First Spring Swing

And now we transition to baseball.

Remember to read my Fantasy By The Numbers baseball column in the Newspaper Columns area. The first two deal with defense independent pitching statistics (DIPS) and flyball/groundball ratios as predictive tools for ERA and homers, respectively.

Barry Bonds had his press conference yesterday. My feelings on the matter are well known to readers of this blog. I don't claim to know whether steroids can enhance baseball performance. I do think there is a reasonable argument that they can. But the conclusion that they not only can and do but do and do so dramatically is posited by the mainstream media as an absolute truth.

Bonds yesterday said that steroids don't help you hit a baseball as far as hand/eye coordination goes. Bonds is a smart guy and he knows that the medical evidence is with him here. And he knows that once you dismiss hand/eye coordination you have a hard time arguing that the ability to hit a baseball can be enhanced by steroids and then it's really tortuous to try to dismiss his records as drug induced. It's also hard to discount last year's performance, unless you insist he was still taking steroids despite the potential for random testing. And then how do you explain his still imposing muscle mass? Assuming he (A) took steroids and (B) stopped, how is he still so muscular?

Here in New York, the big story isn't Bonds but Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez. Captain Derek isn't defending A-Rod from the slings and arrows emanating from Boston (forgetting for a moment that most of these insults were ridiculously amplified by the Boston media). But yesterday, we're now told, Joe Torre used his Vulcan mind meld to persuasively suggest a warm game of catch between the Yankee shortstop and third baseman; and now the healing has begun. Pass the barf bag. It seems the Yanks are really going to a lot of trouble to avoid a rehash of how they are now the biggest chokers in the history of professional sports. Maybe Jeter is acting captain-like in this regard.

Still, the Yanks are the consensus No. 1 ranked team in most preseason publications. But this is an old team that is likely to be very poor defensively, especially in the outfield. The bench is a joke considering the team payroll. And many of the offseason acquisitions are head scratchers. (Tony Womack?)

Losing Pedro is going to hurt Boston. More responsibility now falls to Curt Schilling, who is used to having another ace next to him in the rotation. When your No. 1 and No. 2 starters are over 80 years old combined, you have some serious questions to answer.

I don't like the Angels as much as most observers. I think Escobar and Lackey are solid middle-of-the-rotation guys. But my problem with this team is that their supposed ace, Bartolo Colon, is a glorified No. 3 starter. (I know he had a solid second half, but his DIPS ERA was still over 4.00 after the break and I don't believe the sudden dramatic cure of gopher-itis.) I'm not a fan of Jarrod Washburn or Paul Byrd and expect both to clock in at over 5.00 this year. With question marks at the infield corners and at DH, is there enough offense here even with Guerrero? There are also no lefties of note in the pen, but the righties are so dominant that it probably won't matter.

After the Angels, it's a long way down to the next AL contender. A's? Twins? Neither of those teams seem to have enough offense. (But someone has to win the Central.)

The Cardinals and Giants are viewed as the cream of the NL crop, but like the Yanks and Red Sox, these teams are positively geriatric.

David Eckstein is going to hurt this team defensively and is punch-and-judy with little on-base skills besides getting hit by pitches. Everyone is raving about the Mark Mulder acquisition, but they should have gotten Hudson instead. Mulder cratered in the second half last year and earned a six-ish ERA after the break. If he pitches like the ace the Cards bought, they'll be fine. I'm actually more bullish on Chris Carpenter than Mulder at this moment. Matt Morris is always hurt and will be hampered this spring by his off-season shoulder surgery. I've always liked Jason Marquis and feel he's a solid back-end-of-the-rotation starter. Jeff Suppan is pure flotsam, however. And you know it's spring when you're hearing about another Rick Ankiel comeback. It's like the BBWA feels some responsibility for his Steve Blass disease. If Ankiel makes it back from this, he'll be the first pitcher ever; so, don't hold your breath.

The Giants could be this year's Mariners: an old team counting on sustained peformance from a bunch of old players who (with the obvious exception of Bonds) weren't great to begin with. I don't like the rotation at all after Jason Schmidt. Kurt Rueter's 56 Ks in 190 innings is a joke, as DIPS says his ERA should have been 5.18. Noah Lowry was very impressive after his call up, but that stat-line looks awfully fluky unless you believe the NL was easier last year than the Pacific Coast League. Lowry does have a wicked changeup and is a lefty, so there's hope.

After those teams, the NL is jumbled. We need to see the retooled Cubs, Mets, Braves and Dodgers this spring before deciding whether any of these teams is a true contender. The big question with the Cubs and Mets is the bullpen. The Braves will need John Smoltz to return to the rotation and be an ace, which seems a lot to ask of a 38-year-old who was very good but not lights-out dominant as a closer last year. And I can't take supposed closer Danny Kolb seriously in light of 21 strikeouts in 57-plus innings. Of all these teams, I like the Dodgers the best. I think Hee Seop Choi is going to prove the naysayers wrong; Kent and Valentin are going to add some infield pop and J.D. Drew is a stud. The Dodger pen and rotation are deep, but I don't see an ace. But LA (the real one as opposed to the pretenders from Anaheim) also need a tantrum-free season from Milton Bradley, which is a dicey proposition.

END.

Click here to read the rest of this entry.

Racial Facial

Could you imagine if Herm Edwards had the type of clock-management issues that Andy Reid suffered through yesterday?

I find it very curious that this is a sidebar issue, at best. But when it happens to Herm, it's the lede. Most coaches screw up the clock. But only a handfull are effectively pilloried for it and no one in the NFL has suffered more slings and arrows for outrageous clock management fortune than Edwards. He's deserved a fair portion of this criticism, to be sure. But it's been so disporportional that you have to ask the obvious question.

Are clock management criticisms used as a cover for criticizing his intelligence, which otherwise would seem too racially charged. Now again, these clock management criticisms are not without merit; but sit back and objectively assess the degree and volume compared to what we've gotten yesterday and today with Andy Reid.

Reid's first-half blunder was worthy of a sidebar but was barely noted anywhere. (Reid walked into the locker room with two timeouts and the ball in the Patriots side of the field. That's not good.)

But the end-game stuff was the stuff of which clock-mismagement legends are made. Taking 30 or 40 seconds off the clock when you're down two scores and there's four and then three and then two mintues left? That's off the charts. Herm was absolutely killed for taking those chunks of time off the clock when he was down three points, kicked the tying field goal anyway and would have gotten all of his plays off if a timeout wasn't burned when the play didn't get on the field. (That's another coaching error, to be sure, but not one as delicious as being able to say with a clear conscience that this coach can't tell time as well as all the other coaches.)

As for T.O., you have to give the man credit for saying straight out what needed to be said. Brett Favre, the people's champion (by that, I mean the media's champion) in a league that's 75 percent black, would have been officially enshrined in Canton last night if he played as Owens did under similar circumstances. Look how Curt Schilling was glorified at every pitch and compare what Owens did with an injury that didn't even receive medical clearance and with 200- and 300-pound men riding him to the ground a dozen times. But any credit that Owens received yesterday was grudging and it came after two weeks of accusastions that he was being selfish and grandstanding becasue he needed the spotlight so bad. Yes, Owens was really a distraction yesterday.

I know that you can point to articles today and comments yesterday to the contrary; but it wasn't forced down our throats as it would have been with Favre and was with Schilling. Also note that Fox was quick to show Owens yelling at McNabb after his second interception (though they noted that he was saying "relax" when the thousand-word picture suggested a brewing mutiny).

Is it because Owens is black? Is it because Owens is a loudmouth? Not necessarily. Is it because Owens is a black loudmouth? Now, you know the answer to that. END.

Click here to read the rest of this entry.

Philly Suicide

Some people just never get it.

And I'm not just talking the usual supspects like the TV media and assorted other illiterati, but people who should know better. Even some people who read the Breakfast Table every week.

After watching yesterday's game, you're going to attribute winning and losing to the relative success each team had running the ball? Running the ball is a big fat red herring nine times out of ten. You're going to say the Pats dominated the game? Yesterday's contest came down to the one simple thing that I trumpeted over and over again: the team that threw the most interceptions was going to lose.

And don't give me this crap about cause and effect and say that the interceptions were due to the Eagles trailing. That's nonsense. The score was 0-0 when McNabb threw not one but two picks right in a row (the first was wiped out by a penalty). Those are unforced errors, unlike the Brady fumble, which was a fluke. The second pick was similarly atrocious. I'm not giving the Pats defense credit for that one, I'm sorry. Owens just torched them for 40 yards and they were set up in field goal range down 10 with plenty of time left (well, assuming they weren't wasteful but more on that later). They needed two scores and had the field goal in their pocket. But McNabb throws a pass to no one in particular that finds Tedy Bruschi.

McNabb played a C- game. If he plays his B game (never mind his A game), the Eagles win.

Brady, to his credit, again didn't throw a pick. But there was some good fortune involved here. In the third quarter, he foolishly tried to avoid a sack on a blitz and threw one up for grabs near his own end zone that only found a patch of grass with the help of all the Pats leprechauns. And he threw another pass in the fourth quarter right through the hands of an Eagle defender (otherwise we'd still be hearing about a roughing-the-passer call that would have shaped up as an all-time officiating travesty).

The Pats have won two Super Bowls and six straight playoff games during which they are now +11 in interceptions. As I've said repeatedly, each pick is worth 5.55 points on the scoreboard. So, interceptions alone give the Pats a 67-point lead on the cumulative scoreboard. Yet, on the actual scoreboard, in all these games combined, they're up a measley 50 points. Are the Pats a dynasty? Obviously. Are they a dominating playoff team? No way. The entirety of their postseason success boils down to one thing and one thing only: intereceptions. Not turnovers. Not the running game. Not defense in general. Not even necessarily coaching. (Because I don't see how you coach other teams to make mistakes and even if you do, why didn't Jake Delhomme make them last year?)

Dominating teams dominate in multiple areas while methodically destroying their opponent. Those Steelers of the '70s teams beat you up on both sides of the ball and had an explosive passing game. The Niners of the '80s had arguably the greatest QB and WR ever and a dominating defense. The Cowboys of the '90s demolished everyone in their path, including the arguably great Niner teams led by Rice and Young. The Pats? They hang around until the opponent drops dead from self-inflicted wounds.

Click here to read the rest of this entry.

A Simple Prop (to occupy my time)

For the past few Super Bowls I've given a proposition recommendation to my (ahem) investing friends. We nailed our first prop recco in 2003 (Rich Gannon to complete his first pass) and we also hit last year (Jake Delhomme to miss on his first pass); let's see what we can do this time around.

Two props I'm having them consider for Sunday:

1. Donovan McNabb to go over 28.5 rushing yards. I realize he hasn't run nearly as much this year, but he ran often against Atlanta and he'll still do it in desperation situations. He'll see more of them Sunday - keep in mind the Eagles basically stomped just about everyone for about ten weeks this year, so we didn't see the ad-lib, make-it-up-as-you-go-along McNabb nearly as much. It's also been a full year since we saw a mobile QB against this New England defense (Steve McNair, last year's playoffs). The New England linebackers are smart and physical and tackle very well, but overall this isn't the fastest group around.

2. I also have a play on the Eagles to score first only since the line is so absurdly slanted towards NE. Yeah, the Patriots are impeccably prepared and they execute very well early in games and they have a fantastic mark of scoring first, but the Eagles could just as well win the flip or get a good return or something and score first. I'll gladly take +140 or +150 on that. END

- Scott Pianowski, guesting on the Super Blog

Click here to read the rest of this entry.