What's in a typical drive?

This post is about drives in the NFL. So, naturally, I'll be closing it out by talking about baseball.

A few months ago, I wrote an article about the merits of "grinding it out" versus "airing it out." In that article, I made the assertion that "I read somewhere that the typical NFL game has about 10 drives per team. I'm too lazy to do any real research on that, but it seems about right."

Well, I decided to get over my laziness and see what I could find out, not only about how many drives a team tends to get, but what the results of those drives usually are. I also read somewhere that about 1/3 of drives result in scores for the offense (probably in some article espousing the merits of the current overtime system), and I wanted to see if that matched up, too.

So, with a lot of help from Pro-Football-Reference's 2008 season stats (and a little help from ESPN.com's 4th down stats), I simply added up every "drive-ending occurrence" I could find. I counted a "drive-ender" as any instance of a:

Rush/Receive Touchdown
Field Goal
Missed Field Goal
Lost Fumble
Interception
Safety
Turnover on Downs
Punt
Blocked Punt

What I didn't count:

* Touchdown returns, since those aren't "drives" for the offense

* End-of-half/game drives that didn't result in one of the other options (like a FG attempt). The main reason was because I didn't have stats for them. But I don't think this is a huge problem. These drives usually fall into one of two categories: non-attempts to score, like kneeldowns or "protect-the-ball" runs, which I have no problem omitting; and actual attempts to score by teams in desperation at the end of the game. These should be counted, but, each team probably only experiences a few drives like this per year; often, they turn it over on downs or have a turnover before the clock runs out. Only plays that fail to score a TD on the last play of the half on 1st-3rd down should be counted, and those are really relatively rare.

So, with that exception, I should have compiled the results of every drive in 2008. And the results are:

Drive	Number	Pct.
Touchdown	1122	20.4%
FG	845	15.4%
Missed FG	155	2.8%
Lost fumble	328	6.0%
Interception	465	8.5%
TO on downs	231	4.2%
Safety	21	0.4%
Punt	2307	42.0%
Blocked punt	13	0.2%
TOTAL DRIVES	5487
Drives per team	171.5
Drives per team/game	10.7
Scoring drives	1967	35.8%
"TO" drives	1213	22.1%

My early estimate -- that 1/3 of drives result in scores -- isn't too far off, as 35.8% of drives in 2008 resulted in either a touchdown or a field goal. But look at the last row. I count a "TO Drive" as a drive that ends in a very bad result for the offense: a turnover (fumble, interception, or downs), blocked punt, missed FG, or safety. In fact, your team has a better chance of bungling an offensive possession than it does of scoring a touchdown! 22.1% seems strangely high for me, but then again, I don't watch many Cleveland Browns games (ha!).

Bonus stat: The average drive scores its offense 1.89 points, if you count a safety as -2 points for the offense (and if you don't, it only raises the average by less than 1/100 of a point).

I'm also pretty close on my "10 drives per game" metric, although that 10.7 statistic would probably be pushed over 11 if it included those game-ending and half-ending drives I'm omitting. I also thought about baseball while putting this together. With 16 games in the NFL season and 162 in the MLB season, people often equate each game in the NFL to 10 MLB games, such as by saying that a three-game losing streak in the NFL is like a 30-game streak in MLB. When I was putting this together, I thought of the 10 drives/game concept and wondered if you could possibly equate each drive to an individual MLB game.

The answer is "yeah, if you're into that." With about 171 drives per season (maybe closer to 180 if we include the "invisible" drives), it's a fair comparison. And it makes one-game playoffs (which the Twins should be experts in by now) even more statistically dubious for their sample size. Imagine that two NFL teams finish with the same record on top of their division. Forget tiebreakers or even a tiebreaker game. We'll determine the division champion by giving each team one drive! It'll be just like a college football overtime game! I love what the Twins did on Tuesday night, but, in the grand scheme of things (especially when you consider how they won -- in extra innings with the lead flip-flopping back and forth), those two teams were identical in ability and the Twins got lucky, thanks to the results of an extremely small sample size.

I warned you there'd be baseball.

Vikings lose a Williams

More important, I think, than how a team actually plays in preseason is whether they can survive the four-game schedule without suffering any significant injuries. When news came through that reserves Jayme Mitchell and Heath Farwell would miss each miss the entire 2008 season with injuries, it was a blow, but not a terribly serious one. More of a concern now is the neck injury suffered by safety Madeiu Williams, signed to a big free-agent deal in the offseason. The Star-Tribune says that Williams will miss about six weeks with the injury, which would eliminate the rest of his preseason and the first three games of the regular season. Second-round draft pick Tyrell Johnson, who may have been the best safety available in the draft, will take his place and could play reasonably well, but it's definitely going to be a step down, especially considering the Vikings' early schedule.

The team opens with with a game at Green Bay on Monday night, followed by Indianapolis and Carolina at home. There's little doubt that the Packers will try to establish the pass early in their season, to show fans they made the right decision in sticking with Aaron Rodgers, and the Colts, I hear, can throw the ball pretty well. That's two pass-heavy offenses the Vikings will have to face without their starting free safety.

Carolina's tougher to judge, since most of their quarterbacking in 2007 was done by people other than Jake Delhomme, who figures to be healthy and slingin' it again in 2008. If that weren't enough, the Minnesota game will also mark Steve Smith's return to the lineup following his two-game suspension for starting a brawl in Panthers camp. Remember the last time the Vikings faced a team welcoming back its star player from a two-game suspension to start the season? Jared Allen sure does, and Kelly Holcomb would like to forget it.

Even with Williams in the lineup, I would have probably given the Vikings a 2-1 record during that span. Carolina should be a win, and I would have had us beating Green Bay and losing to Indy. Williams is only one man (though I did rank him at #10 in my list of Top 20 Vikings for 2008), but his loss could be profound, especially considering the team's early schedule. At the very least, we'll get a good look at what Tyrell Johnson can do out of the gate. Hopefully, the results will be good.

They told me to write this

They say success in life is all about networking. "They" also say you should only eat about 4 oz. of red meat per week and that success in the playoffs is all about running the ball and stopping the run, so what do "they" know, really? Well, I know that I've been looking at some more blogs over the past few weeks and I'm adding them to my reading list on the right. You should check them out, too.

* Twinkie Town is a nice Twins site, with frequent updates and lots of quality opinions. The next time you hear that the Twins are struggling because they're so young or that they need to add a veteran to provide guidance for all those fragile "kids," read this.

* I'll return a shout-out from The Ragnarok, a Vikings blog that's optimistic about the team's chances, even if Bryant McKinnie misses significant time due to a suspension. Still...Artis Hicks? *shiver*

* Here's another Twins blog, The Curse of the Big Papi -- hey, you know, it has been five years since the Twins gave away David Ortiz and we haven't won a title since! It's a curse!

* Skol Vikes isn't quite as frequently updated as the others, but I like his layout. He includes a picture with every post, a style I may copy. Oooh...pictures....

* Finally, not related to sports at all, but if you haven't discovered Hulu yet, you should. Free streaming movies and episodes of TV series (including the three unaired episodes of Journeyman, which I loved), with minimal commercial interruptions. Best of all, it's legal, unlike some other streaming-video venues.

Cut the draft (and the minors)

Every MLB franchise has one, and exactly one goal: win the World Series. To do this, you need good players at the major-league level. Therefore, the goal of every draft and every farm season should be to find and develop players to play in the big leagues. Simple, right?

Then why are so many drafts, and, by extension, most low minor-league teams, near-complete failures at this seemingly obvious task? Even in a sport where failing seven times out of 10 is considered "good," most teams would be overjoyed to have such success with the draft and their minor-league system.

I looked back to drafts and minor-league squads from 1998, 10 years ago, figuring that, by now, anyone who was with an organization at that time should have already made an impact on the big-league club. And the results are staggeringly inefficient. Here, for instance, is the 1998 draft for the Twins, considered one of baseball's best franchises for manufacturing talent from within. An impressive bunch, no? Only seven of 49 selected players ever appeared in the big leagues, and only JJ Putz (who didn't sign with the Twins and was re-selected in 1999 by the Mariners) has made any significant impact.

It isn't just Minnesota, either. Take a look at some other teams' draft from that page (the "Picks by Franchise/Year pull-down menus at the top). I'm not going to go through each team, but I'll glance at a few:

Orioles: 5 picks in majors
Cardinals: 9
Brewers: 2

And, again, most of those players are fringe major leaguers. Take a look at a few more, and you'll see a lot more "inefficient" drafts. Sure, the Indians got CC Sabathia in the first round, but their only other major-leaguers were Zach Sorensen, Ryan Drese, and Matt White. The White Sox did pretty well, too, drafting Kip Wells, Aaron Rowand, and Josh Fogg in the first four rounds, along with Nate Robertson (later drafted by Florida) in the 16th and Mark Buehrle in the 38th round. Still, that's only five decent players, four of whom played for the Sox, out of 52 picks. They could have drafted me instead of 50th-round pick Justin Hairston and gotten the same results (and I would have played for cheap).

Overall, only 79 of the 223 (35.4%) players picked through the first seven rounds of the 1998 draft ever cracked a big-league roster. And several of those either weren't signed by the teams that drafted them (like Mark Prior by the Yankees) or had insignificant big-league careers.

The NFL Draft, of course, is also seven rounds. Admittedly, an NFL draftee has a much better chance of cracking a roster and at least appearing in a game, being generally older and not having to work through a minor-league system. Even so, of the 241 players drafted in 1998, 116 (48.1%) were considered a starter for at least one season of his career -- more than the percentage of 1998 MLB draftees that just appeared in a major-league game. It's not a perfect comparison, but remember that the NFL Draft ran 12 rounds until 1992 and was even longer before that. Has the league suffered since the draft was shortened? Not that I can see. Look at the 12th round of any MLB draft and you'll see even less impressive results. Did the 1998 draft have to go that far just so John Koronka could throw 151 innings with a 6.02 ERA? Yes, you'd miss out on the occasional Buehrle or Mike Piazza, but maybe you could actually make the whole thing -- beginning to end -- seem meaningful.

"But," you might say, "teams need the bigger draft to fill out their minor leagues so they can develop talent." A few months ago, aajoe7 posted about how the draft and MLB in general is "ruthlessly efficient at weeding out those players who can't cut it in the Big Leagues; more than any other sport, MLB players earn their right to play in the show."

But how well do the minors do at developing talent? There's little question that many of the players in the higher minors (AA and AAA) are quality prospects, but what about the low minors? Again, going back to 1998, here are the Twins' two rookie-level teams and their low A team. I see a few players who got a cup of coffee in the bigs, along with a couple part-time major-leaguers (Matt LeCroy and Grant Balfour) and two solid contributors (Juan Rincon and Michael Cuddyer). That's four players out of about 80 who made any impact on the big-league team, and only two who the team would have actually missed.

So, in effect, the Twins' three lowest minor-league teams existed solely to develop less than a handful of players. I realize minor leaguers don't make a lot of money or stay in fancy hotels, but they do require some salaries, stadium rent, travel costs, and management. How much money and effort would a team save by eliminating two or even three of its lowest minor-league teams? What would they really lose? Rincon's iffy, but Cuddyer was a #1 pick, so he still would have gotten a chance somewhere in the organization.

Take some time to scan through the 1998 draft and minor-league teams for your favorite organization, and you'll probably find similar lack-of-success stories. If I were in charge, I'd probably cut the MLB draft at least in half and reduce the minor-leagues to four teams, max, per big-league team: a low A/rookie team for your really young/raw talent, a high-A team for second- or third-year youngsters, and AA and AAA filling essentially the same roles they do today. The rest just don't seem to serve the implied purpose of every team: producing major-league talent. So why do they exist?

The Minnesota Twins are clutch!

Yeah, yeah, I don't believe in clutch hitting, either. But still...the Twins are 9th in the AL (out of 14 teams) in OBP, 10th in SLG% and yet they're fourth in runs scored! Fourth! Yeah, they've stolen a lot of bases (42, 4th) at a good success rate (75%), but that's still less than one SB per game. And their batting average is third in the league, which is testament largely to their "hack first and slap it to the other field" mentality (12th in walks, 13th in HR) than anything else. So, what gives?

The answers can be found here and here.

The first link takes you to the batting splits for the AL this year. Do a search for "RISP" (that's Runners in Scoring Position, FYI, which means runners on second and/or third) to go down to the "Bases Occupied" portion of the link. You'll see that the AL, as a whole, posts the following numbers (Avg/OBP/SLG):

Bases empty: .250/.314/.385
Men on: .271/.347/.412
RISP: .266/.354/.407

That's to be expected. Teams hit better with runners on base, the argument being that pitchers are working out of the stretch instead of the windup. If they were better out of the stretch, they'd use it all the time (which brings me to the question of why pitchers work out of the windup in obvious non-steal situations, like bases loaded or a very slow runner on first).

Now, look at the second link. That takes you to the Twins' batting splits for 2008, where you find the following numbers:

Bases empty: .255/.302/.366
Men on: .282/.351/.399
RISP: .311/.387/.458

Like, whoah. The OPS of the league with runners in scoring position is .761, but the Twins are hitting a robust .845. This is one case where the Twins' "swing first" philosophy might actually be paying off. Walks and strikeouts don't typically score runners from second or third, but singles and high batting averages do, although the team does have 50 unintentional walks in 555 PA with RISP.

On the other side of the coin, you have the Atlanta Braves. A friend of mine, a Braves fan, has been at a loss to understand why the team, which has outscored its opponents 258 to 204, is only three games over .500. The Braves are 2nd in batting average in the NL (out of 16), 3rd in OBP, and 5th in SLG%, but only 8th in runs scored.

Here are the NL batting splits for 2008:

Bases empty: .256/.321/.408
Men on: .265/.347/.413
RISP: .260/.354/.398

And for the Braves:

Bases empty: .289/.351/.434 (good)
Men on: .267/.351/.409
RISP: .265/.352/.393

In truth, the Braves are about even with the rest of the league when it comes to averages with men on base overall and RISP. But look at those numbers with the bases empty! The league OPS with men on is 31 points higher than with the bases empty. The Braves, on the other hand, bat 25 points lower. If they could hit like that with men on base, they'd look like the '27 Yankees. (Random point: If the Yankees are good in 19 years, will we need to distinguish between the two "'27 Yankees" teams?)

In all likelihood, the Twins will come down from their lofty RISP numbers and the Braves will either improve theirs or their hitting with the bases empty will come down (Chipper Jones notwithstanding). Some might attribute this to "great (or poor) clutch hitting," but I have a hard time believing that an entire team can be this good (or this bad) over 50+ games. A few hitters, over a short period of time? Maybe. But not entire teams for a third of the season.

The parity question

Last week, two SN bloggers posted their disparate opinions on parity in Major League Baseball. bartolis argued that MLB wasn't nearly as lopsided as most people think, while ES46NE10 took the opposite stance. In fact, the argument bartolis made was that MLB has more parity than the NFL. Naturally, as a fan of a long-perceived "small-market" baseball team which has, nevertheless, performed very well in recent years, I'm intrigued by the chance to do a little more research into this point.

The crux of the pro-parity argument seems to be that, from 1993 to 2007, a span of 15 years:

23 different MLB teams were among the final 4 playoff teams.
23 different NFL teams were among the final 4 playoff teams.

But is that in itself an endorsement of parity? Is "Final Four" status an indication that all is well and good? ES46NE10 counters with:

The answer lies in the bottom feeders - the NFL's parity is such that every year since 1993, 30 of the 32 teams have had a legitimate shot at making the playoffs, and with the NFL's "Any Given Sunday" mentality, actually riding that playoff appearance into a Super Bowl appearance and maybe even a victory.

I think, though, that, while "legitimate shots" are nice, and it's true that virtually any NFL team -- and an increasing number of MLB teams -- have a chance of winning it all every year, the championships, at least in MLB, still go to the teams with the highest payrolls.

Again, as a fan of the Twins, who made the playoffs for four out of the five years from 2002 to 2006, I often thought, "Man, this is a good team, but they lack X," where X was "another starting pitcher," "a right fielder," "another lefty in the bullpen" or whatever. And, with their meager payroll, wouldn't it have been nice if they could have added a premiere free agent at their position of need, someone who would have cost about $15 million/year, filled a great need, and might have pushed them into the top half of league salaries? In fact, adding $15 million to the Twins' total salaries from 2002-2006 gives them the following rankings in MLB team salaries:

2002: 14th
2003: 16th
2004: 13th
2005: 15th
2006: 15th

Not exactly the Yankees or Dodgers, eh? Still, with their scouting, talent development, coaching -- and that little extra bit of cash, they might have done better then three first-round exits and an ALCS loss in four playoff years. It might have been nice, as a fan of the team, to see a level playing field. I'm sure A's fans can sympathize.

But what about the teams that actually did win the championships? I'll limit the span of my research from 1995 onward, since in 1993 (remember, there was no World Series in 1994), player salaries had not yet rocketed into the stratosphere. Since then, here are the MLB salary rankings of the World Series champions:

1995: 3 (Braves)
1996: 2 (Yankees)
1997: 8 (Marlins)
1998: 2 (Yankees)
1999: 1 (Yankees)
2000: 1 (Yankees)
2001: 8 (Diamondbacks)
2002: 15 (Angels)
2003: 24 (Marlins)
2004: 2 (Red Sox)
2005: 14 (White Sox)
2006: 10 (Cardinals)
2007: 2 (Red Sox)

Over those 13 years, that gives an average salary rank of 7.1. And if you think it's the Yankees' 20th-century WS wins that are skewing the data -- well, you're partially right. The average of the WS winners from 2001 on are 10.7, still putting the average World Series winner in about the top third of salaries.

Then we come to the 2003 Florida Marlins, who won it all with just a $49 million payroll, toppling the $153 million Yankees in the process. Yes, it can happen. But even with such disparity and low expectations (the Marlins had 79, 76, and 79 wins the previous three seasons and were an OK-but-not-great 91-71 in 2003) and a little luck, the underdog can win, at least occasionally. But was it really that absurd that a team with the 24th highest payroll should win it all? Even .500 basketball teams occasionally win the NBA draft lottery, after all.

To test this, I created a spreadsheet to pick one random number from 1 to 30. There were 30 chances it would pick number 1, 29 chances to pick 2, 28 chances to pick 3, and so on, down to a 1 in 455 (1+2+3+...+29+30) chance of picking #30. This was meant to crudely represent the notion that the team with the highest payroll (represented by the 1's) would have the best chance of winning the championship, followed by the #2 team, the #3 team, and so on. Still, it's possible that the #24 team (or #17 or #29) can still win.

Running this test a thousand times (don't worry, it wasn't nearly as time-consuming as it sounds), I get an average result of 10.9. Technically, this doesn't prove anything regarding baseball, but it does show that, given the small sample size we're using (13 seasons, or 7 post-Yankee seasons), the unlikely teams can still win occasionally, and this year's Marlins seem to be on the same track. Over the long run, though, the teams with the most chances to win -- most often represented by higher salaries -- will tend to dominate. Re-run the 2003 season a thousand times, and I'd bet the Marlins -- who had the seventh-best record in all of baseball, and were within five wins of six other teams -- win it all less than 10% of the time.

Yes, better front offices, managers, scouting departments, and the like can close the salary gap very well when there's a monetary imbalance. But why should teams be required to play the game with fewer resources? If you're a good Monopoly player, do you offer to start with only $1,000 instead of $1,500? If you're a good chess player, do you start with two fewer pieces? Of course not. Everyone starts with equal resources and it's up to the skill of the players (and some luck, in many cases) to determine a winner. Talent, not money, should determine who wins and loses. It would be just as ludicrous for the Yankees to be able to give MLB $1 million during an inning to get four outs.

True, there are no such salary imbalances in the NFL to explain why teams like the Lions and Cardinals continue to struggle every year. But what if the Patriots, for example, had been required to play $15 million below the salary cap this decade? They'd still have the same excellent coaching staff, would still have drafted Tom Brady, and would still have cheated :) And, in all likelihood, they would have still been a very good team and maybe even gone deep in the playoffs. But there probably wouldn't be any talk of crowning them the team of the decade. Instead, they'd be more like the Minnesota Twins of the NFL -- very good, but lacking the resources to get over that final hump.

My new hero

When a sports blogger criticizes a team's management or coaching staff for questionable personnel moves or a fundamental lack of understanding of what statistics are important (think "quarterback W-L record" or "batting average"), he's at best ignored, and at worst, subject to Buzz Bissinger-style contempt.

Fortunately, there's a new baseball blogger in town who, in this post, rates power as more important than speed and adds that speed is overrated when judging defensive skill. Basically, he poops on the notion that a strong running game is vastly overrated and that, while speed would be nice, he'd rather have a slow power hitter than a singles hitter with speed, something the Minnesota Twins, among other teams, have yet to figure out.

And the best part is that at least one MLB front office can't ignore the guy: He's Paul DePodesta, the Special Assistant to Baseball Operations for the San Diego Padres, and his blog's a great read. Bookmark it!

Jared Allen, Pet Neshek, Jon Kitna...and a porn star?

* For those still concerned about the possibility of Jared Allen being suspended for a whole season if he fails another drug test/has another DUI, don't be. Not only is the press about him positive, but SI.com reports that, if he stays out of trouble until September, Allen's previous failures will be wiped off the record, giving him a clean slate and a fresh start. Considering that his original four-game suspension in 2007 was reduced to two games, it seems that the NFL front office already has a history of being lenient with Allen, who's seemed contrite enough about his early mistakes. Adam Jones could learn a thing or two.

* During the draft -- while Green Bay was selecting Brian Brohm, I believe -- one of the analysts on ESPN commented that, with Brett Favre's retirement and the uncertainty at quarterback for most of the teams in the division, Jon Kitna was "clearly" the best quarterback in the division.

This didn't sit well with me. Kitna has put up some decent-looking numbers, throwing for over 4,000 yards each of his two seasons with the Lions, but that's been due to the Lions' ineptness at the running game. It's the same reason the Vikings' pass defense looks worse than it is -- because teams never run on them. With those 4,000-yard seasons have come more interceptions than TDs each year, 28 fumbles, and a league-leading 114 sacks.

Now, I'm no fan of Tarvaris Jackson, but let's compare the two. Kitna had 561 pass attempts in 2007, compared to Jackson's 294 -- nearly double. Counting sacks among dropbacks, we come up with 612 for Kitna and 311 for Jackson, an even closer match. In fact, let's double Jackson's numbers to put him more in line with Kitna. Here are the results:

Player	Comp	Att	Yds	TD	Int	Sack	SackYds	RushYds
Kitna	355	561	4068	18	20	51	320	63
Jackson x2	342	588	3822	18	24	38	140	520

For 2008, Kitna's passer rating was 80.9, compared to Jackson's 70.8, so he wins that round. But if you take Jackson's mobility (fewer sacks and better rushing numbers) into account, it's a lot closer (and my Total Yards per Attempt statistic does just that, and ranks Jackson as slightly better, overall, than Kitna). Neither one of them are Brett Favre, but at the very least, you couldn't call either of those quarterbacks clearly "better" than the other.

* Sad news about Twins relief pitcher/blogger Pat Neshek, who suffered a partial ligament tear in his elbow and is likely done for the season. On the one hand, many will blame Neshek's funky delivery for his developing elbow problems. Me? I think it came from ripping open too many baseball card packs.

* And, to close on a lighter note...Candy Cummings: porn star or Hall of Fame baseball player?

Variety for Monday

* Given his Harvard education, Matt Birk is probably, book-wise, the smartest guy on the Vikings' roster. But it never hurts to have a valedictorian -- from Chaska, no less -- on the offensive line. Between Tim Mattran and Notre Dame center John Sullivan, drafted in the 6th round, the Vikings seem to be getting ready to move on without Birk in 2009.

* The pro-football-reference.com blog has started a series of articles about the early NFL. If, like me, you like reading about the NFL in the 1920s and 1930s (and who doesn't?), it's a good read to get a sense of how the multibillion-dollar league got its humble start.

* So maybe I was wrong and the Vikings did have a desperate need for a defensive end before picking up Jared Allen. I knew about Kenichi Udeze's situation, but I thought Darrion Scott was still with the team and not just a free agent getting arrested for assaulting a child.

* I suppose I'd have a dorky smile like the guy on the right if I was dating the girl on the left.

* Former Viking Ivan Caesar passed away recently. With a name like that, he was probably better suited for conquering nations than playing linebacker. Sadly, his middle name was "Orsen," and not something more fitting, like "Napoleon."

* Having a little more fun with the Historical Data Dominator, I see that Adrian Peterson is already the #21 all-time rusher for the Vikings (and can move into the top 10 with 1,207 yards in 2008) and that Tarvaris Jackson is #13 in interceptions (and can move into the top 10 with 7 in 2008).

* If you made a list of "Guys in the NFL you thought would be involved in a shooting," wouldn't you say that Marvin Harrison would have to be right about at the bottom of that list?

* As if the Packers don't have enough QBs in camp to try and replace Brett Favre, now it looks like they've signed Bledsoe.

* Like Jason Giambi many years ago, Roger Clemens is sorry he did "stuff." Or, more appropriately, "things," since he hasn't admitted to actual steroid use (yet). Or, even more appropriately, "15-year-old girls." Gee, Roger, I thought you were a paragon of virtue?

* The Twins are improbably in first place, leading the White Sox by 1.5 games, due in part to the Twins winning their last five and the Sox losing their last five. The best part of that news, of course, is that it gave [bleeping] Ozzie Guillen the chance to go off on Chicago media and fans.

Tuesday humor and miscellaney

A few things that I've picked up over the past couple weeks and thought I should share with you all:

* First of all, read the fourth comment on this post. Absolutely priceless. Being in ALL CAPS just makes it better.

* Over on Pat Neshek's blog, the Twins reliever (who's off to a rough start, with a 7.50 ERA after getting blasted in last night's loss) talks about when someone sends in an item and asks him to get a teammate's signature:

"Never ever ask another player to get something signed from another player. It happens...every week I get one of these and have to toss it. I guess in Junior High terms it would be like a guy trying to get the hot girl and using her ugly friend to get in with her...it's just not right."

C'mon, Pat, you're not ugly.

* Tired of hard video games? Try You Have to Burn the Rope. With an ending almost as long as Final Fantasy VI.

* Michael Silver's at it again. Not content with his random power rankings during the season, he recently penned an "Ultimate Mock Draft," where each team could pick any athlete. In theory, then, this list should go from best available on down, taking talent and age into account, and while I do believe Al Davis might be crazy enough to take Devin Hester fourth overall, does anyone still think Carson Palmer is the third-most desirable player in the NFL or that 34-year-old Walter Jones is #5? And injury issues, sure, but Adrian Peterson at #14 and LaDainian Tomlinson at #20?

Of course, instead of taking Dwight Freeney at #17, the Vikings would probably try to trade up to take Tarvaris Jackson.

* Former Vikings offensive coordinator and Rams head coach Scott Linehan thinks that going 9-6 as the starter of a team three years ago makes the Gus Frerotte signing "a good decision" for the Vikings. Good for the Rams, to be sure. Then again, considering how much credit Brad Childress assigns to a quarterback's win-loss record, he probably thinks Jackson and Frerotte are the next coming of Joe Montana and Steve Young.

* Finally, the fine folks who brought you baseball-reference.com, pro-football-reference.com, and basketball-reference.com have completed the sporting four-way with the launch of hockey-reference.com. Now, you too can look up who is #213 all time in goals scored in the NHL (Stan Smyl with 262) and find out what players share your birthday. Well done, but when will we see nascar-reference.com? You know it has to be coming...

An even newer way to evaluate QBs

Even semi-casual fans now understand that the old standby of passer rating has its flaws. While new-age stats like AYA (adjusted yards per attempt) and even my own TYA (total yards/attempt) might be better, it's still an inexact science. And statheads with an eye on the draft all know that just because a player put up big numbers in college doesn't mean that success will translate to the pros.

Fortunately, I've come up with a new system that should not only solve these lingering issues but also provide a great way to evaluate both college and pro talent. Wondering if Matt Ryan or Brian Brohm is the best available quarterback in the draft? My new system shows that they should both have similarly excellent careers, and it can all be boiled down into one stat, which I've abbreviated FLAV, which stands for "First-Last Absolute Value."

FLAV is computed by taking the number of letters in a quarterback's first name and subtracting the number of letters in his last name. If you come up with a negative number, simply multiply by -1 to make the value positive. The lower the number, the better the quarterback will be (with a notable set of exceptions, mentioned below), with a value of 0 -- representing a QB with equal letters in each name -- being the optimal result, though QBs with FLAVs of 1 or 2 often have solid careers.

With this in mind, it's easy to see why Brohm and Ryan, both with an FLAV of 0, should be fine. And this should end the debate, once and for all, as to who the best quarterback of all time was. In my mind, it has to be Brett Favre, probably the best FLAV0R (standing for First-Last Absolute Value of 0 with a Ring) to ever play the game, though an equally solid case could be made for FLAV0R Steve Young. And is it any wonder why Michael Vick wanted to be known as Mike Vick a few years into his NFL career?

Many of today's best quarterbacks, like Tony Romo, Carson Palmer (FLAV 0), Drew Brees, Peyton Manning (FLAV 1), David Garrard, and Jeff Garcia (FLAV 2) enjoy success due to their low FLAVs. In fact, the top of the all-time passer rating list is dominated by low-FLAV players Young, Peyton Manning (FLAV 1), Kurt Warner (FLAV 2), Tom Brady (FLAV 2)...and Ben Roethlisberger? A FLAV of 11!?

That's where the F3 corollary comes in. It seems that quarterbacks with three-letter first names are immune to the FLAV rule. In fact, QBs with three-letter first names have had some of the best careers in the NFL. Just look at the large number of successful Joes -- Montana, Namath, Theismann -- with seemingly bloated FLAVs, as well as greats like Dan Marino and Len Dawson. Combine a low FLAV and a three-letter name and you're destined for stardom, not to mention dating and impregnating supermodels, like Tom Brady has done. Many teams overlook this vital part of the FLAV equation, which explains why nobody gave Eli Manning much of a chance in the playoffs and why Delaware's Joe Flacco will likely slip to the second round of the draft.

By now, though, you're probably already ready to poke a hole in this theory by pointing out one of the greatest QB flops of all time: Ryan Leaf. With a strong arm and, more importantly, a FLAV of 0, he seemed destined for greatness.

Ah, but there's a secret about Leaf that few know and that Leaf was always terrified would be discovered, which may have contributed to his high-strung antics and poor NFL career. Like our 42nd president, Leaf was not born with the same last name he carried into adulthood. In fact, it turns out that he is the distant relative of another NFL player, one whose name spells near-automatic doom for any quarterback unlucky enough to fall from his family tree.

It's true: Ryan Leaf's birth name was really Ryan Houshmandzedah. That's an FLAV of 12, folks. If only the Chargers had done their research.

Finally, this post wouldn't be complete without touching up on the Minnesota Vikings' tumultuous quarterback situation. While Kelly Holcomb (FLAV 2) looked good at times in 2007, even low-FLAV players can age ungracefully. Brooks Bollinger (FLAV 4) is clearly not the answer, and any talk of bringing in Sage Rosenfels (FLAV 4) should stop. Donovan McNabb (FLAV 1) seems a good choice, but where does that leave Tarvaris Jackson (FLAV 1)? With such a low FLAV, what is stopping him from becoming the next great, or at least above-average QB?

I think the answer lies in the name "Tarvaris" itself. Let's face it -- do you know any other people named "Tarvaris"? I don't. The name appears to be completely made up, and, while it satisfies the basics of having a low FLAV, the football gods do not take kindly to those who play fast and loose with its simple traditions. If Tarvaris had a more normal-sounding (and preferably seven-letter) first name, like "Terrell" or "Roberto," he could have been one of the greatest QBs of all time. As it is, the Vikings were clearly duped to trade up for him by his low FLAV, and he may sadly never live up to those lofty expectations.

Hey, do you suppose Milt Plum or Sammy Baugh are still available?

2008 Minnesota Twins preview

As I've leafed through the pre-season magazines and read the experts' picks online, I've found that they all have at least one observation in common: The Twins will not be going to the playoffs this year. Unfortunately, I agree.

You can point at the loss of Johan Santana as the death knell of the team's chances of playing in October, but even with him last year, the team only won 79 games. Without him, they'll certainly be worse, though not as much as most people seem to think. Every publication I've read has the Twins finishing no better than third in the division, with Detroit and Cleveland occupying the #1 and #2 spots. Some, however, rank the Twins much lower, and one I glanced at yesterday -- the Sporting News' pre-season publication, I think it was -- had the Twins in fifth, even though it was published before the Santana trade.

People fear change. And the general consensus among many is "change = bad." The Twins may or may not be a better team in 2008 than they were in 2007. They will definitely be a different team, given all their offseason changes. However, apart from the loss of Johan Santana and probably Torii Hunter, it's not as if any of the other changes were automatically for the worse.

With Francisco Liriano inexplicably made to toil away at AAA, the rotation consists of Livan Hernandez, Scott Baker, Kevin Slowey, Boof Bonser, and Nick Blackburn -- and your guess is as good as mine as to how this group, Liriano included, will perform. Hernandez is the only one with any kind of sustained track record. Unfortunately, it's not a very good one. His ERA has been a hair short of 5.00 the last two years, and that was without facing a DH regularly. If he's still in the rotation by the All-Star Break, I'll be surprised. Still, even that would be longer than Sidney Ponson and Ramon Ortiz lasted.

His other rotation-mates young and inexperienced, which, in many people's minds, means they won't be good. Never mind the fact that Baker and Slowey posted better ERAs than Hernandez last season (while facing a DH) and that Bonser was just a shade higher. Boof's lost weight, so they say, and there's no reason to believe that the lot of them can't at least post a bunch of ERAs in the 4-5 range. None of them are Johan Santana (though Slowey could be the next Brad Radke), but just because they're young doesn't mean they'll suck either. And if they do, there's Phil Humber and Kevin Mulvey waiting in the wings to replace them. With a strong bullpen, led by Joe Nathan and Pat Neshek, there's no reason to think the Twins will be any worse than any other team when it comes to pitching this year.

Then there's the lineup. Yes, Torii Hunter is gone. But can you say without a shadow of a doubt that Delmon Young won't have as good a year? It's a bit of a stretch, to be sure, but Hunter has, I think, been playing way over his head the last two years and is 10 years older than Young, in any case. Hunter hit 31 home runs last year to Young's 13; I think both players arriving in the 20-25 homer range for 2008 is realistic, and Young's 2007 OBP was only 18 points lower than Hunter's. If I had to bet for the 22-year-old to improve or the 32-year-old to decline...well, I'd pick both.

Then there's the (almost) totally new infield. I've always been a fan of Mike Lamb and thought he was criminally underutilized in Houston. He'll hit around .280 with 15 home runs. Adam Everett won't contribute much with the stick, but he's a Gold-Glove-caliber fielder. I actually think Brendan Harris was a first-half wonder in Tampa Bay last year -- he only hit .256/.316/.397 after the break last year -- and I worry that he'll be able to produce much on offense. Harris and Lamb are also not the greatest of defenders; hopefully Everett can make up for some of that. In any case, if the trade is Alexi Casilla/Jason Bartlett/Nick Punto for Lamb/Everett/Harris, I think I'll take the latter most any day.

Joe Mauer, Justin Morneau, and Michael Cuddyer all return, with Jason Kubel and (ugh) Craig Monroe splitting DH duty. That, of course, leaves center field to be manned by the key player in the Santana deal, Carlos Gomez. Nobody doubts that he's fast, but can he get on base enough to justify his spot at the top of the order?

You'll hear the term ISOP (Isolated Power) bandied about a lot. Basically, it's slugging percentage minus batting average. A player with a .200 ISOP has more "power" than a player with a .100 ISOP, even if they might have the same slugging percentage. It's a far more accurate measure of power than SLG% alone Ichiro Suzuki has a career SLG% of .437. Rob Deer has a career SLG% of .442. Will you say that Deer (ISOP .222) is only a slightly better power hitter than Ichiro (ISOP .104)? He's a better hitter, overall, to be sure, but Deer is far more likely to hit a home run.

I like to look at something I call ISOBP (Isolated On-Base Percentage), which is simply on-base percentage minus batting average. It's a way of telling, in general, how good someone is at drawing a walk (or HBP), and, as ISOP removes batting average from figuring power, ISOBP removes batting average -- the ability to put the ball in play -- from OBP, which is often about not putting the ball in play. Even as batting average (and therefore OBP) can fluctuate throughout a player's career, ISOBP tends to stay fairly even.

In 2007, Gomez had an average of .232, an OBP of .288, and an ISOBP of .056. That's not great for a leadoff hitter, but it's not bad either, and he was only 21 years old. It's also roughly in line with his minor-league ISOBP of .058, meaning that Gomez will likely never have an ISOBP of better than about .060.

So, what's an acceptable OBP for a leadoff hitter? I'd say the conversation starts around .350. That means Gomez will need to bat about .290 to be a valuable player. Given his speed and extra-base power, I think that's a reasonable possibility, especially when you consider how young he is. He may not do it this year, but I think it's likely he'll make it into that range before too long. And if he doesn't ever fully develop, well, Deolis Guerra also came over in the Santana deal, and he's not even 19 years old yet and looking good.

I agree that Cleveland and Detroit will rule the division and that the best the Twins can hope for is a third-place finish. That said, I also think Kansas City is on the rise and could actually surpass the Twins. The White Sox? Too full of their own hubris (and old, injury-prone players) to be any good this year. I think the 3-4-5 positions will be pretty close -- and the Twins could be a force in 09-10, once the young players get a little experience -- but my final prediction for the Twins is:

75-87, 4th place