Disclaimer.
Yesterday, in my first part of the 2012 Hall of Fame voting trilogy, I alluded to what I thought was the strangest Hall of Fame ballot that I could find. Well, I believe Bob Smizik has it (although Jon Heyman's, from yesterday's post, was pretty out-there).
The link to his original column can be found here.
Take it away, Bob.
Sitting in front of me, literally, is my 2011 (MLB) Hall of Fame Ballot, which I will shortly begin to fill out.
Adding the word literally did nothing to your sentence, literally.
There are 27 names on the ballot and a voter can select as many as 10. I don’t believe I’ve ever voted for more than four, and even that many is rare. Other people, whose opinion I respect, often vote for 10.
That is correct. And although I personally am in favor of a large Hall, the other viewpoint is perfectly valid.
A couple of things about how I vote:
* Unlike many voters, I do not eliminate players tainted by or actually found guilty of using performance enhancing drugs. My stance on their eligibility is quite simple: If MLB does not want a player in the Hall of Fame, it should do what it did with Pete Rose and ban him from eligibility. It's my job to vote on enshrinement, not determine eligibility. When a player has worthy credentials, I vote based on his ability. Yes, Mark McGwire used PEDs. But maybe half or more of the pitchers throwing to him also did? There are players I suspect of using PEDs who couldn’t hit .250.
* I will not vote for a players because he’s better than someone in the Hall. I may think, for example, Jack Morris is better than Bert Blyleven, who was voted in last year. But I didn’t vote for Blyleven and I don’t think he belongs. I will not allow him to be a barometer.
These are two very, very good points, and I want to give him credit for that. That being said, Bert Blyleven absolutely belongs in the Hall of Fame.
Don't worry, the fun part starts soon.
The first thing I do is eliminate the players who are on the ballot as little more than a courtesy for a nice career, but who don't begin to approach Hall of Fame standards. These are players whose records I don’t even have to check to know they don’t belong.
Ok, yeah, seems fair enough. There are a bunch of guys who automatically qualify for the Hall of Fame that no one thinks should actually be there. You can weed out a significant number of people on the ballot this way.
So it’s goodbye to, in alphabetical order, Jeromy Burnitz, Vinny Castilla, Brian Jordan, Javy Lopez, Edgar Martinez, Bill Mueller, Terry Mulholland, Phil Nevin, Brad Radke, Tim Salmon, Ruben Sierra, Bernie Williams, Tony Womack and Eric Young.
*scrolls through* Let's see...yep, yep, yep, yep, yeOH MY GOD WHAT ARE YOU EVEN.
*composes self*
Okay, okay, calm down, it's just baseball...
Okay. Edgar Martinez is one of the best handful of hitters of his era. He led the league in OBP three times, was in the top six in the league 11 times, and ranks 22nd all-time for OBP. He was in the top ten in SLG in the league six times, despite playing in a pitcher-friendly park during his peak, and is 44th all-time in adjusted OPS+. He's 70th all-time in WAR for position players. To summarize: HE WAS REALLY FREAKING GOOD AT BASEBALL.
His inclusion was not "little more than courtesy for a nice career." This is a guy whose record you clearly need to check if you don't think he "doesn't begin to approach Hall of Fame standards.
Look, it's one thing if you don't think DHs belong in the Hall of Fame. It would be a ridiculous position to take, but AT LEAST THAT'S A REASON. Please explain why this man does not even deserve consideration.
[Some readers left comments asking for the same thing. Here is the complete collection of Smizik's replies to those comments.]
Highly regarded DH but with under 309 HRs, 1,261 RBIs. Not even close.
Take a look at the career numbers of E. Martinez. They will surprise you.
309 HRs, 1,261 RBI, 312 BA. Career wise, those numbers rank 120th for HRs, 121st for RBIs, 95th for BA. A good one-dimensional player, but not, in my estimation, Hall worthy.
Batting average, home runs, and RBIs. To put it bluntly: Those career stats are about as useful in determining how good a player was as career triples, the amount of times he was caught stealing, and his jersey number. But I guess his use of those stats shouldn't surprise me, given his conclusion.
[Back to original article now.]
The 27 names have been reduced to 13.
It should be 14, but I mean, whatever.
The next step isn’t much harder because many of these players have been on the ballot before. But they require some thought before elimination.
"Unlike Edgar Martinez, because, seriously, screw that guy."
[Skipping ahead a bit]
Alan Trammell: A really outstanding shortstop for a number of years. Four Gold Gloves. Just a tad short.
"Had he won five Gold Gloves, he'd be in! But the voters decided on somebody else one year. Too bad for Trammell!"
Larry Walker: A five-tool guy, who oozed talent. But 383 HRs and 1,311 RBIs don’t cut it.
THERE ARE MORE THAN JUST THREE BASEBALL STATS.
There are seven names remaining. Now it becomes difficult.
Compared to giving the first 20 names a basic thought and/or looking up his career numbers in batting average, home runs, and RBI? I guess it would get more difficult after that.
Jeff Bagwell (42 percent of the vote last year): There’s a natural bias, which can go both ways, against/for familiar players, and Bagwell is that. He was a dominant presence in the Houston Astros lineup for many seasons. That memory says yes. His 449 home runs and 1,529 RBIs fall a shade behind Willie Stargell. Yes to Bagwell.
Bob Smizik Hall of Fame Barometer categories: dominance in Astros lineup, proximity to Willie Stargell.
Juan Gonzalez (5 percent): He hit 434 home runs, drove in 1,404 runs and had an OPS of 1.004. That’s good. It’s not great. No to Gonzalez.
Smizik just blew my mind by using a FOURTH BASEBALL STAT. Unfortunately, it's also one without much value. And I have to say this before we get any further: career numbers are useless. Any baseball player would get to 500 home runs or [however many Smizik wants] RBI eventually. Why reward only the ones who actually did?
In other words, counting stats for a career = doodoo.
Barry Larkin (62 percent): My Cincinnati friends swear by him. An outstanding offensive shortstop with three Gold Gloves. No to Larkin.
"Why did I say no to Larkin? Well, he does have a very impressive Hall of Fame resume, BUT- and this is a big "but"- my Cincinnati friends have ****ing AWFUL taste. Like, one time I really wanted to go see Sherlock Holmes 2, because we all liked the first one and I thought we would enjoy this one too, but NOOO, they wanted to see J. Edgar! And they kept saying "it'll be a great historical film with lots of interesting information," so I was like "okay, fine, let's go to J. Edgar." And guess what! It sucked! Nothing freaking happened for two and a half hours! You just can't trust those guys. Anyway, that's why I didn't vote for Barry Larkin."
Fred McGriff (20 percent): The statistical case can easily be made for McGriff: 493 home runs, 1,550 RBIs.
THERE ARE MORE THAN FOUR BASEBALL STATS.
But his OPS is under .900. No to McGriff.
THAT'S your reason for keeping him out of the Hall of Fame? That one stat? Well, I guess since you only know four, that's somewhat excusable...
Mark McGwire (20 percent): A no-brainer by my standards. Second best single-season home run number, 10th best career. He is first in home runs per at bat (10.65), well ahead of Babe Ruth (11.76). Yes to McGwire.
Okay, good, we agree on something. For vastly different reasons, sure, but at least it's agreement.
Rafael Palmiero (11 percent): Over 500 home runs and 3,000 hits. Nothing more need be said. Yes to Palmiero.
YES THERE IS MORE TO BE SAID CAREER NUMBERS FOR COUNTING STATS ESPECIALLY IN THINGS AS MEANINGLESS AS HOME RUNS OR AS TEAM-BASED AS RBI ARE VIRTUALLY USELESS IN DETERMINING A PLAYER'S VALUE
*starts breathing heavy*
...that felt kind of good.
Tim Raines (38 percent): He’s getting a lot of support as a Rickey Henderson clone. But, sorry, Tim, you’re no Rickey -- not in stolen bases, not in power, not in on-base percentage.
Bob Smizik Hall of Fame Barometer categories: dominance in Astros lineup, proximity to Willie Stargell, proximity to Rickey Henderson.
An outstanding leadoff hitter,
Only, like, the second-best ever. Not a big deal or anything.
but not a Hall of Famer. No to Raines.
"This Raines fellow wasn't as good as the best leadoff hitter ever and one of the twenty best position players in baseball history? KEEP HIM OUT FOREVER."
This man actually has a Hall of Fame vote.
-Tucker Warner
What do you think? Comment on this post or send any and all questions, comments, or insults to FirstTeeMulligan@yahoo.com. Tucker Warner likes poetry and a nice pair of slacks. You can find him on Twitter at @twarner50.
Showing posts with label FJM. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FJM. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Hey-man, that's one awful ballot you got there.
See what I did with that title? Pretty clever, yeah? Yeahhh!
Oh yes, and: Disclaimer. (Note: disclaimer states that no personal disrespect is meant by posts such as this and that the author of the original column, or anyone else, has the right to do a similar post with my writing.)
Anyway, the Baseball Hall of Fame voting is something that gets me riled up every year. I'm one of those people that thinks a player's induction into the Hall of Fame means a lot, probably more so than many other baseball fans, and so, even though I do not have a vote (yet. I'm working on it.), I take my Hall of Fame evaluations pretty seriously. I tend to be a little frustrated when a great baseball player is snubbed, for whatever reason, and a far less deserving player gets a place in the Hall over the first man.
At the very least, I think writers should at least give their votes a lot of thought before sending in their ballots. Jon Heyman might have given his a lot of thought- it certainly seems like he at least thought about it a lot, but what a strange thought it was. (And he's not even the worst. More to come on that front later.) It should be noted that Jon Heyman is a top-notch sports reporter and is one of the best at breaking news from around the league. Unfortunately, I am not similarly enamored with his analysis or columns.
Here's the link to his column explaining his choices:
After spending some time talking about the steroid ramifications on the Hall of Fame vote, wherein he says nothing particularly egregious, but also nothing you haven't heard before, he gets to his ballot. Take it away, Jon.
The biggest thing I look for is impact.
Roger Clemens once dented a guy's batting helmet with a fastball. First-ballot!
That means impact on the game, and on the games.
"The game, singular, which means baseball, as a whole, and the games, of baseball, in which the player of baseball played baseball."
While I do look closely at the numbers, and I certainly consider them all
Except for the numbers that are actually useful.
some numbers seem more meaningful than others.
That's true, but probably not in the way that you realize.
In any case, it's not the Hall of Numbers, the Hall of Stats or the Hall of Sabremetrics. The game is played by people, and the judges are people too, not computers. Until that changes, I'll consider somewhat murkier criteria than only the hard stats.
Great point, Jon! It's almost as if these people think that these "statistics," or "records of what players did in the game, and games, of baseball" were created by computers! But we both know that these "records of what baseball players did on the baseball field" were actually done by humans!
Without further ado, here's this year's scorecard.
The Worthy
1. Jack Morris:
GAH.
Sadly, it looks like that unsightly 3.90 ERA is going to continue to haunt him.
"Sadly, it looks like his bad result in a formula that measures how good a pitcher is at pitching is going to make him look bad."
This guy is one who's much better if you were around to witness it. The back of his baseball card just doesn't do him any justice.
This is a very weak argument to use because everyone who was not around to witness Morris's career can neither confirm nor deny this. I will say, though, that I've only heard this argument about guys who both:
1. Were well-liked, and
2. Were on the outside looking in of the Hall of Fame. I never hear it in the context of "Willie Mays [for example] sure had great stats, and he was even better if you were around to witness his career! Those stats don't do him justice!" It just happens with guys like Morris, who are close to getting into the Hall of Fame. (Curiously, this argument also showed up with guys like Andre Dawson and [in particular] Jim Rice, who both made the Hall of Fame despite having, well, shaky statistical resmues.)
Morris had great games,
So did Bobo Holloman. (That's a guy who's worth looking up, by the way.)
great seasons (seven times he received Cy Young votes)
Never had an ERA+ above 133, never had an ERA below 3.05 despite playing in a pitcher-friendly era, was only in the top 5 in the league for ERA twice, was only in the top five in the league for Pitcher WAR once.
and a great decade.
I suppose it's convenient to point out that his physical peak came during the middle years of the 1980s (bookmarked by a few below-average seasons during that time). It also doesn't speak well to his credit that he wasn't that good even during the years he was good. I'll give you that he was pretty productive in 1983 and from '85 to '87, though.
He was the ace of three different World Series-winning teams and he started 14 Opening Days. Some will argue that's a meaningless statistic,
I love it when the writer makes my point ahead of time.
and while it certainly does depend on circumstance,
And I DOUBLE-LOVE it when they understand why I would make that point! Thanks, Jon Heyman.
the only others who've started as many are Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton, Randy Johnson, Walter Johnson and Cy Young, a quintet of all-time greats.
That's pretty cool. Hey, did you know that in Jack Morris's best season, 1979, he had a lower WAR than some guy named Sid Monge? That's pretty cool, too!
2. Barry Larkin
Well, okay, at least we agree there.
He's a 12-time All-Star. That's twelve times.
That's XII times. That's doce times. That's 10+2 times. That's a dozen times.
Some might say that's a matter of circumstance too.
Because it is.
I'm not sure that Heyman understands that people receive awards because they were good, not the other way around. Explain why they were good- don't point to circumstantial evidence that others thought they were good.
[Skip ahead. More of the same for Larkin, and Tim Raines. Still on the section of who he voted for.]
4. Don Mattingly:
Ugh.
Some will argue this is geographic bias.
UGH.
But if anything, it's greatness bias.
AHHHHH.
I like players who were great for a little while a lot more than those who were merely very good forever.
AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
*blacks out from frustration*
*wakes up two hours later*
He had a lower career WAR than some guy named Nap Rucker. WAR is far from the be-all, end-all to statistics or analysis, and preference of peak over longevity is a perfectly fine opinion, but...I mean...maybe the peak-over-longevity thing could be used for a player better than Don Mattingly? His entire career puts him tied for 423rd on the all-time WAR leaderboard.
That's Four-Hundred-Twenty-Third. Numero Cuatrocientos Veinte y Tres. Okay, I'll stop.
He didn't last forever because of a bad back I suspect was earned twisting his 185-pound body into a power hitter. Some of his total numbers aren't overwhelming, but they look a lot like those of Kirby Puckett, an obvious Hall of Famer.
Kirby Puckett was far from an obvious Hall of Famer, actually. Love the guy. But not an obvious Hall of Famer.
Was maybe the best player in the game for three straight years (he won the Sporting News Player of the Year 1984-86) and also was one of the two greatest fielding first basemen of all time.
I disagree with both parts.
First part: 1984-86 were the three best years of Mattingly's career, so already that's a bit of a cherry-pick, but whatever. Over that time, he finished no higher than 5th in the AL in WAR. Not a good start. He finished 10th in the AL in OBP in '84 and 5th in '86. Mattingly was in the top two in the AL in slugging each year from 1984 to '86, but did so in a hitter-friendly stadium. This was also a time when Cal Ripken, Rickey Henderson, Robin Yount, Tony Gwynn, Wade Boggs, and Ryne Sandberg were peaking. Mattingly's WAR over that time was 19.6. Henderson's was 19.8, Boggs's was 22.9. And those figures are from cherry-picked years designed to make Mattingly look better than everyone else.
Second part: Mattingly finished his career with a dWAR of 3.1, which is pretty good, but barely registers on the career leaderboard. In TZR (Total Zone Runs), he ranks tied for 17th among first basemen. In career RF/9 innings for first basemen, he is 51st. In RF/game for first basemen, he does not crack the top 100. One of the two best fielding first basemen of all time? I disagree.
It took me about 15 minutes to do that research. This isn't hard to do if you're a baseball writer.
5. Dale Murphy: He was great for a while (two straight MVPs), but is also known as one of the greatest guys to ever play the game.
Mike Schmidt was better than Murphy both years he won the MVP, but those were two strong years for Murphy. And he is one of the classiest men ever in uniform, but unfortunately for him, that's kind of irrelevant.
[Skipping ahead for the rest of the article. Only bits and pieces to come. Also, everyone else listed is who Heyman did not vote for.]
Fred McGriff: I feel a little guilty about this one. He's 26th in both home runs and RBI, a consistent and pure power hitter. He didn't quite make 500 home runs; he had 493. But that shouldn't be the barometer. He ranked among the top five in OPS for seven years. Not bad. But alas, it feels like something's missing.
STATS THAT ACTUALLY MATTER. THE MISSING PIECE IS STATS THAT ACTUALLY MATTER.
7. Jeff Bagwell: The percentages (.540 slugging, .408 on-base) are worthy, and that he won only one Gold Glove and one MVP may have been a matter of timing and the era. Also gets points for uniqueness; not many huge first basemen could run like him (202 stolen bases, 100 runs in eight seasons). Still thinking about it.
So...why did he not get your vote, then?
9. Juan Gonzalez: He may be the greatest player only to receive 5 percent of the vote in any year, as he did last year to barely stay on the ballot.
That honor actually belongs to Kevin Brown, who received even fewer votes last year.
Had a .561 career slugging percentage and was two-time MVP. Just can't quite do it.
But...WHY not?
11. Edgar Martinez: Maybe this is a little low as a reaction to the campaign on his behalf, but I don't think so. His percentages were great (.515 slugging and .418 on-base) and I'm not going to hold it against him that he was the fourth-best player on a team that never reached the World Series (I did vote for Ron Santo eventually). But he was a DH. And he only finished in the top 10 in MVP voting twice. (Some will say that's repeating an injustice, but I don't think so.) A great hitter, yes, but in my estimation he didn't leave a mark that was quite great enough.
But that doesn't explain WHY you didn't.....oh, forget it.
26. Mark McGwire: On accomplishment alone, he would be the top guy on my ballot. Just can't do it. The 70 home runs were a mirage.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE ONLY-
Oh, whatever.
-Tucker Warner
What do you think? Comment on this post or send any and all questions, comments, or insults to FirstTeeMulligan@yahoo.com. Tucker Warner likes poetry and a nice pair of slacks. You can find him on Twitter at @twarner50.
Oh yes, and: Disclaimer. (Note: disclaimer states that no personal disrespect is meant by posts such as this and that the author of the original column, or anyone else, has the right to do a similar post with my writing.)
Anyway, the Baseball Hall of Fame voting is something that gets me riled up every year. I'm one of those people that thinks a player's induction into the Hall of Fame means a lot, probably more so than many other baseball fans, and so, even though I do not have a vote (yet. I'm working on it.), I take my Hall of Fame evaluations pretty seriously. I tend to be a little frustrated when a great baseball player is snubbed, for whatever reason, and a far less deserving player gets a place in the Hall over the first man.
At the very least, I think writers should at least give their votes a lot of thought before sending in their ballots. Jon Heyman might have given his a lot of thought- it certainly seems like he at least thought about it a lot, but what a strange thought it was. (And he's not even the worst. More to come on that front later.) It should be noted that Jon Heyman is a top-notch sports reporter and is one of the best at breaking news from around the league. Unfortunately, I am not similarly enamored with his analysis or columns.
Here's the link to his column explaining his choices:
After spending some time talking about the steroid ramifications on the Hall of Fame vote, wherein he says nothing particularly egregious, but also nothing you haven't heard before, he gets to his ballot. Take it away, Jon.
The biggest thing I look for is impact.
Roger Clemens once dented a guy's batting helmet with a fastball. First-ballot!
That means impact on the game, and on the games.
"The game, singular, which means baseball, as a whole, and the games, of baseball, in which the player of baseball played baseball."
While I do look closely at the numbers, and I certainly consider them all
Except for the numbers that are actually useful.
some numbers seem more meaningful than others.
That's true, but probably not in the way that you realize.
In any case, it's not the Hall of Numbers, the Hall of Stats or the Hall of Sabremetrics. The game is played by people, and the judges are people too, not computers. Until that changes, I'll consider somewhat murkier criteria than only the hard stats.
Great point, Jon! It's almost as if these people think that these "statistics," or "records of what players did in the game, and games, of baseball" were created by computers! But we both know that these "records of what baseball players did on the baseball field" were actually done by humans!
Without further ado, here's this year's scorecard.
The Worthy
1. Jack Morris:
GAH.
Sadly, it looks like that unsightly 3.90 ERA is going to continue to haunt him.
"Sadly, it looks like his bad result in a formula that measures how good a pitcher is at pitching is going to make him look bad."
This guy is one who's much better if you were around to witness it. The back of his baseball card just doesn't do him any justice.
This is a very weak argument to use because everyone who was not around to witness Morris's career can neither confirm nor deny this. I will say, though, that I've only heard this argument about guys who both:
1. Were well-liked, and
2. Were on the outside looking in of the Hall of Fame. I never hear it in the context of "Willie Mays [for example] sure had great stats, and he was even better if you were around to witness his career! Those stats don't do him justice!" It just happens with guys like Morris, who are close to getting into the Hall of Fame. (Curiously, this argument also showed up with guys like Andre Dawson and [in particular] Jim Rice, who both made the Hall of Fame despite having, well, shaky statistical resmues.)
Morris had great games,
So did Bobo Holloman. (That's a guy who's worth looking up, by the way.)
great seasons (seven times he received Cy Young votes)
Never had an ERA+ above 133, never had an ERA below 3.05 despite playing in a pitcher-friendly era, was only in the top 5 in the league for ERA twice, was only in the top five in the league for Pitcher WAR once.
and a great decade.
I suppose it's convenient to point out that his physical peak came during the middle years of the 1980s (bookmarked by a few below-average seasons during that time). It also doesn't speak well to his credit that he wasn't that good even during the years he was good. I'll give you that he was pretty productive in 1983 and from '85 to '87, though.
He was the ace of three different World Series-winning teams and he started 14 Opening Days. Some will argue that's a meaningless statistic,
I love it when the writer makes my point ahead of time.
and while it certainly does depend on circumstance,
And I DOUBLE-LOVE it when they understand why I would make that point! Thanks, Jon Heyman.
the only others who've started as many are Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton, Randy Johnson, Walter Johnson and Cy Young, a quintet of all-time greats.
That's pretty cool. Hey, did you know that in Jack Morris's best season, 1979, he had a lower WAR than some guy named Sid Monge? That's pretty cool, too!
2. Barry Larkin
Well, okay, at least we agree there.
He's a 12-time All-Star. That's twelve times.
That's XII times. That's doce times. That's 10+2 times. That's a dozen times.
Some might say that's a matter of circumstance too.
Because it is.
I'm not sure that Heyman understands that people receive awards because they were good, not the other way around. Explain why they were good- don't point to circumstantial evidence that others thought they were good.
[Skip ahead. More of the same for Larkin, and Tim Raines. Still on the section of who he voted for.]
4. Don Mattingly:
Ugh.
Some will argue this is geographic bias.
UGH.
But if anything, it's greatness bias.
AHHHHH.
I like players who were great for a little while a lot more than those who were merely very good forever.
AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
*blacks out from frustration*
*wakes up two hours later*
He had a lower career WAR than some guy named Nap Rucker. WAR is far from the be-all, end-all to statistics or analysis, and preference of peak over longevity is a perfectly fine opinion, but...I mean...maybe the peak-over-longevity thing could be used for a player better than Don Mattingly? His entire career puts him tied for 423rd on the all-time WAR leaderboard.
That's Four-Hundred-Twenty-Third. Numero Cuatrocientos Veinte y Tres. Okay, I'll stop.
He didn't last forever because of a bad back I suspect was earned twisting his 185-pound body into a power hitter. Some of his total numbers aren't overwhelming, but they look a lot like those of Kirby Puckett, an obvious Hall of Famer.
Kirby Puckett was far from an obvious Hall of Famer, actually. Love the guy. But not an obvious Hall of Famer.
Was maybe the best player in the game for three straight years (he won the Sporting News Player of the Year 1984-86) and also was one of the two greatest fielding first basemen of all time.
I disagree with both parts.
First part: 1984-86 were the three best years of Mattingly's career, so already that's a bit of a cherry-pick, but whatever. Over that time, he finished no higher than 5th in the AL in WAR. Not a good start. He finished 10th in the AL in OBP in '84 and 5th in '86. Mattingly was in the top two in the AL in slugging each year from 1984 to '86, but did so in a hitter-friendly stadium. This was also a time when Cal Ripken, Rickey Henderson, Robin Yount, Tony Gwynn, Wade Boggs, and Ryne Sandberg were peaking. Mattingly's WAR over that time was 19.6. Henderson's was 19.8, Boggs's was 22.9. And those figures are from cherry-picked years designed to make Mattingly look better than everyone else.
Second part: Mattingly finished his career with a dWAR of 3.1, which is pretty good, but barely registers on the career leaderboard. In TZR (Total Zone Runs), he ranks tied for 17th among first basemen. In career RF/9 innings for first basemen, he is 51st. In RF/game for first basemen, he does not crack the top 100. One of the two best fielding first basemen of all time? I disagree.
It took me about 15 minutes to do that research. This isn't hard to do if you're a baseball writer.
5. Dale Murphy: He was great for a while (two straight MVPs), but is also known as one of the greatest guys to ever play the game.
Mike Schmidt was better than Murphy both years he won the MVP, but those were two strong years for Murphy. And he is one of the classiest men ever in uniform, but unfortunately for him, that's kind of irrelevant.
[Skipping ahead for the rest of the article. Only bits and pieces to come. Also, everyone else listed is who Heyman did not vote for.]
Fred McGriff: I feel a little guilty about this one. He's 26th in both home runs and RBI, a consistent and pure power hitter. He didn't quite make 500 home runs; he had 493. But that shouldn't be the barometer. He ranked among the top five in OPS for seven years. Not bad. But alas, it feels like something's missing.
STATS THAT ACTUALLY MATTER. THE MISSING PIECE IS STATS THAT ACTUALLY MATTER.
7. Jeff Bagwell: The percentages (.540 slugging, .408 on-base) are worthy, and that he won only one Gold Glove and one MVP may have been a matter of timing and the era. Also gets points for uniqueness; not many huge first basemen could run like him (202 stolen bases, 100 runs in eight seasons). Still thinking about it.
So...why did he not get your vote, then?
9. Juan Gonzalez: He may be the greatest player only to receive 5 percent of the vote in any year, as he did last year to barely stay on the ballot.
That honor actually belongs to Kevin Brown, who received even fewer votes last year.
Had a .561 career slugging percentage and was two-time MVP. Just can't quite do it.
But...WHY not?
11. Edgar Martinez: Maybe this is a little low as a reaction to the campaign on his behalf, but I don't think so. His percentages were great (.515 slugging and .418 on-base) and I'm not going to hold it against him that he was the fourth-best player on a team that never reached the World Series (I did vote for Ron Santo eventually). But he was a DH. And he only finished in the top 10 in MVP voting twice. (Some will say that's repeating an injustice, but I don't think so.) A great hitter, yes, but in my estimation he didn't leave a mark that was quite great enough.
But that doesn't explain WHY you didn't.....oh, forget it.
26. Mark McGwire: On accomplishment alone, he would be the top guy on my ballot. Just can't do it. The 70 home runs were a mirage.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE ONLY-
Oh, whatever.
-Tucker Warner
What do you think? Comment on this post or send any and all questions, comments, or insults to FirstTeeMulligan@yahoo.com. Tucker Warner likes poetry and a nice pair of slacks. You can find him on Twitter at @twarner50.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
FJM
You can contact Tucker Warner by email at firstteemulligan@yahoo.com or on Twitter at http://twitter.com/twarner50
Disclaimer: I am not attacking Rick Reilly himself, just his article. I have a lot of respect for Reilly, and for all other writers that I may or may not critique in posts like these. Feel free to pick apart anything I have written also. But that's enough of that.
I am aware that prediction pieces are usually floaty in nature and quite often meaningless, but this goes above any beyond the usual standard of mediocrity found in the majority of prediction pieces. (Not to say they are all- many writers write prediction pieces with insightful points)
In this column, Rick Reilly makes a prediction about each playoff series, then makes a poor attempt at a joke for each series, calling it a "dream." It's as bad as it sounds.
Reilly's text is in bold.
NBA Playoffs: Predictions and Dreams
originally published April 15, 2011
These are happy days.
This is the first and last time we will agree.
For one thing, I get to type the phrase "Barry Bonds, convicted felon" the rest of my life.
"It's topical! It's edgy!"
For two, I'm quite sure I'll never need to spell the name Charl Schwartzel again.
Because he didn't win the 2011 Masters in historic fashion, didn't finish in the top 20 in each of the majors in 2010, and isn't currently ranked 11th in the world.
No, wait, he did all of those things.
For three, I can chart exactly how the NBA playoffs are going to go down. I'm about to make your bookie drink Natty Lights until Christmas. You're welcome.
This is a terrible lead-in, but continue.
FIRST ROUND
New Orleans Hornets vs. Los Angeles Lakers -- Forget it. Without David West, even Chris Paul on a "Limitless" pill can't win two games in this series. Lakers in 5, and Paul calls Student Movers the next day.
"Current movie reference! It's topical!"
Did I dream that? In a gesture of reconciliation toward national gay and lesbian rights groups, Kobe wears Nike Rainbow Dunks.
What? Just...huh?
The Thunder, everybody's cool new kid in class, is about to get a wedgie in front of the whole playground.
Extending the metaphor, the Nuggets are the playground bully, the Lakers are the girl everyone has a crush on, the Spurs are the moldy old lunch lady, the Grizzlies are the kid who always gets in trouble, and the Mavericks are the kid who sits by himself in the corner and never talks to anyone.
Since the Nuggets traded Melo on Feb. 21, they've been the third-winningest team in the league (.720).
Fair enough. Let's keep count of the number of actual good points Reilly makes in this column! So far: 1.
They have double-kick-start Tar Heel point guards
The Thunder, whose point guards attended UCLA and VCU, can only single-kick-start.
who can drive, score or feed to six other scorers.
Fact: All players on the Thunder are incapable of scoring. If Serge Ibaka or Thabo Sefolosha put the ball in the hoop, no points are added and there is a change of possession.
Who you gonna guard on the last shot?
Maybe they play their usual defense? Maybe the guy with the ball? Maybe whoever has been getting the majority of the touches and chances to that point in the game?
But I'll award Reilly a quarter of a point here. It would have been a half-point, but it doesn't seem like he knows any Nuggets players outside of their point guards, whom he does not name. 1.25.
Nuggets in 7, proving George Karl should've been Coach of the Year.
My favorite bad sportswriting technique- making a debatable point secondary to the rest of the column and never providing backup evidence for it, then neglecting to mention it for the rest of the article.
On a side note, Chris Paul should ABSOLUTELY win the MVP award.
Did I dream that? So many points are scored at Oklahoma City Arena in Game 2, everybody gets eight tacos.
I suppose tacos are nice.
Memphis Grizzlies vs. San Antonio Spurs -- Never pick a team with Zach Randolph on it. He has an extra punk chromosome.
Zach Randolph's team has never won a basketball game.
What's remarkable is that Memphis coach Lionel Hollins looked like a guy TRYING to lose so he could play the Spurs in the first round.
If this even means anything, which it doesn't, wouldn't it be more of a point in the Grizzlies' favor, not the other way around?
Hollins is like Phil Mickelson with two drivers. He thinks too much. Spurs in 6.
Gregg Popovich is like Rory McIlroy's putter: inanimate.
Did I dream that? Manu Ginobili flops so bad in Game 5 he gets a yellow card.
"See, it's funny because soccer players, who receieve yellow cards when they flop, flop a lot, and receive yellow cards because of it."
Portland Trail Blazers vs. Dallas Mavericks -- What do Oasis, Winona Ryder and the Mavericks have in common?
They're all comprised of people? Their names contain both vowels and consonants? Absolutely nothing?
They're massive underachievers.
Oh.
To quote Wikipedia, "[Oasis] have had eight UK number-one singles and eight UK number-one albums, and won fifteen NME Awards, nine Q Awards, four MTV Europe Music Awards and six BRIT Awards, including one in 2007 for outstanding contribution to music and one for the best album of the last 30 years as voted by the BBC Radio 2 listeners; they have been nominated for three Grammy Awards. As of 2009, the band have sold an estimated 70 million records worldwide.[1] Also the band was listed in the Guinness Book of World Records in 2010 for “Longest Top 10 UK Chart Run By A Group” after an unprecedented run of 22 successive Top 10 hits in the UK.[2] The band also holds the Guinness World Record for being the "Most Successful Act of the Last Decade" in the UK between the years 1995 and 2005, spending 765 weeks in the Top 75 singles and albums charts.[3][4]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oasis_(band)
So they might not be massive underachievers. Winona, ok, I'll grant you that one (although you might have wanted to save that joke for a year when she wasn't nominated for two SAG Awards.) It has nothing to do with basketball, of course, so you do not receive a point.
The Mavericks, on the other hand, do not necessarily fall under the title of "massive underachievers." Preceding the current season, the Mavericks have made the playoffs ten consecutive years. They have lost in the first round 4 times. They have lost in the second round four times. They have lost in the conference finals once. And they have lost in the NBA Finals once. So not terrible, not exactly what you would call a great team, but not too shabby. Let's look into their playoff performances a little deeper, though, and give each year a ranking based on how they did compared to how they would be expected to perform based on seeding, in a system where the better seed always wins.
Since over-achieving and under-achieving is different for each team because of a talent disparity between the two, I will assume that "talent level" is correlated with seeding, and use the seeding as basis for whether the Mavericks over-achieved or under-achieved, as Reilly argues, in the playoffs.
(If someone wants to do a little research and find the exact expected performance numbers, by seed, for the NBA Playoffs, it would be greatly appreciated. For now I'm just going to use the dummy version of that table.)
In 2001, they were the 5 seed and beat the Jazz in the first round. That's pretty good; they did better than expected.
In 2002, they were the 4 seed and beat the Timberwolves in the first round. They performed at exactly the expected level.
In 2003, they were the 3 seed and went to the conference finals, beating the Blazers and the Kings. Better than expected.
In 2004, they were the 5 seed and lost in the first round to the Kings. Not a good result, but based on seeding, this wasn't an unexpected result.
In 2005, they were the 4 seed and beat the Rockets in the first round. Expected result.
In 2006, they were the 4 seed and went to the NBA Finals. This is the definition of over-achieving.
In 2007, they were the 1 seed and lost in the first round to the Warriors. This was really bad. It about cancels out the NBA Finals appearance from the previous year.
In 2008, they were the 7 seed and lost in the first round to the Hornets. This is pretty much exactly what would be expected.
In 2009, they were the 6 seed and beat the Spurs in the first round. Above expectation level.
In 2010, they were the 2 seed and lost in the first round to the Spurs. Below expectation level.
So to recap, the Mavericks performed above expectation level 4 times, at expectation level 4 times (2 good, 2 bad), and below expectation level twice. The Mavericks aren't exactly what I would call "massive under-achievers", or even under-achievers at all.
So Reilly listed a possibly-under-achieving actress who did quite well in 2010, a wildly successful band, and a not-under-achieving-at-all basketball team.
When Dallas loses this one, it'll be four first-round punch-outs in the last five playoffs. Portland in 7, and let's see if anybody in Dallas has the nerve to call out Mark Cuban, cyberbully.
Sounds pretty confident to me.
Also, did you notice something?
Reilly mentions nothing about the players for either team, how they have been playing this year, either team's strengths or weaknesses, etc. He says nothing about basketball, other than the incorrect point that Dallas are massive underachievers.
Did I dream that? In attempting to break an attendance record, Cuban gets arrested by the Dallas Fire Department for using Jerry Jones' temporary Super Bowl seats.
Ha?
Indiana Pacers vs. Chicago Bulls -- Indiana relies on Roy Hibbert.
Roy Hibbert is third on his team in (per game) field goal attempts, points, and minutes played. If you want to go into advanced metrics, he is fourth on his team in PER, tenth on his team in Offensive Rating (although tied for first in Defensive Rating, but still -4 between them), sixth on his team in Win Shares, and ninth (!) on his team in Win Shares per 48 minutes.
So I think it's safe to say that Indiana does not rely on Roy Hibbert.
Chicago relies on Derrick Rose.
True, but this is mostly irrelevant to how the Bulls and Pacers will play. Reilly gets a quarter-point. 1.5.
Roy Hibbert leaves his feet and you can almost get a magazine under his shoes.
Ok, Roy Hibbert has a notable weakness with athleticism. How will this affect the Pacers? How will Noah and Boozer take advantage of this weakness? What type of effect will this have on the Pacers' rebounding? Will this weakness lead to more playing time for Jeff Foster or Tyler Hansbrough, and how will that choice affect the Pacers? Will Jeff Vogel choose to play different frontcourt lineups in order to make up for Hibbert's athletic deficiency?
Rick?
Derrick Rose leaves his feet, makes a ham-and-cheese omelette, and still gets the hoop.
Oh, okay, you're just going to compare the jumping ability of a point guard and a 280-pound center.
I'll give him half a point for mentioning a gap in Hibbert's play. That makes 2.
Also, food metaphor!
Derrick Rose is the most thrilling player in the NBA and this is a very delicious era in the NBA. Chicago in 4.
Did I dream that? An angry Michael Jordan announces his comeback at halftime of Game 2, spurred by Rose not saying hello to him during warm-ups.
Huh?
Philadelphia 76ers vs. Miami Heat -- The Heat are fueled by emotion more than any other team in the league.
The 76ers are fueled by petrol.
The world will be watching them in this series.
Or, judging by the ratings for Games 1 and 2, about 4.5 million people.
Every time the Heat have been written off, they've gathered themselves.
When the 76ers were written off, they became practicing Wiccans and slowly went insane, culminating in Evan Turner being placed in a mental hospital.
They've won eight of their last 10 and are rolling -- for now. Miami in 5, and then it gets nasty.
Finally, something about basketball. I'll be generous and give a full point- we are now at 3.
Atlanta Hawks vs. Orlando Magic -- Two odd teams.
The Hawks are coached by a trained pigeon and the Magic regularly attend polka festivals.
Orlando shoots jumpers even though it has Dwight Howard.
Jameer Nelson should only pass. JJ Redick and Jason Richardson shouldn't even touch the ball.
Atlanta shoots jumpers even though it has Josh Smith.
Josh Smith should be the only player on the floor for the Hawks. Al Horford and Kirk Hinrich only miss shots and turn the ball over. Josh Smith, meanwhile, has a field goal percentage of 101%. One of his shots went in twice. That's why they shouldn't shoot jumpers, ever.
Atlanta is the quittingest team in the league. Orlando in 6.
The Hawks' Quitting Coefficient (QC) is at .604, good for third in the league, behind the Toronto Raptors and the Sacramento Kings, who literally only showed up for 31 games this year. The other 51 were played by actors. They aren't first in QC for nothing.
Note: Atlanta won the season series against Orlando. No mention of that.
Did I dream that? At halftime of Game 4, Howard balances 18 Taipei gymnasts on his shoulders.
Brandon Bass tried to balance 2 gymnasts from Hong Kong, but he dropped them both. And that's why he shouldn't shoot jumpers.
New York Knicks vs. Boston Celtics -- Boston is the John McCain of these playoffs. Great story, good ideas, too old.
If any team was John McCain, it would be the Mavericks. Extending the metaphor, the Thunder are Barack Obama, the Blazers are John Boehner, the Knicks are Sarah Palin, the Spurs are Bob Dole, and the Cincinnati Royals are Hannibal Hamlin.
If New York had just one more big, it could win this, but it insisted on Chauncey Billups instead.
They had gaps at point guard and at center. They filled the more drastic weakness- Ronny Turiaf is better than Toney Douglas. This is a perfect example of the sliding doors theory- had they replaced Billups with a center in the mega-trade, you would be criticizing them for a lack of a point guard.
Plus, Rajon Rondo is a god. Boston in 6, Southies throw wicked rager.
I'm just not gonna touch either of these. Why bother?
Did I dream that? Knicks guard Landry Fields has five steals in the game, two of them from Carmelo Anthony.
Again, ha?
To recap: the first round is now over. Reilly has 3 good-point points, after reviewing 8 series. Not a good start.
CONFERENCE SEMIFINALS
Denver vs. San Antonio -- The Spurs were a great dynasty, but they are collapsing from within. Their center cannot hold. Tim Duncan will be 35 by this series and wearing down, bone on bone, spitting sawdust, tilting as he walks.
Decent point, but they managed to have the best record in the tough Western Conference despite this, and haven't really suffered any bad injuries all year, and there is no backing up of how this will affect the Spurs or Nuggets, so I only award half a point. 3.5.
The New Nuggets, growing stronger with every week they're together, take the No. 1 offense in the NBA and make it better.
A correct statistic! No mention of how that affects a team with the 6th highest scoring offense in the NBA, especially since they have virtually identical FG%- the Nuggets at .476 and the Spurs at .475. A generous half-point puts us at 4.
Denver's Psychology Today centerfold J.R. Smith can either be a disaster or a miracle in this series, but here he parts the seas.
In the Western Conference Finals, he will go atop a mountain and bring down two stone tablets.
Denver in 7, David Stern pukes.
I already have.
Did I dream that? Carmelo's request to be traded back is denied.
Actually not terrible, but this joke has become the "if the black box is indestructible, why don't they build the whole plane out of it?" of the 2011 NBA season.
Portland vs. Los Angeles -- Yes, Portland is long,
[insert Greg Oden joke here]
but have you seen the Lakers?
No. I actually do not watch basketball, or any sports for that matter, and spend my time studying statistics and composing sonatas.
It's like trying to shoot in the Muir Woods. Their two 7-footers make Brandon Roy weep for Greg Oden.
LaMarcus Aldridge, arguably the best of the big men in this hypothetical series, gets no mention.
Look out -- the Lakers are getting better as the playoffs get deeper, as usual. Lakers in 5.
In previous years, the Lakers have come back from losing in the first round to winning the NBA Finals in three games.
Did I dream that? Lakers forward Lamar Odom takes time during Game 2 to quickly smooch fiancée reality-star Khloe Kardashian, only to realize it's actually Blazers forward Luke Babbitt.
Heh?
Orlando vs. Chicago -- Chicago was 10 games better than the Magic in the regular season.
Doesn't matter too much, because both these teams are very good, and when you get to this point in the playoffs, the differences between the teams and how they play is much more important than their respective regular season records.
Granted, this isn't the regular season, which is the point.
Oh good, we agree! I have been waiting the whole column for this...I award you a whole po-
Rose gets more hell-bent in the playoffs.
Oh.
I take it that you are using his history of never having won a playoff series as evidence?
And I don't believe that players can "raise their games" in the playoffs anyway. Name the best playoff performers, in any sport. They're also the best players, all the time, in that sport.
And do you really want to bet on a team that reserves a significant role for Gilbert Arenas? Chicago in 6.
1. He has averaged 9 minutes per game in the first 2 games of the Atlanta series.
2. Why didn't this matter when you were predicting the first round?
Did I dream that? In Game 3, Rose scores 42 points, 11 of them after being Tasered by Orlando coach Stan Van Gundy.
Reilly: *laughs*
Tucker: *stares in confusion*
Comedy: *plunges dagger a little deeper into own heart*
Boston vs. Miami -- The showcase series of the playoffs. So many stars, some are in the third row.
This has nothing to do with basketball.
Rondo locks up Dwyane Wade,
Possibly. I can't give you a full point for this, but this is fine. 4.5.
but LeBron, making up for the hot mess he put on in the 2010 playoffs, averages 38 and 8 and three new dance moves a night.
In four games against the Celtics this year, LeBron has averaged 28.8 points and 6.5 rebounds. The rebounds could happen, sure, but you're predicting his PPG to improve by almost 10 points in this series. Bold prediction. Could happen, sure, but bold prediction.
Boston might've won this if it'd known Shaq was going to be the first superstar to retire and still show up for games. Miami in 7.
"Being hurt" is now apparently the same as "retiring."
Did I dream that? Kevin Garnett bangs his forehead on the stanchion afterward.
Hee?
CONFERENCE FINALS
Denver vs. Los Angeles -- This one is as one-sided as The Falkland Islands War.
I am at a loss for words.
The Nuggets are toast from two seven-game series and the Lakers still haven't been pushed to a sixth game. Lakers in 5.
Both from hypothetical situations you thought up.
Did I dream that? Phil Jackson, on the brink of retiring, loses his cool afterward, barking, "Do you realize I'm going for my fourth three-peat? That means I'll have had four times as many three-peats as Coach of the Year Awards! Nice going, writers. You morons could screw up a Cuban election."
Ok, look. Phil Jackson has coached, at their primes, Michael Jordan, Shaquille O'Neal, and Kobe Bryant- two of them at the same time. A dead raccoon could have coached the 90s Bulls and 00s Lakers to championships. The degree of difficulty for these jobs was a 0.0. It is far more impressive to coach a moderately-to-low-talented team to a success than it is a ridiculously-talented team to a championship.
Miami vs. Chicago -- With home-court advantage, the Bulls weather the wave after wave of attacks on Rose.
Joel Anthony will hit Rose with a tire iron while Mike Bibby stabs him with a Bowie knife.
Joakim Noah and Carlos Boozer dominate the Heat's weakness in the paint.
I'm stunned.
There's an actual basketball point in here.
Fairly obvious, yes, but it's there. And it makes sense.
5.5.
I'm assuming this means that Reilly is saving his best analysis for the Conference Finals and Finals. This is amazing. What a turnaround. I'm ecstatic. I may get to read insightful ideas in this article. I love life!
Pat Riley is so upset he actually gets a gray hair. Bulls in 7. Bye, bye Superfriends.
Did I dream that? To mock LeBron James' continued failures with buzzer-beaters, thousands of Cleveland fans attend Game 5 and hold up a giant "The Frozen One" banner.
My dreams have been shattered.
FINALS
Los Angeles vs. Chicago -- The Lakers fall apart like a Jenga tower. Andrew Bynum's legs give out. Kobe's shoulder gives out. Pau Gasol's knee gives out.
The shattered pieces that once held my dreams were just picked up and shattered. Then Reilly picked up the pieces of the pieces and shattered those.
Rose is so quick and full of energy against the Lakers, he looks like a squirrel trapped inside an assisted living home. Bulls in 6, Rose in full bloom.
Don't need to dream that.
I give up.
If these predictions turn out to be right, I'm moving to Norway.
-Tucker
Disclaimer: I am not attacking Rick Reilly himself, just his article. I have a lot of respect for Reilly, and for all other writers that I may or may not critique in posts like these. Feel free to pick apart anything I have written also. But that's enough of that.
I am aware that prediction pieces are usually floaty in nature and quite often meaningless, but this goes above any beyond the usual standard of mediocrity found in the majority of prediction pieces. (Not to say they are all- many writers write prediction pieces with insightful points)
In this column, Rick Reilly makes a prediction about each playoff series, then makes a poor attempt at a joke for each series, calling it a "dream." It's as bad as it sounds.
Reilly's text is in bold.
NBA Playoffs: Predictions and Dreams
originally published April 15, 2011
These are happy days.
This is the first and last time we will agree.
For one thing, I get to type the phrase "Barry Bonds, convicted felon" the rest of my life.
"It's topical! It's edgy!"
For two, I'm quite sure I'll never need to spell the name Charl Schwartzel again.
Because he didn't win the 2011 Masters in historic fashion, didn't finish in the top 20 in each of the majors in 2010, and isn't currently ranked 11th in the world.
No, wait, he did all of those things.
For three, I can chart exactly how the NBA playoffs are going to go down. I'm about to make your bookie drink Natty Lights until Christmas. You're welcome.
This is a terrible lead-in, but continue.
FIRST ROUND
New Orleans Hornets vs. Los Angeles Lakers -- Forget it. Without David West, even Chris Paul on a "Limitless" pill can't win two games in this series. Lakers in 5, and Paul calls Student Movers the next day.
"Current movie reference! It's topical!"
Did I dream that? In a gesture of reconciliation toward national gay and lesbian rights groups, Kobe wears Nike Rainbow Dunks.
What? Just...huh?
The Thunder, everybody's cool new kid in class, is about to get a wedgie in front of the whole playground.
Extending the metaphor, the Nuggets are the playground bully, the Lakers are the girl everyone has a crush on, the Spurs are the moldy old lunch lady, the Grizzlies are the kid who always gets in trouble, and the Mavericks are the kid who sits by himself in the corner and never talks to anyone.
Since the Nuggets traded Melo on Feb. 21, they've been the third-winningest team in the league (.720).
Fair enough. Let's keep count of the number of actual good points Reilly makes in this column! So far: 1.
They have double-kick-start Tar Heel point guards
The Thunder, whose point guards attended UCLA and VCU, can only single-kick-start.
who can drive, score or feed to six other scorers.
Fact: All players on the Thunder are incapable of scoring. If Serge Ibaka or Thabo Sefolosha put the ball in the hoop, no points are added and there is a change of possession.
Who you gonna guard on the last shot?
Maybe they play their usual defense? Maybe the guy with the ball? Maybe whoever has been getting the majority of the touches and chances to that point in the game?
But I'll award Reilly a quarter of a point here. It would have been a half-point, but it doesn't seem like he knows any Nuggets players outside of their point guards, whom he does not name. 1.25.
Nuggets in 7, proving George Karl should've been Coach of the Year.
My favorite bad sportswriting technique- making a debatable point secondary to the rest of the column and never providing backup evidence for it, then neglecting to mention it for the rest of the article.
On a side note, Chris Paul should ABSOLUTELY win the MVP award.
Did I dream that? So many points are scored at Oklahoma City Arena in Game 2, everybody gets eight tacos.
I suppose tacos are nice.
Memphis Grizzlies vs. San Antonio Spurs -- Never pick a team with Zach Randolph on it. He has an extra punk chromosome.
Zach Randolph's team has never won a basketball game.
What's remarkable is that Memphis coach Lionel Hollins looked like a guy TRYING to lose so he could play the Spurs in the first round.
If this even means anything, which it doesn't, wouldn't it be more of a point in the Grizzlies' favor, not the other way around?
Hollins is like Phil Mickelson with two drivers. He thinks too much. Spurs in 6.
Gregg Popovich is like Rory McIlroy's putter: inanimate.
Did I dream that? Manu Ginobili flops so bad in Game 5 he gets a yellow card.
"See, it's funny because soccer players, who receieve yellow cards when they flop, flop a lot, and receive yellow cards because of it."
Portland Trail Blazers vs. Dallas Mavericks -- What do Oasis, Winona Ryder and the Mavericks have in common?
They're all comprised of people? Their names contain both vowels and consonants? Absolutely nothing?
They're massive underachievers.
Oh.
To quote Wikipedia, "[Oasis] have had eight UK number-one singles and eight UK number-one albums, and won fifteen NME Awards, nine Q Awards, four MTV Europe Music Awards and six BRIT Awards, including one in 2007 for outstanding contribution to music and one for the best album of the last 30 years as voted by the BBC Radio 2 listeners; they have been nominated for three Grammy Awards. As of 2009, the band have sold an estimated 70 million records worldwide.[1] Also the band was listed in the Guinness Book of World Records in 2010 for “Longest Top 10 UK Chart Run By A Group” after an unprecedented run of 22 successive Top 10 hits in the UK.[2] The band also holds the Guinness World Record for being the "Most Successful Act of the Last Decade" in the UK between the years 1995 and 2005, spending 765 weeks in the Top 75 singles and albums charts.[3][4]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oasis_(band)
So they might not be massive underachievers. Winona, ok, I'll grant you that one (although you might have wanted to save that joke for a year when she wasn't nominated for two SAG Awards.) It has nothing to do with basketball, of course, so you do not receive a point.
The Mavericks, on the other hand, do not necessarily fall under the title of "massive underachievers." Preceding the current season, the Mavericks have made the playoffs ten consecutive years. They have lost in the first round 4 times. They have lost in the second round four times. They have lost in the conference finals once. And they have lost in the NBA Finals once. So not terrible, not exactly what you would call a great team, but not too shabby. Let's look into their playoff performances a little deeper, though, and give each year a ranking based on how they did compared to how they would be expected to perform based on seeding, in a system where the better seed always wins.
Since over-achieving and under-achieving is different for each team because of a talent disparity between the two, I will assume that "talent level" is correlated with seeding, and use the seeding as basis for whether the Mavericks over-achieved or under-achieved, as Reilly argues, in the playoffs.
(If someone wants to do a little research and find the exact expected performance numbers, by seed, for the NBA Playoffs, it would be greatly appreciated. For now I'm just going to use the dummy version of that table.)
In 2001, they were the 5 seed and beat the Jazz in the first round. That's pretty good; they did better than expected.
In 2002, they were the 4 seed and beat the Timberwolves in the first round. They performed at exactly the expected level.
In 2003, they were the 3 seed and went to the conference finals, beating the Blazers and the Kings. Better than expected.
In 2004, they were the 5 seed and lost in the first round to the Kings. Not a good result, but based on seeding, this wasn't an unexpected result.
In 2005, they were the 4 seed and beat the Rockets in the first round. Expected result.
In 2006, they were the 4 seed and went to the NBA Finals. This is the definition of over-achieving.
In 2007, they were the 1 seed and lost in the first round to the Warriors. This was really bad. It about cancels out the NBA Finals appearance from the previous year.
In 2008, they were the 7 seed and lost in the first round to the Hornets. This is pretty much exactly what would be expected.
In 2009, they were the 6 seed and beat the Spurs in the first round. Above expectation level.
In 2010, they were the 2 seed and lost in the first round to the Spurs. Below expectation level.
So to recap, the Mavericks performed above expectation level 4 times, at expectation level 4 times (2 good, 2 bad), and below expectation level twice. The Mavericks aren't exactly what I would call "massive under-achievers", or even under-achievers at all.
So Reilly listed a possibly-under-achieving actress who did quite well in 2010, a wildly successful band, and a not-under-achieving-at-all basketball team.
When Dallas loses this one, it'll be four first-round punch-outs in the last five playoffs. Portland in 7, and let's see if anybody in Dallas has the nerve to call out Mark Cuban, cyberbully.
Sounds pretty confident to me.
Also, did you notice something?
Reilly mentions nothing about the players for either team, how they have been playing this year, either team's strengths or weaknesses, etc. He says nothing about basketball, other than the incorrect point that Dallas are massive underachievers.
Did I dream that? In attempting to break an attendance record, Cuban gets arrested by the Dallas Fire Department for using Jerry Jones' temporary Super Bowl seats.
Ha?
Indiana Pacers vs. Chicago Bulls -- Indiana relies on Roy Hibbert.
Roy Hibbert is third on his team in (per game) field goal attempts, points, and minutes played. If you want to go into advanced metrics, he is fourth on his team in PER, tenth on his team in Offensive Rating (although tied for first in Defensive Rating, but still -4 between them), sixth on his team in Win Shares, and ninth (!) on his team in Win Shares per 48 minutes.
So I think it's safe to say that Indiana does not rely on Roy Hibbert.
Chicago relies on Derrick Rose.
True, but this is mostly irrelevant to how the Bulls and Pacers will play. Reilly gets a quarter-point. 1.5.
Roy Hibbert leaves his feet and you can almost get a magazine under his shoes.
Ok, Roy Hibbert has a notable weakness with athleticism. How will this affect the Pacers? How will Noah and Boozer take advantage of this weakness? What type of effect will this have on the Pacers' rebounding? Will this weakness lead to more playing time for Jeff Foster or Tyler Hansbrough, and how will that choice affect the Pacers? Will Jeff Vogel choose to play different frontcourt lineups in order to make up for Hibbert's athletic deficiency?
Rick?
Derrick Rose leaves his feet, makes a ham-and-cheese omelette, and still gets the hoop.
Oh, okay, you're just going to compare the jumping ability of a point guard and a 280-pound center.
I'll give him half a point for mentioning a gap in Hibbert's play. That makes 2.
Also, food metaphor!
Derrick Rose is the most thrilling player in the NBA and this is a very delicious era in the NBA. Chicago in 4.
Did I dream that? An angry Michael Jordan announces his comeback at halftime of Game 2, spurred by Rose not saying hello to him during warm-ups.
Huh?
Philadelphia 76ers vs. Miami Heat -- The Heat are fueled by emotion more than any other team in the league.
The 76ers are fueled by petrol.
The world will be watching them in this series.
Or, judging by the ratings for Games 1 and 2, about 4.5 million people.
Every time the Heat have been written off, they've gathered themselves.
When the 76ers were written off, they became practicing Wiccans and slowly went insane, culminating in Evan Turner being placed in a mental hospital.
They've won eight of their last 10 and are rolling -- for now. Miami in 5, and then it gets nasty.
Finally, something about basketball. I'll be generous and give a full point- we are now at 3.
Atlanta Hawks vs. Orlando Magic -- Two odd teams.
The Hawks are coached by a trained pigeon and the Magic regularly attend polka festivals.
Orlando shoots jumpers even though it has Dwight Howard.
Jameer Nelson should only pass. JJ Redick and Jason Richardson shouldn't even touch the ball.
Atlanta shoots jumpers even though it has Josh Smith.
Josh Smith should be the only player on the floor for the Hawks. Al Horford and Kirk Hinrich only miss shots and turn the ball over. Josh Smith, meanwhile, has a field goal percentage of 101%. One of his shots went in twice. That's why they shouldn't shoot jumpers, ever.
Atlanta is the quittingest team in the league. Orlando in 6.
The Hawks' Quitting Coefficient (QC) is at .604, good for third in the league, behind the Toronto Raptors and the Sacramento Kings, who literally only showed up for 31 games this year. The other 51 were played by actors. They aren't first in QC for nothing.
Note: Atlanta won the season series against Orlando. No mention of that.
Did I dream that? At halftime of Game 4, Howard balances 18 Taipei gymnasts on his shoulders.
Brandon Bass tried to balance 2 gymnasts from Hong Kong, but he dropped them both. And that's why he shouldn't shoot jumpers.
New York Knicks vs. Boston Celtics -- Boston is the John McCain of these playoffs. Great story, good ideas, too old.
If any team was John McCain, it would be the Mavericks. Extending the metaphor, the Thunder are Barack Obama, the Blazers are John Boehner, the Knicks are Sarah Palin, the Spurs are Bob Dole, and the Cincinnati Royals are Hannibal Hamlin.
If New York had just one more big, it could win this, but it insisted on Chauncey Billups instead.
They had gaps at point guard and at center. They filled the more drastic weakness- Ronny Turiaf is better than Toney Douglas. This is a perfect example of the sliding doors theory- had they replaced Billups with a center in the mega-trade, you would be criticizing them for a lack of a point guard.
Plus, Rajon Rondo is a god. Boston in 6, Southies throw wicked rager.
I'm just not gonna touch either of these. Why bother?
Did I dream that? Knicks guard Landry Fields has five steals in the game, two of them from Carmelo Anthony.
Again, ha?
To recap: the first round is now over. Reilly has 3 good-point points, after reviewing 8 series. Not a good start.
CONFERENCE SEMIFINALS
Denver vs. San Antonio -- The Spurs were a great dynasty, but they are collapsing from within. Their center cannot hold. Tim Duncan will be 35 by this series and wearing down, bone on bone, spitting sawdust, tilting as he walks.
Decent point, but they managed to have the best record in the tough Western Conference despite this, and haven't really suffered any bad injuries all year, and there is no backing up of how this will affect the Spurs or Nuggets, so I only award half a point. 3.5.
The New Nuggets, growing stronger with every week they're together, take the No. 1 offense in the NBA and make it better.
A correct statistic! No mention of how that affects a team with the 6th highest scoring offense in the NBA, especially since they have virtually identical FG%- the Nuggets at .476 and the Spurs at .475. A generous half-point puts us at 4.
Denver's Psychology Today centerfold J.R. Smith can either be a disaster or a miracle in this series, but here he parts the seas.
In the Western Conference Finals, he will go atop a mountain and bring down two stone tablets.
Denver in 7, David Stern pukes.
I already have.
Did I dream that? Carmelo's request to be traded back is denied.
Actually not terrible, but this joke has become the "if the black box is indestructible, why don't they build the whole plane out of it?" of the 2011 NBA season.
Portland vs. Los Angeles -- Yes, Portland is long,
[insert Greg Oden joke here]
but have you seen the Lakers?
No. I actually do not watch basketball, or any sports for that matter, and spend my time studying statistics and composing sonatas.
It's like trying to shoot in the Muir Woods. Their two 7-footers make Brandon Roy weep for Greg Oden.
LaMarcus Aldridge, arguably the best of the big men in this hypothetical series, gets no mention.
Look out -- the Lakers are getting better as the playoffs get deeper, as usual. Lakers in 5.
In previous years, the Lakers have come back from losing in the first round to winning the NBA Finals in three games.
Did I dream that? Lakers forward Lamar Odom takes time during Game 2 to quickly smooch fiancée reality-star Khloe Kardashian, only to realize it's actually Blazers forward Luke Babbitt.
Heh?
Orlando vs. Chicago -- Chicago was 10 games better than the Magic in the regular season.
Doesn't matter too much, because both these teams are very good, and when you get to this point in the playoffs, the differences between the teams and how they play is much more important than their respective regular season records.
Granted, this isn't the regular season, which is the point.
Oh good, we agree! I have been waiting the whole column for this...I award you a whole po-
Rose gets more hell-bent in the playoffs.
Oh.
I take it that you are using his history of never having won a playoff series as evidence?
And I don't believe that players can "raise their games" in the playoffs anyway. Name the best playoff performers, in any sport. They're also the best players, all the time, in that sport.
And do you really want to bet on a team that reserves a significant role for Gilbert Arenas? Chicago in 6.
1. He has averaged 9 minutes per game in the first 2 games of the Atlanta series.
2. Why didn't this matter when you were predicting the first round?
Did I dream that? In Game 3, Rose scores 42 points, 11 of them after being Tasered by Orlando coach Stan Van Gundy.
Reilly: *laughs*
Tucker: *stares in confusion*
Comedy: *plunges dagger a little deeper into own heart*
Boston vs. Miami -- The showcase series of the playoffs. So many stars, some are in the third row.
This has nothing to do with basketball.
Rondo locks up Dwyane Wade,
Possibly. I can't give you a full point for this, but this is fine. 4.5.
but LeBron, making up for the hot mess he put on in the 2010 playoffs, averages 38 and 8 and three new dance moves a night.
In four games against the Celtics this year, LeBron has averaged 28.8 points and 6.5 rebounds. The rebounds could happen, sure, but you're predicting his PPG to improve by almost 10 points in this series. Bold prediction. Could happen, sure, but bold prediction.
Boston might've won this if it'd known Shaq was going to be the first superstar to retire and still show up for games. Miami in 7.
"Being hurt" is now apparently the same as "retiring."
Did I dream that? Kevin Garnett bangs his forehead on the stanchion afterward.
Hee?
CONFERENCE FINALS
Denver vs. Los Angeles -- This one is as one-sided as The Falkland Islands War.
I am at a loss for words.
The Nuggets are toast from two seven-game series and the Lakers still haven't been pushed to a sixth game. Lakers in 5.
Both from hypothetical situations you thought up.
Did I dream that? Phil Jackson, on the brink of retiring, loses his cool afterward, barking, "Do you realize I'm going for my fourth three-peat? That means I'll have had four times as many three-peats as Coach of the Year Awards! Nice going, writers. You morons could screw up a Cuban election."
Ok, look. Phil Jackson has coached, at their primes, Michael Jordan, Shaquille O'Neal, and Kobe Bryant- two of them at the same time. A dead raccoon could have coached the 90s Bulls and 00s Lakers to championships. The degree of difficulty for these jobs was a 0.0. It is far more impressive to coach a moderately-to-low-talented team to a success than it is a ridiculously-talented team to a championship.
Miami vs. Chicago -- With home-court advantage, the Bulls weather the wave after wave of attacks on Rose.
Joel Anthony will hit Rose with a tire iron while Mike Bibby stabs him with a Bowie knife.
Joakim Noah and Carlos Boozer dominate the Heat's weakness in the paint.
I'm stunned.
There's an actual basketball point in here.
Fairly obvious, yes, but it's there. And it makes sense.
5.5.
I'm assuming this means that Reilly is saving his best analysis for the Conference Finals and Finals. This is amazing. What a turnaround. I'm ecstatic. I may get to read insightful ideas in this article. I love life!
Pat Riley is so upset he actually gets a gray hair. Bulls in 7. Bye, bye Superfriends.
Did I dream that? To mock LeBron James' continued failures with buzzer-beaters, thousands of Cleveland fans attend Game 5 and hold up a giant "The Frozen One" banner.
My dreams have been shattered.
FINALS
Los Angeles vs. Chicago -- The Lakers fall apart like a Jenga tower. Andrew Bynum's legs give out. Kobe's shoulder gives out. Pau Gasol's knee gives out.
The shattered pieces that once held my dreams were just picked up and shattered. Then Reilly picked up the pieces of the pieces and shattered those.
Rose is so quick and full of energy against the Lakers, he looks like a squirrel trapped inside an assisted living home. Bulls in 6, Rose in full bloom.
Don't need to dream that.
I give up.
If these predictions turn out to be right, I'm moving to Norway.
-Tucker
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)