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.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
Yet another Tarvaris Jackson post
I try not to rag on T-Jack too often. All right, maybe that's not true. A look at my tagged entries lists shows 28 articles mentioning Tarvaris Jackson, second only to Adrian Peterson (29) among individual players; of course, they'll be tied after this entry. And I've tried to insist, time and time again, that the quarterback position, while important, isn't an absolute make-or-break position for the success of a team, if it's strong in all other areas, which seems to be the case for the 2008 Vikings.
What I do have a beef with is with anyone who insists that T-Jack is a good quarterback, or definitely will be good, somehow based on his previous performance. We hear it all the time from Brad Childress -- oh, by the way, did you know Tarvaris was 8-4 as a starting quarterback in 2007? -- as well as from other fans, naively optimistic about all things Viking, and especially from official sources, which always want to paint Jackson as "showing improvement" and other niceties. If a player at virtually any other position had struggled in his sophomore year like T-Jack had, there would be some strong consideration given for his replacement, or at least for a reduction in his playing time, but I've rarely hear such things spoken aloud about T-Jack this offseason, pointing instead to his positives while completely forgetting about his negatives.
To be fair, Jackson does have some good qualities. He's mobile, hard-working, humble, and young, so there certainly is some possibility for improvement. But what far too many people seem to forget is that just because you can improve doesn't mean you will improve. There's no automatic reason why Jackson should post better numbers in 2008 than in 2007. Yes, having Bernard Berrian (and no Troy Williamson) will likely help. And Jackson doesn't have to put up Dan Marino-esque numbers for his team to win.
The fact of the matter, is, though, that there are 32 starting quarterback positions available in the NFL in 2008. To state it simply, 11 of those will go to above-average quarterbacks, 10 of them will go to average quarterbacks, and 11 of them will go to below-average quarterbacks. I think few people would argue that, while he wasn't the worst QB in the league last year, Jackson fits pretty solidly into that last category. Can he move up the rankings and at least qualify as "average" in 2008?
A lot of people think so, largely based on the fact that he's a second-year player who shows some promise. Then again, every third-year quarterback who gets a starting job is labeled as "promising" by someone. How many of those players actually turn out to be good, and how many flame out?
To answer that question, I went back to the Historical Data Dominator and punched in some parameters to look for second-year QBs from 1978 to 2007 with numbers similar to T-Jack's in 2007. I looked for quarterbacks with 1,500 to 2,500 passing yards (Jackson had 1,911), 6 to 15 passing TDs (Jackson had 9) and 9 to 15 interceptions (Jackson had 12). Here are the results. In my opinion, it's a mixed (and mostly bad) bag.
Of the 13 quarterbacks, only one -- Steve Young -- had hall-of-fame talent, and he had to escape Tampa Bay (where he played in 1986) for the powerhouse 49ers to realize it. The only other QBs on the list with at least reasonable careers (in my opinion) are Jim McMahon, Jim Everett, and Chris Miller. The top four names -- David Carr, Cade McNown, Danny Kanell, and David Klingler -- read like a who's who of failed quarterbacks, and the rest of the list is almost too painful to examine too closely.
But, like Mark McGwire, we're not here to talk about the past. How did these 13 quarterbacks do in their third years? (Well, 12 quarterbacks...Cade McNown never played another down in the NFL.) While the results are mostly bad, there were some gems, like Don Majkowski's magical 1989, where he threw for 4,318 yards and 27 TDs, and Jim Everett's 3,964-yard, 31-TD 1988. And Steve Young was a spectacular fill-in for Joe Montana in 1987, throwing 10 TDs (versus zero interceptions) on just 69 passes. On average, though, these quarterbacks (minus McNown) accumulated 2,130 yards, 13 TDs, and 10 interceptions in their third year. That's not much improved over their second-year average of 2,043, 10, and 12.
Other than Young, I can't say for sure how much of an opportunity they all got to start, though they averaged 305 pass attempts as a unit (compared to 321 in their second years). Jackson had 294 in 2007. Even if he stays healthy and throws, say, 350 to 400 passes in 2008, should we expect better than about 2,500 yards, and a TD-to-Int. ratio just barely over 1.0 for T-Jack in 2008? I'd like to see it as much as anyone, but I won't hold my breath, no matter how much I read about how T-Jack is "seeing the field better" and "making all the throws." That's a lot easier in May than it is in September.
What I do have a beef with is with anyone who insists that T-Jack is a good quarterback, or definitely will be good, somehow based on his previous performance. We hear it all the time from Brad Childress -- oh, by the way, did you know Tarvaris was 8-4 as a starting quarterback in 2007? -- as well as from other fans, naively optimistic about all things Viking, and especially from official sources, which always want to paint Jackson as "showing improvement" and other niceties. If a player at virtually any other position had struggled in his sophomore year like T-Jack had, there would be some strong consideration given for his replacement, or at least for a reduction in his playing time, but I've rarely hear such things spoken aloud about T-Jack this offseason, pointing instead to his positives while completely forgetting about his negatives.
To be fair, Jackson does have some good qualities. He's mobile, hard-working, humble, and young, so there certainly is some possibility for improvement. But what far too many people seem to forget is that just because you can improve doesn't mean you will improve. There's no automatic reason why Jackson should post better numbers in 2008 than in 2007. Yes, having Bernard Berrian (and no Troy Williamson) will likely help. And Jackson doesn't have to put up Dan Marino-esque numbers for his team to win.
The fact of the matter, is, though, that there are 32 starting quarterback positions available in the NFL in 2008. To state it simply, 11 of those will go to above-average quarterbacks, 10 of them will go to average quarterbacks, and 11 of them will go to below-average quarterbacks. I think few people would argue that, while he wasn't the worst QB in the league last year, Jackson fits pretty solidly into that last category. Can he move up the rankings and at least qualify as "average" in 2008?
A lot of people think so, largely based on the fact that he's a second-year player who shows some promise. Then again, every third-year quarterback who gets a starting job is labeled as "promising" by someone. How many of those players actually turn out to be good, and how many flame out?
To answer that question, I went back to the Historical Data Dominator and punched in some parameters to look for second-year QBs from 1978 to 2007 with numbers similar to T-Jack's in 2007. I looked for quarterbacks with 1,500 to 2,500 passing yards (Jackson had 1,911), 6 to 15 passing TDs (Jackson had 9) and 9 to 15 interceptions (Jackson had 12). Here are the results. In my opinion, it's a mixed (and mostly bad) bag.
Of the 13 quarterbacks, only one -- Steve Young -- had hall-of-fame talent, and he had to escape Tampa Bay (where he played in 1986) for the powerhouse 49ers to realize it. The only other QBs on the list with at least reasonable careers (in my opinion) are Jim McMahon, Jim Everett, and Chris Miller. The top four names -- David Carr, Cade McNown, Danny Kanell, and David Klingler -- read like a who's who of failed quarterbacks, and the rest of the list is almost too painful to examine too closely.
But, like Mark McGwire, we're not here to talk about the past. How did these 13 quarterbacks do in their third years? (Well, 12 quarterbacks...Cade McNown never played another down in the NFL.) While the results are mostly bad, there were some gems, like Don Majkowski's magical 1989, where he threw for 4,318 yards and 27 TDs, and Jim Everett's 3,964-yard, 31-TD 1988. And Steve Young was a spectacular fill-in for Joe Montana in 1987, throwing 10 TDs (versus zero interceptions) on just 69 passes. On average, though, these quarterbacks (minus McNown) accumulated 2,130 yards, 13 TDs, and 10 interceptions in their third year. That's not much improved over their second-year average of 2,043, 10, and 12.
Other than Young, I can't say for sure how much of an opportunity they all got to start, though they averaged 305 pass attempts as a unit (compared to 321 in their second years). Jackson had 294 in 2007. Even if he stays healthy and throws, say, 350 to 400 passes in 2008, should we expect better than about 2,500 yards, and a TD-to-Int. ratio just barely over 1.0 for T-Jack in 2008? I'd like to see it as much as anyone, but I won't hold my breath, no matter how much I read about how T-Jack is "seeing the field better" and "making all the throws." That's a lot easier in May than it is in September.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
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.
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.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Ultimate Fantasy Football Draft, Pick #3
Only five votes this time around, and only one man got more than one. And that man was Brian Westbrook, who would probably be my #3 pick in any league. He led the league with 2,104 yards from scrimmage last year, adding a dozen touchdowns. There are still some lingering concerns about his durability, but he's played in 15 games each of the last two seasons, so he might be turning into the next coming of Robert Smith, who was fragile as a ballerina at the start of his career, but durable (and very good) for the latter half of his career. Who says marijuana can't be used for medicinal purposes?
This brings our draft up to:
1. Adrian Peterson, RB, Min
2. LaDainian Tomlinson, RB, SD
3. Brian Westbrook, RB, Phi
And the next pick will be...well, I really have no idea. I think most drafts this year will follow the Peterson/Tomlinson/Westbrook line, in some order, for the first three picks. After that, who knows? Maybe we'll get some insight here.
But only if I get more than five votes :)
This brings our draft up to:
1. Adrian Peterson, RB, Min
2. LaDainian Tomlinson, RB, SD
3. Brian Westbrook, RB, Phi
And the next pick will be...well, I really have no idea. I think most drafts this year will follow the Peterson/Tomlinson/Westbrook line, in some order, for the first three picks. After that, who knows? Maybe we'll get some insight here.
But only if I get more than five votes :)
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Vikings waive Erasmus James
Erasmus James was waived by the Vikings Friday after he failed a physical, putting an end to his oft-injured career in purple. I've got a rather unusual perspective on James, having lived in Wisconsin during his college days at U-Dub and seeing him wreak havoc on Big 10 backfields for several years in Madison, including a senior season that saw him rack up 8 sacks and 11.5 tackles for loss while leading the Badger defense to a second-best-in-conference 15.4 points per game. I was excited to see the team draft him with its #1 pick in 2005 and hoped that he'd provide that pass rush from the defensive end spot the team had been lacking for years.
Fast forward three years, and the Vikings are still looking for that pass-rushing defensive end (which they may have finally found in Jared Allen). In those three years, James has appeared in just 23 of a possible 48 games, accumulating just 30 tackles and 5.0 sacks. He played in 15 of 16 games as a rookie, but has since missed 24 of 32 games with injuries, leaving the team with little choice but to waive the unreliable defensive end.
While failing his physical may be a clear sign that James cannot overcome his injuries and play at an acceptable level, it would have been nice if the team could have found some way to keep him around, even just as a part-time player. As good as the Vikings' defensive line could be this year -- with Allen, Pat Williams, Kevin Williams, and Brian Robison/Ray Edwards -- the unit's depth has been decimated in the off-season. Kenichi Udeze will sit out the year while battling his leukemia. Darrion Scott was released (and subsequently arrested). Spencer Johnson signed a free-agent contract with the Bills. And now James is out of the picture. The team had better hope for stellar performances from its top players along the line, because the likes of Otis Grigsby, Kenderick Allen, Fred Evans, Jayme Mitchell, and Ellis Wyms don't exactly strike fear into the hearts of offensive linemen.
It's likely that some team will take a shot at James, considering his youth and his standout performances in college. If he can pass a physical, he might find a team willing to take a low-cost chance on a possible third-down rush specialist. That's probably about all he can hope for at this stage of his career, and I wish him luck.
Fast forward three years, and the Vikings are still looking for that pass-rushing defensive end (which they may have finally found in Jared Allen). In those three years, James has appeared in just 23 of a possible 48 games, accumulating just 30 tackles and 5.0 sacks. He played in 15 of 16 games as a rookie, but has since missed 24 of 32 games with injuries, leaving the team with little choice but to waive the unreliable defensive end.
While failing his physical may be a clear sign that James cannot overcome his injuries and play at an acceptable level, it would have been nice if the team could have found some way to keep him around, even just as a part-time player. As good as the Vikings' defensive line could be this year -- with Allen, Pat Williams, Kevin Williams, and Brian Robison/Ray Edwards -- the unit's depth has been decimated in the off-season. Kenichi Udeze will sit out the year while battling his leukemia. Darrion Scott was released (and subsequently arrested). Spencer Johnson signed a free-agent contract with the Bills. And now James is out of the picture. The team had better hope for stellar performances from its top players along the line, because the likes of Otis Grigsby, Kenderick Allen, Fred Evans, Jayme Mitchell, and Ellis Wyms don't exactly strike fear into the hearts of offensive linemen.
It's likely that some team will take a shot at James, considering his youth and his standout performances in college. If he can pass a physical, he might find a team willing to take a low-cost chance on a possible third-down rush specialist. That's probably about all he can hope for at this stage of his career, and I wish him luck.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Ultimate Fantasy Football Draft, Pick #2 (again)
I've decided to start re-naming these posts. Since I'm revealing the #2 pick in this post, I'll call this one #2, the next one #3, and so on.
Now that the bookkeeping is out of the way, the actual #2 pick is...well, a tie. Both Tom Brady and LaDainian Tomlinson received 3 votes. Peyton Manning and Brian Westbrook got 2 votes each, and 6 players tied with 1 vote each. Seems the pick wasn't as cut-and-dry as I thought it would be. So, using my powers as grand arbitrator of ties, I choose, as the #2 pick on my Ultimate Fantasy Football Draft...
LaDainian Tomlinson. Because there's no way you'll get me taking a quarterback second in a fantasy football draft. Plus, that whole 1,776 yards from scrimmage and 15+ TDs each of the last six years thing is the kind of steady production I want from a pick this high. Brady had a phenomenal season, but he's not going to throw 50 TD passes again. In fact, he'd never even thrown for 30 TDs before 2007.
That puts our draft so far at:
1. Adrian Peterson, Min
2. LaDainian Tomlinson, SD
Pick #3 should be very interesting! The polls will close at 6:00 P.M. Sunday.
Now that the bookkeeping is out of the way, the actual #2 pick is...well, a tie. Both Tom Brady and LaDainian Tomlinson received 3 votes. Peyton Manning and Brian Westbrook got 2 votes each, and 6 players tied with 1 vote each. Seems the pick wasn't as cut-and-dry as I thought it would be. So, using my powers as grand arbitrator of ties, I choose, as the #2 pick on my Ultimate Fantasy Football Draft...
LaDainian Tomlinson. Because there's no way you'll get me taking a quarterback second in a fantasy football draft. Plus, that whole 1,776 yards from scrimmage and 15+ TDs each of the last six years thing is the kind of steady production I want from a pick this high. Brady had a phenomenal season, but he's not going to throw 50 TD passes again. In fact, he'd never even thrown for 30 TDs before 2007.
That puts our draft so far at:
1. Adrian Peterson, Min
2. LaDainian Tomlinson, SD
Pick #3 should be very interesting! The polls will close at 6:00 P.M. Sunday.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
