Championship Week Lessons

REMEMBER TO SCROLL DOWN FOR THE COMPUTER SUPER BOWL PICK

Split the games last week against the spread and am now 6-4 for the postseason. Feeling bad about backing Pittsburgh, obviously. But I'm happy because my analysis proved accurate. When you single out a guy and the opponent burns him in exactly the way you advised, that's pretty good. Of course, it would have been better if I had determined that Brady and the Pats could burn Palamalu and the Steelers to this extent. Alas, I just didn't think they'd find the time against that pass rush. Now, of course, it makes sense. Near midfield. Two TEs. Max protect. Bang. That's the way the Pats always get their big strikes.

Why isn't Bill Cowher being taken to the woodshed? He was so badly outclassed and had his team so poorly prepared for the opponent. His game decisions were questionable. His stategy of trying to beat the Steelers without relying on his QB foolhardy (as my friend Steve Moyer points out, just play Tommy Maddox if that's your thinking). And the strategy of kicking the field goal from the two in the fourth quarter down 14 just doesn't hold up to even casual scrutiny. Contrast Cowher's treatment to Herman Edwards' treatment last week. And are we going to hear any revisions to the criticism of the Jets end game strategy in light of the fact that he had a QB playing with a torn rotator cuff? Nope. (We've been telling you here since he got hurt that we were hearing his shoulder was really bad.) But we'll have more on this possible double standard later in the week in another Media Counter Punch.

It's also interesting to note the contrast between the media summation of the divisional games, when the running game was rightly credited as being determinative in three of the four matchups, to championship week, when the passing game and pass defense ruled. What? The Eagles won because they stopped the run and not because of their ability to pass? That's what's being said? Well then, I give up.

What about Pats-Steelers, where Brady was able to make big passing plays without throwing interceptions. Turnovers should not be lumped together, but always are. Remember, research shows that interceptions have a significantly greater impact on winning and losing than do lost fumbles. I believe this is irrespective of the return yards. There is a lot of speculation as to why this is true, but that's of secondary interest. The important thing is, it is true.

Visit Bud Goode's website, which you can find via the links area of my website. The bottom line is that his 2004 research shows that a lost fumble costs you three points but an interception costs you 5.55. So, if you throw one more INT than your opponent, you start 5.55 points in the hole, two 11.10, three 16.65, etc., etc. It doesn't mean you're going to lose the game by that much, it just means that you should be expected to lose the game by that much if other game factors remain equal. The trouble is that there aren't many single factors that come close to making up this kind of deficit.

This is the reason that I think the Super Bowl is going to be more hotly contested than most observers. Thankfully, my computer agrees for its own reasons, too (interception differential being a big factor in the programming). The Patriots generally win the interecption battle but will face one of the most mistake-free passers of our generation. If the interception battle remains even, expect a three-point game.END

Click here to read the rest of this entry.

A Sort of Homecoming

My how times have changed.

Over 20 years ago, I cut class and went to Macy's at Willowbrook to buy Roxy Music tickets (they had a Ticketmaster right next to the lingerie).

I almost puked when I saw that Bryan Ferry had the temerity to ask $17.50 face value to see the band at the Capital Theatre in Passaic, NJ. Priced out of that seat, my friend Gary and I went down the list of upcoming $11 shows and quickly settled on U2, as we had a chance to preview "New Year's Day" at our college radio station and really dug it.

We knew within three songs that we were witnessing the start of something really big. And the rest, as we say, is history. Cut to 2005 and I just paid $165 per seat FACE VALUE through an internet presale. The seat is okay, by arena standards, 19th row up from the side of the stage. But it is the side of the stage.

We could have been one section over but threw them back in hopes of something better. After all, this was their fanclub presale. No luck and lots of bickering and second guessing ensued.

Why do it? Well, it will be one month past 20 years since my wife and I had our first date at a U2 show at the same venue (the Meadowlands Arena). That was back when Bono's flag was white instead of green. END.

Click here to read the rest of this entry.

Computer Super Bowl Pick

Patriots by 3.5 over Eagles.

Is there any wonder you are paying a premium to bet New England? I believe this computer line is accurate if neither Owens or Seymour play and if the teams play even in terms of interceptions.

More coming on the Championship Games tomorrow. Remember, we have two weeks to kill now. So, let's not get hasty.

Click here to read the rest of this entry.

Peyton Pats' Pushover

This is a bad day for forward-thinking football fans. Defense and the running game ruled yesterday in New England. There's no denying it.

My friend and colleague Scott Pianowski, who most of you hopefully know from our Breakfast Tabling, sent me an interesting article from Slate on investing, the lessons from which I think apply here.

Author Henry Blodget talks about Conservatism and Confirmatory Bias thusly :

"Once we form opinions, we tend to overvalue information that reinforces them and undervalue information that undermines them (conservatism bias). We even tend to seek out supporting information (confirmatory bias). Thus, we irrationally cling to incorrect conclusions, and, to paraphrase Simon and Garfunkel, hear what we want to hear and disregard the rest."

In other words, did defense and the running game win the championship for New England last year when the footballs were flying down the field against Carolina? Didn't the Rams win a Super Bowl? Didn't Rice and Montana (and Young) win their fair share of Super Bowls? But the Smashmouth Set is going to be cramming this game down our throats all week.

By running the ball so much in the first half and settling for field goals, New England kept the Colts in the game well into the third quarter. Had they combined their pass defense with an emphasis on pass offense, they could have KO'ed the Colts sooner.

I feel bad for Manning, who had a great year and now has to hear the criticism for failing on the big stage, again. But I've seen this Patriots defense do this too many times, especially at home, to get down on Peyton. What about those Patriots' underrated linebackers? Everyone on defense has a very specific role and they do what's asked of them (and nothing is ever asked of them that they can't do, which is the genius of this coaching staff).

No one expected the Colts to get shut down like that considering the injuries and factoring in how Manning performed this season and even in the season opener at New England. I was surprised that the Colts came out in two-TEs and tried to get Edgerrin James off early. I was surprised they didn't build on their offensive momentum (albeit slight) at the end of the first half. The Pats didn't seem to be doing anything that crazy. They were rushing four most times and dropping seven. They were pretty vanilla, as usual, on first and second downs (which are the downs when you have to beat them). They were mixing zone and man on third down and were dropping eight at times. Of course, they didn't blitz.

Reading the post-game stuff in the papers today, you can tell the Colts didn't know what hit them. I get the feeling they could still be playing and Manning still wouldn't have found the end zone.

Now the historic season is over. The passing game, by all accounts (but don't believe them), has been rendered moot. But passing game proponents never underestimate the importance of pass defense, which New England, like Spinal Tap, turned up to 11 on Sunday.

Click here to read the rest of this entry.

Deja Vu?

I'm going to deal with key sequence of this game separately. You can bet we'll have a lot more about it all week in our NY-centric Media Counter Punch. I speak from the perspective of a Jets fan, but trying to separate myself from that miserable lot of losers that deserve all of their so-called suffering (despite being past the point in life when one realizes that real suffering is reserved for victims of things like disease and natural disasters).

It is a delicious irony that the Jets seemed to have fallen victim to the very thing that extended the life of their season last week -- conservative playcalling and laying up for a field goal that was not a chip shot.

Now let me be clear here. I would have thrown a pass on second down and ran the ball on third down without getting hung up on the clock (though I would have called the TO with three seconds left). But the kneel down is red herring because the Jets had planned to sacrifice the third-down play before the Led Zeppelin-like Communciation Breakdown between coaches, players and referees.

While the situations that Schottenheimer and Edwards face seems similar, that's only on the surface. San Diego had great success moving the ball against the Jets for over a quarter. The Jets were clearly a tired team. And the Chargers had a wet field and a rookie kicker.

Conversely, the Jets had almost given up a sack on a third-down pass moments earlier before Brien's first miss. The risk/reward margin narrows significantly when you factor in that the Jets had one snap inside the Pittsburgh 20 in eight quarters at Heinz Field during the last month (after which they were promptly sent backwards). Pennington and the offense didn't make a signifcant play all day. Should Herm have gambled that they would have done more good than harm if given a chance once they got inside the Pittsburgh 25? It's debatable.

Brien was 10-for-11 from 40+ yards this year and 7-for-9 from that distance on grass as a Jet. He had made two 40+-yard kicks in similar conditions at Heinz field a month ago and ealier that day had easily nailed a 42-yard field goal desite a high snap that broke his approach to the ball. What about these stats that the Herm bashers are saying about the difficulties that Heinz presents to kicker. Depends on the numbers you look at. How about 2004, when visiting kickers went 10-for-11 including 4-for-5 from 40+ yards. That's what was so ridiculous about CBS noting that the longest field goal at Pittsburgh this year was 46 yards, as it implied longer kicks were missed (when none were even attempted).

Jets fans have their suffering. But it's not a wistful suffering. It's nasty and venomous. Seemingly drunken in its rage. And, if you've been to as many Jets games as I have, feel free to remove the "seemingly" from the prior sentence as the liquor flows in the parking lot before games like water through a sewer. Alas, it's all of the bottom-shelf variety.

(I remember sitting at a Monday night game against the Bills in the '80s that had quickly gotten out of hand and wondering why it was misting despite the clear skies. I soon realized it wasn't mist but the drunken slobs in the upper deck deciding to pee en masse on their fellow fans.)

Click here to read the rest of this entry.

Computer Championship Picks

The real line is in parenthesis. Again, all lines are based on our Stat Power Index, which can be viewed by clicking on that icon on your left.

Steelers by 3.5 over Pats (-3)

Eagles by 6.5 over Falcons (+4)

Click here to read the rest of this entry.

Icing The Kicker

The Jets win versus the Chargers raises the question whether icing the kicker (calling a timeout before his potentially game-winning or game-tying kick) works.

Statisticians Scott Berry and Craig Wood researched the topic in the November 2004 issue of Chance magazine.

Berry and Wood analyzed 2002 and 2003 field goal attempts (2,003 in total) by 52 different kickers. Over 78 percent (78.1 to be precise) were successful.

Berry and Wood then broke out game-winning or game-tying kicks attempted with less than three minutes left. They found 139 such pressure kicks, and 101 (73 percent) were good.

But after the 38 times that the defense called a timeout, only 24 (63 percent) of these kicks connected.

The authors then created a mathematical model representing the probability of a successful kick that factored in distance, weather conditions and the ability of different kickers.

The results according to Berry and Wood: the probability of late game-winning or tying field goal from 40 yards in sunny weather by an average kicker is 75.9 percent. That same kicker in the same conditions will make that same kick 65.9 percent of the time after they've been iced.

Click here to read the rest of this entry.

Media Counter Punch 1/11/05

What better place to start than at ESPN, where Scott Pianowski informs me he has Tivo backing on Tom Jackson's observation that "the Minnesota Vikings ran the ball at will against the Packers." Does Tom Jackson mean to say that the key to the Vikings win was the running game? How quiant. How old school. How horribly inaccurate. Forget YPA even. That level of thinking isn't even required. Just look at the Vikings scoring drives. Not only where all four TDs via the air, they consumed 1:40, 1:55, 0:41, 3:19 in time of possession, respectively, and a mere 15 snaps combined. As usual in the NFL, the teams that threw the ball more efficiently in terms of YPA won each game last weekend. Next thing you know, we'll read about how Edgerrin James is the key to the Colts offense. Oh, sorry, the AP already reported that last week.

Michael Kay wrote on the YES network website that "(Randy Johnson) has pitched extremely well in the postseason" and "Think hard and come up with another pitcher you would want on the mound if you had to win a game to save your life in October."

This is a refrain that's been repeated recently by Yankees YES-men and their fans to contrast Johnson to the Mets' Pedro Martinez. But does the objective record support this? Let's look at their postseason careers:

Johnson: 7-8, 3.08 ERA, 108 IP, 86 H, 29 BB, 124 Ks
Martinez: 6-2, 3.40 ERA, 79 IP, 63 H, 26 BB, 80 Ks

Martinez, it's fair to say, has faced superior offensive teams, especially when you factor in the DH. (Most of Johnson's innings have been in the NL.)

At the Johnson press conference, we were treated to this gem (that went unchallenged by YES-man Kay and YES-woman Suzyn Waldman) from Yankee executive Randy Levine: "A lot of teams should worry about their own situation because I don't think they do it (spend money) as well as we do."

There's a difference between spending and spending well. The Yanks spent $48 million on Johnson when you add in his two-year extension plus $9 million to the DBacks so they would take Vazquez' contract plus a 40 percent premium (which will be due next December) in luxury taxes. When you figure in the luxury taxes on just Johnson's three-year deal, that brings the cost to the Yanks for three years of Johnson to $76.2 million. That's a steal compared to $4 million on Tony Womack or $60 million for seven years of Carl Pavano and Jaret Wright. Giambi? Karsay? You get the point. If the Yanks got the value per dollar that half the teams in baseball get, they would really be as unbeatable as their fans always think.

Kay said in his internet piece: "You had a mission statement ... improve the pitching. And a lot of people in baseball would say you did a very good job."

Let's break it down:

The Yanks traded Jon Leiber, Orlando Hernandez, Javier Vazquez (2004 cost to the Yankees: approximately $24 million) for Randy Johnson, Jaret Wright and Carl Pavano (2004 cost to the Yanks: $32.75 million plus the Vazquez buyout).

Were those extra millions worth it?

Old Yanks (2004): 458 IP, 484 H, 114 BBs, 386 Ks.

New Yanks (2004): 650 IP, 557 H, 163 BB, 588 Ks.

Of course, the picture becomes much more murky if you choose to work with career stats. That difference buys you Beltran if you resist the urge to sign Tino Martinez, at best a luxury and at worst ready to crater.

Mike Francesa and Chris Russo agree that you can make a case for Derek Jeter, Manny Ramirez and Jim Thome being worth more than Carlos Beltran. They agree that there's no comparison between Beltran and Vlad Guerrero. Of course, when Beltran was rumored to be headed to the Yanks, he was a crown jewel that George Steinbrenner would never be able to resist.

There's no need to repeat our criticism of the duo's Hall of Fame commentary, when they all but ignored the relative value of offense at positions that are more important and demanding defensively. In other words, if you have an above-average defensive centerfielder who hits like Jim Thome or Manny Ramirez, you not only have a top player in the present year, but a top player of all-time. What about Jeter, who also plays a defensive position of arguably greater value? We won't get into arguments regarding Jeter's defensive prowess relative to Beltran because they're not necessary here:

Beltran OPS 2002-2004: .846, .911, .915

Jeter OPS 2002-2004: .794, .844, .823

Earlier on WFAN, Sid Rosenberg and Joe Benigno agreed that Carlos Beltran would have a hard time putting up numbers comparible to the past two years given Shea Stadium being a pitcher's park.

But have Beltran's numbers been inflated recently by his home park?

Beltran at home (2004): 284 AB, 15 HR, .458 slugging, .774 OPS
Beltran away (2004): 315 AB, 23 HR, .629 slugging, 1.041 OPS

What about 2003?

Home: 249 AB, 10 HR, .498 slugging, .915 OPS
Away: 272 AB, 16 HR, .544 slugging, .906 OPS

Click here to read the rest of this entry.

Sunday's Games

Well, the Broncos didn't get my memo on not blitzing.

There's no mystery to these stats. 22 TDs and zero picks with a 137 passing rating vs. the blitz. What if I told you David Ortiz bats .600 with a homer every six swings against first-pitch fast balls and you went down in the playoffs because you just kept feeding this strength? That's what Mike Shanahan did yesterday. (We're not still calling him a genius, are we?)

Phil Simms said before the game that he thought the Broncos were going to use a game plan similar to what the Giants used on the Bills in the 1991 Super Bowl. I was hopeful. But then it went right out the window and Manning did against the blitz what he's done all year. (Shocker.)

The Patriots don't have their starting corners from September and may not have Richard Seymour either, but you're going to get a game plan here that forces Manning to do something different than he's been doing all year. Manning might be successful anyway, but he's going to have to be successful in a new way.

We've spoken about the Moss thing earlier on this blog. As for the actual game, the Vikings are dangerous, especially when Culpepper has five or six seconds to move around in the pocket and improvise something downfield. The first TD to Moe Williams (the 70-yarder) is the perfect illustration of this. Daunte dropped back and slid around and then dumped it to Williams (who broke his flat route and went deep) six full seconds after the snap. The last TD to Moss was similar, too.

I can't see the Eagles allowing this. Culpepper will need to make quick decisions to beat the blitz and resist the temptation to run, as you can't burn the defense bad enough that way to stop them from blitzing. Plus Culpepper is likely to have a severely limited Moss, who said after the game that he can only run in a straight line.

How does Favre throw all those intereceptions against a team that only picked off 11 passes all year? After the game, he went into Sherman's office and said he was retiring. Sherman took 45 minutes to talk him out of it so that he wouldn't announce it to the assmembled media. The Packers have a lot of holes. They blew it by firing their coordinator based on one play last year and now need a new system and, probably, new players. There are no pass rushers of note. The secondary needs to be blown up. The tread is getting thin on Ahman Green. The go-to receiver, Javon Walker, is like his QB: talented, explosive but undisciplined and prone to stupid mistakes.

Much more on all the games this week, of course, in the Breakfast Table and Forecast.

Click here to read the rest of this entry.

Moss' Moon

I love being lectured about morality and class from the network that's running "Your Mother Was a Whore" or "Who's Your Daddy" or whatever they're calling it. And have we forgotten "The Littlest Groom," which exploited dwarfs for ratings?

Randy Moss is a lightening rod. I'm guessing that hairdo doesn't go over well in the Red States. Me? I like 'fros better when they're bigger. The media should be thanking Randy because if he hadn't mimed that moon they would have had to ignore his playing through obvious pain and still making a game-deciding play. Had Favre done something remotely similar they would have stopped the game for a Purple Heart ceremony. (Speaking of Favre, it's a good thing none of those interceptions were his fault otherwise we might have to question that legend that's crammed down our throats.)

Now people are calling for Moss to be suspended and saying he hurts the team? No guy that good hurts any team. And what was the big deal? I laughed and so did my wife and kids. I don't think this is the decline of civilzation here. It was juvenile, admittedly, but that's what made it funny (to me anyway). I think we'd be better off as a nation if we expressed our outrage over wrongs that really matter and that have real human consequences, rather than trivia like this.

(Update: According to Tony Dungy, among others, the Packers fans are renowned for mooning the opposing team bus after Packer wins. Dungy says he's personally seen it a half dozen times. And they do it for real, not a mere simulation. Now I'm even more in Moss' corner. Don't dish it out if you can't take it. And the media should chastize the Packers fans and describe their conduct the same way, too. Just to be consistent. Me? I think think this is harmless stuff all around.) END.

Click here to read the rest of this entry.

Jets Coaches Fight

Hopefully, Saturday night won't be the last time members of the Jets organization fight over LaMont Jordan. Herm wanted Jordan in the game. The running backs coach was resisting and the fight ensued, at least that's the rumor as the Jets aren't talking. The real fight needs to be in February because the Jets will be set back as an organization if they lose Jordan over loyalty to Curtis Martin. This opinion was met with confused looks from fellow writers who've never bothered to research the performance of great running backs after age 30, but Jordan is not only the better back for next season and beyondj, he's the better runner right now. I purposely don't say "back" here because Martin's game is more rounded due merely to his experience. But Jordan has no deficiencies as a player and many strengths. These strengths will still be in evidence long after Martin's have been worn down by the sands of time.

Click here to read the rest of this entry.

Computer Divisional Picks

The computer was 2-2 last week, though I foolishly ignorned it regarding the Jets. (I feared being viewed as a homer with New York plus I had no feel for Pennington's health.) Also, computer "outside-the-margin" picks were 0-2.

This week (actual opening line in parenthesis):

Steelers by 5 over Jets (+9)

Falcons by 6.5 over Rams (+7)

Eagles by 5.5 over Vikings (+9.5)

Patriots by 3 over Colts (+2.5)

So, the computer has no opinion on two games but likes the Vikings and Jets outside the margin.

Click here to read the rest of this entry.

Saturday's classics

There was so much high drama yesterday, I don't know where to start.

How about with the QBs. Four young guns. Four great performances. Matt Hasselbeck had the best game of the lot, but came away with the loss thanks to dropped passes that have afflicted Seattle for two years; Hasselbeck didn't throw a bad pass all day, finishing 27-for-43 for 341 yards and two TDs (the INT came early on a drop by Darrell Jackson). Marc Bulger (18-32-313) made big plays all day, especially early with his wonderful downfield passing and then became very efficient in thwarting the Seattle blitz on the final drive. Drew Brees rallied his Chargers in the fourth quarter and completed over 70 percent of his passes for 319 yards. And Chad Pennington rebounded from a poor, injury-related stretch with a vintage 2002 performance that was highlighted by a perfect 60-yards-in-the-air strike to a streaking Santana Moss.

Hasselbeck and Brees deserved better fates. But Seattle was severely handicapped by the arm injury that limited Shaun Alexander, who was pencilled in for 150 yards (less than he averaged against St. Louis in the prior two matchups). And Brees was done in in large part by his coach, Marty Schottenheimer.

What was Marty thinking running 15 yards on to the field to argue a non-call (that replays proved was the right call)? After the game, he intimated that the refs blew it and said his punter told him he was roughed. You have to take what your players say with a grain of salt. You have coaches in the booth with TV monitors. Use them.

I'm not going to get on Marty for the mild Chargers attack the first three quarters. Tomlinson got plenty of carries (more than his performance deserved, actually) and the Jets were doing a very good job bracketing Antonio Gates. But I hated the decision to play for a 40-yard field goal in overtime. Yes, it's a rookie kicker and that's a factor. But I hate this decision in general. If you're looking at a 48-yard field goal, you want another first down, right? And now how many times would a missed 48-yarder been good from 40? Usually, based on my unscientific, anectodal observation, those few yards don't make the difference. I don't think you play for the field goal until you're at the 15. The Jets got it right later in overtime.

I'm a Jets fan, as many of your know. I make no secret about it. But I watched the final moments of regulation unfold with a bizarre detachment. That was not the case 17 years ago, when Mark Gastineau cost the Jets a road playoff win against Marty Schottenheimer with an roughing call that absolutely paled in stupidity to Eric Barton's forearm shiver. But the Jets got a second life after giving one to the Chargers and Pennington took advantage. And the Barton penalty gives new meaning to the term "second life," as the Jets had completed one of the great goal-line stands in NFL history.

Pennington has taken a lot of hits but he's now got the pelt of a road playoff win to nail to his wall. His career passing rating is well over 90. He would have thrown 25 TD passes this year had he not gotten hurt. As we said earlier in the week, the long-term view of Pennington as a player who couldn't win was a talk-radio creation that should embarrass all New York sports fans (who should be more sophisticated).

What about the two road teams winning on Saturday? What about momentum being exposed as a fraud, at least in the night game (not only how the Jets and Chargers came into the game but even momentum within the game). What about the Jets playing with 10-men on the field two plays in a row and then the Chargers giving up the ball by playing 12 later on?

(To my colleagues in the press box, who wouldn't beleive me three weeks ago when I insisted that the Jets had 10-men on the field against New England: I told you so.)

I don't like the overtime rules. A better system would be to do away with the kickoff and let the teams auction off the yard line on which the offense will start. Once it gets low enough for one to agree to give up the ball, you spot it there and away we go. Of course, this will never happen because coaches hate making any more high-stakes decisions that are so open to second guessing.

Back to the Rams, first 8-8 team to win a post-season game. Martz goes through timeouts like I go through Dunkin' Munchkins as he tries to implement his 200-play passing attack. But he's been to a Super Bowl and playoffs in four of five years, so you have to give him credit. This is an unconventional team helmed by an unconventional guy who really is a bit of a genius. If the Rams get a break today from the Vikings, who can send St. Louis to the turf and dome in Atlanta with a victory over Green Bay, they can easily advance another round.

Something that I didn't know: The Rams will play in their 28th postseason game next weekend, the most in NFL history (one more than Dallas).

Click here to read the rest of this entry.

More Counter Punch

Randy Lange of the (Bergen) Record gets a jab here for writing this in today's paper:

"The Jets would like the hurt the Chargers pass defense, which is next to worst in yardage allowed...." Then, he said the Jets will try to exploit the Chargers "passing defense weakness...."

What a poor job of analysis, using yardage as the measure of a defense. The Chargers are 15th in YPA allowed (6.91, which is better than the Jets, who are 19th at 7.11). The Chargers are fourth in fewest points allowed per passing attempt compared to 14th for the Jets. How is this a weak passing defense?

When you factor in the relative offenses, the matchup becomes worse for New York. While the Chargers are 7th best in YPA on offense, the Jets are 12th. San Diego is third best in points per passing attempt compared to 15th for the Jets. End.

Click here to read the rest of this entry.

Media Counter Punch

This was supposed to be about the Jets, I know. But local media was swept away with baseball: Mets/Yanks/Beltran and the Hall of Fame. Tomorrow is Jets day, we're told.

First, a little football from first-class Jets whiner Joe Benigno, who stepped forward with the usual gloom and doom that you'd expect from a guy who's spent the better part of his life rooting for this team to no avail. But it was a little much when he capped his WFAN show by telling new partner Sid Rosenberg that, while his team (the Jets) is in the playoffs and Sid's team (the Giants) isn't, "You're going to be a lot more happy with your QB when it's all said and done than I'm going to be with mine."

So, Chad Pennington's Jets career has been deemed (or is that doomed) a failure before the ink is dry on his new contract. The guy is hurting right now. His shoulder is going to need post-season surgery. Yet Jets fans refuse to acknowledge the obvious about the impact of Pennington's injury on his performance. Let's look at Chad before and after his shoulder injury:

Pre-injury: 144-216 for 1,643 yards (7.6 YPA) with 9 TDs and 3 Picks. Passing rating of 100+.

Post injury: 98-154 for 1,030 yards (6.7 YPA) with 7 TDs and 6 picks. Passing rating of 80+.

This is simple, avaiable with a mouse click and clearly relevant. Yet I never have heard it on the sports stations here or read it in the papers. If it has been written somewhere, people aren't putting these very big and simple puzzle pieces together. Chad is hurt. End of story.

Now on to baseball (which we'll be analyzing this year for our syndication clients).

On Hall of Fame day, there's going to be a lot of silly things said by people who have never heard of Baseball Prospectus, yet alone read it.

We'll start with Chris "Mad Dog" Russo and Mikey "Three Times" Francesa on WFAN. (Francesa figures a point becomes incontrovertible if you repeat each point as many times as Dorothy clicked her heels.) Highlights from the show: "Jim Rice must be in the Hall of Fame." "The man averaged 30-100 for a decade." "Rice's seasons were legendary for their time." "They're punishing Rice because they didn't like him."

Later, on ESPN Radio in New York, Michael Kay also opined that Rice was being punished for being "ornery with media."

Russo and Francesa did do a good job comparing Rice to Orlando Cepeda (think blind squirrels and acorns), but they failed to note that Cepeda was voted in by the ex-players on the Veteran's Committee, not the writers. Rice did have three great years in 1977, 1978 and 1979 when he had a park-adjusted on base plus slugging percentage (OPS) about 50 percent over par relative to his time. Putting Rice in the Hall of Fame wouldn't be the worst thing that the voters have done. He has similarity scores with four HOFers who are among the weaker members: Cepeda, Willie Stargell, Billy Williams and Duke Snider.

No serious discussion of Rice's HOF candidacy is complete without a full vetting of his career home/road splits. Thanks to retrosheet.com, complete splits are readily available. Rice was .320/.374/.546 at home and .277/.330/.459 on the road and thus arguably a product of a Fenway. Cepeda? His splits are incomplete but what little there says that he hit better on the road.

Later, Russo and Francesa had the Head of the Baseball Writers' Association (Daily News columnist Bill Madden) on to discuss the voting. All agree that "Eddie Murray didn't compare to Jim Rice as a hitter." (Madden didn't Vote for Rice, but not for the problem with the splits but because he didn't even hit 400 homers.... sigh.)

Forgetting the counting stats, Murray had a much longer peak than Rice, though he never reached Rice's slugging heights. Of course, Murray was better at getting on base than Rice but Russo and Francesa only mention the value of walks in the context of "table setters." These guys are deferring to Rice simply because he hit more homers, but then they should have said qualfied by saying that they didn't compare as "home run hitters." Certainly, Murray does compare to Rice as a hitter and slugger, even at their respective peaks when you consider the park factors. Murray's career home/road splits: .291/.372/.473 at home, .289/.362/.495 on the road.

Picking up a common theme here in New York, Francesa said that Kirby Puckett doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame if Mattingly doesn't belong. (The backdoor way of getting Donnie Baseball on that sacred ground.) Russo did say that Puckett was a centerfielder, but Francesa said that Puckett "wasn't Paul Blair" so the point was quickly dropped.

Yes, Mattingly and Puckett do have similar career stats though they got there in different ways. But Mattingly's stats are devalued because he plays a much less important defensive position. In other words, it's easier to find first basemen with offensive stats comparible to Mattingly than centerfielders with stats comparible to Puckett. (Francesa also compared Wade Boggs to Rod Carew without mentioning that Boggs had 400 more walks and played third base vs. half his career at first.)

By the way, Puckett was helped a lot more by the Metrodome than Mattingly was by Yankee Stadium (though Mattingly never hit more than 14 homers on the road). But Russo and Francesa didn't mention Puckett benefitting from the Metrodome carpet so they're not using information selectively, they're just ignorant about park factors (unless you're talking Coors or Camden Yards, facts be damned in the latter case).

Finally, Newsday columnist John Heyman (on with Michael Kay) said the the Yankees are not really financially constrained by the luxury tax because 1) revenue sharing is a much bigger amount of money and 2) the Yanks won't have to share the $60 million or so they are now sharing when they get the go-ahead to build their new stadium because 3) that money will go to the stadium so therefore they will 4) be saving countless millions right there. Heyman's ready for a job in the government budget office with that kind of reasoning. So, you save money when you stop spending it on one thing (revenue sharing) and start spending it on another (a new stadium). I know that investing in your own stadium is more beneficial than writing checks to the Royals and Brewers, but this wasn't Heyman's point. The fact remains that it doesn't free up revenue to invest in Carlos Beltran as Heyman suggested.

Finally, Kay riled using stat milestones as the sole basis for voting someone into the Hall of Fame. I commend him for that. But then he bizarrely continued that "just because Tommy John and Jim Kaat don't have 300 wins doesn't mean they shouldn't be in the Hall." So, Kay was complaining about these milestones being too exclusionary. Kay also wants Jack Morris in the Hall of Fame. Who's next? Joe Niekro? Frank Tannana? Ed Figueroa?

Click here to read the rest of this entry.

Stat Power Review

Let's give a real critical look at the Stat Power Index now that the season is over.

I like the top five. Pittsburgh deserves the top ranking as the AFC No. 1 seed. San Diego over New England? You're right. San Diego hasn't beaten a winning team. (Correction, they beat Denver in San Diego, which I forgot because they basically go their ass kicked.) But they've been sound. You're splitting hairs between the top four teams anyway, as that power differential doesn't translate to much more than a single point in a predicted score. So the Index sees that top four as dead even, more or less.

I like Denver at No. 5. I think they're dangerous. I'm glad they've slipped ahead of the Jets, who have really slid in YPA Net and PPA Net the past month or so.

Scott Pianowski of Breakfast Table fame thinks that I should give more weight to recent Index stats. It's a point that needs to be raised. But look what happened to the hot teams (Buffalo and Carolina) this week. Months go by in the football season, but not many games (16 is a pretty small sample size to begin with). You're talking about the same players and the same coaches. Does a recent hot streak (or the opposite) mean a team isn't likely to revert to September or October form? Is it a sustainable trend or a fluke? I don't know.

I wish Owens was healthy so we can see if the ability to run the ball (and stop it) and penalties are really worthy of cancelling out strengths such as YPA Net and PPA Net. I think the answer is no and I think the Index underestimated the Eagles with Owens all year. But he takes away their offensing passing prominence now, so we'll never know.

I think you need an Index number of under 40 to be a legitimate Super Bowl contender. You need to be under 80 to be a playoff team. If you're over 115, you suck.

I think most of you will agree the Packers and Vikings are well slotted. Should Atlanta be higher? What does that team do well? I can't ever put my finger on that. I'd take KC over Atlanta right now and I think the Chiefs are as mediocre as their ranking.

That brings us to St. Louis. I know that coaches and GMs absolutely hate the way the Rams play and would smile at their ranking (25th). That doesn't make it right, of course. How can a team that's fifth in YPA net be 25th overall when I've always said that YPA net is the most important stat? If the Rams make a run, that's evidence that not all of these stat categories are equal. I do note that the Rams are 21st in PPA net, which is very strange considering those YPA numbers. Interceptions, sacks, penalties.... St. Louis does everything it can to lose every week, that's for sure.

I think the Redskins are a sleeper team next year. Improve the efficiency of the passing game, which is doable, and you've got a 10-to-12 win squad. I worry that the defense is a little toothless with the sacks and the interceptions (kind of like Dallas' was last year).

Tomorrow, I want to have my say on the Jets in the context of what's being said here on sports radio. I'm kicking around the idea of putting on the site real media criticism (attacking the substance of the analysis as opposed to the personalities). Tomorrow will be a test run.

Click here to read the rest of this entry.

Computer Playoff Picks

The final 2004 Stat Power Index is now posted.

The computer finished up the regular season 21-14 after going 3-2 in Week 17. For a game to be a computer pick, the computer line must differ from the Vegas line by more than three points. Here are our first-round playoff picks (real spread in parenthesis):

Seahawks by 9.5 over Rams (+4, making Seattle a computer pick)

Chargers by 4.5 over Jets (+6.5)

Colts by 4 over Broncos (+10, making the Broncos a computer pick)

Packers by 4 over Vikings (+6)

Click here to read the rest of this entry.