After a long weekend of not getting enough sleep, I had one simple goal for yesterday. Do not leave the couch and consume lots of football. Lots of good stuff yesterday.
Colts-Jags breakdown:
I hate losing to the Sparkle Kitties. The only solace is this isn't a playoff team this year anyway. Getting Luck experience and starting to shape the roster is the most important part. That said, the roster can only do what the coaches allow it to do. After 3 weeks my opinion of Chuck Pagano is trending downwards. There's still time for him to learn, but after 2 horrifically coached 4th quarters, my expectations have been lowered.
You have the top pick from the draft, a QB who is the best prospect since your last #1 overall pick. Let the strengths of the team win the game. It infuriates me to no end when coaches play conservatively in the 4th quarter. No media is talking about how bad Pagano was yesterday, but they are all questioning Jim Schwartz. That's ludicrous. However you want to parse the odds for the Lions, it's questionable or a gamble at worst. Pagano's decisions did much more to harm the Colts chances of winning.
The Colts followed the usual game plan against Jacksonville for most of the game. Get some offense and grab the lead then let MJD gash them to tighten up the score.
Mistake #1 How the field goal team was not ready to kick is completely on the coaching staff. There were time outs left, and even if that happens sometimes, you can't just waste 5 yards. The initial kick would've been good had the delay of game not occurred and the outcome may have been very different.
Mistake #2 Playing for the field goal on the next possession. How many times over the years have we seen Peyton leave a magnificent drive only to have the other team come back and re-take the lead? It is absolutely unacceptable to stop trying and run the ball into the line 3 times and settle for a mid-range field goal to go up by a point. Again, you have Andrew Luck. He's good. You have Reggie Wayne. He's good. You have a bad defense. One first down probably wins this game. A touchdown forces Blaine freaking Gabbert to drive for a touchdown and you can play prevent knowing a field goal won't beat you. Making Andrew Luck hand the ball off 3 straight times is completely unacceptable. Not to mention Vinatieri made the field goal by the slimmest of margins.
Mistake #3 No deep safety. The last Jags TD was comically bad defense by the safety who spun around in circles covering no one, but why wasn't there a deep safety to prevent exactly the type of thing that happened? Sure they only needed a field goal (see Mistake #3), but you have to eliminate the home run. Crappy QB on the road with under a minute of clock left and no timeouts. Make him string together 3-4 completions while managing the clock if you need to. Don't give up an 80 yard touchdown from a 15 yard catch and long run.
Other good stuff:
-Andrew Luck played a great game. That pass to Hilton for the TD was simply amazing.
-Reggie Wayne continues to be a great security blanket for a rookie QB.
-Donald Brown had a good game. I don't get a lot of the vitrol towards him. I don't think he's elite, but he's a perfectly acceptable starting back who does some little things well. It's yard to boast a good YPC, when he's hit in the backfield every other time he gets the ball.
-Jerrell Freeman continues to play well.
-Some good returns on special teams
Other bad stuff:
-Offensive line is still shaky. Better than in previous weeks, but not much running room and Luck got hit a lot. At least they limited the sacks and really bad plays.
-Vontae Davis is about to nicknamed "Human Pass Interference Machine". Having trouble covering Brandon Marshall is one thing. Grabbing every Jags receiver near you is another.
-Officiating was brutal in this game. I mention this last simply because the Colts had other things that caused them to lose the game, but it did seem like an inordinate amount of calls went the Jags way. Missed PI's (especially on the long throw late in the game), phantom calls and yet more non-calls continue to be a problem. More on this in a general post later.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
What's the next baseball inefficiency
I watched Moneyball last weekend. It was a fair movie that I enjoyed based off a book written by Billy Beane about drafting only fat college players with high OBP's* Obviously Moneyball was written several years ago and people have caught onto the particular market inefficiency and it's been corrected. Teams keep striving for the next inefficiency. Young cost controlled pitching, defense, etc. have gone in vogue recently. What may some team do to get a leg up with so many other smart teams around.
*This statement has been approved by Joe Morgan.
While sabermaticians have got a lot of offense value stats pretty clear, there is a still a wide range of defensive stats that could be better. I want to look at some team building stuff on a deeper level. I'm sure most teams with smarter people than me already do this, it's just not widely reported.
The Cleveland Indians this off-season traded for Derek Lowe which makes them a very ground ball heavy staff. Now ground balls are much more likely to turn into singles and errors than fly balls, but they also can't leave the park and very rarely go for extra bases along with the added benefit of a possible double play. Cleveland's infield defense is pretty set and doesn't feature many elite defensive players, but the idea is still novel. Just as adding certain players is worth it more to teams at a certain point on the win curve, adding certain players seems to get more value out of them with the right supporting cast (teammates and ballpark).
Now imagine the Texas Rangers had traded for Lowe? They play in an offense first park that yields a lot of HR's and have an infield consisting of Adrian Beltre, Elvis Andrus and Ian Kinsler all amongst the best at their respective positions. This seems like a match made in heaven for a ground ball pitcher. Would anyone be really surprised if Lowe threw up something like a 3.50 ERA on the heels of a .245 BABIP with this crew? His true talent level isn't really that, but the supporting cast is already in place. From an added value perspective, he would seem to be pretty valuable. Similarly the Padres can take on fly ball pitchers and field a good outfield defense because nothing's leaving PETCO. They have an outsized impact because of their environment.
Let's change the variable. Let's say a team has a great outfield defense and a lot of left hand fly ball pitchers. Now theoretical team is also in need of a second baseman. Since lots of balls are going to be airborne and often to the left side, who cares how he fields because he'll be getting less chances than the average 2B. It would make a lot more sense for a team to sign a slugger with an iron glove because the offense added over an average 2B would be a lot less than the defense lost.
Billy Beane's theory was revolutionary and it worked for a while, but the industry caught on. You can't just sign fat players and walk your way to the playoffs every year. Teams have hired smart men who are always trying to one up the others. I am eagerly looking forward to the next market inefficiency and am hoping it's Theo and Jed that come up with it. They'd better capitalize quick though because it won't last long.
*This statement has been approved by Joe Morgan.
While sabermaticians have got a lot of offense value stats pretty clear, there is a still a wide range of defensive stats that could be better. I want to look at some team building stuff on a deeper level. I'm sure most teams with smarter people than me already do this, it's just not widely reported.
The Cleveland Indians this off-season traded for Derek Lowe which makes them a very ground ball heavy staff. Now ground balls are much more likely to turn into singles and errors than fly balls, but they also can't leave the park and very rarely go for extra bases along with the added benefit of a possible double play. Cleveland's infield defense is pretty set and doesn't feature many elite defensive players, but the idea is still novel. Just as adding certain players is worth it more to teams at a certain point on the win curve, adding certain players seems to get more value out of them with the right supporting cast (teammates and ballpark).
Now imagine the Texas Rangers had traded for Lowe? They play in an offense first park that yields a lot of HR's and have an infield consisting of Adrian Beltre, Elvis Andrus and Ian Kinsler all amongst the best at their respective positions. This seems like a match made in heaven for a ground ball pitcher. Would anyone be really surprised if Lowe threw up something like a 3.50 ERA on the heels of a .245 BABIP with this crew? His true talent level isn't really that, but the supporting cast is already in place. From an added value perspective, he would seem to be pretty valuable. Similarly the Padres can take on fly ball pitchers and field a good outfield defense because nothing's leaving PETCO. They have an outsized impact because of their environment.
Let's change the variable. Let's say a team has a great outfield defense and a lot of left hand fly ball pitchers. Now theoretical team is also in need of a second baseman. Since lots of balls are going to be airborne and often to the left side, who cares how he fields because he'll be getting less chances than the average 2B. It would make a lot more sense for a team to sign a slugger with an iron glove because the offense added over an average 2B would be a lot less than the defense lost.
Billy Beane's theory was revolutionary and it worked for a while, but the industry caught on. You can't just sign fat players and walk your way to the playoffs every year. Teams have hired smart men who are always trying to one up the others. I am eagerly looking forward to the next market inefficiency and am hoping it's Theo and Jed that come up with it. They'd better capitalize quick though because it won't last long.
Having a Bye week hurts top teams...unless it doesn't
Turn on any sports channel and you can hear about how the Giants defeated the mighty Packers on Sunday. The Packers were out of rhythm. They turned it over a lot, dropped passes and even Rodgers missed some open receivers. Obviously this came because they didn't have to play last week.
Look I even found an article that points this out.
Not to pick on this random blog too much, just the first hit I found.
Perhaps to be a contrarian, I'll point out all 3 other home teams won. The Pats crushed Denver. Granted they are a much better team, but even throwing that out.
I found this article detailing how the Ravens relished a week of rest to come in fresh to beat the Texans.
And also this article with similar thoughts on the 49er's bye week. In fact the 49er's won as home underdogs to a team who many thought was the NFC favorite and had the wonderful momentum of playing the week before.
It's a convenient crutch for mainsteam media. If a favored team loses, blame it on the bye week. If they win, pretend it didn't happen. This irritates me more as a Colts fan because I've had to hear for years about how the Colts byes always hurt them. Some years they lost as a top seed due to flaws or dumb luck well beyond this. Also they flat out quite trying in '09. Having a bye week didn't prevent them from crushing the Ravens and Jets on their way to the Super Bowl against another team that faltered and rested down the stretch.
Sometimes good teams lose and sometimes it's to teams that aren't as good as them. It happens just about every week which is why FO has a weekly Any Given Sunday article. It happens in the conference championship rounds when neither team has a bye the week before. Ask the '10 Saints or this year's Steelers how they enjoyed playing in the 1st round as heavy favorites to keep up their momentum. Having a bye is HUGE advantage. There was absolutely no way the 49er's were not going to advance to the divisional round this year. They had a 100% chance of making it. The Saints were maybe 65% or so.
Giving no weight to HFA or any other factors a team with a true talent level of winning of 50% and a bye will make the Super Bowl more often than a team with a 60% level that plays in the first round. Everyone in the playoffs (Denver excluded) is generally good. I'd sure rather have the sure thing advancement no matter how it hurts my momentum.
There are many memes football anouncers push. This is absolutely one that needs to stop. I now look forward to the Giants running the table the rest of the way to provide one data point for a counter argument. Lesson: Humanity is dumb.
Look I even found an article that points this out.
Not to pick on this random blog too much, just the first hit I found.
Perhaps to be a contrarian, I'll point out all 3 other home teams won. The Pats crushed Denver. Granted they are a much better team, but even throwing that out.
I found this article detailing how the Ravens relished a week of rest to come in fresh to beat the Texans.
And also this article with similar thoughts on the 49er's bye week. In fact the 49er's won as home underdogs to a team who many thought was the NFC favorite and had the wonderful momentum of playing the week before.
It's a convenient crutch for mainsteam media. If a favored team loses, blame it on the bye week. If they win, pretend it didn't happen. This irritates me more as a Colts fan because I've had to hear for years about how the Colts byes always hurt them. Some years they lost as a top seed due to flaws or dumb luck well beyond this. Also they flat out quite trying in '09. Having a bye week didn't prevent them from crushing the Ravens and Jets on their way to the Super Bowl against another team that faltered and rested down the stretch.
Sometimes good teams lose and sometimes it's to teams that aren't as good as them. It happens just about every week which is why FO has a weekly Any Given Sunday article. It happens in the conference championship rounds when neither team has a bye the week before. Ask the '10 Saints or this year's Steelers how they enjoyed playing in the 1st round as heavy favorites to keep up their momentum. Having a bye is HUGE advantage. There was absolutely no way the 49er's were not going to advance to the divisional round this year. They had a 100% chance of making it. The Saints were maybe 65% or so.
Giving no weight to HFA or any other factors a team with a true talent level of winning of 50% and a bye will make the Super Bowl more often than a team with a 60% level that plays in the first round. Everyone in the playoffs (Denver excluded) is generally good. I'd sure rather have the sure thing advancement no matter how it hurts my momentum.
There are many memes football anouncers push. This is absolutely one that needs to stop. I now look forward to the Giants running the table the rest of the way to provide one data point for a counter argument. Lesson: Humanity is dumb.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Is Eli Manning an elite QB?
Today I'll take a mostly totally subjective look at attacking this question. I've seen and am loyal to DVOA numbers from FO, but there is a little more nuance and working parts in football as compared to baseball so straight statistics don't always tell the whole story. I've heard this topic debated quite a bit by the on air personalities recently.
What defines elite? Before getting into things, I'll go ahead and say being a top 6 QB top 20% is around what we are looking for. Subjectively you want a guy who is going to be able to put a team on his back every once in a while if other facets of the game are struggling. Basically, is this guy capable of carrying your team to the Super Bowl? Also I want to look at who you'd want strictly for 2012 and then the best options for the next five years.
I think right now there is a definite elite that no one will argue with consisting of Rodgers, Brees and Brady. If Peyton Manning vintage 2010 returns, he'll add a 4th, but that topic is worthy of a whole new post, so any Peyton related thoughts are stricken from this article.
With all due respect to the following, we'll quickly gloss over them into the more interesting cases. Sorry to Ryan Fitzpatrick, Mark Sanchez, Matt Moore, Colt McCoy, Matt Hasselback/Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert, Matt Schaub/TJ Yates, Carson Palmer, Tim Tebow, Matt Cassell, Rex Grossman, Christian Ponder, Josh Freeman, Tavarias Jackson, Kevin Kolb/John Skelton, Sam Bradford and Alex Smith. Not saying none of these guys could ever win a Super Bowl (Smith has a good shot this year), but if they do, it'll be because other aspects of their teams are functioning at an elite level and they are playing well enough to be a good complmentary piece. In addition to the 3 givens above, I present the following list ranked from lowest to highest in my opinion and ask if Eli is better than them.
Andy Dalton
Nowhere near elite now, but showed good poise his rookie year and beat the teams he should. He'll never be the best QB in the league, but if things break right, I could see him being a significant contributor to a good squad. Better than Eli now? For the next 5 years? (No/No)
Joe Flacco
With Baltimore's defense, Flacco very well may win the Super Bowl. He's just not a great QB. Putrid performances in part helped them lose to the Sparkle Kitties on MNF. Flacco usually doesn't hurt them too much, but if the Ravens fall behind by 20 do you really think they are getting on Flacco's back and mounting a comeback? (No/No)
Michael Vick
Now we start getting into some QB's who can have an outsized impact on single games. Vick's ability is amazing. While not terribly accurate, he's improved himself enough to be adequate in that department and when do the other things he does, adequate can cut it as far as accuracy. He still throws up a stink bomb game from time to time and you'd better have a good backup QB for the 2-6 games Vick will miss annually. We're getting closer but still.... (No/No)
Matthew Stafford
Stafford's got a huge arm and thanks to a shootout with GB in Week 17 topped 5000 yards. Impressive, but he still has some accuracy issues as well and looks a better than he really is thanks to having a massive robot to throw passes to. When it doubt bomb it to Megatron. He will catch. I like the direction the Lions are going, but Stafford's not quite there yet. (No/No)
Matt Ryan
Now we have Mr. Consistency. The Falcons set a record for most consistant team ever in the FO database for 2011. Matt Ryan very rarely has a train wreck game and loses the game by himself, but he very rarely has a superhuman day and wins either. The Falcons beat the teams they should beat and lose to teams better than them. As they've noticed the past few seasons in the playoffs, most postseason teams are harder to beat than the Bucs. (No/No)
Philip Rivers
I've got to admit a bit of personal bias on this one. I've always wondered how Rivers succeeds with such awkward looking mechanics and he seems like kind of a jerk too. He had a down year this year, but is capable of slinging it around if need be. It'd be interesting to see what he could do if SD would ever hire a real coach. SD got a boatload of picks on the draft day swap, but still I'd rather have Eli. (No/No)
Jay Cutler
Cutler has all the talent in the world. He too can make some boneheaded plays and play poorly, but when he's on, he can take over the game. It'll be interesting to see if the new Bears OC will bother drawing up protection plans next year. They were 7-3 before Cutler and Forte went out and trending up. With the right supporting cast, they could be scary next year. (No/No)
Tony Romo
Romo gets way too much blame in the media. He's got a little Favre in him. He'll throw some dumb interceptions or have bad fumbles from time to time. He'll also shred defenses and go out and win a game with scrub receivers and broken ribs against one of the best teams in the conference. We're getting closer to Eli's value now. Romo's a pretty good comparison as far as strengths and weaknesses, but falls just short. (No/No)
Cam Newton
The real wild card of this list. Did you see the dude this year? Probably not because it's the Panthers and they apparently thought this season was defense optional. He's Randall Cunningham Tecmo Bowl good right now and still learning. He's Vick, only bigger (hopefully leading to more durability) and more accurate. While I don't think he's elite right now, I put him this high based off where I think he'll be in the next few years. Rookies aren't supposed to be this good. If his game evolves at all, he'll be elite. (No/Probably Yes)
Ben Roethlisberger
Probably the toughest call. He's a "Proven winner" i.e. his defense is usually good. I'd probably call it too close to say right now, but in the long term, his style of play and already existing injuries will mount. There's no way I'd take him over Eli for the next 5 years. (Even/No)
Tom Brady will be 35 to start next season. I'd rather have Brady for next year, but over 5 I'll take Eli. Either way I look at it, Eli is a top 5 QB which I would define as elite. Also in compiling this list, I noticed lots of the QBs hail from the NFC. With the Pats/Steelers/Ravens/Colts all aging, the NFC could easily regain dominant conference status over the next few years which means the Giants will be in dogfights almost every year. With Eli Manning at the helm, they'll likely come on top on most of them.
What defines elite? Before getting into things, I'll go ahead and say being a top 6 QB top 20% is around what we are looking for. Subjectively you want a guy who is going to be able to put a team on his back every once in a while if other facets of the game are struggling. Basically, is this guy capable of carrying your team to the Super Bowl? Also I want to look at who you'd want strictly for 2012 and then the best options for the next five years.
I think right now there is a definite elite that no one will argue with consisting of Rodgers, Brees and Brady. If Peyton Manning vintage 2010 returns, he'll add a 4th, but that topic is worthy of a whole new post, so any Peyton related thoughts are stricken from this article.
With all due respect to the following, we'll quickly gloss over them into the more interesting cases. Sorry to Ryan Fitzpatrick, Mark Sanchez, Matt Moore, Colt McCoy, Matt Hasselback/Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert, Matt Schaub/TJ Yates, Carson Palmer, Tim Tebow, Matt Cassell, Rex Grossman, Christian Ponder, Josh Freeman, Tavarias Jackson, Kevin Kolb/John Skelton, Sam Bradford and Alex Smith. Not saying none of these guys could ever win a Super Bowl (Smith has a good shot this year), but if they do, it'll be because other aspects of their teams are functioning at an elite level and they are playing well enough to be a good complmentary piece. In addition to the 3 givens above, I present the following list ranked from lowest to highest in my opinion and ask if Eli is better than them.
Andy Dalton
Nowhere near elite now, but showed good poise his rookie year and beat the teams he should. He'll never be the best QB in the league, but if things break right, I could see him being a significant contributor to a good squad. Better than Eli now? For the next 5 years? (No/No)
Joe Flacco
With Baltimore's defense, Flacco very well may win the Super Bowl. He's just not a great QB. Putrid performances in part helped them lose to the Sparkle Kitties on MNF. Flacco usually doesn't hurt them too much, but if the Ravens fall behind by 20 do you really think they are getting on Flacco's back and mounting a comeback? (No/No)
Michael Vick
Now we start getting into some QB's who can have an outsized impact on single games. Vick's ability is amazing. While not terribly accurate, he's improved himself enough to be adequate in that department and when do the other things he does, adequate can cut it as far as accuracy. He still throws up a stink bomb game from time to time and you'd better have a good backup QB for the 2-6 games Vick will miss annually. We're getting closer but still.... (No/No)
Matthew Stafford
Stafford's got a huge arm and thanks to a shootout with GB in Week 17 topped 5000 yards. Impressive, but he still has some accuracy issues as well and looks a better than he really is thanks to having a massive robot to throw passes to. When it doubt bomb it to Megatron. He will catch. I like the direction the Lions are going, but Stafford's not quite there yet. (No/No)
Matt Ryan
Now we have Mr. Consistency. The Falcons set a record for most consistant team ever in the FO database for 2011. Matt Ryan very rarely has a train wreck game and loses the game by himself, but he very rarely has a superhuman day and wins either. The Falcons beat the teams they should beat and lose to teams better than them. As they've noticed the past few seasons in the playoffs, most postseason teams are harder to beat than the Bucs. (No/No)
Philip Rivers
I've got to admit a bit of personal bias on this one. I've always wondered how Rivers succeeds with such awkward looking mechanics and he seems like kind of a jerk too. He had a down year this year, but is capable of slinging it around if need be. It'd be interesting to see what he could do if SD would ever hire a real coach. SD got a boatload of picks on the draft day swap, but still I'd rather have Eli. (No/No)
Jay Cutler
Cutler has all the talent in the world. He too can make some boneheaded plays and play poorly, but when he's on, he can take over the game. It'll be interesting to see if the new Bears OC will bother drawing up protection plans next year. They were 7-3 before Cutler and Forte went out and trending up. With the right supporting cast, they could be scary next year. (No/No)
Tony Romo
Romo gets way too much blame in the media. He's got a little Favre in him. He'll throw some dumb interceptions or have bad fumbles from time to time. He'll also shred defenses and go out and win a game with scrub receivers and broken ribs against one of the best teams in the conference. We're getting closer to Eli's value now. Romo's a pretty good comparison as far as strengths and weaknesses, but falls just short. (No/No)
Cam Newton
The real wild card of this list. Did you see the dude this year? Probably not because it's the Panthers and they apparently thought this season was defense optional. He's Randall Cunningham Tecmo Bowl good right now and still learning. He's Vick, only bigger (hopefully leading to more durability) and more accurate. While I don't think he's elite right now, I put him this high based off where I think he'll be in the next few years. Rookies aren't supposed to be this good. If his game evolves at all, he'll be elite. (No/Probably Yes)
Ben Roethlisberger
Probably the toughest call. He's a "Proven winner" i.e. his defense is usually good. I'd probably call it too close to say right now, but in the long term, his style of play and already existing injuries will mount. There's no way I'd take him over Eli for the next 5 years. (Even/No)
Tom Brady will be 35 to start next season. I'd rather have Brady for next year, but over 5 I'll take Eli. Either way I look at it, Eli is a top 5 QB which I would define as elite. Also in compiling this list, I noticed lots of the QBs hail from the NFC. With the Pats/Steelers/Ravens/Colts all aging, the NFC could easily regain dominant conference status over the next few years which means the Giants will be in dogfights almost every year. With Eli Manning at the helm, they'll likely come on top on most of them.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Why Chris Russo is an idiot and Congrats Ron.
I am apparently masochistic when it comes to listening to sports radio. Outside of Mike Ferin, very few sports commentators actually know what they are talking about. I usually listen to Chris "Mad Dog" Russo on my drive home from work because a) It's on and b) He's less annoying than other networks. He's a die hard Giants fan and states his opinion and doesn't care what other people think, which is nice and a nice diversion from ESPN Radio which toes the corporate line and never says anything negative about anything unless it's corporately approved. Last night though, his opinions were incredibly wrong throughout the whole show.
I got in my car after work and listened for a few minutes driving to the gym about how he thought Ron Santo was totally undeserving of the HOF. When I got in my car after a bball game an hour later, he was still ranting on the same subject. First, congratulations to Ronnie for the induction and it's a huge shame that it couldn't have happened while he was living. A great player, great fan and great spokesman for the game.
Russo's main arguments roughly
1. Not high enough career totals.
2. Only hit .277.
3. Never played in postseason.
4. Bad statistics down the stretch in 1969.
5. Bad season in 1968.
Number 1 is the only legitimate case against Santo's candidacy, but not for the reasons Russo lists. Let's tackle bullets one & two together.
In a 15 year (some partial seasons) career spent entirely in Chicago (14 with the Cubs, 1 Sox) Santo amassed a .277/.362/.464 slash line, won some gold gloves and was generally seen as a good defensive 3B. That's basically Jeff Cirillo (.296/.366/.430) with a bit more power and defense right? Wrong wrong wrong.
How is the concept of context so difficult for most broadcasters and journalists to understand? Let's add a bit more to Santo's bio. The years he played were 1960-1974. If you haven't studied your baseball history, that's the time where offense was at its absolute nadir in the live ball era. The three lowest run totals during the entire live ball era occured during this time frame. In fact, from 1963-1972 almost the entirety of Santo's career, the NL as a whole scored over 4.09 runs only once in a season. The last time that low of a level period has occured in the NL was 1989. So to sum up Santo hit only .277 for his career. He also played gold glove defense, had some power, drew a truckload of walks and played in an era where offense was the lowest it's ever been in the 90+ years since the live ball was introduced. Context.
One more thing. There is another player in the HOF who happened to play the same position as Santo . He hit only .267. What a disgrace. He should be thrown out of the HOF. Sorry, Mike Schmidt, but please give back your plaque. It's fun to make arguments using one useless cherry picked stat.
Once we properly apply context, Santo's line grades out to a 125+ OPS with plus defense giving him 66.4 WAR according to BaseballReference which places him 75th overall of all position players and 6th amongst 3B only below such lightweights as Schmidt, Eddie Mathews, George Brett, Wade Boggs and Brooks Robinson and slightly ahead of Home Run Baker. Oh wait, no those guys were all awesome too.
Schmidt is probably the best 3B of all time (.267 BAvg notwithstanding). Brett and Boggs were contemporaries with slightly different games, but still stars for years. Mathews was ahead of his time and similar to Santo in that he was never appreciated for his walks. Let's focus on that last name though as curiously enough he's both a contemporary to Santo and incredibly close on the WAR leaderboard.
Brooks Robinson was the best defensive 3B in the history of the game, maybe the best defender period relative to his peers. He was also just an ok hitter. He amassed 69.1 WAR for his career almost half of it based off his stellar defense. His slash line of .267/.322/.401 (what it is with all these crappy 3B hitting .267?) gives him a 104 OPS+. He played a little more than Santo debuting a few years earlier and lasting a few years longer, but for the most part their careers took place at the same time. Santo was obviously the better hitter, but Robinson's defense and longevity give him the edge, but just barely. Nobody thinks for a minute that Brooks Robinson is anything but a hall of famer.
The only ding against Santo is only playing 15 years and being out of baseball following his age 34 season mostly related to diabetes which tragically cut his life as well. Just playing with the illness at all before the time of insulin pumps is absolutely outstanding and putting up HOF worthy numbers to boot is even more incredible. If you give him 3-4 more seasons at even average production, there would most likely be no argument as to his merits. There shouldn't be anyway. He had an oustanding peak and just long enough of a career to be one of the all time top players at his position.
Alright what's your next argument Mad Dog? He never made the postseason? Oh boy, I don't even want to go there. Anyone who still uses this argument should be stoned for witchcraft. John Holland isn't in the HOF. This is a decision I agree with. Who is John Holland you ask? He's the GM who couldn't put enough talent around the core of Banks, Santo, Jenkins and Williams to make the playoffs. Turns out there are 24 other guys who have influence over how well a team does. But yeah I like your argument better. If he was a true HOF, he would have travelled to the future, stolen steroids from Barry Bonds, broken Maris's HR record, hit .400 and willed at least 2 of his pitchers to throw perfect games every time out.
He performed poorly down the stretch in 1969. As has been proven time and time again, better players step up their game and single handedly lead their team to the post season by performing at their best during September and two months of a 15 year career is an adequate sample size to judge a players HOF merits. Oh wait that's not even remotely true.
The Cubs collapsed in 1969. Even that claim is dubious as the Mets went on an absolute tear and ending up running away with the division. Santo had his worst two months in Aug/Sep. The correlation between these two events is very very low. Again using his favorite statistic, Russo points out that Santo hit just .245 in Aug and .244 in Sep. Using the calculator in my mom's basement to tether to the internet and look stuff up, I also found that in Aug he hit .245/.322/.415 and Sep .244/.369/.341. Yeah he wasn't great, but was still an above average hitter in August and even though he was pretty powerless in September, he drew enough walks to be valuable. He didn't carry the team on his back, but he didn't hurt them either. Ferguson Jenkins went 3-4 with a 4.68 ERA in September and Billy Williams hit .246/.313/.386 in August. Good players sometimes have good months, sometimes have bad months and sometimes have ok months.
I wonder how the Cubs got the big lead heading into August to blow anyway. Could it possibly be influenced by Santo's .289/.413/.522 May? Perhaps his .308/.370/.529 July? Hmmm .400/.447/.635 June? Apparently those don't count. For the year he hit .289/.384/.485 for a 131 OPS+. There are many reasons the Cubs didn't win the NL East in 1969. Ron Santo is about 13,478th on that list.
The next year in 1970 the Cubs had a pretty good team again as happens occasionally when you have 4 HOF guys on the roster. They finished in 2nd 5 GB, but were as close as 1.5 GB on September 19th. That September Ron Santo hit a robust .310/.421/.563. He probably didn't inspire his teammates enough though.
As they were running through all Santo's seasons to prove he didn't have enough good ones* he quickly jumped over his poor 1968 seasons where he hit only .246 with 26 HR and 98 RBI's.
*-Which was hilarious in itself because Russo discovered Santo had many more good seasons that he thought. Turns out you should check stats before making outrageously false statements.
Yes, .246 isn't great. There is a nickname for the 1968 season though. I believe it's something like "Year of the Pitcher" The Cubs rival Bob Gibson put up a 1.12 ERA. The NL as a whole hit .243/.300/.341. When you include stats that actually matter, Santo hit .246/.354/.421. It was his worst season in a long time, still well above league average and sitting at a 126 OPS+. Context. Hank Aaron hit .287/.354/.498 and was amongst the best hitters in the league. You know the standards are low when a rule change is made to makes sure at least some runs score. The average NL team in 1968 scored 3.43 runs per game. That's low. In fact, it's the third lowest season in the history of the league including the dead ball era. Only 1907 & 1908 had a lower run scoring environment. Hmm come to think of it as a Cubs fan maybe we should bring back the dead ball era. The last time the NL average has even been within a run of that total before this past season was 1992. Offense in 1968 was unfathomably low.
Also during this discussion, Mad Dog brought up how he thought Jim Rice was a no doubt hall of famer while Santo and Blyleven lowered the standards. I'm too tired to even touch that.
No matter how you stack it up Ron Santo had a HOF career even accounting for his retirement at the fairly young baseball age of 34. He is somewhere around the 5th-8th best 3B in the history of MLB in the most pessimistic of objective observations based off his playing career. Since the HOF includes character clause, I'll also point out that he was a great fan of the game, by all accounts was one of the nicest men you'd ever meet, and holds a special place in the hearts of most Cubs fans for his radio work. I haven't listened to this few games on radio in years. It's just not quite the same without Ronnie. He was a horrible technical radio broadcaster. Unabashed homerism and often just made remarks instead of telling people who couldn't see what was happening on the field, but he bled Cubbie Blue, and I loved every minute of it. Baseball would attract a much bigger fan base if there were more Ron Santos than Joe Bucks broadcasting the games. Congratulations Ron Santo, Cubs icon, great player, great human being and now finally, 30 years too late and posthumously, a hall of famer.
I got in my car after work and listened for a few minutes driving to the gym about how he thought Ron Santo was totally undeserving of the HOF. When I got in my car after a bball game an hour later, he was still ranting on the same subject. First, congratulations to Ronnie for the induction and it's a huge shame that it couldn't have happened while he was living. A great player, great fan and great spokesman for the game.
Russo's main arguments roughly
1. Not high enough career totals.
2. Only hit .277.
3. Never played in postseason.
4. Bad statistics down the stretch in 1969.
5. Bad season in 1968.
Number 1 is the only legitimate case against Santo's candidacy, but not for the reasons Russo lists. Let's tackle bullets one & two together.
In a 15 year (some partial seasons) career spent entirely in Chicago (14 with the Cubs, 1 Sox) Santo amassed a .277/.362/.464 slash line, won some gold gloves and was generally seen as a good defensive 3B. That's basically Jeff Cirillo (.296/.366/.430) with a bit more power and defense right? Wrong wrong wrong.
How is the concept of context so difficult for most broadcasters and journalists to understand? Let's add a bit more to Santo's bio. The years he played were 1960-1974. If you haven't studied your baseball history, that's the time where offense was at its absolute nadir in the live ball era. The three lowest run totals during the entire live ball era occured during this time frame. In fact, from 1963-1972 almost the entirety of Santo's career, the NL as a whole scored over 4.09 runs only once in a season. The last time that low of a level period has occured in the NL was 1989. So to sum up Santo hit only .277 for his career. He also played gold glove defense, had some power, drew a truckload of walks and played in an era where offense was the lowest it's ever been in the 90+ years since the live ball was introduced. Context.
One more thing. There is another player in the HOF who happened to play the same position as Santo . He hit only .267. What a disgrace. He should be thrown out of the HOF. Sorry, Mike Schmidt, but please give back your plaque. It's fun to make arguments using one useless cherry picked stat.
Once we properly apply context, Santo's line grades out to a 125+ OPS with plus defense giving him 66.4 WAR according to BaseballReference which places him 75th overall of all position players and 6th amongst 3B only below such lightweights as Schmidt, Eddie Mathews, George Brett, Wade Boggs and Brooks Robinson and slightly ahead of Home Run Baker. Oh wait, no those guys were all awesome too.
Schmidt is probably the best 3B of all time (.267 BAvg notwithstanding). Brett and Boggs were contemporaries with slightly different games, but still stars for years. Mathews was ahead of his time and similar to Santo in that he was never appreciated for his walks. Let's focus on that last name though as curiously enough he's both a contemporary to Santo and incredibly close on the WAR leaderboard.
Brooks Robinson was the best defensive 3B in the history of the game, maybe the best defender period relative to his peers. He was also just an ok hitter. He amassed 69.1 WAR for his career almost half of it based off his stellar defense. His slash line of .267/.322/.401 (what it is with all these crappy 3B hitting .267?) gives him a 104 OPS+. He played a little more than Santo debuting a few years earlier and lasting a few years longer, but for the most part their careers took place at the same time. Santo was obviously the better hitter, but Robinson's defense and longevity give him the edge, but just barely. Nobody thinks for a minute that Brooks Robinson is anything but a hall of famer.
The only ding against Santo is only playing 15 years and being out of baseball following his age 34 season mostly related to diabetes which tragically cut his life as well. Just playing with the illness at all before the time of insulin pumps is absolutely outstanding and putting up HOF worthy numbers to boot is even more incredible. If you give him 3-4 more seasons at even average production, there would most likely be no argument as to his merits. There shouldn't be anyway. He had an oustanding peak and just long enough of a career to be one of the all time top players at his position.
Alright what's your next argument Mad Dog? He never made the postseason? Oh boy, I don't even want to go there. Anyone who still uses this argument should be stoned for witchcraft. John Holland isn't in the HOF. This is a decision I agree with. Who is John Holland you ask? He's the GM who couldn't put enough talent around the core of Banks, Santo, Jenkins and Williams to make the playoffs. Turns out there are 24 other guys who have influence over how well a team does. But yeah I like your argument better. If he was a true HOF, he would have travelled to the future, stolen steroids from Barry Bonds, broken Maris's HR record, hit .400 and willed at least 2 of his pitchers to throw perfect games every time out.
He performed poorly down the stretch in 1969. As has been proven time and time again, better players step up their game and single handedly lead their team to the post season by performing at their best during September and two months of a 15 year career is an adequate sample size to judge a players HOF merits. Oh wait that's not even remotely true.
The Cubs collapsed in 1969. Even that claim is dubious as the Mets went on an absolute tear and ending up running away with the division. Santo had his worst two months in Aug/Sep. The correlation between these two events is very very low. Again using his favorite statistic, Russo points out that Santo hit just .245 in Aug and .244 in Sep. Using the calculator in my mom's basement to tether to the internet and look stuff up, I also found that in Aug he hit .245/.322/.415 and Sep .244/.369/.341. Yeah he wasn't great, but was still an above average hitter in August and even though he was pretty powerless in September, he drew enough walks to be valuable. He didn't carry the team on his back, but he didn't hurt them either. Ferguson Jenkins went 3-4 with a 4.68 ERA in September and Billy Williams hit .246/.313/.386 in August. Good players sometimes have good months, sometimes have bad months and sometimes have ok months.
I wonder how the Cubs got the big lead heading into August to blow anyway. Could it possibly be influenced by Santo's .289/.413/.522 May? Perhaps his .308/.370/.529 July? Hmmm .400/.447/.635 June? Apparently those don't count. For the year he hit .289/.384/.485 for a 131 OPS+. There are many reasons the Cubs didn't win the NL East in 1969. Ron Santo is about 13,478th on that list.
The next year in 1970 the Cubs had a pretty good team again as happens occasionally when you have 4 HOF guys on the roster. They finished in 2nd 5 GB, but were as close as 1.5 GB on September 19th. That September Ron Santo hit a robust .310/.421/.563. He probably didn't inspire his teammates enough though.
As they were running through all Santo's seasons to prove he didn't have enough good ones* he quickly jumped over his poor 1968 seasons where he hit only .246 with 26 HR and 98 RBI's.
*-Which was hilarious in itself because Russo discovered Santo had many more good seasons that he thought. Turns out you should check stats before making outrageously false statements.
Yes, .246 isn't great. There is a nickname for the 1968 season though. I believe it's something like "Year of the Pitcher" The Cubs rival Bob Gibson put up a 1.12 ERA. The NL as a whole hit .243/.300/.341. When you include stats that actually matter, Santo hit .246/.354/.421. It was his worst season in a long time, still well above league average and sitting at a 126 OPS+. Context. Hank Aaron hit .287/.354/.498 and was amongst the best hitters in the league. You know the standards are low when a rule change is made to makes sure at least some runs score. The average NL team in 1968 scored 3.43 runs per game. That's low. In fact, it's the third lowest season in the history of the league including the dead ball era. Only 1907 & 1908 had a lower run scoring environment. Hmm come to think of it as a Cubs fan maybe we should bring back the dead ball era. The last time the NL average has even been within a run of that total before this past season was 1992. Offense in 1968 was unfathomably low.
Also during this discussion, Mad Dog brought up how he thought Jim Rice was a no doubt hall of famer while Santo and Blyleven lowered the standards. I'm too tired to even touch that.
No matter how you stack it up Ron Santo had a HOF career even accounting for his retirement at the fairly young baseball age of 34. He is somewhere around the 5th-8th best 3B in the history of MLB in the most pessimistic of objective observations based off his playing career. Since the HOF includes character clause, I'll also point out that he was a great fan of the game, by all accounts was one of the nicest men you'd ever meet, and holds a special place in the hearts of most Cubs fans for his radio work. I haven't listened to this few games on radio in years. It's just not quite the same without Ronnie. He was a horrible technical radio broadcaster. Unabashed homerism and often just made remarks instead of telling people who couldn't see what was happening on the field, but he bled Cubbie Blue, and I loved every minute of it. Baseball would attract a much bigger fan base if there were more Ron Santos than Joe Bucks broadcasting the games. Congratulations Ron Santo, Cubs icon, great player, great human being and now finally, 30 years too late and posthumously, a hall of famer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)