. Those are two vastly different things.
When I hear former athletes talk about what they enjoyed the most when they played, the first thing they usually mention is the time they spend with their teammates and being out on the court actually playing. All of the benefits that come with that are obviously nice, but the brotherhood and relationships are what I hear mentioned most often. That is stuff we as fans don't get to fully see or understand, and that is why Williamson shouldn't listen to any outsiders when deciding what he wants to do.
The fall he took looked a bit awkward, but the injury ended up not being too serious, and he should be able to be back to play by March, and in the college basketball world, the month of March is as good as it gets.
Out of all the people who have come out and stated their beliefs on this, the one I most agreed with was Charles Barkley's. Barkley is known to be very outspoken, and not afraid of the consequences of what he says. In this case, he is far more qualified to give advice to Williamson than most people, and I think what he said was perfect.
He said that these kids want to play. Sure, some college football players have begun to sit out bowl games at the end of the season, but that is different. Those are games that have zero meaning relative to the games Duke could be playing in the very near future. Do you think the star player on Duke wants to sit out a game against North Carolina? Absolutely not. Without question they want to be out there. Right now, Duke seems to be on the way to a high seed in the NCAA Tournament, and they certainly have a legitimate chance to win a national title. I would almost guarantee that if you asked Williamson (which it seems no one actually cares to do), he would want to get back on the court as soon as possible.
There is a difference between a college football player sitting out the Idaho Potato Bowl and sitting out a playoff game. It is why no one on a playoff team has ever sat out one of those games with the sole intention of staying healthy for the draft. When Duke is playing in the NCAA Tournament, do you think that Williamson is going to be content sitting on the bench in the name of cautiousness instead of being out on the court with his teammates? No way.
These kids want to play. It is what they have done their entire lives, and it is what they are probably going to do many years into the future as well. All too often, people want to point to these freak injuries as evidence that every aspiring pro athlete should sit in a bubble and wait until they are eligible to be drafted before even daring to put on a uniform. It isn't like Williamson would be the first player drafted with an injury history either. Joel Embiid and Kyrie Irving had injury problems in college and were still drafted very high. Their injuries were also much more serious than Williamson's. Embiid and Irving sat out extended periods of time, while it appears that Williamson is only going to miss a week or two. He should be fully healthy by the opening weekend of the NCAA Tournament, and I would bet that there is no way he would want to miss any of that if he were healthy enough to be out there with his teammates.
The college experience for Zion Williamson is a very unique one that most of us will never be able to really understand. The same can be said for being the top overall pick in the NBA Draft, and right now it looks like Williamson has a chance to experience that as well. He didn't earn those things by running up and down the court afraid of getting hurt, so why should he change that right now? Coaches coach, players play, and us fans sit and watch and try to act like we know what is best for these people when what we say really doesn't matter at all.
No matter how you feel about Charles Barkley, he is far more qualified to give advice to Williamson than 99.9% of us are. If I had to try to predict what will happen though, I would say that the chances of Williamson playing as soon as he can get back on to the court are very high. People often look back at their college years as some of the best of their lives. For many of us, that means meeting new people and learning new things. For Williamson, it means trying to win a national title and playing against North Carolina on national television.
You don't want to sit and watch your friends have fun in college without you, so why should he be any different?
Daily Rangers Update: The push for the playoffs is certainly underway as we have reached the final 25% of the regular season. The Rangers will play the New Jersey Devils in just about an hour, and this is the type of game that the team really needs to win if they want to reach the postseason. It is still somewhat of a longshot, and I think that we are closer to seeing a few guys dealt at the upcoming trade deadline, but I am still holding out hope that the team can go on a run here and finish the regular season strong.
Daily Giants Update: Reports were out there that Landon Collins may or may not be planning on being somewhere else next season, but the Giants can use the franchise tag on him, and in my opinion, they would be foolish not to do that. Try to hopefully get him re-signed, or at least maybe work out a trade to get something in return for him. I would hate to see him walk away for nothing because he is still very young and could be an anchor on defense for years to come. There is still about a month to go until many of these decisions will have to be made, but the time is getting closer and closer.
Daily NBA Update: I know James Harden has been terrific this season, as have a few other guys, but I really think that Paul George should be the frontrunner for the MVP award right now. He has been absolutely magnificent for an Oklahoma City team that I think has surpassed expectations thus far, even though they looked good coming into the season. Right now, they sit in the third spot in the Western Conference, and George would be my choice for MVP as of today.
Monday, February 18, 2019
A very extended offseason
Even the most casual of sports fan, and someone who might complain about baseball for any number of reasons, has to admit that one of the clichés about the sport is true. The smell of fresh cut grass, the crack of the bat, the snap of the catcher's mitt, the mention of places like Sarasota and Scottsdale all make you think of one thing. Along with the beginning of daylight savings time, which is getting closer and closer, the beginning of spring training can only make you feel happy and refreshed. The winter is coming to a close, the weather is about to get warmer, and snow and wool hats will soon be a thing of the past.
Spring training is getting underway this week, and all of those feelings about warm weather will be in the air very soon. As is the case with any sport, the preseason brings about hope and anticipation. Everyone has the same record, and everyone has championship aspirations. Old faces are returning and reuniting at camps, and new faces are being welcomed and embracing their new teammates and surroundings. However, as of today, February 19, 2019, there are a few major faces of baseball who have yet to find a new home and new group of teammates to join.
Last season, the free agent market in baseball was very slow, in the fact that many relevant players did not sign with teams until well into the new calendar year. That has been the case this year as well, only in 2019, many of the players still available are much more than relevant. Many of them are elite players in the primes of their careers.
Manny Machado is 26 years old, has made four All Star teams, and won two Gold Glove awards. Dallas Keuchel is a Cy Young award winner who has made two All Star teams and was a key member of a World Series champion team just two seasons ago. Bryce Harper has made six All Star teams, is a former Rookie of the Year in the National League in 2012, Most Valuable Player in 2015, and arguably one of the best players in the entire sport. Craig Kimbrel has made seven All Star teams, was the National League Rookie of the Year in 2011, and led the league in saves in four different seasons. These guys are key members of their teams. The only problem is, right now, none of them actually have teams. All of them, along with multiple other very good players, remain unsigned.
Would any team in baseball be thrilled to have Machado, Harper, Keuchel, or Kimbrel? Absolutely. So why is it then, that all of them are still looking for new teams? The answer is multi-faceted and highly debated, but if you look at the reasons behind the answer, it actually might not be as surprising as you would think.
Professional football is the sport where the "second contract" of every player is most important. That is, after a player is drafted and plays out their rookie deal, which in many cases does not truly indicate their market value because it is based more upon potential than actual performance, the second contract they sign is the one in which players can really cash in on their talents. Since football is a sport where often times players will not even reach a third contract, that second deal is usually life-altering, but all other professional sports do have somewhat similar circumstances.
The "prime" of a player's career usually occurs from around the time an athlete is in their mid-20's until they reach their early 30's. There are obviously outliers in many cases, but when you are in that age range, you are most likely to be able to sign very lucrative deals, and Machado and Harper are the perfect examples of that.
Through the first seven years of Harper's career, he has averaged 26 home runs and 74 RBI per season. Play that out until, say, he reaches the age of 34, he will have hit 392 career home runs and driven in over 1,000 runs. Those are already borderline Hall of Fame numbers, and Harper could still probably play even longer than that and approach 500 career home runs.
Over that same span, Machado has averaged 25 home runs and 73 RBI. Those are pretty much identical numbers, so clearly both men certainly have the chance to put up unbelievably elite statistics over the course of their careers. And that only stretches out until both men turn 34. It is likely that they will both play longer than that, so why in the hell does it seem like no one wants either of them right now? The answer to that is a mix of a number of things.
In 2001, at the age of 25, Alex Rodriguez signed an unprecedented contract with the Texas Rangers. 10 years for $252 million. I remember seeing both of those numbers and being absolutely floored by how big they were, and I was not the only baseball fan who felt that way. Sure, Rodriguez was already a great player who was just entering the prime of his career, but a 10 year contract? For that much money? Wow.
After Rodriguez did sign the deal, he more than proved he was worth the money initially, as he averaged over 50 home runs and 130 RBI over the first three seasons. However, the problem was, the Rangers never actually made the playoffs with Rodriguez on the team, despite the fact that he did win the MVP award in 2003. Three years later, Rodriguez was playing for the New York Yankees. The Rangers had paid him for 10 years, and only got three years worth of production, even though the production was outstanding.
The case of Rodriguez is not an anomaly either. Following eleven magnificent seasons in St. Louis, the Anaheim Angels signed Albert Pujols to a 10 year deal worth $240 million when Pujols was 32 years old. That means Pujols will be making $24 million when he is 42 years old. While he is already a surefire Hall of Famer, the fact that he will be making that amount of money at that age seems not even close to worth the original deal. Right now, Pujols is an every day designated hitter who can occasionally play some first base, and he still has three more years left on that mega-deal. Robinson Cano, who signed an almost identical contract in 2014, is at nearly the exact same point in his career, yet he still has five more years of money coming to him.
To put it in terms that are more easily understood, the history of these mega-deals for a whole lot of money and a whole lot of years usually do not turn out to be worth it for the club that initially makes the offer. The players no doubt love the long term security of years and money, but general managers and ballclubs have become aware that these contracts prove more of a detriment to them than a benefit.
So, that brings us back to the cases of Harper and Machado. Both of those players have seen similarly talented players in the position they find themselves in now put their signatures on gigantic deals. Then why should these two guys seek anything different? It makes sense from their point of view. However, clubs have seen how these big contracts have a history of not working out over the long run, and now they are balking at what these guys are demanding. The ten year contracts signed by Rodriguez, Pujols, and Cano have not worked out for the teams signing those checks for even half the life of the deals, let alone the duration of the contracts, and that brings us to the stalemate we are at right now.
The players have seen the precedents set by their predecessors, but the teams have seen the precedents set as well. Both sides right now are firmly entrenched in their beliefs, and I cannot blame either side for feeling the way that they do. Are these free agents who still remain unsigned worth the money that Pujols or Rodriguez made? The case could be made that they are. However, is that money worth being spent by clubs looking to sign them? The case seems to be pretty much closed that they are not.
Will Harper, Machado, Keuchel, Kimbrel, and all of these other very good free agents still out there eventually sign somewhere? Yes, they will. For that to happen, both sides are going to have to make concessions though. Is Bryce Harper or Craig Kimbrel willing to sit out an entire season and earn no money just to prove a point? The answer to that is unquestionably, no. Are there teams out there willing to pass on an unsigned Manny Machado or Dallas Keuchel? The answer to that is also unquestionably, no.
These guys are all going to eventually end up suiting up for some team out there. At this point, the only question is when it will actually happen. They are all too talented to pass up, and every club out there knows that. Right now, because we are short on things to talk about when it comes to baseball, these guys are the main focus. Once the games begin and they eventually find homes though, fans will most likely forget about this very extended and odd period of free agency. After all, the temperature is beginning to rise, the bat is starting to crack, and the mitts are starting to snap. Baseball season is getting closer and closer, and no matter what team you cheer for, that can only be a good thing.
Daily Rangers Update: After a tough loss in Pittsburgh this past Sunday, the Rangers will be on the road to face the Hurricanes tomorrow night. There are 24 games left to play, and this would be the perfect game to win, as Carolina is ahead of the Rangers in the standings, but can surely be beaten.
Daily Giants Update: To the surprise of pretty much no one, Landon Collins received the franchise tag by the Giants, and that hopefully means he will be in New York at least through the upcoming season, and maybe even longer than that. We are not far enough along into the offseason to get a true sense of what the plans are for the team this season, but with some of the young core nearing possible free agency, this draft will definitely be important in showing what we might have in store for us for the next few years.
Daily NBA Update: The All Star game was this past weekend, and I watched none of it, as I am becoming less and less interested in the NBA season as it goes on. So much of the focus seems to be off the court and about possible offseason moves, and we still have half the season to play. As I have said before though, I am impressed at the ability of the league to stay so relevant when the conclusion of the season will almost certainly be like last year and the year before that, because one team is so much better than all of the others.
Spring training is getting underway this week, and all of those feelings about warm weather will be in the air very soon. As is the case with any sport, the preseason brings about hope and anticipation. Everyone has the same record, and everyone has championship aspirations. Old faces are returning and reuniting at camps, and new faces are being welcomed and embracing their new teammates and surroundings. However, as of today, February 19, 2019, there are a few major faces of baseball who have yet to find a new home and new group of teammates to join.
Last season, the free agent market in baseball was very slow, in the fact that many relevant players did not sign with teams until well into the new calendar year. That has been the case this year as well, only in 2019, many of the players still available are much more than relevant. Many of them are elite players in the primes of their careers.
Manny Machado is 26 years old, has made four All Star teams, and won two Gold Glove awards. Dallas Keuchel is a Cy Young award winner who has made two All Star teams and was a key member of a World Series champion team just two seasons ago. Bryce Harper has made six All Star teams, is a former Rookie of the Year in the National League in 2012, Most Valuable Player in 2015, and arguably one of the best players in the entire sport. Craig Kimbrel has made seven All Star teams, was the National League Rookie of the Year in 2011, and led the league in saves in four different seasons. These guys are key members of their teams. The only problem is, right now, none of them actually have teams. All of them, along with multiple other very good players, remain unsigned.
Would any team in baseball be thrilled to have Machado, Harper, Keuchel, or Kimbrel? Absolutely. So why is it then, that all of them are still looking for new teams? The answer is multi-faceted and highly debated, but if you look at the reasons behind the answer, it actually might not be as surprising as you would think.
Professional football is the sport where the "second contract" of every player is most important. That is, after a player is drafted and plays out their rookie deal, which in many cases does not truly indicate their market value because it is based more upon potential than actual performance, the second contract they sign is the one in which players can really cash in on their talents. Since football is a sport where often times players will not even reach a third contract, that second deal is usually life-altering, but all other professional sports do have somewhat similar circumstances.
The "prime" of a player's career usually occurs from around the time an athlete is in their mid-20's until they reach their early 30's. There are obviously outliers in many cases, but when you are in that age range, you are most likely to be able to sign very lucrative deals, and Machado and Harper are the perfect examples of that.
Through the first seven years of Harper's career, he has averaged 26 home runs and 74 RBI per season. Play that out until, say, he reaches the age of 34, he will have hit 392 career home runs and driven in over 1,000 runs. Those are already borderline Hall of Fame numbers, and Harper could still probably play even longer than that and approach 500 career home runs.
Over that same span, Machado has averaged 25 home runs and 73 RBI. Those are pretty much identical numbers, so clearly both men certainly have the chance to put up unbelievably elite statistics over the course of their careers. And that only stretches out until both men turn 34. It is likely that they will both play longer than that, so why in the hell does it seem like no one wants either of them right now? The answer to that is a mix of a number of things.
In 2001, at the age of 25, Alex Rodriguez signed an unprecedented contract with the Texas Rangers. 10 years for $252 million. I remember seeing both of those numbers and being absolutely floored by how big they were, and I was not the only baseball fan who felt that way. Sure, Rodriguez was already a great player who was just entering the prime of his career, but a 10 year contract? For that much money? Wow.
After Rodriguez did sign the deal, he more than proved he was worth the money initially, as he averaged over 50 home runs and 130 RBI over the first three seasons. However, the problem was, the Rangers never actually made the playoffs with Rodriguez on the team, despite the fact that he did win the MVP award in 2003. Three years later, Rodriguez was playing for the New York Yankees. The Rangers had paid him for 10 years, and only got three years worth of production, even though the production was outstanding.
The case of Rodriguez is not an anomaly either. Following eleven magnificent seasons in St. Louis, the Anaheim Angels signed Albert Pujols to a 10 year deal worth $240 million when Pujols was 32 years old. That means Pujols will be making $24 million when he is 42 years old. While he is already a surefire Hall of Famer, the fact that he will be making that amount of money at that age seems not even close to worth the original deal. Right now, Pujols is an every day designated hitter who can occasionally play some first base, and he still has three more years left on that mega-deal. Robinson Cano, who signed an almost identical contract in 2014, is at nearly the exact same point in his career, yet he still has five more years of money coming to him.
To put it in terms that are more easily understood, the history of these mega-deals for a whole lot of money and a whole lot of years usually do not turn out to be worth it for the club that initially makes the offer. The players no doubt love the long term security of years and money, but general managers and ballclubs have become aware that these contracts prove more of a detriment to them than a benefit.
So, that brings us back to the cases of Harper and Machado. Both of those players have seen similarly talented players in the position they find themselves in now put their signatures on gigantic deals. Then why should these two guys seek anything different? It makes sense from their point of view. However, clubs have seen how these big contracts have a history of not working out over the long run, and now they are balking at what these guys are demanding. The ten year contracts signed by Rodriguez, Pujols, and Cano have not worked out for the teams signing those checks for even half the life of the deals, let alone the duration of the contracts, and that brings us to the stalemate we are at right now.
The players have seen the precedents set by their predecessors, but the teams have seen the precedents set as well. Both sides right now are firmly entrenched in their beliefs, and I cannot blame either side for feeling the way that they do. Are these free agents who still remain unsigned worth the money that Pujols or Rodriguez made? The case could be made that they are. However, is that money worth being spent by clubs looking to sign them? The case seems to be pretty much closed that they are not.
Will Harper, Machado, Keuchel, Kimbrel, and all of these other very good free agents still out there eventually sign somewhere? Yes, they will. For that to happen, both sides are going to have to make concessions though. Is Bryce Harper or Craig Kimbrel willing to sit out an entire season and earn no money just to prove a point? The answer to that is unquestionably, no. Are there teams out there willing to pass on an unsigned Manny Machado or Dallas Keuchel? The answer to that is also unquestionably, no.
These guys are all going to eventually end up suiting up for some team out there. At this point, the only question is when it will actually happen. They are all too talented to pass up, and every club out there knows that. Right now, because we are short on things to talk about when it comes to baseball, these guys are the main focus. Once the games begin and they eventually find homes though, fans will most likely forget about this very extended and odd period of free agency. After all, the temperature is beginning to rise, the bat is starting to crack, and the mitts are starting to snap. Baseball season is getting closer and closer, and no matter what team you cheer for, that can only be a good thing.
Daily Rangers Update: After a tough loss in Pittsburgh this past Sunday, the Rangers will be on the road to face the Hurricanes tomorrow night. There are 24 games left to play, and this would be the perfect game to win, as Carolina is ahead of the Rangers in the standings, but can surely be beaten.
Daily Giants Update: To the surprise of pretty much no one, Landon Collins received the franchise tag by the Giants, and that hopefully means he will be in New York at least through the upcoming season, and maybe even longer than that. We are not far enough along into the offseason to get a true sense of what the plans are for the team this season, but with some of the young core nearing possible free agency, this draft will definitely be important in showing what we might have in store for us for the next few years.
Daily NBA Update: The All Star game was this past weekend, and I watched none of it, as I am becoming less and less interested in the NBA season as it goes on. So much of the focus seems to be off the court and about possible offseason moves, and we still have half the season to play. As I have said before though, I am impressed at the ability of the league to stay so relevant when the conclusion of the season will almost certainly be like last year and the year before that, because one team is so much better than all of the others.
Monday, February 11, 2019
An unfortunate hypocrisy
I was going to write about Bob Costas today, because I feel like the story of him being removed from NBC's Super Bowl broadcast last season has been drastically overlooked by the national sports world, but news broke a few hours ago that brought about reactions that I feel more strongly about, so I will have to save the Costas story for another time.
After video surfaced of Kareem Hunt abusing a woman, he was released by the Kansas City Chiefs last December. Today, he was signed by the Cleveland Browns. I was not surprised by him signing with another team at all, and I think any NFL fan with a sense of reality should not be surprised by it either. Hunt led the NFL in rushing yards as a rookie in 2017, and was seen as an intricate piece of the Chiefs offense going forward, prior to his release. With Patrick Mahomes, Tyreek Hill, Travis Kelce, and a bunch of other weapons, it seemed like Kansas City could possibly have the best offense in the entire NFL. Even without Hunt, they still were a high-powered scoring machine this past season. With such a young group of star players, it seems like they will only get better too. However, just like Ray Rice, after video surfaced of Hunt's actions, it seemed like the Chiefs had no choice but to release him.
Now that the season has ended, it was only a matter of time before he was picked up, and today happened to be that day. Hunt is still on the commissioner's exempt list, and will face a suspension for at least part of the upcoming season, and maybe the entire season. Despite that, the Browns still signed Hunt.
John Dorsey, the former general manager of the Chiefs, and current general manager of the Browns, drafted Hunt prior to the 2017 season, and he said that his relationship with Hunt prior to his release by Kansas City played a role in Cleveland signing the running back. Dorsey claimed that he knew Hunt was a good person, and said that there will be strict guidelines that Hunt will have to follow in order to maintain his spot on the roster in Cleveland. All of that is probably true as well. Dorsey did personally know Hunt prior to his release, and I'm sure Hunt will have to abide by any guidelines that the Browns put in place. My problem is not with that. What I have felt strongly about though, is the immediate reaction to Hunt's signing by men inside and outside the Browns organization.
Everyone I have heard comment on this since the news broke has been a man, mainly because the talking heads on television in the football world are almost all men. They played the sport, the worked in the sport, and they are the ones who usually comment on the sport in the national media. It makes sense that they would be the ones to initially react to Hunt's signing, and I have heard them all say pretty much the exact same thing, and it all begins with a laughably dishonest qualifier.
Before listing all of the positive things Hunt can do for the Browns, they all start by making some type of comment on how domestic violence is a terrible thing, and that Hunt should be ashamed of his actions. Then, after that there is nothing but praise for Hunt and for the Browns. Just get the bogus, disingenuous claim out there, and everything is fine after that. Domestic violence is bad, Hunt is a bad guy, and now that that's out of the way, let's talk about how great of a running back he is. It is so transparent that I don't know if I should call it comical or pathetic.
Once Hunt serves his suspension, however long it may be, are any male Cleveland Browns fans going to care about that video if he runs for 1,000 yards and scores a bunch of touchdowns? Absolutely not. They are going to cheer as loud as they can for him and totally forget anything he ever did before he signed with their team. The Browns had a pretty nice season, at least by their standards, in 2018, and they have some young and talented players, especially on the offensive side of the football.
If Hunt teams up with Baker Mayfield and Jarvis Landry to form a fearsome trifecta of talent, the fans are not going to care one bit about what Hunt did. Sure, he will have to abide by strict guidelines or whatever the organization wants to call it, but if he doesn't hit any more women on camera, it won't matter.
And I am sorry to say it, but if the same thing happened with Saquon Barkley, I would probably do the exact same thing. Hunt did not face charges for what he did, and no arrests were made either, so in the eyes of the legal system, what he did was not worthy of any kind of punishment. However, we did see the video, and it speaks for itself. Yet, in the world of the NFL, not too many people care about it.
Winning supposedly cures most problems within locker rooms, and the same can be said for any problems fans might have with their teams or players on their teams. If Hunt plays well, the Browns and their fans (and by fans, I mean male fans) will say he served his suspension and was not charged by the legal system, so it will justify them falling in love with him. If he doesn't perform well, then they will say that the team never should have signed him in the first place, and he is a terrible person for what he did.
Like I said, I would probably react the same way if I found out that Saquon Barkley or Odell Beckham were in a situation identical to the one Hunt is in. I would vilify them for what they did, but if they served a suspension and came back scoring touchdowns, I wouldn't really care. Maybe every once in a while I would remember to throw a fraudulent apology out there for supporting the guy, but I wouldn't really mean it. If they didn't perform well, the story would be far different, and I would forever curse their character and ability.
I would like to hear from female Browns fans what they think of the team signing Hunt, or even just female football fans in general. Maybe they would have no problem with him being on the team, I can't say. One thing I can say with certainty though, is that any male fan who throws a quick condemnation of domestic violence in before going on a tribute to Hunt's talent is being totally hypocritical and phony.
Daily Giants Update: In another piece of breaking football news, Kyler Murray officially declared for the NFL Draft today. He is definitely talented, but I think his size is really not suited for a long term career as a quarterback. I am hoping he is not even available when the Giants pick sixth overall, as therefore they won't even have a chance to consider taking him.
Daily Rangers Update: Alexander Georgiev was absolutely brilliant last night as the Rangers beat a very good Toronto Maple Leafs team by a score of 4-1. I find the team very fun to watch, but with the trade deadline approaching, I am fearful some guys may be on the way out, as even if the Rangers do make the playoffs, they probably won't do much damage. Hopefully I am wrong, because the team is very likeable right now, despite not being a powerhouse.
Daily NBA Update: Teams in the Eastern Conference all seem to be trying to separate themselves from each other with the belief that they can reach the NBA Finals. Once they get there, I still do not see any possible way they can beat the Warriors, unless somehow the Warriors are knocked out by a team in the Western Conference. In a seven game series though, I just cannot see that happening, and despite all of the drama of the NBA season on and off the court, I really believe that the Warriors are still just better than everyone else.
After video surfaced of Kareem Hunt abusing a woman, he was released by the Kansas City Chiefs last December. Today, he was signed by the Cleveland Browns. I was not surprised by him signing with another team at all, and I think any NFL fan with a sense of reality should not be surprised by it either. Hunt led the NFL in rushing yards as a rookie in 2017, and was seen as an intricate piece of the Chiefs offense going forward, prior to his release. With Patrick Mahomes, Tyreek Hill, Travis Kelce, and a bunch of other weapons, it seemed like Kansas City could possibly have the best offense in the entire NFL. Even without Hunt, they still were a high-powered scoring machine this past season. With such a young group of star players, it seems like they will only get better too. However, just like Ray Rice, after video surfaced of Hunt's actions, it seemed like the Chiefs had no choice but to release him.
Now that the season has ended, it was only a matter of time before he was picked up, and today happened to be that day. Hunt is still on the commissioner's exempt list, and will face a suspension for at least part of the upcoming season, and maybe the entire season. Despite that, the Browns still signed Hunt.
John Dorsey, the former general manager of the Chiefs, and current general manager of the Browns, drafted Hunt prior to the 2017 season, and he said that his relationship with Hunt prior to his release by Kansas City played a role in Cleveland signing the running back. Dorsey claimed that he knew Hunt was a good person, and said that there will be strict guidelines that Hunt will have to follow in order to maintain his spot on the roster in Cleveland. All of that is probably true as well. Dorsey did personally know Hunt prior to his release, and I'm sure Hunt will have to abide by any guidelines that the Browns put in place. My problem is not with that. What I have felt strongly about though, is the immediate reaction to Hunt's signing by men inside and outside the Browns organization.
Everyone I have heard comment on this since the news broke has been a man, mainly because the talking heads on television in the football world are almost all men. They played the sport, the worked in the sport, and they are the ones who usually comment on the sport in the national media. It makes sense that they would be the ones to initially react to Hunt's signing, and I have heard them all say pretty much the exact same thing, and it all begins with a laughably dishonest qualifier.
Before listing all of the positive things Hunt can do for the Browns, they all start by making some type of comment on how domestic violence is a terrible thing, and that Hunt should be ashamed of his actions. Then, after that there is nothing but praise for Hunt and for the Browns. Just get the bogus, disingenuous claim out there, and everything is fine after that. Domestic violence is bad, Hunt is a bad guy, and now that that's out of the way, let's talk about how great of a running back he is. It is so transparent that I don't know if I should call it comical or pathetic.
Once Hunt serves his suspension, however long it may be, are any male Cleveland Browns fans going to care about that video if he runs for 1,000 yards and scores a bunch of touchdowns? Absolutely not. They are going to cheer as loud as they can for him and totally forget anything he ever did before he signed with their team. The Browns had a pretty nice season, at least by their standards, in 2018, and they have some young and talented players, especially on the offensive side of the football.
If Hunt teams up with Baker Mayfield and Jarvis Landry to form a fearsome trifecta of talent, the fans are not going to care one bit about what Hunt did. Sure, he will have to abide by strict guidelines or whatever the organization wants to call it, but if he doesn't hit any more women on camera, it won't matter.
And I am sorry to say it, but if the same thing happened with Saquon Barkley, I would probably do the exact same thing. Hunt did not face charges for what he did, and no arrests were made either, so in the eyes of the legal system, what he did was not worthy of any kind of punishment. However, we did see the video, and it speaks for itself. Yet, in the world of the NFL, not too many people care about it.
Winning supposedly cures most problems within locker rooms, and the same can be said for any problems fans might have with their teams or players on their teams. If Hunt plays well, the Browns and their fans (and by fans, I mean male fans) will say he served his suspension and was not charged by the legal system, so it will justify them falling in love with him. If he doesn't perform well, then they will say that the team never should have signed him in the first place, and he is a terrible person for what he did.
Like I said, I would probably react the same way if I found out that Saquon Barkley or Odell Beckham were in a situation identical to the one Hunt is in. I would vilify them for what they did, but if they served a suspension and came back scoring touchdowns, I wouldn't really care. Maybe every once in a while I would remember to throw a fraudulent apology out there for supporting the guy, but I wouldn't really mean it. If they didn't perform well, the story would be far different, and I would forever curse their character and ability.
I would like to hear from female Browns fans what they think of the team signing Hunt, or even just female football fans in general. Maybe they would have no problem with him being on the team, I can't say. One thing I can say with certainty though, is that any male fan who throws a quick condemnation of domestic violence in before going on a tribute to Hunt's talent is being totally hypocritical and phony.
Daily Giants Update: In another piece of breaking football news, Kyler Murray officially declared for the NFL Draft today. He is definitely talented, but I think his size is really not suited for a long term career as a quarterback. I am hoping he is not even available when the Giants pick sixth overall, as therefore they won't even have a chance to consider taking him.
Daily Rangers Update: Alexander Georgiev was absolutely brilliant last night as the Rangers beat a very good Toronto Maple Leafs team by a score of 4-1. I find the team very fun to watch, but with the trade deadline approaching, I am fearful some guys may be on the way out, as even if the Rangers do make the playoffs, they probably won't do much damage. Hopefully I am wrong, because the team is very likeable right now, despite not being a powerhouse.
Daily NBA Update: Teams in the Eastern Conference all seem to be trying to separate themselves from each other with the belief that they can reach the NBA Finals. Once they get there, I still do not see any possible way they can beat the Warriors, unless somehow the Warriors are knocked out by a team in the Western Conference. In a seven game series though, I just cannot see that happening, and despite all of the drama of the NBA season on and off the court, I really believe that the Warriors are still just better than everyone else.
Saturday, February 2, 2019
One case where math is certainly stupid
In another example of how the NBA, a league where the championship is as close to a foregone conclusion as we have in sports, is still managing to grow even more and more, trade rumors surrounding Anthony Davis are sharing headlines with the Super Bowl. The biggest and most viewed television spectacle is just over 24 hours away, but the New Orleans Pelicans are stealing some of the spotlight. As I have said before, it is a testament to the growth of the NBA that this is happening. However, that isn't really what I want to focus on right now.
With any trade rumors in any sport, players are critiqued and their values are estimated by anyone and everyone. How much is this player worth to this team? In this case, we are all wondering how much the Pelicans will ask for in return if they do end up trading Davis. One of the methods for calculating his value that I have seen used is this thing called Player Efficiency Rating, known for short as PER. Davis has the third best PER of all time, behind only Michael Jordan and LeBron James. Therefore, it seems like the Pelicans should be asking for a ton in return for him, at least according to this rating.
Basketball isn't the only sport where new metrics like this are being used to grade players. It actually started with sabermetrics in baseball, and what is supposed to be the greatest evaluation of a player ever created, Wins Above Replacement, otherwise known as WAR. That way of thinking now has spread to many other sports. This new-fangled numbers are supposed to be better ways of measuring the values of players than old-fashioned things like batting average or points scored per game.
For the most part, people fall into one of two categories when it comes to these relatively modern measurements. You either hate them or you love them. I always thought things like WAR and PER were stupid. They seemed like random numbers that supposedly told us who the best players were, but nobody knew how to calculate them. You just said Mike Trout had a WAR of this number or Anthony Davis had a PER of this number and that was it. That was all you needed to prove their values.
So since I have seen so many people use Davis' PER as a way to show how good and valuable he is, I decided to actually look up just how to calculate the PER of a player. After I looked up how to do it, I no longer think it is stupid. I now think it is absolutely ridiculous and far stupider than I ever could have imagined.
Basketball-reference.com has a breakdown of how to calculate the PER of any player, and you can look it up there, but to help me make my point, I want to write it here as well. This is how you calculate PER:
Come on. I knew it was stupid, but I didn't think it was that stupid.
Then, in case you don't know what all of those abbreviations mean, you can find that out in John Hollinger's book, which is on sale on Amazon.com for $19.95.
Being a basketball fan, I can figure out what most of those abbreviations mean, but I have no idea what a VOP is, and I don't know what lg Free Throws are as opposed to just regular Free Throws. Also, the 0.44 and 0.56 have to correspond to something similar since they add up to exactly 1, but I don't know what that correspondence is.
At the end of it all, what I need to calculate the PER of a basketball player is a large list of statistics, a spreadsheet to input that formula into, at least about 10 minutes, and also $19.95. Stop it. Get the hell out of here with that idiotic nonsense of a statistic.
I looked at the list of all-time leaders in PER, which is supposedly one of the best ways we have to equally compare players across the entire sport. It rates Amar'e Stoudemire and Andre Drummond higher than Hall of Famers Bob Lanier and Allen Iverson, and it rates Greg Monroe and someone named John Brisker higher than Kevin McHale and Steve Nash. Anyone who has ever seen five minutes of basketball can tell you that makes absolutely zero sense.
I researched how to calculate WAR in baseball, and the formula was pretty similar to the PER formula. Long and full of a whole bunch of signs and variables and symbols.
I remember when the Cleveland Browns hired a bunch of guys to run their front office who were from the baseball world but supposedly great with this analytics. It didn't matter that baseball wasn't the same sport as football. They were all so smart that it wouldn't matter. Then what happened over a two year span in Cleveland? The Browns went 1-31 and everyone got fired.
In the late 1990's and early 2000's, Billy Beane and the Oakland Athletics were famous for their "moneyball" philosophies. Oakland was unable to spend as much money as some teams from bigger markets, but we were told that their mathematicians and thrifty geeks had all the answers. What happened to those teams? They would lose every season to the Yankees or Red Sox or other teams with big payrolls.
The point of all of this is I hate these metrics and equations that are supposed to be the definitive ways to evaluate players. WAR is supposed to say how many wins any given player is worth to a team as opposed to if a replacement level player were in the same spot. So my team will win more games with Mookie Betts in the lineup than it will if I put Brock Holt there? Really? Wow, what an earth-shattering discovery that is!
Can Mookie Betts hit 30 home runs and drive in 100 runs? Yes. Can Brock Holt do that? No.
Anthony Davis can go out there every night, score 20 points, grab 10 rebounds, and play great defense. I don't care what his efficiency rating per adjusted 48 minutes is.
Davis is a great player, and it will take a lot for the Pelicans to trade him. It's simple. Just don't try to show me his value based on some number that you can't even calculate yourself. Even if you have the time to plug all those VOP's and lgFTA's into a spreadsheet and that $19.95 for John Hollinger's book, I still don't care.
Daily NFL Update: Super Bowl Sunday is literally only hours away now. That's pretty much all that needs to be said.
Daily Rangers Update: After a nice road win in New Jersey capped off by a Mika Zibanejad hat trick, the Rangers will have a serious test tonight against the Tampa Bay Lightning, who have been the best team in the league this season pretty much from day one.
Daily NBA Update: The Bucks, Raptors, Nuggets, and Warriors continue to impress at the top of the standings. On the other end of the spectrum, the race to the bottom of the standings and the number one pick are on as well, with the frontrunners right now being the Cavs, Knicks, Suns, and Bulls.
With any trade rumors in any sport, players are critiqued and their values are estimated by anyone and everyone. How much is this player worth to this team? In this case, we are all wondering how much the Pelicans will ask for in return if they do end up trading Davis. One of the methods for calculating his value that I have seen used is this thing called Player Efficiency Rating, known for short as PER. Davis has the third best PER of all time, behind only Michael Jordan and LeBron James. Therefore, it seems like the Pelicans should be asking for a ton in return for him, at least according to this rating.
Basketball isn't the only sport where new metrics like this are being used to grade players. It actually started with sabermetrics in baseball, and what is supposed to be the greatest evaluation of a player ever created, Wins Above Replacement, otherwise known as WAR. That way of thinking now has spread to many other sports. This new-fangled numbers are supposed to be better ways of measuring the values of players than old-fashioned things like batting average or points scored per game.
For the most part, people fall into one of two categories when it comes to these relatively modern measurements. You either hate them or you love them. I always thought things like WAR and PER were stupid. They seemed like random numbers that supposedly told us who the best players were, but nobody knew how to calculate them. You just said Mike Trout had a WAR of this number or Anthony Davis had a PER of this number and that was it. That was all you needed to prove their values.
So since I have seen so many people use Davis' PER as a way to show how good and valuable he is, I decided to actually look up just how to calculate the PER of a player. After I looked up how to do it, I no longer think it is stupid. I now think it is absolutely ridiculous and far stupider than I ever could have imagined.
Basketball-reference.com has a breakdown of how to calculate the PER of any player, and you can look it up there, but to help me make my point, I want to write it here as well. This is how you calculate PER:
(1/MP) x [3P + (2/3) x AST + (2-factor x (team AST/team FG)) x FG + (FT x 0.5 x (1+(1-(team AST/team FG)) + (2/3) x (team AST/team FG))) - VOP x TOV - VOP x DRB% x (FGA-FG) - VOP x 0.44 x (0.44 + (0.56 x DRB%)) x (FTA-FT) + VOP x (1-DRB%) x (TRB-ORB) + VOP x DRB% x ORB + VOP x STL + VOP x DRB% x BLK - PF x ((lg FT/lg PF) - 0.44 x (lg FTA/lg PF) x VOP)]
Come on. I knew it was stupid, but I didn't think it was that stupid.
Then, in case you don't know what all of those abbreviations mean, you can find that out in John Hollinger's book, which is on sale on Amazon.com for $19.95.
Being a basketball fan, I can figure out what most of those abbreviations mean, but I have no idea what a VOP is, and I don't know what lg Free Throws are as opposed to just regular Free Throws. Also, the 0.44 and 0.56 have to correspond to something similar since they add up to exactly 1, but I don't know what that correspondence is.
At the end of it all, what I need to calculate the PER of a basketball player is a large list of statistics, a spreadsheet to input that formula into, at least about 10 minutes, and also $19.95. Stop it. Get the hell out of here with that idiotic nonsense of a statistic.
I looked at the list of all-time leaders in PER, which is supposedly one of the best ways we have to equally compare players across the entire sport. It rates Amar'e Stoudemire and Andre Drummond higher than Hall of Famers Bob Lanier and Allen Iverson, and it rates Greg Monroe and someone named John Brisker higher than Kevin McHale and Steve Nash. Anyone who has ever seen five minutes of basketball can tell you that makes absolutely zero sense.
I researched how to calculate WAR in baseball, and the formula was pretty similar to the PER formula. Long and full of a whole bunch of signs and variables and symbols.
I remember when the Cleveland Browns hired a bunch of guys to run their front office who were from the baseball world but supposedly great with this analytics. It didn't matter that baseball wasn't the same sport as football. They were all so smart that it wouldn't matter. Then what happened over a two year span in Cleveland? The Browns went 1-31 and everyone got fired.
In the late 1990's and early 2000's, Billy Beane and the Oakland Athletics were famous for their "moneyball" philosophies. Oakland was unable to spend as much money as some teams from bigger markets, but we were told that their mathematicians and thrifty geeks had all the answers. What happened to those teams? They would lose every season to the Yankees or Red Sox or other teams with big payrolls.
The point of all of this is I hate these metrics and equations that are supposed to be the definitive ways to evaluate players. WAR is supposed to say how many wins any given player is worth to a team as opposed to if a replacement level player were in the same spot. So my team will win more games with Mookie Betts in the lineup than it will if I put Brock Holt there? Really? Wow, what an earth-shattering discovery that is!
Can Mookie Betts hit 30 home runs and drive in 100 runs? Yes. Can Brock Holt do that? No.
Anthony Davis can go out there every night, score 20 points, grab 10 rebounds, and play great defense. I don't care what his efficiency rating per adjusted 48 minutes is.
Davis is a great player, and it will take a lot for the Pelicans to trade him. It's simple. Just don't try to show me his value based on some number that you can't even calculate yourself. Even if you have the time to plug all those VOP's and lgFTA's into a spreadsheet and that $19.95 for John Hollinger's book, I still don't care.
Daily NFL Update: Super Bowl Sunday is literally only hours away now. That's pretty much all that needs to be said.
Daily Rangers Update: After a nice road win in New Jersey capped off by a Mika Zibanejad hat trick, the Rangers will have a serious test tonight against the Tampa Bay Lightning, who have been the best team in the league this season pretty much from day one.
Daily NBA Update: The Bucks, Raptors, Nuggets, and Warriors continue to impress at the top of the standings. On the other end of the spectrum, the race to the bottom of the standings and the number one pick are on as well, with the frontrunners right now being the Cavs, Knicks, Suns, and Bulls.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)