Statistics in Baseball

Today's been pretty busy for me and I have not had the time to write a new article. However, since I know how eager and expectant everyone is on a new article at least 4 days a week, I have decided to post an excerpt from a paper I wrote last winter. The paper is essentially about the modern use of statistics in baseball. It's pretty interesting so I thought maybe people would enjoy it. That said, it was for a research class, and thus, pretty void of humor which, assuming that there is humor on this blog site to begin with, is a bit unfortunate.

As for the poll question, we had a tie (gasp! no, not a tie!) for the world cup and a personal story. So, I will attempt to write both at some point within the next week and a half.

Enjoy the excerpt!

"In 1977, James wrote his first book, the Baseball Abstract, which he advertised in various baseball publications. In this book, James questioned commonly held baseball theories. “’People say things about baseball,’ explains James, ‘and I want to find out whether they are true. So I have to figure out how to find out if they are true. I write about the process of finding out and about the results.’” This baseball analysis is known as sabermetrics, named after the Society for American Baseball Research. James’ abstracts had a small response but over the years, as he continued to improve them, his audience broadened. James introduced new statistics to evaluate players. His most notable ones were “Runs Created,” which combined total bases, hits, and walks, and “Range Factor,” a method of evaluating fielding beyond the number of errors made. By 1984 James found himself at the center of the baseball numbers’ world. His abstracts became perennial bestsellers and statistics in baseball had emphasis like never before.

Coinciding with James and his abstracts was the creation of rotisserie or Fantasy Baseball. In his highly respected book, Curve Ball: Baseball, Statistics, and the Role of Chance in the Game, Jim Albert writes, “Next to stock market analysis, [Fantasy Baseball] may be the most widespread application of statistics in the United States.” The roots of this craze can be traced back to Dan Okrent. In 1980, Okrent assembled a group of his friends and proposed an idea to make watching baseball more exciting. He claimed that “Rotisserie baseball,” which was named off the restaurant where they met, gave the common fan the opportunity to manage a baseball team vicariously, and without needing millions of dollars. On the first Sunday of the season, Okrent and eleven others drafted real baseball players onto their imaginary teams, which would be judged based on how each team’s players hit and pitched. It was not long before Okrent’s creation began to dominate the group’s lives. He said, “’Each morning, all of us ran to the box scores, manically searching the agate type for news.’” The following spring, Okrent wrote an article in Inside Sport and explained his creation. Across the country, Fantasy Baseball leagues formed. By the time the original twelve people were selling their book, Rotisserie League Baseball, there were hundreds of thousands of fans participating in rotisserie leagues.

The popularity of Okrent, James, and their respective creations can be attributed to the emergence of computers. In as early as 1965, various companies, such as General Electric and Information Concepts, Inc., were creating massive computers to grind out numbers to be used by statisticians. The Macmillan Baseball Encyclopedia was published in 1969 and created entirely by a computer program. Corporations with computers had means of calculating statistics faster, and with more accuracy. Once computers became available for personal use, individuals were given the same opportunities to calculate a wide range of statistics. In its infant stage, Fantasy Baseball required participants to sieve through the newspapers to find their players’ numbers. Finding and calculating data became simple with the invention of the computer, more specifically the Internet. In 1985 a program was created that instantly calculated Rotisserie League standings. According to the Sporting News, “’The Rotisserie phenomenon has a lot to do with the development of the personal computer. The computer makes it easier for everyone to get involved.’” The Internet is also responsible for the camaraderie that emerges because of online discussion. This will be discussed more in depth later.

A broad examination of statistics in Major League Baseball as a whole is well beyond the scope of this project. However, by analyzing one team, the Boston Red Sox, we can see how their recent actions epitomize the power of numbers in baseball today. At the end of 2002, the Boston Red Sox decided to take a statistical approach to winning baseball games after an 84 year World Series drought, during which they used a more traditional method. The front office for the Red Sox brought in Bill James to be an analyst. This move by the Red Sox was viewed as “cutting edge” by various baseball figures. He supplemented scouting operations and evaluated trade potentials. In addition, James was finally given an opportunity to test some of his long held beliefs. One of James’ theories is that closers should not be limited to ninth inning appearances. In many cases, these games are no longer close. James argued:

Essentially using your relief ace to protect a three-run lead is like a business using a top executive to negotiate fire insurance. If you have a fire and you’re not insured, obviously that’s a huge loss. But the reality is that, even if you don’t carry any insurance, you’re not likely to have a fire. And while you may desperately need insurance, that doesn’t mean that it is therefore essential to assign your best executive to negotiate it. There are other people who can take care of that kind of work.

The Red Sox announced that in 2003 relievers would be used, “according to logic, not legend.” However “logical” James’ theory may have been, the strategy failed miserably. Boston relief pitchers’ had an ERA of 4.83, third worst in the major leagues. Management attributed this to weak pitchers, not poor strategy. Nonetheless, the Red Sox were able to make it to the playoffs and the American League Championship Series. This is where the problems for the organization really began.

The Red Sox were in Game Seven of the ALCS against the New York Yankees. In the eighth inning, the Red Sox led five to two and were just five outs away from the World Series. When superstar pitcher Pedro Martínez gave up three straight hits and a run, manager Grady Little approached the mound, spoke with his ace, and decided to leave in Martínez. Little claimed his decision was based on his instincts, but he knew that after one hundred pitches, Martínez was a “ticking bomb.” The Boston Red Sox had arguably the most statistically adept front office in all of baseball, led by Bill James, yet they would suffer a downfall because of neglected data. Martínez was one of the best pitchers prior this benchmark but according to Peter Gammons, “afterward, nothing close.” The Yankees rallied against Martínez, won the game in the eleventh inning, and Little was fired.

Boston replaced Little with Terry Francona, a younger man who was supportive of the use of statistics. Apparently, the Red Sox wanted to have “’one unified organizational philosophy [towards statistics].’”However, management quickly realized that these words were too strong and clarified the above statement by saying that the Red Sox would not be a, “’stat geek organization.’” Even with the increased respect and use of statistics, the label of a “stat geek organization” is one that the front office fears. They could not risk a direct identification with the number-regurgitating, laptop-carrying figures who run the statistical world. The Red Sox needed to remain pure to the game of baseball and maintain its integrity. One general manager, Billy Beane, who is known for his respect of statistics, once responded to the notion of attending a SABR gathering with the words, “’That would be like Captain Kirk going to a Star Trek convention.’” Even after such tremendous evolution of statistics, managers must still make decisions based on other factors than pure statistics.

New statistics are created everyday to measure production, to prove a theory, or to reject a commonly held belief. In a project of any size, it would be an impossible endeavor to detail all of these obscure forms of measurement. Instead, we will look at one intriguing theory that has grown considerably in popularity over the last decade or so. For all of baseball’s existence, stories have been told of great hitters coming through in the clutch. Some of the most recognizable nicknames have been given based off this apparent skill. Reggie Jackson, whose plaque at Yankee Stadium reads: A prolific hitter who thrived in pressure situations, is known as Mr. October because of his “clutch” play during the playoffs. Statistical analysts would reject this notion claiming that “clutch hitting” does not actually exist.

The major argument is that no player consistently performs better in the clutch. Good players merely go on hot streaks. Sometimes these streaks occur during important situations but more commonly, they take place during insignificant points in the season. Statisticians contend that a player will eventually come to maintain his average in all situations. “’The problem with the postseason,” argues Keith Law, senior writer for Scouts Inc., “’is that we run into such small samples.’” One player that is typically viewed as clutch in modern baseball is Derek Jeter, “Mr. November.” Jeter is a career .316 hitter. With runners in scoring position he hits .311 and when there are two outs and runners in scoring position, he bats .317. In the postseason, the period in which he is best know for clutch hitting, Jeter has a .309 batting average. His numbers in pressure situations are very good, however they should be expected given his high career batting average.

In Curve Ball, Jim Albert lists the averages of the entire American League in various situations, which range from pressure-free to intense. A pressure-free situation would be batting lead off and an intense situation would be batting at the end of an inning with runners in scoring position. In total, there are ten different situations. The key observation is that the batting averages in those situations vary little. Between the lowest and highest averages there is only a twenty-seven-point difference. Therefore, even in so-called pressure situations, most players are not hitting significantly worse. When a player like Derek Jeter is able to maintain a high batting average in all situations, he is performing how major league baseball players do as a whole. Statistics are manipulated to prove a point convincingly in this analysis of clutch hitting.

The other widespread use of baseball statistics is in Fantasy Baseball. The evolution of Fantasy Baseball has reached new heights within the last few years. In his exploratory study of Fantasy Baseball, “Gambling in a Fantasy World,” Bo J. Bernhard discussed the evolution of Fantasy Baseball and the game’s pros and cons. Like real baseball, Rotisserie Baseball began as an activity for a specific group of people. Baseball was originally associated with the burly American and Fantasy Baseball was tied to socially challenged “geeks.” Over time Fantasy Baseball became a mainstream game and resultantly, an enormous industry. Bernhard estimates that 1.65 billion dollars are spent on Fantasy Baseball annually.

There are several pros surrounding Fantasy Baseball. The entire game is numerically based and several individuals have pointed to it as beneficial on the cognitive level. Bernhard discusses one school’s pre-algebra course that encouraged students to participate in Fantasy Baseball leagues. In addition, the nature of Fantasy Baseball lends itself to in depth discussions over the Internet, further benefitting the learning process. While this argument might seem rather farfetched, similar learning connections have already been found to exist in video games.

A more obvious benefit of Fantasy Baseball is that the game provides an outlet for competition. Rotisserie Baseball was originally created to validate the common fan’s claim that he or she can run a baseball team better than actual managers. Through playing Fantasy Baseball people can not only test this theory, but can see whether their friends can succeed in the same objective. Since people are most likely participating in a league with friends, Fantasy Baseball also builds camaraderie. This is done through lengthy online discussions as well as to face-to-face interactions at venues like the workplace.

For all of its positives, several people see Fantasy Baseball as an unfortunate phenomenon. As Bernhard’s title suggests, Rotisserie Baseball is a form of gambling and resultantly, has some negative effects. Most leagues involve some type of monetary incentive. People will naturally become more consumed. He sites several factors that contribute to diagnosing a gambling problem such as preoccupation, loss of control, restlessness, and irritability, all of which can develop through Fantasy Baseball. Participants are often consumed by their team and spend hours on their computers, often instead of performing their jobs.Fantasy Baseball can become so engrossing that one office in Chicago displays a sign, which reads, “’No Rotisserie in company common areas.’”

Another perceived problem with Fantasy Baseball is that it takes away loyalties. In a letter to Sports Illustrated, one irate fan expressed his feelings stating, “’[Fantasy sports] are a plague. Because individual statistical gluttony is the objective, the fantasy player’s rooting interests are perverted (who cares who wins, as long as my guys get their numbers?), and the true virtues of sports – teamwork and sacrifice – are obliterated.’”Historian Christopher Lasch calls Fantasy Baseball the epitome of a “’culture of narcissism.’” Furthermore, one critic protested that actual baseball has been buried “under the manipulation of stats and the exertion of wills.” Whether the manipulation of statistics in baseball is beneficial is a matter of opinion, but there is undeniable evidence that statistics have profound effects on the game.

Statistics control decisions made by managers and executives in baseball today and are the center of entertainment for the fans. Beginning with Chadwick’s simple introduction of the box score in baseball, the value and use of statistics have steadily grown over the last one hundred and fifty years. Statisticians, writers, players, and common fans have all increased the value of numbers in baseball. There is evidence for both the usefulness and inefficiency of these statistics. While managers like Terry Francona value statistics in the decision making process, they still like to make moves based on other factors. Bill James admits he is frequently wrong and often raised questions for which he does not know the answer. On the other hand, the Red Sox have won two World Series titles since bringing James aboard. Although it often seems that figures have been calculated for every situation, people continue to find more innovate and detailed methods of evaluation. For example, Ron Antinoja, a fifty-year-old former software engineer, invented an elaborate computer program that could chart hot and cold zones of any hitter facing any pitcher, in any situation imaginable with a click of the mouse. After witnessing Antinoja’s innovation, Bob Bowman, the CEO of mlb.com, clunked his forehead on his desk in amazement, exclaiming, “’That’s the slickest fuckin’ thing I’ve ever seen in my life.’” As these innovations continue to be made, statistics will continue to hold the interest of baseball fans."

The Trial on “Sports”

What is a sport? I searched a bunch of different dictionaries and the definition I like best is, “an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment.” Seems simple enough, right? Wrong.

The above definition is not enough. To what level must a participant physically exert themselves? Just how much skill is required to be considered a sport? Lifting a grand piano requires a lot of physical exertion and some skill, but nobody would consider that a sport. Likewise, playing piano requires a tremendous amount of skill and enough physical exertion that fingers are prone to hurting afterwards. Again, however, I don’t think many people would call Mozart or Beethoven great athletes. Must athletes compete against others or can something still be a sport if you compete against yourself? After I go skiing I’m totally exhausted. That just required a lot physical exertion and skill, but I didn’t exactly compete against anyone. Does that fact that you can compete against someone in skiing make it a sport? I can compete against my friend in basket weaving, but just because it is possible does not mean that it’s a sport. Obviously, labeling one activity a sport and another just that, an activity, is an arduous endeavor, and one that can trigger a few nerves in other people. “So, what you’re saying is that I’m not an athlete because curling isn’t a sport!?”

Do not fret sports fans, for I am going to attempt something that no one has ever had the balls to attempt before. I will do my best to outline the exact specifications an activity must meet in order to be considered a sport. To do this, I will analyze typical “sports” of question and explain why or why not these activities are sports. In doing so, I will compile a list of Sports Rules. We will be starting with the obvious and moving towards to more borderline. Let’s hope I can get a better definition by the end of this.

Defendant 1: Poker

“I’m a sport, seriously. Lots of people like to think that in order to win at me you need luck and only luck. Well, that’s just incorrect. If that were true, how is it that we see the same pros year after year performing well in major tournaments. Maybe the winner of the Main Event is usually a no name, but there are just far more amateurs in the field then professionals. That’s just simple probability. I require skill, and lots of it. Another reason why you should declare me a sport is the physical toll tournaments can have on the players. Yeah, maybe they’re all seated, but can you imagine trying to concentrate on something for 5, 6, or 7 hours at a time?! You’re gonna be totally exhausted afterwards. And you can’t forget about the bluffing! Unlike football or basketball players who can wear their emotions on their sleeves, poker players need to conceal their excitement. That takes a lot of discipline and practice. Last of all, I am seen on ESPN, the Entertainment Sports Programming Network. The word “sport” is in the channels name!”

Verdict: No Way. Not really even worth the time I need to take to justify my decision. However, I will nonetheless elaborate on my reasons.

Rule 1: Any activity whose highest level of play has professionals playing non-professionals is not a sport. A computer salesman cannot just decide to join a MLB team.

Rule 2: If all participants can spend the entire activity sitting, it is not a sport. This, of course, does not apply to handicapped sports, where there is no choice but to sit.

Rule 3: Some poker players, such as Doyle Brunson, are old enough to have grandchildren. If you have grandchildren and can still compete, it is not a sport. In fact, if most participants can still compete past age 52, or be in their prime past age 37, it is not a sport. There are obviously a few exceptions to this rule for various athletes in other sports.

Rule 4: I have seen numerous appearances by poker players, such as the aforementioned Brunson, participate with broken legs, necks, and arms. If you can still play with a broken leg, arm, or neck, then you are not playing a sport.

Rule 5: Appearances on ESPN do not declare something a sport.

Defendant 2: Curling

“Come on now, this cannot be serious. I’m an Olympic Sport. That means I’m a sport. It’s that simple. Look at the people playing me. They look like athletes!”

Verdict: Good points, but no. The most compelling argument is that curling is an Olympic sport. Who am I to second-guess the Olympic committee? If they say it’s a sport, then it’s a sport, right? Wrong again! On top of violating rules 1 and 3, there are two other reasons curling remains an activity.

Rule 6: At no point in my life, have I ever watched a curling match and said, “That was athletic.” The curlers may be big, but the sport seems to be all about form and skill. So, if you can watch an hour of a sport and do not observe anything you see as a representation of speed, strength, agility, hand-eye coordination, or flexibility, then you are not watching a sport. I recognize this is more subjective, but it’s my blog, thus everything is subjective to me, and you’re reading it.

Rule 7: Defendant 1 proved that ESPN covers nearly everything that could be misconstrued as a sport. Even still, I couldn’t find anything on curling. It doesn’t even have its own section on the Olympic sport page. So, if it takes more than 1 minute to find the activities homepage on ESPN.com, it is not a sport. Along those lines, if the website for the sport looks like this http://www.curlingrocks.net/ and has the word “rocks” in it, it is not a sport. Unless of course we are discussing mountain climbing.

Defendant 3: Fishing

“I have my own section on ESPN.com. I require a careful balance of both skill and physical exertion. Our athletes are at the prime of their careers and far better than casual anglers.”

Verdict: Sorry, you are not a sport. Why? Fishing is in clear contradiction of several previously stated rules as well as a few new ones. The activity violates rules 3, 6, and others to be named later.

Rule 5b: According to rule 5, appearances on ESPN do not mean the activity is a sport. At least poker is seen during prime time. I understand that you need daylight when fishing, but they can at least show reruns during primetime, or after 10AM for that matter. Thus, if your only television coverage is before 11AM Eastern time, you are not a sport.

Defendant 4: World’s Strongest Man

(In an Eastern European Accent) “It easy to see we am sport. By winning championship you become strongest man of the world. That means you are big athlete. Competition is very difficult and people from all over planet attend. Besides, why would someone like you want to defy me? I break you!”

Verdict: You should be in contempt of court for that threat, but I will overlook your offense, mainly because you are correct. The World’s Strongest Man and similar competitions go to the very heart of sport. Has anyone seen the guys who compete in the event? They are mean, angry, big, and totally fueled by testosterone. If that is not the definition of an athlete then I don’t know what is.

Defendant 5: Bowling

“There is a lot of skill required to play me. I mean a lot! You may think it’s as simple as rolling a boll, but the professionals will tell you that there is a lot more to it then that. You have to take into account the oiling of the lane, the weight of the ball, and so many other things that I don’t want to go into it (this is absolutely not because these are all the things I can think of).”

Verdict: Nope. Bowling is a lot of fun and requires apparently far more skill then I have to offer. I am nothing short of awful at the activity. However, it meets its demise because it has violated rules 1, 3, and 7, in addition to the new one.

Rules 8: If someone 40 pounds overweight has the same chance at victory, and goes about reaching it in the same way, as someone 40 pounds underweight, these people are not playing a sport. Basically, weight does not matter, obviously within reason. This rule generally applies only to individual sports.

I will now take a brief pause in the trials, a lunch break if you will (you will). So far I have laid out some solid rules that can determine an activity’s qualifications. However, it was easy. I will now move my attention to the last 2 defendants. These guys are far more controversial. Before we go any further, I will introduce the final, and most important, rule.

Rule 9: Any activity in violation of at least 3 of rules 1-8 is not a sport.

Defendant 6: Golf

“Are you trying to tell me Tiger Woods is not an athlete?! He has to be one of the 20 best athletes on the planet! Come on now, this is turning into a witch-hunt! I am golf! People claim me as their favorite sport all the time. I am as much a sport as football, basketball, or baseball. Honestly, Adam, you should be ashamed of yourself. You've got a long way to go to be as good as your dad!!!”

Verdict: Well, this is a tough one. The biggest reason why I find it difficult to label golf an activity is, in fact, Tiger Woods. Golf is right, Tiger is an amazing athlete. In fact, I wouldn’t have said top 20 athlete, but rather, top 10. However, you will notice that, unlike many of the other sports on trial, golf never made reference to any of my previously stated qualifications. Golf is often too arrogant, believing they should be granted sportshood on history alone. The way I see it, they have blatantly violated rules 3 and 8. Moreover, they are in “partial” violations of the first rule. In fact, when Tiger is not playing, I find myself supporting the crippling rule 6. Yet, maybe because I have been brainwashed by golf for all of my life or maybe because I just really like Tiger Woods, I have decided to grant golf conditional sportshood. However, it can be taken away at any moment, since the “sport” is dangerously close to break rules 1 and 8, and thus, the only rule that matters, rule 9.

Defendant 7: NASCAR

“Do you know the only sport Americans watch more than me? Football; that’s it! How could I possibly not be a sport? Can you even imagine the physical toll that driving one of the cars for hours on end can have on your body? It’s absolutely brutal. I am a sport and if you say otherwise you are wrong!”

Verdict: Sorry NASCAR, but I believe you have violated rules 2, 3, and 8. According to rule 9, you are, therefore, not a sport. This is obviously the most controversial of my claims, but I do believe I am correct. Once again, NASCAR drivers may be the most talented people shown on ESPN, but they are not athletes. They must go through some grueling conditions throughout the course of a race and encounter often colossal and dangerous collisions and explosions, but these are the risks that come with the activity.

So, there you have it; a “Complete Idiot’s Guide to Sports Qualification.” In one article, and basically one paragraph, I have managed to offend probably 100 million people. Not bad for one day. Feel free to reference this list when discussing any type of sport in question. I also welcome any banter, dissatisfaction, rule amendments, or agreements (doubtful) with anything I have said in this article, or any article for that matter.

-AW

STD Day, Week 2

Another week means another STD. Today, I introduce a few new awards to be handed out on all or most (or never again if I don’t really like it) STD Days from this point on. Let’s get spontaneous.

The Jon Gruden Award for Most Memorable Sports Comment of all Time:

The inaugural recipient of this award is a long time contender and first time winner. With much honor, I present the award to Bobby Valentine for two consecutive comments made on Sports Center last Sunday. When referring to the abilities of a certain MLB player, Valentine said with full conviction, seriousness, and no suggestion of humor, “He plays the way my wife shops… All Day Long.” I mentioned this quote to my roommate, to which he responded, “His wife should be happy that’s all Bobby said. He could have said, ‘He plays like my wife screws/cheats/lies… All Day Long.’” He probably wrapped up the award with that one-liner alone, but if Bobby Valentine is anything it is thorough. When discussing managers’ decisions to sit starters, Valentine revealed that, “Robin Ventura was the only player who understood what I did with the playing on a regular basis.” Really? He was your only player who understood what you were doing on a regular basis? That cannot be a good thing. And what was so special about Robin Ventura? Does he read minds?

At first I was incredibly confused when New York Mets manager, Jerry Manuel, decided to pull John Maine after his first 5 pitches of the game last week. However, I now know he was probably just trained by ex-manager, Valentine. Confusion is apparently the New York Mets trademark, thus confirming what many already suspected. Maybe Robin Ventura could explain it to me.

The “Stan Van Gundy” Face Creating Moment of the Week:

Another new STD Day award is given out each week to something that makes me totally baffled. For inspiration, I try to recreate Van Gundy’s go-to look. It’s going to take me a while to master it though, as Van Gundy usually practices it for most of the Orlando Magic’s basketball games.

Can someone please explain to me why anyone would be happy with Ford’s “Swap Your Ride?” For those of you that haven’t seen the commercials, basically these self-righteous pricks from Ford go to random people’s houses and make the executive decision to do the ole’ flip-flop and take their victim’s cars and replace them with a new Ford vehicle. Most people are thrilled by this felony. Thrilled! Here’s how I envision the situation going with me.

“Adam Weinberger?”

“Yes?”

“We just swapped your ride! If you look in your driveway you will see that your car, which you probably saved up for months in order to purchase, is missing! Don’t worry, you will also see we have replaced it with a Ford Fusion!”

“Gee, that’s awesome… But you better give me my damn car back or I’m suing your asses!”

While I appreciate the intentions of these glorified thieves, the bottom line is that they are committing Grand Theft Auto. However, they do offer the participants their car back after a week, so apparently that makes it okay. This new policy got me thinking.

Here’s an idea. Starting next month, Elite Miami Escort Service will begin a new event called “Swap Your Wife.” Tired of your old, dilapidated, cost-inefficient wife? Well, we have taken and replaced her with a new, young, hot, and best of all, cheap one! If you’re not happy with the change after one week you can get your old wife back free of charge. Believe us, though, studies have shown most men are really anxious to get rid of their wives. In fact, we have a 90% consumer satisfaction rate!

In The Face!

I have a long held belief that hockey players are not actually human. They don’t operate in the same way that human beings do. The Blackhawks’ win over the Sharks last weekend confirmed this fact, in which a flying puck smashed Duncan Keith in the mouth, causing him to lose seven teeth. Some teeth became high-speed projectiles while a few others got lodged down his throat, which he casually “coughed up” a bit later. This doesn’t even take into account that his mouth and tongue swelled up to 150% of their natural size. Of course, because he is a hockey player, and resultantly a type of organism that is above humans, Keith missed only a few minutes of play and recorded an assist in his return. Do they just have less pain receptors (the neuroscience I major in) or do they actually just not care. This situation reminded me of an event that happened to my brother.

Probably about 10 years ago, my family and I were vacationing in Florida. It was a beautiful night the day we arrived, so everyone was hanging outside of the resort. For some reason, my younger brother, Scott, and my cousin decided to start chasing each other around the outside area. At some point, the two of them rounded the same building, but coming from opposite sides, didn’t see each other until it was too late, and their heads collided. Unfortunately for my brother, my cousin’s head smashed so hard into his that he bit down with enough force to almost cut his tongue into two different pieces. He also got a few nice tooth marks on his face delivered from my cousin’s mouth. The scene was horrifically bloody. Scott was rushed to the hospital, hysterically crying the entire way. When I saw him again that night, Scott had a look on his face that said, “I just had the worst night of my entire life. I almost had two different tongues.” He could barely talk or eat for the rest of the vacation.

Now, let’s pretend that Scott was actually a young Keith Duncan. My dad would have taken Scott off to the side, washed the blood off his face, pulled out a few teeth that looked loose, and probably ripped the tongue in half and said, “It’ll heal. When we get home you can have a few new teeth.” To which Scott would have said, “Uhhgh. Leggts Vacation!”

The Cosmopolitan Award For Something That Is Written For the Wrong Audience:

Another new award! This will be given out weekly to something I have read on a sports website that seems like it should be found on another type of website (Cosmopolitan, People, Glamour). This week, the award goes to… Rich Cimini(!) for this selected paragraph taken from his article, Sanchez Attends Whitehouse Dinner, written on May 19, 2010.

“It probably wouldn't be a stretch to say Sanchez, who is single, ate better at the White House than if he had remained at home in New Jersey. The menu reportedly included Oregon wagyu beef in Oaxacan black mole for the entrée, accompanied by black bean tamalon and grilled green beans. For dessert, they had a choice of a chocolate-cajeta tart, toasted homemade marshmallows and Graham cracker crumble with goat-cheese ice cream.”

I have two major problems with this paragraph. First, what does Sanchez being single have to do with anything? It’s not even related to this totally random and irrelevant paragraph. Second, what the fuck is he talking about!? Forget the fact that the people reading this article are most likely sports enthusiasts. Would a reader of foodnetwork.com even know what this meant? Does Cimini even know this means? No way for both those questions. Regardless, look for Sanchez to eat wagyu beef on the sideline next season, a clear upgrade from hotdogs.

Quick Thoughts:

Some things don’t need too much explaining. Here is a quick list of some things I’ve been thinking.

-The Washington Nationals must pursue Roy Oswalt. The guy has been a model of consistency over the last 10 or so years. With up-and-coming phenom Stephen Strasburg getting ready to advance into the majors, having an experienced pro like Oswalt can be very beneficial. Not only will he be a great mentor to Strasburg, but the two could become a great pitching duo for the next 2-4 years, since Oswalt is only 32. They could immediately compete for the division.

-Sports Science is dumb. On the short segment, typically seen on Sports Center, this dude explains various connections between past and present sporting events and ties in simple geometry, ratios, and “science” to explain the happenings. It’s totally nonsensical and is just an example of ESPN pandering to their educated audiences. However, I think most of these people are smart enough to realize its all bullshit.

-A recent Hanes commercial for undershirts, featuring Michael Jordan, has introduced the term “Bacon Neck,” which refers to the phenomenon of an individual’s undershirt getting a little scrunched and folded at the top. Apparently this is an absolute fashion faux pas, but I have never really paid much attention to it. To think I’ve been walking around with a bacon neck all my life! That’s just awful! My real problem with this though, is the terminology. Bacon neck? See, if someone told me I had a bacon neck I’d get pretty offended, not because my undershirt is ruffled, but because I’d think they are telling me I have a double chin. It’s ironic though, because in the commercial MJ is avoiding the bacon neck by wearing Hanes’ new type of shirt. However, he’s gonna have my definition of a bacon neck if he doesn’t watch that weight.

More STDs next week.

-AW

French Open Predictions

It deters more Americans than the thought of eating fries with mayo. It ruins a good night sleep like the need to fart can destroy a conversation. It’s final seems almost as certain as the fact that the Cav’s were firing Mike Brown. It reveals who actually follows tennis, much like a swimming competition does in a non-Olympic year. It’s the French Open!

As the school year winds down, tennis fans around the world get excited for the always-interesting French Open. The reasons for such excitement of course, aside from the convenient 7AM matches are 1.) the clay surface makes for the most unique game play compared to any other surface and 2.) Rafael Nadal has dominated it for the last half a decade. However, there is much more.

A year ago, Roger Federer was finally able to capture the elusive French Open, thus giving him the career grand slam and a legitimate claim, which I believe is true, as the greatest tennis player to ever live. However, many saw the victory as tainted, since Federer did not need to face Rafa, the then number one player in the world, in the finals after he fell to Robin Söderling in the fourth round. In Rafa’s defense, he was battling a knee injury during this time. Nonetheless, the French Open champion was a man other than Rafael Nadal for the first time since 2004.

This year, Rafa is back and looking poised to take his fifth French Open title, which would put him just one back of Björn Borg’s record six championships. In my article “The Greatest Rivalry” I spoke of the intensity of the rivalry between the Red Sox and Yankees. Rafa and Fed are approaching that level. At the French, this battle is especially interesting. On one side, you have Roger Federer, arguably the best tennis player of all time. On the other side is Rafa Nadal, arguably the best clay player of all time. Either way, someone great is going to win, that is, assuming they meet in the finals, which took place from 2006 to 2008.

Despite Federer’s age, this French may prove to be the greatest of the Nadal-Federer era. For one, Federer has already won it. He seems to avoid pressure better than almost any athlete on the planet, but one cannot help but think that during that 3-year stretch, Federer was thinking about what a French title would mean for his career resume and was wondering if could ever actually defeat Nadal on his home court. Beating Nadal to win the French would still be the greatest victory of Fed’s career and make the “best tennis player of all time” argument a mute one, but he doesn’t need to achieve this to reach tennis immortality. Another reason to anticipate a tremendous Rafa-Fed final would be Federer’s victory in Australia earlier in the year. By winning the first major tournament of the year, Federer has the ability, once again, to complete a career gland slam, which he has never done successfully. From 2008 to 2009, there was a 5-Major Tournament stretch during which Federer won just one title. He was losing confidence and everyone could see it. However, Federer has regained his younger form and taken 3 of the last 4 majors since then. On the other side of the spectrum, Nadal has not made a major FINAL since he won the 2009 Australian Open.

Roger Federer may have never killed or raped anyone, stolen anything, or been caught with possession of drugs or weapons, but he is one mean bastard. He doesn’t admit it, or come off overly arrogant, but Federer truly enjoys displaying his total dominance. When the guy rips a forehand down the line or hits the ball through his legs for a winner, you know he thinks to himself, “Let’s just all admit there has never been anyone like me. I am the best. I’ve got the most titles. I was ranked number one for 4 and half consecutive years. I’ve even got my own logo!”

After Federer’s 6-4, 6-1, 6-2 shellacking of Peter Luczak, the number 71 player in the world said of Federer, “If it was anyone else, I'd be getting pretty angry. He just had me on a string and just was toying with me at the end. I think he was enjoying it." Peter, he was enjoying it. A lot. Isn’t that statement amazing, though? You know Federer is good when all the other players in the world don’t even want to say a negative comment about him! God forbid they give him a reason to whoop their asses even harder (see straight set victory over Andy Murray in 2010 Australian Open final).

As for Nadal, he is back in form and coming off his victory over Federer at the Mutua Madrileña Madrid Open, which is played on clay. Prior to that, Rafa also won the Internazionali BNL d'Italia. That tournament is played on clay as well. It’s been over a year since he won a major title, and two since he won the French. He’s healthy and ready to reclaim his title and become regarded by many as the best clay surface tennis player of all time.

Of course, there are other tennis players aside from the big two. Here is my prediction of the French Open, beginning with round 4.

Round 4:

R. Federer(1) vs. G. Monfils(13) – In one of the most challenging games Fed will play leading up to the final, Federer comes out on top in 4 sets. Monfils curses his seeding, but explains that he is okay with losing only because he played Federer.

M. Cilic(10) vs. R. Söderling(5) – Söderling advances for a rematch of last years final with Fed.

M. Baghdatis(25) vs. T. Berdych(15) – After upsetting Andy Murray in round 3, Baghdatis falls to the talented Tomáš Berdych, who is playing on one of his stronger surfaces.

M. Youzhny(11) vs. J. Tsonga(8) – Upset! Youzhny’s talents on all surfaces will be enough to defeat Tsonga, who’s serve and volley style is best on grass and hard court.

J. Monaco(26) vs. D. Ferrer(9) – Monaco’s upset of the clay-court-incapable Andy Roddick will be the highlight of his tournament after David Ferrer beats him rather handily. This comes as unfortunate news to all fans who misread his name for Federer.

J. Ferrero(16) vs. N. Djokovic(3) – Following a quarterfinal loss in Rome, Novak Djokovic gets back on track and defeats the pesky Ferrero, thus ending the confusion caused when fans misread Ferrero for Federer.

F. Verdasco(7) vs. F. Gonzalez(12) – Both players are talented on clay, but I give the edge to Verdasco because of his beautiful ex-girlfriends, Gisela Dulko, Dafne Fernández, Priscila De Gustin, and Ana Ivanović.

T. Bellucci(24) vs. R. Nadal(2) – After making quick work of the higher seeded Ivan Ljubičić and his complicated, consecutively dotted last name in round 3, Thomaz Bellucci, the clay court specialist, puts Rafa to the test in a thrilling and competitive 4 set match. Says Rafa, “I’m glad I’ll no longer be eating with him. He makes a mess of his mashed potatoes.”

Quarterfinals:

R. Federer(1) vs. R. Söderling(5) – This rematch of last years final will have the same result. Federer wins in 3 and advances to the semi-finals of the French yet again. Söderling explains he is okay with losing only because he played Federer.

T. Berdych(15) vs. M. Youzhny(11) – Berdych continues his remarkable run by winning yet another upset. Now all that stands in his way of the finals is Federer, which Berdych is okay with because if he loses, at least it was to Federer, the best player of all time.

D. Ferrer(9) vs. N. Djokovic(3) – Novak Djokovic wins the match of the tournament thus far, prevailing in 5 sets and coming back from a 2 sets to 1 deficit. Djokovic continues to be useful for all careless readers as he defeats another Federer-looking name, earning him the title of “Oh My God, Oh Wait Never Mind.”

F. Verdasco(7) vs. R. Nadal(2) – Rafa wins again, but it is far from easy. His back-to-back difficult matches leave some skeptic of whether or not he will make it to the finals.

Semifinals:

R. Federer(1) vs. T. Berdych(15) – After landing a series of upsets throughout the tournament, Berdych is finally defeated by Federer in a game that makes many believe Fed is ready to defeat Nadal or Djokovic in the finals. Berdych explains that, although he would have liked to win, there is no shame in losing to Federer. Says Berdych, “He’s simply the best.”

N. Djokovic(3) vs. R. Nadal(2) – Djokovic is in the semifinals for the third time in four years, but once again, cannot get to the finals. Nadal plays yet another difficult match, winning in 4 sets. Additionally, fashionistas across the country delight as Nadal decides to bring back the capris. Although they were especially tight, Nadal was loose and calm.

Finals:

R. Federer(1) vs. R. Nadal(2) – The match everyone was waiting for happens once again. Given Federer’s play throughout the tournament, Nadal does not enter as the clear favorite. The match is one of the greatest in French Open history, filled with exceptional shots, class from both players, and Nadal’s capris for the second consecutive match. Absent from the match are fans running on the court. One guy actually gets close but Nadal smacks him in the face with a killer forehand (almost literally). After 5 sets of brilliance, Rafa becomes champion for the fifth time. Upon winning, Rafa tells the audience, “Defeating Roger if really special. He’s one of the best tennis players of all time.”

-AW

The Future of the Nets is Brighter than it May Appear

The New Jersey Nets suffered their first upset of the 2009-2010 season.

Mikhail Prokhorov, the new owner of the New Jersey Nets, stood perfectly still, with a small grin on his 13.4 billion dollar face. Irene Pollin, the new owner of the Washington Wizards, needed to stop her eyes from rolling to the back of her skull. Their teams were separated by 14 wins. The tops of their heads were separated by over a foot and a half.

The New Jersey Nets, a team that narrowly avoided the distinction of having the worst record in the history of the NBA this past season, were hoping, no correction, praying, for the top pick in this summer’s draft. Yet, the nightmare for New Jersey continued. Despite having the greatest chance to land the number one pick and most likely John Wall, they fell all the way to number 3. Prokhorov seemed to be unfazed, saying, "Sometimes luck makes all the difference, but it never comes down to one player. I'm sure we're going to get a great player. For our team, the only way is up." But, is that statement true?

Do not fret New Jersey fan(s) because as history has proven, the first pick may actually be no better than pick 3. Here’s a look back at the first and third picks of the last 8 drafts, going back to 2001 and excluding 2009, since it is much to early to begin calling those picks successes or failures. I also named a few “crack-fallers” who are top players, or future top players, outside of the top 5 picks.

2001: The Bust, Brainiac, and Hot Wife

Pick 1: Kwame Brown, Washington Wizards. One of the biggest busts in recent years. This past season Brown put up 3.3 ppg and 3.7 rpg. Brown was born in Charleston, SC. Wall was born in Raleigh, NC. If John Wall turns out to be a bust as well, perhaps Washington should consider avoiding first overall picks from a Carolina.

Pick 3: Pau Gasol, Vancouver Grizzlies. The super talented Gasol is approaching superstar status, assuming he is not already there. This past year he averaged 11.3 rpg, which was more than Brown’s rebounds and points combined, and 18.3 ppg.

Better Pick: Pau Gasol. Not even close to being close.

Biggest through-the-cracks fallers: Joe Johnson (pick 10), Tony Parker (pick 28), Gilbert Arenas (pick 31). Maybe we should be more focused on the Wizards second pick…

2002: Mediocrity, Mediocrity, Mediocrity

Pick 1: Yao Ming, Houston Rockets. It took some time, but for a little while Yao seemed to have found his place in the line-up. That is, until he became hampered by injuries. Even with Yao healthy, the Rockets are yet to make any significant strides in the playoffs.

Pick 3: Mike Dunleavy, Golden State Warriors. He has averaged a 12.2 ppg and 4.7 rpg for his injury filled career. His best season was 07-08, in which he averaged 19.1 ppg.

Better Pick: Yao Ming. Much like my opinion on Dwight Howard, Yao needs to be meaner and better, but nonetheless, he was a top center for a small handful of years and the obviously superior player to Dunleavy.

Biggest through-the-cracks-fallers: Amare Stoudemire (pick 9). The only true gem from the draft, Stoudemire, continues to be the a model of consistency, aside from his injured year in the 05-06 season.

2003: Chose Your Hall of Famer

Pick 1: LeBron James, Cleveland Cavaliers. We know all about him.

Pick 3: Carmelo Anthony, Denver Nuggets. Melo has shown from day one that he is the total package. His career averages of 24.7 ppg, 6. 2rpg, and 3.1 apg attest to this fact.

Better Pick: Obviously LeBron, but Anthony was a fine pick.

Biggest through-the-cracks-fallers: David West (pick 18) and Josh Howard (pick 29). Bosh and Wade do not count as crack-fallers since they were still top 5 picks. The only real losers of this draft were the Detroit Pistons with their infamous selection of Darko Milicic. It didn’t seem to matter though, as Detroit won the championship in 2004.

2004: Dunk Contest Anyone?

Pick 1: Dwight Howard, Orlando Magic. I am often critical of his play, but that’s only because I see the ability for him to be truly dominant. Still, he is the best player to come out of the draft and far better than Emeka Okafur (pick 2), who the Magic could have mistakenly selected as their center instead of Dwight.

Pick 3: Ben Gordon, Chicago Bulls. Gordon has averaged just under 18 points/game for his career. I wouldn’t say that the Bulls missed on this pick considering Gordon is still one of the top players from this draft class.

Better Pick: Dwight Howard. As I said, Howard is the best player to come out of the draft, but needs to start playing more aggressively like he did last night.

Biggest through-the-cracks-fallers: Andre Iguodala (pick 9), Al Jefferson (pick 15), Josh Smith (pick 17). Iguodala , Smith, and Howard should have a dunk contest reunion to see who is the flashiest GOOD player close to reaching GREATNESS.

2005: Depth, Depth, Depth

Pick 1: Andrew Bogut, Milwaukee Bucks. When healthy, Bogut is an adequate center. This last season he averaged 15.9 ppg and 10.2 rpg, the best numbers of his short career. Perhaps a few years from now he will be playing more like a first overall pick.

Pick 3: Deron Williams, Utah Jazz. After this last season, Williams is now considered one of the best point guards in the league. Some may argue he is the best. He has averaged 19 ppg and 10.5 apg over the last 3 seasons. He has also avoided significant injuries, unlike his counter part and number 4 pick, Chris Paul.

Better Pick: Deron Williams. Although this one may be too early to call, Williams appears to be the clear choice as he not only puts up good statistical numbers, but wins games too. Now, if he could figure out a way to move the Lakers to the east coast…

Biggest through-the-cracks-fallers: Andrew Bynum (pick 10), Danny Granger (pick 17), David Lee (pick 30), Monta Ellis (pick 40). This is the best collection of crack-fallers since 2001. The summer of 2012 should be an interesting one.

2006: What a Bargaini!

Pick 1: Andrea Bargnani, Toronto Raptors. Bargnani had is best season this year when he put up 17.2 ppg and 6.2 rpg. His numbers have improved each season in the NBA and he could emerge as an all-star within the next few seasons.

Pick 3: Adam Morrison, Charlotte Bobcats. Great first name, poor game. Morrison has played only fractions of each season after his rookie year. Thus far in his career, he is the worst 3^rd pick of the last 9 years and their equivalent to Kwame Brown. It must be that damn mustache-like-thing.

Better Pick: This is the only draft not to contribute an all-star between either of the picks. I’m obviously gonna give it to Bargnani, but I have a feeling nobody really cares. In fact, I barely do.

Biggest through-the-cracks-fallers: Brandon Roy (pick 6), Rudy Gay (pick 8), Rajon Rondo (pick 21). These 3 players are the 3 best of the entire draft and represent the best #6, #8, and #21 picks of the last 9 years.

2007: Mostly Role Players

Pick 1: Greg Oden, Portland Trail Blazers. If he could ever actually make it onto the floor for an extended period of time, then perhaps Oden would play like a first overall pick. However, until that happens, Oden is nothing more than the biggest and oldest looking 22- year-old on the planet.

Pick 3: Al Horford, Atlanta Hawks. Much like Bargnani, Horford’s numbers have improved after every season. He averaged 14.2 ppg and 9.9 rpg this past season. Horford produced 39 double-doubles.

Better Pick: Al Horford. Obviously, for young players like these 2, the word “better” is not meant as a definitive word. A lot can change in their career, but until Oden gets onto the court, Horford is the unquestionably better pick. However, both of these players will probably be forever remembered as the ones sandwiching Kevin Durant.

Biggest through-the-crack-fallers: Joakim Noah (pick 9), Rodney Stuckey (pick 15), Aaron Brooks (pick 26). All of the players from this draft are obviously young and have a lot to prove still in their careers. However, thus far, the only true star to emerge has been Kevin Durant.

2008: Too Close to Call

Pick 1: Derrick Rose, Chicago Bulls. Rose is clearly a superstar in the making. He is extremely quick and a good scorer. Look for his numbers to continue to improve, especially if a certain player decides to play in Chicago next year. Just don’t ask him to take the SATs.

Pick 3: O.J. Mayo, Minnesota Timberwolves. Mayo, now a member of the Grizzlies, has averaged 18 ppg over two years in the league. Like Rose, he has the potential to be a perennial all-star.

Better Pick: Tie! I think most sports lovers are morally against ties, but sometimes, they are necessary. It is far too early to decide which player will be better, thus, a draw is appropriate.

Biggest through-the-crack-fallers: Eric Gordon (pick 7) and Brook Lopez (10). Most likely this draft’s crack was bigger than I am describing it, since many young players will likely emerge in their 3^rd year in the league. As far as the Nets are concerned, they managed to land an obvious crack-faller. If they can land a solid #3 pick this year, look for a far better performance (they will not be the worst team in the history of the NBA next season).

In case you were not keeping a tally, the final score was:

Pick 1: 4 wins, 3 losses, 1 tie

Pick 3: 3 wins, 4 losses, 1 tie

Ultimately, picking a player is as much up to chance as the determining of the order in the lottery. The crack-fallers show that there still exists tremendous talent outside of the top 5 draft picks. For that reason, this article will most likely be the most in depth NBA draft analysis I will give this year.

-AW