I was really being a drama queen about that Colorado History Day last week. For one, I was able to set up a TV in my office and watch some of the coverage, but more to the point, I wish I hadn't bothered.
First off, it took about a week and a half until the Broncos drafted thanks to that weird, "No, thanks, we don't really want a No. 1 this year" decision, but oh, the picks they made!
2nd round, 56th pick overall: Darrent Williams, CB, Oklahoma State. So the Broncos pick up a very athletic corner. Unfortunately, he's a guy with some character issues who was suspended for last year's bowl game, which put a cap on a pretty horrendous senior campaign. Earlier in his career he was productive and has big-play ability as a corner and returner. But is anyone else scared by the fact that he's 5-8, 176? What other team would see that Randy Moss had joined the division and say, you know what, we'd really like to get smaller in the defensive backfield?
3rd round, 76th overall: Karl Paymah, CB, Washington State: I know Champ Bailey had a bad year, but come on. Broncos pick up another corner, yet I'm actually a little intrigued by Paymah, a 6-foot, 204-lb. guy who runs a 4.35. He got marked down for playing slower than his speed would have you believe. What does that mean? Does he jog in games?
3rd round, 97th overall: Domonique Foxworth, CB, Maryland. What with the Moss trade and the Colts ending our last two seasons, you may have noticed a trend in our picks. Apparently Sham-nahan plans to use the 5-11, 184 Foxworth as the ninth corner in our revolutionary Sacajawea dollar 0-0-11 defense next season.
3rd round, 101st overall: Maurice Clarett, RB, Ohio State. So last week I said there wasn't anybody in the draft I really hated. I lied. I just assumed this guy had gotten enough coverage and we could all laugh when he went undrafted.
Ignoring the rather-relevant character concerns, just as a player, what's the upside? My oldest brother used to compare my toughness and athletic ability to that of my grandmother and that's the first thing that comes to mind here speed-wise. So Clarett's not very fast, but we can't ignore the talent as a power back, can we?
I can. My memory of Clarett in college comes from that 2003 Fiesta Bowl upset of Miami, which the Buckeyes won despite his horrific game. Twenty-three carries for forty-seven yards. That Miami defense was made up of the kind of guys who play at the next level. I don't see him getting it done in the NFL.
You know how when you watch college football you have to sit through those cheesy commercials about what great universities are is being represented on the field? Ninety percent of the time those commercials are so cheap they just make the school look worse. I think a better strategy for Ohio State would be to buy time on Monday Night Football this year. After this pick introduces himself with a lot of strutting and a, "Maurice Clarett, running back, THE Ohio State University" they can get on there and say, "No, actually, we've got nothing to do with this guy." That would send my opinion of the place through the roof.
Lazy analysts always say, "You could plug anyone into Denver's system and they'd get 1,000 yards." Well, if that's the case, why didn't we draft anybody else instead of this clown?
Dumb, dumb pick.
6th round, 200th overall: Chris Myers, guard, Miami. I don't really have anything against this pick-Myers played a bunch of positions at Miami and started for a long time on a pretty successful team, so I guess in the sixth round he's worth a look. Perhaps much can be made about the fact that he's listed at 300 and gee, the Broncos usually don't have guys that big. I love that angle, because we've always got players who check in at like 295, which is supposed to be much, much smaller.
7th round, 239th overall: Paul Ernster, P, Northern Arizona. This guy can hopefully compete for the punter/kickoff specialist spot on our team, which shouldn't be too hard, considering the human refuse we've had populating that position. OK, they might have been good people, just bad football players. Ernster does have a strong leg.
Overall, I don't know if I've ever seen a team do so badly and be so pleased about it. As Coach Shanahan told the Denver Post, "We really don't have many more needs. The roster is about set and so is the lineup, although there's always competition. But we're as settled as we've been."
I couldn't disagree more-I think we're thinner than Gandhi. I would have taken:
2nd round/56: Frank Gore, RB, Miami, because I like his name if not his LaPhonso Ellis-like knees, and we do need a running back. Other possibilites are Channing Crowder, LB, Florida if we're really switching to the 3-4, and Terrence Murphy, WR, Texas A&M, who can also return kicks.
3rd/76: Karl Paymah has a name out of the 1830s, but what the heck, we can keep him. A safer bet might be Antonio Perkins, a corner from Oklahoma, but whatever.
3rd/97: Chris Canty, DE, Virginia. He's 6-7, 286 and runs a 4.93, so, in other words, he's an absolute beast. He's coming off a knee injury and is downgraded by scouts for not having high top-level speed. He's a defensive end; I think it's going to be okay. And he got in a bar fight, too, which didn't help. I don't think a football player getting into a fight is really that big of a deal. Considering recent Denver D-linemen, I'm actually a little impressed. I mean, at least it was at a bar, not an IHOP.
3rd/101: Adrian McPherson, QB, once of Florida State. This guy can slide into Clarett's place as our low-character risk; he was thrown out of college for gambling. Unlike Clarett, he took it like a man and has NFL-level talent. We really need another quarterback-if Plummer goes down, we're dead.
6th/200: Myers, I don't care at this point.
7th/239: Fine, keep the kicker.
As for the rest of the draft: I'd like to congratulate the teams who let Aaron Rodgers drop into the more appropriate late-1st round level, where guys like Patrick Ramsey and J.P. Losman go. Matt Jones going in the first round was a huge mistake. Derrick Johnson'll kill us for years.
But my favorite kind of pick has to be when a team tries to solve last year's problems and just assumes the games will play out exactly the same way this season. I refer, of course, to the Jets taking a kicker in the second round. I mean, what are the odds that the Jets will a) make the playoffs b) be playing in a close postseason game c) which is so close, in fact, it comes down to a field goal and d) that the rookie makes that field goal?
I've been told that I ought to consider redoing my NBA picks after the Nuggets won. Please. Nothing would please me more than to be wrong there. However, I will redo my Wizards-Bulls pick, on the grounds that I didn't, ahem, actually make one. I was thinking Wizards in six, though, so even though the Bulls won the first game, we'll go with that.
Monday, April 25, 2005
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Saturday Should Be A National Holiday
Saturday's one of the best days of the year-actually, two of them put together-and I can't wait to miss all the exciting action, thanks to a bigger oxymoron than "jumbo shrimp".
That's right.
Colorado History Day.
The nice thing about working at a school is that you don't have to pick up too many weekend hours; this is only the second time I've had to come in on a Saturday. (Except the time I came in to uh, borrow a projector for the Super Bowl, but I hardly think that counts.) The bad news is when people need a lot of tech support in celebration of a completely bogus event. I mean, what are they gonna talk about?
Especially since this is a big week to miss. The biggie, of course, is the NFL draft, not just because I want to see who the Broncos'll pick up, but so I can laugh at teams who pass on guaranteed sure-things like Braylon Edwards and Derrick Johnson for predictable flops like Aaron Rodgers. I don't understand why half these teams even have scouts.
(And yes, when I saw we traded our No. 1 pick to the Redskins (I can't believe it's 2005 and we've got a football team named the Redskins), my first reaction was, "Sweet, we got Clinton Portis back." Instead we're stockpiling for next year; always a good plan.)
In fact, one reason I started this whole blog was so I could call out which draftees would play well in advance and prove it to people, after a recent argument with one of my co-workers who called me a liar for saying I knew Ben Roethlisberger would be better than Eli Manning.
I didn't think the difference would be this pronounced this early, but I'm also not that impressed that I called it. On the highlights it was obvious Roethlisberger was big, had a strong arm and a fantastic touch, and he's even more mobile than I thought. Whereas Manning was pretty widely viewed as not quite great until his senior year, when everyone suddenly remembered his last name.
Pretty much the only knock on Big Ben could have been playing against some lesser competition, and while I have no idea what that has to do with arm strength or accuracy, I also think it's getting pretty irrelevant as smaller conferences are coming closer to the level of the BCS teams.
I also thought Philip Rivers was obviously better than Manning, too. The main knock on him was competition level, and also that he throws sidearm. Well I don't think NFL players are particularly taller than college players, so if he's not getting all his passes tipped in college, he'll probably be OK. (Though yeah, I'd hoped Kosar was the last sidearmer I'd ever have to watch.)
But then, all the knocks on great players seem to be pretty irrelevant as teams concern themselves with the dumbest things.
I just re-read the book Moneyball, about the Oakland A's, and my favorite chapter has to be about the draft. All the scouts want to pick guys with tools who haven't produced, whereas the GM, Billy Beane, rightfully wants college players who have been productive. One fun argument was about a catcher, whom the scouts didn't want because he was overweight, to which Beane responds with, "We're not trying to sell jeans here."
The NFL's the same way. Every year some guy shoots up the charts because of something that doesn't matter that much (40 time being the best example) even if they lack things that do matter (ability to play).
Just look at the Broncos' recent picks. Ashley Lelie runs fast (which is nice) but, especially his first two years, couldn't really catch (which is unpardonable). I mean, if you're building a receiver from scratch (I know that makes no sense), the No. 1 thing they would absolutely have to be able to do is catch the football, right? But that's not what most teams look at.
The same year we took Clinton Portis, who was fast, shifty, and productive at Miami, which played against the best of the best teams and beat them. But he was small. Which is kind of relevant, but not nearly as important as vision, toughness, and proven clutch ability.
This year, I like guys like Johnson, the Texas linebacker who racked up a ton of tackles and forced eight fumbles last year. I think that's skill, not luck, and it's a very valuable skill. What's the knock on him? Well, some mumbo-jumbo about how he doesn't take on blockers. Now this comment is clearly going to show that I never played organized football, but isn't the point of the game to run into the guy who has the ball, not the people who are trying to block for him? Ray Lewis doesn't really take on blockers, doesn't hurt his overstuff rep.
While I think Johnson's a sensible pick at the top of the draft, it'll never happen because he's a linebacker and viewed, probably rightly, as not worthy of No. 1 pick money. But at least he has a good shot at being great, as opposed to pretty much whomever the Niners end up taking.
On the flip side, guys like Aaron Rodgers and Alex Smith owe pretty much all their hype to their position.
Smith is pretty clearly the top quarterback prospect this year, at least to me, but he's not on the level of a Roethlisberger or Leftwich in years past. His mobility and smarts remind me of Jeff Garcia, who was quite good in his prime. He's a first rounder, but middle of the round at least. Aaron Rodgers, I don't know where that guy came from. For one I'm not convinced a statuesque QB can get it done any more, but he wasn't that good in college anyway. I think for a quarterback to go No. 1, he ought to be pretty dominant.
Everyone I respect is pretty high on Braylon Edwards, who definitely has a history of productivity, though I didn't see much of him. I like Mike Williams, too. Defensively, I'm a big fan of Antrel Rolle, who came from Miami (almost all those guys work out), and has size and speed, even if it's not quite world-record speed. (What kind of knock is that, anyway? If only a couple guys a year run in the 4.2-4.3 range, then there can't be many NFL players who run that fast, right?)
I'm just glad Matt Leinart stayed in college. Everyone seems to think he'd be worthy of the top pick, but I doubt it. I don't see the accuracy and he's not that mobile. Again, if you were building a quarterback from scratch, the first thing he'd absolutely have to be able to do is throw the ball where he wants to, right? And if he's not that accurate in college, I don't see how he's going to start hitting spots in the pros.
Basically, what's the difference between Leinart and Ken Dorsey? Dorsey had a similar sparkling collegiate record, but he was surrounded by similar otherworldly talent and had the same question marks around his athleticism and arm strength. And he went in the 7th round. I think Leinart's better than that (I thought Dorsey was, too), but not top of the first good.
There aren't as many players I really hate this year, but I think any team that takes a running back in the top ten picks is pretty much insane. Running backs get hurt way too often. Obviously, some running backs in past years have been worth that kind of investment-Barry Sanders, Marshall Faulk, Eddie George-but I don't think any of these guys are quite that special.
Saturday's also the first day of the NBA playoffs. (Seriously-I mean, we're the Centennial State! What can you say about a state known for the year it was founded?) I was going to bust out a whole preview of the first round, but these matchups pretty much suck, so we'll keep it short. I'll keep it short, whatever. I'm probably the only person on the planet who'd say this, but I prefer the NBA playoffs to March Madness, partly because I know the players so much better. But forget the players-the first day of The Tourney, I don't even know who half the teams are.
The East:
Miami (1) vs. New Jersey (8): No NBA player has ever betrayed my faith in him more than Vince Carter, who's softer than Elmo. Plus I don't think he can handle Dwyane Wade. The bigger issue, though, is whether a team with a European center (Nenad Kristic) can slow down Shaq. What do you think? Miami should sweep on their way out of the East.
Detroit (2) vs. Philadelphia (7): Iverson's carried the Sixers this year and always seems to step it up in the playoffs, but that won't be enough against the defending champions. I see Detroit taking it in five.
Boston (3) vs. Indiana (6): I'm going to jump on the bandwagon and pick Indy here. They've really had an impressive year, especially Reggie Miller. I thought that guy was toast. Plus I don't exactly think Doc Rivers is going to outcoach Rick Carlisle. Indy in six.
Chicago (4) vs. Washington (5): Washington won the season series 2-1, but the home team won each game, and the Bulls have homecourt this time around. Which is a neat stat if I could bring myself to care about this series. I do really enjoy hearing that the Bulls are finally out of Michael Jordan's shadow. That was it. It was the crushing weight of expectation, not lack of talent, that's been holding this team down for years. And, conversely, a playoff berth will make Bulls fans forget all those titles.
The West:
Phoenix (1) vs. Memphis (8): I think Phoenix will sweep this series. It's said that they play no defense, but the Suns are second in field-goal percentage and 14th in field-goal defense. Which isn't great, but middle-of-the-pack is better than they're given credit for. Having said that, I'm not certain they'll take Dallas in the second round. Cool, I didn't even say anything about the other team. How's this-I'm glad Mike Fratello is back in coaching and therefore out of broadcasting, how's that?
San Antonio (2) vs. Denver (7): Denver was absolutely blazing-hot down the stretch this year but still
finished with ten fewer wins than the Spurs' 59. Plus, we don't match up well with the Spurs at all-Duncan'll destroy our frontcourt, even if it is pretty capable defensively, Bowen can still slow down Carmelo (though he's made such huge strides the second half of the year it'll be interesting to see what he can do), and Andre Miller can't run with the overrated Frenchman. The only real X-factor is Denver's healthy home-court advantage, though the Spurs should take the series in five. If Denver bows out so fast, what happens in the off-season?
Seattle (3) vs. Sacramento (6): This is about as compelling as that Wizards-Bulls dream series, and Sac-town has to be the most under-the-radar 50-win team of my lifetime. The series should be entertaining, which is a euphemism for "high scoring because neither team plays defense". I just like the Kings for the most pointless trade I've ever seen, giving up their only perimeter defender, the whipped Doug Christie, for the offensive-minded Cat Mobley. Seattle has Ray Allen and Rashad Lewis, who makes Vince Carter look like...well, a wimp, but he's no Charles Oakley himself. I'll say Seattle in seven.
Dallas (4) vs. Houston (5): Dallas is by far the most underrated team in the league this year. Can you believe the Mavericks are 8th in the league in field-goal defense? The Mavs won half a dozen more games than the Sonics, but are seeded lower than Seattle because of the stupid division winners get the top seeds rule. Actually, I don't think it's that stupid, I really don't care, it's just that you can't be a sportswriter without being incredulous about something that doesn't matter.
Houston was supposed to rock this year with T-Mac and Yao Ming, but the Rockets don't play like much of a team. Dallas does; Dallas in five.
So who's going to win it all? It's tough to say this year. I'm tempted to go with the Spurs, but they let me down last year and I'm bitter and vindictive (they'll be so mad if I don't pick them). Miami has a huge advantage coming from the substantially weaker Eastern Conference. Memphis, the No. 8 seed in the West with 45 wins, won as many games as the East's No. 3 team. Hey, it worked for Detroit last year.
I do think it'll be a Spurs-Heat Finals, though, and it should be a great series. As much as I like Dwyane Wade (who's the best second option in the playoffs by a lot), I think the Spurs' all-around depth will make them champions.
That's right.
Colorado History Day.
The nice thing about working at a school is that you don't have to pick up too many weekend hours; this is only the second time I've had to come in on a Saturday. (Except the time I came in to uh, borrow a projector for the Super Bowl, but I hardly think that counts.) The bad news is when people need a lot of tech support in celebration of a completely bogus event. I mean, what are they gonna talk about?
Especially since this is a big week to miss. The biggie, of course, is the NFL draft, not just because I want to see who the Broncos'll pick up, but so I can laugh at teams who pass on guaranteed sure-things like Braylon Edwards and Derrick Johnson for predictable flops like Aaron Rodgers. I don't understand why half these teams even have scouts.
(And yes, when I saw we traded our No. 1 pick to the Redskins (I can't believe it's 2005 and we've got a football team named the Redskins), my first reaction was, "Sweet, we got Clinton Portis back." Instead we're stockpiling for next year; always a good plan.)
In fact, one reason I started this whole blog was so I could call out which draftees would play well in advance and prove it to people, after a recent argument with one of my co-workers who called me a liar for saying I knew Ben Roethlisberger would be better than Eli Manning.
I didn't think the difference would be this pronounced this early, but I'm also not that impressed that I called it. On the highlights it was obvious Roethlisberger was big, had a strong arm and a fantastic touch, and he's even more mobile than I thought. Whereas Manning was pretty widely viewed as not quite great until his senior year, when everyone suddenly remembered his last name.
Pretty much the only knock on Big Ben could have been playing against some lesser competition, and while I have no idea what that has to do with arm strength or accuracy, I also think it's getting pretty irrelevant as smaller conferences are coming closer to the level of the BCS teams.
I also thought Philip Rivers was obviously better than Manning, too. The main knock on him was competition level, and also that he throws sidearm. Well I don't think NFL players are particularly taller than college players, so if he's not getting all his passes tipped in college, he'll probably be OK. (Though yeah, I'd hoped Kosar was the last sidearmer I'd ever have to watch.)
But then, all the knocks on great players seem to be pretty irrelevant as teams concern themselves with the dumbest things.
I just re-read the book Moneyball, about the Oakland A's, and my favorite chapter has to be about the draft. All the scouts want to pick guys with tools who haven't produced, whereas the GM, Billy Beane, rightfully wants college players who have been productive. One fun argument was about a catcher, whom the scouts didn't want because he was overweight, to which Beane responds with, "We're not trying to sell jeans here."
The NFL's the same way. Every year some guy shoots up the charts because of something that doesn't matter that much (40 time being the best example) even if they lack things that do matter (ability to play).
Just look at the Broncos' recent picks. Ashley Lelie runs fast (which is nice) but, especially his first two years, couldn't really catch (which is unpardonable). I mean, if you're building a receiver from scratch (I know that makes no sense), the No. 1 thing they would absolutely have to be able to do is catch the football, right? But that's not what most teams look at.
The same year we took Clinton Portis, who was fast, shifty, and productive at Miami, which played against the best of the best teams and beat them. But he was small. Which is kind of relevant, but not nearly as important as vision, toughness, and proven clutch ability.
This year, I like guys like Johnson, the Texas linebacker who racked up a ton of tackles and forced eight fumbles last year. I think that's skill, not luck, and it's a very valuable skill. What's the knock on him? Well, some mumbo-jumbo about how he doesn't take on blockers. Now this comment is clearly going to show that I never played organized football, but isn't the point of the game to run into the guy who has the ball, not the people who are trying to block for him? Ray Lewis doesn't really take on blockers, doesn't hurt his overstuff rep.
While I think Johnson's a sensible pick at the top of the draft, it'll never happen because he's a linebacker and viewed, probably rightly, as not worthy of No. 1 pick money. But at least he has a good shot at being great, as opposed to pretty much whomever the Niners end up taking.
On the flip side, guys like Aaron Rodgers and Alex Smith owe pretty much all their hype to their position.
Smith is pretty clearly the top quarterback prospect this year, at least to me, but he's not on the level of a Roethlisberger or Leftwich in years past. His mobility and smarts remind me of Jeff Garcia, who was quite good in his prime. He's a first rounder, but middle of the round at least. Aaron Rodgers, I don't know where that guy came from. For one I'm not convinced a statuesque QB can get it done any more, but he wasn't that good in college anyway. I think for a quarterback to go No. 1, he ought to be pretty dominant.
Everyone I respect is pretty high on Braylon Edwards, who definitely has a history of productivity, though I didn't see much of him. I like Mike Williams, too. Defensively, I'm a big fan of Antrel Rolle, who came from Miami (almost all those guys work out), and has size and speed, even if it's not quite world-record speed. (What kind of knock is that, anyway? If only a couple guys a year run in the 4.2-4.3 range, then there can't be many NFL players who run that fast, right?)
I'm just glad Matt Leinart stayed in college. Everyone seems to think he'd be worthy of the top pick, but I doubt it. I don't see the accuracy and he's not that mobile. Again, if you were building a quarterback from scratch, the first thing he'd absolutely have to be able to do is throw the ball where he wants to, right? And if he's not that accurate in college, I don't see how he's going to start hitting spots in the pros.
Basically, what's the difference between Leinart and Ken Dorsey? Dorsey had a similar sparkling collegiate record, but he was surrounded by similar otherworldly talent and had the same question marks around his athleticism and arm strength. And he went in the 7th round. I think Leinart's better than that (I thought Dorsey was, too), but not top of the first good.
There aren't as many players I really hate this year, but I think any team that takes a running back in the top ten picks is pretty much insane. Running backs get hurt way too often. Obviously, some running backs in past years have been worth that kind of investment-Barry Sanders, Marshall Faulk, Eddie George-but I don't think any of these guys are quite that special.
Saturday's also the first day of the NBA playoffs. (Seriously-I mean, we're the Centennial State! What can you say about a state known for the year it was founded?) I was going to bust out a whole preview of the first round, but these matchups pretty much suck, so we'll keep it short. I'll keep it short, whatever. I'm probably the only person on the planet who'd say this, but I prefer the NBA playoffs to March Madness, partly because I know the players so much better. But forget the players-the first day of The Tourney, I don't even know who half the teams are.
The East:
Miami (1) vs. New Jersey (8): No NBA player has ever betrayed my faith in him more than Vince Carter, who's softer than Elmo. Plus I don't think he can handle Dwyane Wade. The bigger issue, though, is whether a team with a European center (Nenad Kristic) can slow down Shaq. What do you think? Miami should sweep on their way out of the East.
Detroit (2) vs. Philadelphia (7): Iverson's carried the Sixers this year and always seems to step it up in the playoffs, but that won't be enough against the defending champions. I see Detroit taking it in five.
Boston (3) vs. Indiana (6): I'm going to jump on the bandwagon and pick Indy here. They've really had an impressive year, especially Reggie Miller. I thought that guy was toast. Plus I don't exactly think Doc Rivers is going to outcoach Rick Carlisle. Indy in six.
Chicago (4) vs. Washington (5): Washington won the season series 2-1, but the home team won each game, and the Bulls have homecourt this time around. Which is a neat stat if I could bring myself to care about this series. I do really enjoy hearing that the Bulls are finally out of Michael Jordan's shadow. That was it. It was the crushing weight of expectation, not lack of talent, that's been holding this team down for years. And, conversely, a playoff berth will make Bulls fans forget all those titles.
The West:
Phoenix (1) vs. Memphis (8): I think Phoenix will sweep this series. It's said that they play no defense, but the Suns are second in field-goal percentage and 14th in field-goal defense. Which isn't great, but middle-of-the-pack is better than they're given credit for. Having said that, I'm not certain they'll take Dallas in the second round. Cool, I didn't even say anything about the other team. How's this-I'm glad Mike Fratello is back in coaching and therefore out of broadcasting, how's that?
San Antonio (2) vs. Denver (7): Denver was absolutely blazing-hot down the stretch this year but still
finished with ten fewer wins than the Spurs' 59. Plus, we don't match up well with the Spurs at all-Duncan'll destroy our frontcourt, even if it is pretty capable defensively, Bowen can still slow down Carmelo (though he's made such huge strides the second half of the year it'll be interesting to see what he can do), and Andre Miller can't run with the overrated Frenchman. The only real X-factor is Denver's healthy home-court advantage, though the Spurs should take the series in five. If Denver bows out so fast, what happens in the off-season?
Seattle (3) vs. Sacramento (6): This is about as compelling as that Wizards-Bulls dream series, and Sac-town has to be the most under-the-radar 50-win team of my lifetime. The series should be entertaining, which is a euphemism for "high scoring because neither team plays defense". I just like the Kings for the most pointless trade I've ever seen, giving up their only perimeter defender, the whipped Doug Christie, for the offensive-minded Cat Mobley. Seattle has Ray Allen and Rashad Lewis, who makes Vince Carter look like...well, a wimp, but he's no Charles Oakley himself. I'll say Seattle in seven.
Dallas (4) vs. Houston (5): Dallas is by far the most underrated team in the league this year. Can you believe the Mavericks are 8th in the league in field-goal defense? The Mavs won half a dozen more games than the Sonics, but are seeded lower than Seattle because of the stupid division winners get the top seeds rule. Actually, I don't think it's that stupid, I really don't care, it's just that you can't be a sportswriter without being incredulous about something that doesn't matter.
Houston was supposed to rock this year with T-Mac and Yao Ming, but the Rockets don't play like much of a team. Dallas does; Dallas in five.
So who's going to win it all? It's tough to say this year. I'm tempted to go with the Spurs, but they let me down last year and I'm bitter and vindictive (they'll be so mad if I don't pick them). Miami has a huge advantage coming from the substantially weaker Eastern Conference. Memphis, the No. 8 seed in the West with 45 wins, won as many games as the East's No. 3 team. Hey, it worked for Detroit last year.
I do think it'll be a Spurs-Heat Finals, though, and it should be a great series. As much as I like Dwyane Wade (who's the best second option in the playoffs by a lot), I think the Spurs' all-around depth will make them champions.
Tuesday, April 5, 2005
Winning At Altitude (Or At Least Having A Prayer)
When I was a kid, I used to wrestle with my brothers and friends all the time. It’s a guy thing; who doesn’t enjoy it? But you can’t be screwing around all the time without breaking a few things.
My best friend’s mom has this fancy china set sitting over in the corner of the house where there’s no chance anyone will ever accidentally breathe on or enjoy it. One time Jonesy and I were fighting over who-knows-what when some gifted young writer’s hand punched a hole in the wall on the other side of the room.
Naturally, we got this painfully long lecture about all the horrible consequences of our misbehavior. Then Jonesy’s dad came home and fixed the wall in about fifteen minutes of work.
Anyway, his mom said she understood we were just messing around, but if we ever damaged her china, she would kill us, and no jury would ever convict her.
Those were really her words: “No jury would ever convict me.”
Set aside the whole issue that if you think being a scorned woman is a legitimate legal defense, you probably need to watch a little less Oxygen Network. I remembered this recently and got to thinking, if anyone can go postal and, in a just world, not be convicted, it would have to be Todd Helton.
Has a greater player ever been surrounded by less competent management? Has any team ever seemed so anxious to waste the prime years of a star’s career?
First, the team’s case. Helton’s first full year with the Rockies was 1998, and since then, the team has finished over .500 just once (82-80 in 2000).
Wait a second, if the Rockies are so bad, he probably has something to do with it, right? He can’t really be great if he doesn’t win, right?
I don’t think baseball works that way. It’s not like other sports, where a single talented player can lift the performance of others by compensating for their weaknesses. Baseball’s too democratic, and there’s just not much one guy can do.
So what does Helton do, anyway?
For starters, he’s one of the top defensive first basemen in the major leagues, if not the best. He’s won three Gold Gloves, sells out his body on every close play, and even has a great arm.
But first base isn’t a key defensive position like shortstop. You want some hits out of that guy. All Helton has done is compile the highest batting average (.339) and slugging percentage (.616) of all active players, and he’s second only to Barry Bonds in career on-base percentage among active players.
This wouldn’t be a baseball discussion if I didn’t unfavorably compare him to guys who played seventy years ago, so how does Helton rank against all-time greats like Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig and Ted Williams?
Well, he’s not quite that good. That career slugging percentage falls behind the marks accomplished by Ruth, Gehrig, and Williams-and that’s it. I repeat: no one else has had a higher percentage in all of baseball history, not Bonds, not McGwire, not Mays, nobody.
Is Helton really one of the top few hitters in baseball history? Of course not. For one, hitting numbers are up across the board these days. He’s not on steroids (despite the laughable recent accusations-if you passed Helton on the street, would you think he was even a pro athlete?), but he does play at Coors Field, which helps a lot.
But while Coors Field-and the altitude-may help Helton up Hall of Fame numbers, they’re certainly killing his chances of ever playing in the World Series. Because Rockies management has no idea what it’s doing.
Every year, the team cooks up a new scheme. The only constant is: it never works.
In 1999, the Rockies hired Jim Leyland, who decided that since everyone hits well a mile high, the club should actively seek out guys who field but can’t hit. Result: a 72-90 record.
In 2000, Buddy Bell decided we’d run like crazy to maximize scoring opportunities. (I don’t know why these guys thought scrapping for every run was such a brilliant move, but whatever.) We did have that one winning season, but it didn’t last.
Then Dealin’ Dan O’Dowd thought (always his first step towards failure), hmmm, maybe if we pay the pitchers more, they’ll play better, giving Mike Hampton and Denny Neagle enormous contracts in 2001.
Last year the Rockies decided, “Why not pick up a bunch of has-beens and see what they can do?” And it kind of worked, in a way: Vinny Castilla led the league in RBIs (that’s right, runs batted ins) last year, and Jeromy Burnitz socked 37.
But the Rockies still sucked.
This year it’s all about Generation R, the Rockies’ somewhat-promising young players. Or, in other words, they’re going to flush more of Helton’s prime years straight down the toilet.
(The only plus is the new uniforms. I hope we wear the white and black vest jerseys instead of the purple ones every game from now on. Those Barney-flavored uniforms are so hideous, they make Bruce Weber recoil in disgust.)
So it’s an improvement over the usual Generation Retread plan, but not by much.
How can the Rockies win? Obviously, baseball is a different game at altitude. But it’s not impossible to win, they just need to play by different rules.
But what rules? The Rockies have tried so many approaches, what could actually work?
History is the best guide.
It’s simple: make Coors Field work for them.
If Coors is such an easy place to score, why don’t the Rockies load up on offense and outscore teams? (My favorite nonsensical sports argument, used mainly against high-scoring football and basketball teams, is that you can’t win by just trying to outscore teams. Um, actually, that’s the only possible way you can win. But anyway…)
The Rockies have had four winning seasons: 1995, 1996, 1997, and 2000. Each time they led the National League in runs scored. Well, duh. The Rockies play at altitude. They should do that every year, right?
Well, they haven’t done it since 2001. The Rockies not leading the league in runs scored is like the Yankees not leading in payroll-with all the advantages they’ve got, it should never happen.
Building around pitching isn’t going to take you too far in Colorado. 2000 was the only winning season (and one of only two seasons in the club’s history) in which the Rockies didn’t finish dead last in the NL in ERA. Instead, they were next-to-last.
Since the pitching’s never going to be great or even passable, outscoring teams is pretty much the only option.
I understand the Rockies are obsessed with being cheap lately. So are the A’s, it doesn’t seem to be stopping them from winning. Besides, what do the Rockies need? Hitting-and there are always hitters willing to sign a one-year deal at Coors Field like Vinny and Jeromy, because it’ll help you land your next contract.
Of course, the Rockies need pitching, too, but since starters are pretty much never consistent here (Pedro Astacio being the only close-to-long-term exception), we need to load up on relief pitching. Besides, we probably can’t afford proven major league starters, who will always demand long-term dollars in exchange for the career suicide of pitching at Coors Field.
But since starters so rarely go deep into games here anyway, we need a reliable bullpen more than other teams, and relievers always work on short contracts as it is.
Remember 1995? In the Rockies’ only playoff season, they loaded up on hitters (leading the National League in runs, hits, triples, home runs, batting average, and slugging percentage) and had a lights-out bullpen when they needed it (featuring guys like Curtis Leskanic, Darren Holmes, Steve Reed and Bruce Ruffin, each of whom had an ERA under three and a half).
Of course, any team that employs Dan O’Dowd at any position higher than bullpen catcher this long obviously isn’t obsessed with winning.
For everyone’s sake, they better hope Helton isn’t, either.
My best friend’s mom has this fancy china set sitting over in the corner of the house where there’s no chance anyone will ever accidentally breathe on or enjoy it. One time Jonesy and I were fighting over who-knows-what when some gifted young writer’s hand punched a hole in the wall on the other side of the room.
Naturally, we got this painfully long lecture about all the horrible consequences of our misbehavior. Then Jonesy’s dad came home and fixed the wall in about fifteen minutes of work.
Anyway, his mom said she understood we were just messing around, but if we ever damaged her china, she would kill us, and no jury would ever convict her.
Those were really her words: “No jury would ever convict me.”
Set aside the whole issue that if you think being a scorned woman is a legitimate legal defense, you probably need to watch a little less Oxygen Network. I remembered this recently and got to thinking, if anyone can go postal and, in a just world, not be convicted, it would have to be Todd Helton.
Has a greater player ever been surrounded by less competent management? Has any team ever seemed so anxious to waste the prime years of a star’s career?
First, the team’s case. Helton’s first full year with the Rockies was 1998, and since then, the team has finished over .500 just once (82-80 in 2000).
Wait a second, if the Rockies are so bad, he probably has something to do with it, right? He can’t really be great if he doesn’t win, right?
I don’t think baseball works that way. It’s not like other sports, where a single talented player can lift the performance of others by compensating for their weaknesses. Baseball’s too democratic, and there’s just not much one guy can do.
So what does Helton do, anyway?
For starters, he’s one of the top defensive first basemen in the major leagues, if not the best. He’s won three Gold Gloves, sells out his body on every close play, and even has a great arm.
But first base isn’t a key defensive position like shortstop. You want some hits out of that guy. All Helton has done is compile the highest batting average (.339) and slugging percentage (.616) of all active players, and he’s second only to Barry Bonds in career on-base percentage among active players.
This wouldn’t be a baseball discussion if I didn’t unfavorably compare him to guys who played seventy years ago, so how does Helton rank against all-time greats like Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig and Ted Williams?
Well, he’s not quite that good. That career slugging percentage falls behind the marks accomplished by Ruth, Gehrig, and Williams-and that’s it. I repeat: no one else has had a higher percentage in all of baseball history, not Bonds, not McGwire, not Mays, nobody.
Is Helton really one of the top few hitters in baseball history? Of course not. For one, hitting numbers are up across the board these days. He’s not on steroids (despite the laughable recent accusations-if you passed Helton on the street, would you think he was even a pro athlete?), but he does play at Coors Field, which helps a lot.
But while Coors Field-and the altitude-may help Helton up Hall of Fame numbers, they’re certainly killing his chances of ever playing in the World Series. Because Rockies management has no idea what it’s doing.
Every year, the team cooks up a new scheme. The only constant is: it never works.
In 1999, the Rockies hired Jim Leyland, who decided that since everyone hits well a mile high, the club should actively seek out guys who field but can’t hit. Result: a 72-90 record.
In 2000, Buddy Bell decided we’d run like crazy to maximize scoring opportunities. (I don’t know why these guys thought scrapping for every run was such a brilliant move, but whatever.) We did have that one winning season, but it didn’t last.
Then Dealin’ Dan O’Dowd thought (always his first step towards failure), hmmm, maybe if we pay the pitchers more, they’ll play better, giving Mike Hampton and Denny Neagle enormous contracts in 2001.
Last year the Rockies decided, “Why not pick up a bunch of has-beens and see what they can do?” And it kind of worked, in a way: Vinny Castilla led the league in RBIs (that’s right, runs batted ins) last year, and Jeromy Burnitz socked 37.
But the Rockies still sucked.
This year it’s all about Generation R, the Rockies’ somewhat-promising young players. Or, in other words, they’re going to flush more of Helton’s prime years straight down the toilet.
(The only plus is the new uniforms. I hope we wear the white and black vest jerseys instead of the purple ones every game from now on. Those Barney-flavored uniforms are so hideous, they make Bruce Weber recoil in disgust.)
So it’s an improvement over the usual Generation Retread plan, but not by much.
How can the Rockies win? Obviously, baseball is a different game at altitude. But it’s not impossible to win, they just need to play by different rules.
But what rules? The Rockies have tried so many approaches, what could actually work?
History is the best guide.
It’s simple: make Coors Field work for them.
If Coors is such an easy place to score, why don’t the Rockies load up on offense and outscore teams? (My favorite nonsensical sports argument, used mainly against high-scoring football and basketball teams, is that you can’t win by just trying to outscore teams. Um, actually, that’s the only possible way you can win. But anyway…)
The Rockies have had four winning seasons: 1995, 1996, 1997, and 2000. Each time they led the National League in runs scored. Well, duh. The Rockies play at altitude. They should do that every year, right?
Well, they haven’t done it since 2001. The Rockies not leading the league in runs scored is like the Yankees not leading in payroll-with all the advantages they’ve got, it should never happen.
Building around pitching isn’t going to take you too far in Colorado. 2000 was the only winning season (and one of only two seasons in the club’s history) in which the Rockies didn’t finish dead last in the NL in ERA. Instead, they were next-to-last.
Since the pitching’s never going to be great or even passable, outscoring teams is pretty much the only option.
I understand the Rockies are obsessed with being cheap lately. So are the A’s, it doesn’t seem to be stopping them from winning. Besides, what do the Rockies need? Hitting-and there are always hitters willing to sign a one-year deal at Coors Field like Vinny and Jeromy, because it’ll help you land your next contract.
Of course, the Rockies need pitching, too, but since starters are pretty much never consistent here (Pedro Astacio being the only close-to-long-term exception), we need to load up on relief pitching. Besides, we probably can’t afford proven major league starters, who will always demand long-term dollars in exchange for the career suicide of pitching at Coors Field.
But since starters so rarely go deep into games here anyway, we need a reliable bullpen more than other teams, and relievers always work on short contracts as it is.
Remember 1995? In the Rockies’ only playoff season, they loaded up on hitters (leading the National League in runs, hits, triples, home runs, batting average, and slugging percentage) and had a lights-out bullpen when they needed it (featuring guys like Curtis Leskanic, Darren Holmes, Steve Reed and Bruce Ruffin, each of whom had an ERA under three and a half).
Of course, any team that employs Dan O’Dowd at any position higher than bullpen catcher this long obviously isn’t obsessed with winning.
For everyone’s sake, they better hope Helton isn’t, either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)