Sports Names

I started thinking about sports nicknames when the St. Peter’s Peacocks defeated the Kentucky Wildcats. As improbable as St. Peter’s beating Kentucky at basketball seemed, imagine a confrontation between a wild cat and a peacock. I would definitely take the wildcats in a predator vs. prey bracket.

It is likely that the first sports teams (loosely defined) and nicknames, were based around Roman chariot races. Initially, there were four teams:  Reds, Whites, Greens, and Blues. By the time of Justinian (roughly mid-6th century), there were only two teams: the Greens (absorbed the Reds) and Blues (captured the Whites). The teams and their fans had become associated with opposing political and religious positions.[1] The Blues and Greens found common cause when taxes were raised and the leaders of the teams were arrested for dissenting, precipitating the Nika Riots.[2] Justinian exercised less patience and restraint than modern police forces; he sent the army into the Hippodrome, where they killed as many as 30,000 Romans. Think about what you would do if, at the next baseball or football game you attend, hundreds of armored, sword-wielding troops started stabbing and hacking away at the people in attendance.

There is no direct link between the Romans and the Ivy League, but

1.  The Romans had the Reds — the Ivies have Big Red (Cornell) and Crimson (Harvard),[3]

2.  The Romans had the Greens — the Ivies have Big Green (Dartmouth), and

3.  The Romans had the Blues and the Whites — the Ivies have two teams whose colors are blue and white (Columbia and Yale).

I think it’s just that colors are elemental. An extreme example (chosen at random, though I was seeking early professional baseball) is the 1878 version of major league baseball. The six teams in the National League were the Boston Red Stockings, Cincinnati Reds, Providence Grays, Chicago White Stockings, Indianapolis Blues, and Milwaukee Grays. By 1903, only three of 16 teams had a color in their name: White Sox, Blues, and Reds. Today four of 30 MLB teams have a color in their name. I’ll let you guess.[4]

The NFL’s 32 teams have no teams with a color in their name. Through the years they have had Maroons, Red Jackets, Yellow Jackets, Blues, and Reds (Cincinnati, of course), but since the Redskins (can I say that? – even in this context) became the Commanders (by way of The Washington Football Team), no NFL team has a color in its name. But what about the Browns? Turns out the Browns weren’t named for a color, they were named after their first head coach, Paul Brown.

It strikes me that “Browns” might not have been so accepted if it wasn’t a color and long associated with one of MLB’s St. Louis franchises. As far as I know, no other sports team in the country is named after a person.[5] I don’t think Cleveland football fans would have embraced the Cleveland McBrides (first owner), Modells, Lerners, or Haslams quite like they have the Browns.

Recently and with great publicity, the Cleveland Indians became the Cleveland Guardians and the Washington Redskins, an obviously pejorative term, became the Washington Commanders.  Miami University beat Washington in the name change game by about 25 years – morphing into the Redhawks in 1997.

Might there be other names that are ripe for reconsideration. The world of college sports is full of strange names, many of them under the radar because of the low profile that most schools keep. Who knew that the Arkansas Tech University men compete as Wonder Boys and the women as Golden Suns? Or that at Angelo State (Texas), the men compete as the Rams and the women as the Rambelles?[6] At the University of Arkansas at Monticello, the men compete as the Boll Weevils and the women as the Cotton Blossoms.

I could do this all day, having not yet made it through the As, but I want to focus on the Spartans. Around 300 high schools and over 20 colleges in the country are called the Spartans, most notably the Michigan State Spartans.[7]

The original Spartans were stone cold killers. Every Spartan male was a soldier and did not work because they had at least five times as many slaves (called helots) as Spartans. The Spartans had a simple way of controlling the helot population: when it got too high, they killed helots, as many as 2,000 at a time. Spartans may also have engaged in institutionalized pederasty, Plutarch certainly thought so, by assigning 12-year-old boys to an older Spartan for training.

The glorious stand of the 300 was real, but it was only possible because of slave labor back home. I wonder how many students, alumni, and fans realize how vicious the actual Spartans were. And I wonder how many other sports nicknames will be changed as we move forward. But mostly I wonder whether the Wildcats (Villanova’s version) will beat the Jayhawks (birds and cats again, though in this case, a mythical bird) and whether the Blue Devils[8] will beat the Tar Heels.


[1] The Blues allied with the ruling classes and religious orthodoxy and the Greens with the people and Monophysitism (a fascinating topic in its own right).

[2] The leaders were sentenced to be hung and a mass hanging was scheduled.  Only a few died before the gallows collapsed, after which the survivors were spared.

[3] The very first issue of the school’s student newspaper, called The Harvard Crimson for the past hundred plus years, was The Magenta. But the undergrads voted for crimson (in the late 19th century) and so it has been ever since.

[4] Answer:  Red Sox, White Sox, Reds, and Blue Jays. In the early days of the Cold War, the Cincinnati team changed its name to Redlegs because Reds was associated with communism.

[5] The Cleveland franchise was once known as the Naps in honor of star player Napoleon (“Nap”) Lajoie.

[6] Quick internet search suggests that “Rambelles” might have no other association in the world other than as the name of the women’s sports teams at Angelo State.

[7] https://masseyratings.com/mascots?m=Spartans

[8] MLB’s Tampa Bay Devil Rays dropped the demonic association in 2007 and are now simply the Rays, as in ray of sunshine, not flat fish. Duke has not been so inclined, although becoming the Blues would be very Roman of them.

Baseball 2021

Tonight is the first time that the 2021 baseball season could end. The Braves have won three games, a fourth victory concludes the World Series. This is always a bittersweet day for me – exciting because there could be a new champion, sad because it will be a long wait until meaningful games are played next spring.

[The grand slam that Adam Duvall just hit makes it much more likely that the season will end tonight.]

I watched a lot of games this summer.[1] First, it was nice to have full summer of games after last year’s pandemic-induced truncated season. Second, the Red Sox played well, much better than last season, and a bit better than expected. The Red Sox were quite brutal last year, winning only 40% of their games, which was fourth worst in the majors (there are 30 teams). This year they won almost 57% of their games, which only six teams bettered.  

[The Braves 4-run lead lasted less than two innings, though they have regained the lead 5-4.]

But the turnaround was not entirely unexpected, even to non-fans of the Red Sox. There is a baseball website (indeed there are so many good ones that even I can’t read them all) called Fangraphs,[2] which predicts how each player will perform and, based on that, how many games each team will win. They predicted that the Red Sox would win 88 games; they finished the season with 92 wins.

Below is a chart that shows (according to Fangraphs) how each team fared against its expectation. You will see extreme variability. This is not necessarily a fault of the prediction system. It is common for teams that play well (in the first half of the season) to improve their team with trades and therefore win more games than would have been expected based on the season-opening roster. And – teams that aren’t playing well often make trades that weaken their roster this year, while (hopefully) strengthening their team in the future.

TeamPredictedActualWins over
WinsWinsPrediction
Giants7810729
Mariners739017
Rays8310017
Brewers799516
Cardinals799011
Dodgers9610610
Reds76837
Astros89956
Rockies68746
Athletics81865
White Sox88935
Red Sox88924
Tigers73774
Blue Jays89912
Phillies80822
Braves8988-1
Cleveland8180-1
Pirates6561-4
Royals7874-4
Yankees9692-4
Marlins7267-5
Cubs7771-6
Angels8477-7
Rangers7160-11
Mets9177-14
Orioles6752-15
Padres9479-15
Twins8873-15
Nationals8365-18
Diamondbacks7452-22

As you can see, the Giants massively exceeded expectations in winning the most games in the league. But the Dodgers, who were predicted to win more games than any other team also substantially exceeded expectations. And even teams expected to be bad can underperform. The Orioles and Pirates were predicted to have the fewest wins in the AL and NL respectively (seemingly perennially) and they both managed to underperform.

This chart is a proxy for how each fan base feels about their team. Those with an overperformance, like the Mariners and Reds, probably have pretty happy fans. Even though they didn’t make the playoffs, they were playing games that mattered deep into September. On the other hand, fans of the Padres and Nationals, who began the season with championship aspirations, are rather despondent.

Over or under performing is all well and good and might influence a fan’s psyche over the course of a season. But what really matters is making the playoffs, and eight of the teams that made the playoffs exceeded expectations. Only the Braves (one game fewer) and the Yankees (four fewer) made the playoffs while winning fewer games than expected.

I was quite happy with the Red Sox season. They led their division for 74 days in the middle of the season. They won 46 games against teams with a winning record, only three teams won more. They dominated teams with a losing record, going 46-22, but this highlights a huge inequity in baseball scheduling. The Giants and Dodgers, who led with majors with 107 and 106 wins respectively, played 99 and 100 games against teams with losing records, at least 30 more games against weak competition than the Red Sox.

[The Astros now lead 9-5 in the eighth inning, which almost certainly means there will be a game six in Houston.]

To top off the season, the Red Sox played their archrivals the Yankees in the AL wildcard game and prevailed. Then they played the top team in their division in a best of five series. The current playoff system is relatively stupid. It rewards teams who win a weak division more than teams, like the Dodgers, who won the second most games in the majors. And in this case, it forced the Red Sox to play the Rays, whom they had already played 19 times.

Quick fix for playoffs system, no wild card game. Only the top four teams make the playoffs, without regard to division, and all series are best of seven. (I may have written about this before. If I did, it bears repeating.)

The Red Sox beat the Rays in four games and then fell to the Astros in six games. Then I started rooting against the Astros, who are something of a pariah team based on a cheating scandal from a couple of years ago. I’m looking forward to seeing how the Red Sox tweak their roster during the off-season.

[Astros won 9-5.]

And I’m looking forward to at least one more World Series game this season.


[1] Major League Baseball sells a cable package for a bit under $200, which provides access to almost every game played every day of the season, and which I consider about the best money I spend every year.

[2] https://www.fangraphs.com/depthcharts.aspx?position=Standings

NFL Draft Graders

The NFL draft was a week ago.  The fanfare associated with it seemed a bit muted, possibly because of lack of star power at the top of the draft, possibly because I am finally maturing and no longer consider it must-see TV, possibly because the local teams (Browns and Bengals) had no high picks.  I could probably go on for a while, from the reasonable to the absurd. 

I’d rather talk a bit about the draft graders.  Mel Kiper turned his obsession with the NFL draft into a career.  He was the first and remains the best.  Many others have followed in his wake, but though their knowledge is often impressive, they don’t convey the same “this is my life” monomania that radiates from Kiper. 

The NFL draft produces a bevy of people who review what has been done by each team, based on need and talent available, and grade how well each team did in the draft.  For years, I have enjoyed reading what the graders have to say, especially for the teams I follow (Cowboys – favorite team from youth, Patriots – first local team, Browns and Bengals – current local teams).  People are always happier when their local team does well.  The funk in Columbus when the football Buckeyes lose is palpable.  Fortunately, they don’t lose very often.[1]

Because I am me, I decided to create a spreadsheet to compile a few of the grades produced by various organizations or publications.  There are so many, that I had to cut it off somewhere – so I went with eight.  The eight I chose are putatively neutral.  Every NFL city and most NFL booster clubs offer their own grades, but they are not are likely to be impartial as these eight. 

(Charts do not transfer well to WordPress.  I’ll do the best I can.  But I know that the top labels will not work, so I’m providing them here. Moreover, I had to use some strange abbreviations for the cities, I trust you can adjust.)

Column 1 – SBNation

Column 2 – NFL.com

Column 3 – si.com

Column 4 – Tom Downey

Column 5 – profootball focus

Column 6 – sporting news

Column 7 – touchdown wire

Column 8 – bleacherreport

Column A – average

If I were to tell you that the average number of “A” grades was 9 and that one of the above grading entities gave out 21 As, would you be able to guess which one?  I think most of you would get it in one try – it’s the NFL.com.  When the NFL grades its own owners and their draft selections, there are sure to be a lot of As.  I wish they had been grading me in law school.[2]

This list in is alphabetical order so you can easily look up your favorite team.  As you can see, there are not many Ds and As were handed out like cups of water at the Boston Marathon.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A
Arizona 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.3 4.0 3.5
Atlanta 2.3 3.3 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.2
Baltimore 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.3 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.3 3.2
Buffalo 3.3 3.7 3.7 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.6
Carolina 3.3 3.7 2.3 3.7 4.0 3.3 3.0 2.3 3.2
Chargers 2.3 3.3 3.3 4.0 4.0 3.3 3.0 3.3 3.3
Chicago 2.0 4.0 2.7 2.3 2.0 2.0 3.7 3.3 2.7
Cincinnti 2.7 3.7 3.3 3.3 2.0 1.7 3.7 1.0 2.7
Cleveland 2.3 3.7 1.7 3.7 2.0 2.3 4.0 3.0 2.8
Dallas 2.3 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.3
Denver 3.7 4.0 3.7 3.3 3.0 3.3 4.0 3.0 3.5
Detroit 3.0 3.0 3.3 2.3 1.0 2.3 1.7 2.7 2.4
Giants 1.3 3.0 1.7 0.0 3.0 2.7 2.0 1.0 1.8
GreenBay 2.7 4.0 3.7 2.0 3.0 2.7 3.0 3.7 3.1
Houston 2.3 2.3 3.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0
Indianpls 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.3 2.7 3.7 3.0
Jacks’ville 3.7 3.7 3.0 3.3 4.0 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.4
Jets 2.7 3.7 2.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.3 2.9
Kans Cty 2.3 3.3 3.3 2.7 2.0 1.7 2.7 2.7 2.6
Miami 3.0 3.7 4.0 2.3 2.0 2.0 1.7 2.0 2.6
Minnsota 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.3 1.0 3.3 3.3 2.0 3.0
N. Englnd 3.3 4.0 3.3 3.7 3.0 4.0 3.7 4.0 3.6
N. Orlens 2.7 2.7 3.0 3.3 1.0 2.3 3.0 2.0 2.5
Oakland 2.0 3.3 1.7 2.7 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.3 2.6
Phildelph 2.7 4.0 3.7 4.0 3.0 3.7 2.0 3.7 3.3
Pittburgh 2.7 3.7 3.7 3.3 3.0 3.7 3.3 3.3 3.3
Rams 2.3 3.3 2.7 3.7 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.7
S. Frncsc 3.3 3.7 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.3 3.0 2.3 3.
Seattle 2.7 3.7 2.7 1.7 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.7
Tampa By 2.7 2.3 3.7 2.3 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.3 2.4
Tennesse 3.7 4.0 2.7 4.0 4.0 1.7 4.0 2.3 3.3
Washgtn 3.7 3.3 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.7
Average 2.8 3.6 3.0 2.9 2.6 2.7 2.9 2.8 2.9
As 4.0 21.0 8.0 9.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 7.0 8.8
Ds 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 6.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 2.0

The following list is in order of average grade, so you can see where teams rank.  The top six teams received a grade of B or higher from every grading entity.  The bottom eight teams all had at least five grades of C or lower. 

Graders 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 A
Washington 3.7 3.3 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.7
N. Englnd 3.3 4.0 3.3 3.7 3.0 4.0 3.7 4.0 3.6
Buffalo 3.3 3.7 3.7 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.6
Arizona 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.3 4.0 3.5
Denver 3.7 4.0 3.7 3.3 3.0 3.3 4.0 3.0 3.5
Jacks’ville 3.7 3.7 3.0 3.3 4.0 3.3 3.0 3.0 3.4
Chargers 2.3 3.3 3.3 4.0 4.0 3.3 3.0 3.3 3.3
Phildelph 2.7 4.0 3.7 4.0 3.0 3.7 2.0 3.7 3.3
Pittsburgh 2.7 3.7 3.7 3.3 3.0 3.7 3.3 3.3 3.3
Tennessee 3.7 4.0 2.7 4.0 4.0 1.7 4.0 2.3 3.3
Baltimore 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.3 2.0 4.0 3.0 3.3 3.2
Carolina 3.3 3.7 2.3 3.7 4.0 3.3 3.0 2.3 3.2
Green Bay 2.7 4.0 3.7 2.0 3.0 2.7 3.0 3.7 3.1
Minnsota 3.0 4.0 4.0 3.3 1.0 3.3 3.3 2.0 3.0
Indianplis 3.0 4.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.3 2.7 3.7 3.0
S. Frncsc 3.3 3.7 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.3 3.0 2.3 3.0
Jets 2.7 3.7 2.3 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.3 2.9
Cleveland 2.3 3.7 1.7 3.7 2.0 2.3 4.0 3.0 2.8
Chicago 2.0 4.0 2.7 2.3 2.0 2.0 3.7 3.3 2.7
Rams 2.3 3.3 2.7 3.7 3.0 1.0 3.0 3.0 2.7
Seattle 2.7 3.7 2.7 1.7 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.7
Cincinnati 2.7 3.7 3.3 3.3 2.0 1.7 3.7 1.0 2.7
Oakland 2.0 3.3 1.7 2.7 1.0 4.0 3.0 3.3 2.6
Miami 3.0 3.7 4.0 2.3 2.0 2.0 1.7 2.0 2.6
Kans Cty 2.3 3.3 3.3 2.7 2.0 1.7 2.7 2.7 2.6
N. Orlens 2.7 2.7 3.0 3.3 1.0 2.3 3.0 2.0 2.5
Tampa B 2.7 2.3 3.7 2.3 3.0 1.0 2.0 2.3 2.4
Detroit 3.0 3.0 3.3 2.3 1.0 2.3 1.7 2.7 2.4
Dallas 2.3 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 2.3
Atlanta 2.3 3.3 3.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 2.2
Houston 2.3 2.3 3.0 1.0 1.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2.0
Giants 1.3 3.0 1.7 0.0 3.0 2.7 2.0 1.0 1.8

Every team thinks they had a great draft – even the Giants.  But we won’t know the real grades for about two years – as expectations collide with reality.  You see, the ultimate grader of NFL drafts is not SBNation, The Sporting News, or even Mel Kiper, it is each team’s subsequent winning percentage.  We see that in the newspaper each week and we learn who is held responsible when the owners start firing coaches and general managers. 


[1] Shortly after moving to Columbus, my wife and I were at a neighborhood party.  We met a woman, who mentioned something about her husband, and we asked where he was.  She said, and I quote “home, he doesn’t leave the house after the Buckeyes lose.”  I knew then that we were not in Boston anymore.

[2] I had the highest grade in my class in crim law – it was an 89.  And no scale.  I didn’t get an A.  They have loosened up and now curve every class, but there is no retroactivity.

Smorgasbord

When a topic strikes my fancy, I start researching and writing.  If I like the product, I publish; if I don’t, I don’t.  Over the past few months, for a variety of reasons, I haven’t been happy with the results.  But I have a few little ideas to get off my chest, so here goes.   

1.  In the last post, I asked you to ask me about the fourth-out rule.  I’m pleased to report that at the next baseball game I attended, a friend approached and asked about the fourth-out rule.  To say he was underwhelmed would overstate his level of interest in my explanation of the, admittedly, rarely utilized rule. 

2.  Our President loves mentioning good things.  For instance, it was announced this week that our economy grew at a 3.2% annual rate in the first quarter.  That is great news and our President was quick to take credit for it.  It also was recently reported that measles cases are at a 25-year high[1] and that pedestrian deaths from accidents are at a 28-year high.[2]   It is difficult to see how President Trump could be at fault.  But I’m not sure he deserves credit for the economy any more than he deserves blame for the increase in pedestrian deaths.  The only thing we know for certain is that both things happened on his watch.[3]

3.  Thursday night was a sports smorgasbord for me. 

The Red Sox were playing and won.  After winning the World Series last year, they are off to a poor start this season, with a record of only 11 and 15. 

The Bruins, my favorite team when I lived in Boston, were playing the Blue Jackets, my favorite team now that I live in Columbus, in the NHL playoffs.  The Bruins played with outstanding energy early and late to beat the Blue Jackets in overtime.  It was a terrific game.  There is nothing quite like the intensity of a close Stanley Cup game.

The NFL was hosting the first round of its draft in Nashville.  Broadway looked even more crowded than usual.  For the first time in recent memory, the Cleveland Browns did not have a selection in the top three.  Because of a trade, they didn’t even have a pick in the first round.

The NFL draft engenders inane commentary.  There is so much talking time to fill and so little of substance happening, that the commentators end up highlighting things that aren’t worthy.  It’s one thing to mention that two tight ends were drafted from the same college team in the first round for the first time ever.[4]  That is interesting and might even be significant.  It is quite another thing to state “this is only the second time since 2004 that the second defensive player chosen by an NFC team after the third pick was a defensive lineman, who weighs less than 300 pounds.”  The quote is from a text a friend sent me last night, which purportedly quoted a commentator.  If the quote is real, I’m glad I missed it.  If it’s not, well, it is a close facsimile to some of the things that are said during the draft.

4.  Third, the TVA, Tennessee Valley Authority, was a massive government program that (in very short) dammed rivers in the Tennessee Valley and provided electricity to a part of the country that previously had little access.  Question:  when the project was completed, did the TVA provide the highest cost electricity in the country or the lowest cost?[5]

5.  Forbes magazine provides much great information and commentary.  I stopped subscribing years ago when I realized that publisher Steve Forbes was rabidly anti-attorney.  (I recently re-subscribed to give him a second chance.)  Forbes is avowedly determined to convince us of the volatility of great wealth – or something akin to that.  Over a decade ago, I sent them a letter, which to their credit they published, chastising them for saying that great wealth is more likely earned than inherited.  I pointed out that the prevalence of people in the Forbes 400 (of richest Americans) who inherited their wealth was orders of magnitude higher than of people who earned their wealth. 

Well, Forbes is at it again.  In their 3/31/19 issue, they had a headline “Few Silver Spoons” over a pie chart showing how the 195 new billionaires in world garnered their money.  There are 2,153 billionaires in the world, of whom 56 inherited their wealth in the last year.  That means that 56 of the new billionaires came from .00000076% of the people in the world.  Meanwhile, the other 139 new billionaires came from the other 99.999934% of the world.  I’d say the silver spoons are still holding their own, despite Forbes efforts to convince us otherwise.

6.  In 2017, the average American over the age of 15 spent this many minutes per day (on average) doing the following:

512 sleeping

283 leisure (150 TV, 41 other/relaxing, 31 socializing, 17 sports, 16 reading, 16 games, and 12 computer)

275 working

 99 housework (34 cooking, 30 cleaning/laundry, 35 other)

 67 eating and drinking

 44 taking care of children or other people

 41 grooming

 41 shopping

 37 education

 14 social/civic/religious

 12 communication

 15 other

I think I’m glad that, on average, we spend more time leisuring than working – those numbers are, of course, significantly affected by a person’s stage in life.  I’m a bit concerned that we spend less time socializing or getting educated than we do grooming.  Not that I want people to stop grooming.    


[1] http://time.com/5577562/measles-highest-level-25-years/

[2] The Week, March 15, 2019, p. 14

[3] I have long believed that presidents and quarterbacks get too much credit when things go well and too much blame when they go poorly.

[4] T.J. Kockenson and Noah Fant, formerly of the Iowa Hawkeyes.

[5] The TVA provided the cheapest electricity in the country.

The 2019 Baseball Season Has Begun

Baseball’s opening day has come and gone with little fanfare.  Even I barely noticed.  There is something weird about starting the year with games in a foreign country.  And Cincinnati fans will perhaps never recover from losing their long cherished first-game-of-the-year privileges.

Did anyone care about seeing Ichiro retire?  Contrived sports events do not resonate well with me.  To let a guy play two games in his home country and then retire during the second game isn’t per se wrong.  But it doesn’t seem right either.  He was a tremendous player in his prime and, although he still thinks he can help a team, no team agrees.

Who knows what a “check swing” is?  Be honest.  Who thinks a swing is checked as long as the bat doesn’t cross the plate?  Or the player didn’t “break his wrists”?   Who thinks there is a specific standard?  There isn’t.  A player attempts to hit the ball or he doesn’t.  It’s as simple and ineffable as that.      

In the second inning of game five of the 2017 World Series, Chris Taylor looked like he wanted to bunt, had the bat ready to hit the ball, but didn’t.  The umpire yelled “yes, he did.”[1]  The “did” was attempt to hit the ball.  That is the swinging strike rule.  There is no check swing rule.  Nothing in the rule book mentions check swing, despite the constant references to it by players, coaches, and announcers.  The concept of “attempting to strike at the ball” is undefined.  It is a pure judgment call.[2]

Also in game five, an announcer said “if you give Kershaw three runs, he knows what to do with it.”[3]  This statement suggests that Kershaw pitches differently with a lead than without.  Perhaps he does.  Is he the only such pitcher?  Is it a rare skill?  Is it a skill at all?  Or is it just another announcer saying something that he heard someone else say?  Most likely, the last.  All credible research suggests that pitchers perform roughly the same whether they have the lead, the game is tied, or they are behind.  Pitchers do not pitch to the score; they pitch.

A common bit of tripe from announcers is that was “a great piece of hitting,” which you will hear all year long.  I have heard announcers say it about line drive singles, bloop doubles, long fly balls off the wall, just about anything hit that doesn’t result in an out.  If you watch even two baseball games, you will hear an announcer pronounce (after a batter reached base on a hit) “that was a great piece of hitting.”  They never say it about a vicious line drive that a third baseman dives and snares inches off the ground or a towering fly ball that the center fielder tracks down just before it sails over the outfield fence.  They only say it when the batter reaches base.  They say it without regard to whether the swing was good or bad.  It is an entirely results based comment and is therefore almost wholly without merit.     

The announcer stated that game five of the 2017 World Series was “one of the most unique game fives in history.”  Who knows, maybe it was.  But how can you tell?  Is there any way to judge?  Is there even a way to contemplate “most unique?”  BTW, Don Larsen threw a perfect game in game five of the 1956 World Series.  That was pretty unique.  Maybe not the most unique, but it has to be right up there.  (I’d be interested in hearing what you consider the most unique thing you have done, seen, or heard of.)

These notes from 2017 are helping me get ready for another baseball season, a season that now is full of questions. 

–Will the Red Sox repeat despite losing significant contributors off their roster? 

Not unless they add players during the season.

–Will the Yankees win the division after being only the ninth team in history with 100 wins to finish in second place? 

They made several significant additions to an already loaded roster and have a good chance to usurp the Red Sox.

–Will the Reds, who are undefeated, be competitive after four consecutive years with over 90 losses? 

I think they will, but they need solid seasons from newly acquired Yasiel Puig, Sonny Gray, and Matt Kemp, among others.[4] 

–Will the Indians be able to win the relatively pathetic Central Division yet again? 

Few teams in MLB are as lopsided as the Indians – they have two offensive stars (Francisco Lindor and Jose Ramirez), outstanding starting pitching, and precious little else.  Still, I think they will win the division. 

–Can the NL win the World Series? 

Probably not, the Yankees, Astros, and Red Sox figure to be the three best teams in the majors

Don’t forget the little guys.  Go watch a youth or high school baseball game.  The players are fun, if highly flawed.  You might uncover a gem.  The best baseball in the world is played in our country and it starts at the youth level.  In a typical year, I see games involving players from age five all the way through the majors.  Every person reading this lives near a college.  Most of them have baseball free for the watching, certainly every high school does.  Go watch America’s pastime safe in the knowledge that you probably know more about the non-existent check swing rule than the coaches do.[5] 


[1] I hate it when players, fans, and coaches yell “yes, he did.”  I’m ok with umpires doing it.

[2] In the 11th inning of game five, Yasiel Puig looked like he might have swung at a pitch, but no strike was called, the announcer stated that “he went a long way.”  Apparently, that is his standard. 

[3] The announcer seemingly believes that most pitchers have no idea what to do with a three-run lead. 

[4] The Red last 90 games four years in a row from 1930 to 1934, when they managed the “feat” five years in a row.  On the other side of the ledger, the Big Red Machine averaged over 100 wins a year from 1972 to 1976.

[5] If you see me at a game, ask me about the fourth out rule.  It’s one of my favorite topics.

Three Sports Snippets

First a personal note.  I resigned from Ubihere[1] last fall and cast about for something to do.  When offered a position at the Supreme Court of Ohio (where I had previously worked for over 20 years), I jumped.  I hope to resume regularly publishing blog posts now that uncertainty is behind me and I am happily ensconced.

1.  The college football season is over, and Clemson is a worthy champion.[2]  I confess that I did not see a single play of the championship game.  Without a rooting interest, I just couldn’t force myself to watch.  I couldn’t root for Alabama because I generally dislike dynasties, unless they are my favorite team.  I couldn’t root for Clemson because coach Dabo Swinney thinks the players, whose skill and effort enable him to earn millions of dollars a year, are too entitled.[3]  

2.  It is nice to see a national consensus building toward having eight teams in the college football playoff.  The Power Five conferences should choose their representative any way they see fit – championship game, highest ranked team, most expensive or obnoxious coach, fastest wide receiver.  Who cares – each of these conferences should have a team in the playoff.  Then there should be three at large teams chosen by the existing selection committee, which would also seed the teams.   

That would be simple and would avoid the travesty of having the worst of the Power Five conferences essentially having two teams in this year’s playoff, while the second best conference was outside looking in for the second year in a row.[4]  Notre Dame, although its 12-0 record was deserving, is essentially an ACC team.[5]  They should have played Clemson in the ACC championship game, not in the national semifinal.  And the Big Ten should have a team in the playoff, even if there were legitimate reasons not to select Ohio State the last two years, most notably two blowout losses to mediocre teams.

3.  I care less and less about the baseball Hall of Fame each year because of the sanctimony and hypocrisy associated with determining which players get enshrined.  This year, the Baseball Writers Association of America rose above the fray and elected four terrific players.  Mike Mussina, Edgar Martinez, Roy Halladay, and Mariano Rivera are all eminently qualified and will raise the overall standards of the Hall.  

Martinez was a great hitter but has been excoriated as primarily a designated hitter, like that is some kind of crime.  He played 592 games in the field, comprising 4829 innings of defensive work, or roughly 3.5 times as many innings as Mariano Rivera pitched.  Rivera went to the plate only seven times in his career, but nobody has ever accused him, as they have accused Martinez, of being a one-way player. 

Mussina was criticized for being merely good, not great.  Sure, I guess, it depends on what your standard is.  He won 270 games,[6] only 32 guys have won more, and only 13 of them threw a pitch after 1970.  Being one of the 14 best starting pitchers of the last 45 years is more than enough to warrant being in the Hall of Fame.  Along the way, he pitched roughly 2300 more innings than Mariano Rivera (the equivalent of ten years at 230 inning a year) with an excellent ERA, 23% better than league average.  (Recent inductee Tom Glavine was elected on the first ballot even though his ERA was 18% better than league average.  He won 305 games but with a lower winning percentage than Mussina.)

Roy (Doc) Halladay was criticized because he won only 203 games.  Quantity should matter, but quality is more important when considering whether a player is a Hall of Famer.  Doc’s ERA was 31% better than league average and his winning percentage was a stellar .659, the 20th best of all time.

Rivera was an outstanding relief pitcher, in my opinion the best relief pitcher of all time.  Still — throughout baseball history, relief pitchers became relief pitchers after establishing that they weren’t good enough to be starting pitchers.[7]  In Rivera’s only year as a starter, his ERA was 5.51, 84% as good as league average, and he had a WHIP of 1.5.[8]  Well over 1000 pitchers have had a career WHIP better than 1.5.  As a relief pitcher, Rivera’s WHIP was under 1.0, the third best rate of all time.  It is easier to be great when you pitch one inning at a time.        

Rivera belongs in the Hall of Fame, but given the insults hurled at the other electees,[9] it is frustrating that Rivera receives nothing but encomia.  He was great, he was not perfect, as the few extant Diamondbacks fans will happily attest. I’m back, baseball is almost back, and the writers elected an all-star Hall of Fame class.[10]  Life is good. 


[1] You can see what the company does and a picture of me at https://ubihere.com/.

[2] Shout out to THawk, the only Clemson grad I know.

[3] He didn’t say exactly that, but it is what he meant.  Here is the quote:  “As far as paying players, professionalizing college athletics, that’s where you lose me.  I’ll go do something else, because there’s enough entitlement in this world as it is.” https://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2016/4/13/11420408/dabo-swinney-clemson-salary-raise-players   

[4] According to Jeff Sagarin’s College Football rankings, conference strength based on the 2018 season: 

SEC 81.57, Big Ten 77.39, Big 12 77.35, PAC 12 75.43, ACC 75.19

[5] Because it is contractually required to play five games a year against ACC teams.

[6] A flawed team-dependent stat that is nevertheless a useful proxy over the course of a career.

[7] Today many relief pitchers, especially closers, are not failed starters.

[8] WHIP = walks plus hits per inning pitched

[9] Microsoft Word tells me that “electees” is not a word, but my on-line dictionary considers it an acceptable British usage.  https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/electee

[10] I’m less thrilled with the selections of the Today’s Game Era Committee.  Harold Baines and Lee Smith were very good, not great.

The Baseball Playoffs Have Begun

With the stupendously unfair wild card games out of the way, we can focus on true playoff baseball.  “Unfair” because one game in baseball is irrelevant, a rounding error over the course of 162 games.  The outrageously bad Baltimore Orioles won 61 fewer games than the Red Sox, but they still won 47 games.  A good NFL team needs at least four years to win 47 games.

Bad as they were, the Orioles had a four-game win streak and two three-game win streaks.  In late July, they won three games in a row by scores of 15-5, 11-2, and 11-5, against a Tampa Bay Rays team that won 90 games.  That was after the Orioles had traded away their best player, Manny Machado, and their best relief pitcher, Zach Britton.  They did it again in late August, after trading away a starting pitcher, their closer, and their starting 2nd baseman.  That time, they won three in a row over the 73-win Toronto Blue Jays by scores of 7-0, 12-5, and 10-5.  A really bad baseball team can still win consecutive games convincingly.

My general point is that one game in baseball signifies almost nothing, it certainly doesn’t prove anything.  But, over the past two days, one game consigned the Oakland Athletics and the Chicago Cubs to the 2018 dustbin along with the Orioles.  This, despite the Cubs winning 95 games, the second most in the National League, and the A’s winning 97 games, more than any NL team.  Life isn’t fair, and neither is the MLB playoff format.

Now the real fun begins.  There will be four five-game series to (essentially) send teams to the Final Four.  But because it’s baseball, they don’t use exciting lingo, they use “AL division series” or, even worse, “ALDS,” which don’t convey anything meaningful.  The series doesn’t determine a division winner.   Perhaps “AL semi-finals” would be better. At a minimum, it conveys something comprehensible.

The chart shows the playoff teams, their wins (out of 162 games), and their run differential, the number of runs they scored above the number their opponents scored against them.

Team Wins Run Diff.
Red Sox 108 229
Yankees 100 182
Astros 100 263
Brewers 96 95
Dodgers 92 194
Indians 91 170
Rockies 91 35
Braves 90 102

Three of the teams (Red Sox, Yankees, and Astros, all from the American League) are great — many wins (100+) with a huge run differential.  Two of the teams (Dodgers and Indians, the other AL team) are very good — over 90 wins and a huge run differential.  The other three teams are good — 90+ wins and a positive run differential.  Each of these eight teams is good enough to win the World Series.  And each of them could lose to the Orioles if they played one game today.

If baseball were like hockey, which reseeds teams after each round of their playoffs, the Red Sox would play the Indians.  That is, the playoff team with the best record in the AL would play the playoff team with the worst record in the AL.  But baseball deems the Yankees inferior because they did not win their arbitrarily assigned division, even though they won 100 games.  And the Indians are deemed superior because they won a division, never mind that it is the only division with just one team over .500.

Looking at these numbers, the Astros should play the Dodgers again in the World Series.  (The Astros won last year.)  But looking at the numbers, the Cubs, with 95 wins and a run differential of 116 should have defeated the Rockies.  The numbers don’t matter, what matters (generally) is whose starting pitcher is better today.

The game one starters suggest what we already know:  that the best teams are in the AL.  In the Rockies/Brewers game, the 144th best starting pitcher Antonio Senzatela (Rockies) is matched up against Brandon Woodruff (Brewers), who isn’t even ranked because he has only started four games in 2018, none since June.  I’m not expecting a pitcher’s duel.  In the other NL game, Mike Foltynewicz (Brewers), the 25th best starting pitcher, is up against Hyun-Jin Ryu (Dodgers), the 91st ranked starting pitcher.

The average starting pitcher ranking in game one for the NL is 87, ignoring Woodruff’s non-ranking.[1]  Meanwhile, tomorrow in the AL, Justin Verlander (Astros 3rd) is matched against Corey Kluber (Indians 5th) and Chris Sale (Red Sox 2nd) faces off with J.A. Happ (Yankees, a relatively paltry 17th).  The AL game one starters average 7.

A 100-win team will lose in the first round of the playoffs.  Maybe two.  Because all three 100-win teams play in the American League, only one of them can make the World Series.  There is no question that the cream of the crop plays in the AL.  But – for the first time in years, the NL won more inter-league games than it lost.

As you watch games, consider this:  the eight teams remaining averaged 4.95 runs scored per game and 3.98 runs against per game.   It’s not rocket science and it’s not revolutionary, but I predict that five runs will win most games this post season.  Enjoy.

 

 

[1] All of these rankings come from billjamesonline.com, one of the great websites in America.  The rankings are based (roughly) on the last season and a half.

The Browns and the NFL Draft

The Cleveland Browns have been a train wreck for years.  In the 19 years since they rejoined the NFL in 1999, the Browns have not finished in last place in their division four times.  In the last ten years, they have finished last in a four-team division nine times.  Their high point was 2010, when they finished 3rd in a four-team division.

Despite the surfeit of quality draft picks their on-field incompetence has garnered, they haven’t been getting better – they have somehow been getting worse.  They won one game in the last two years.  Prior to those two years, their lowest win total in any given two-year period was five, in the first two years of their rebirth.

The Browns have squandered many high draft picks, it’s among the things they are best at.  It takes time to determine whether a draft pick is going to be a quality player.  Let’s review some of the recent picks, the top two picks each year, with round selected in parenthesis:

2010  Joe Haden (1), T.J. Ward (2)

2011  Phil Taylor (1), Jabaal Sheard (2)

2012  Trent Richardson (1), Brandon Weeden (1)

2013  Barkevious Mingo (1), Leon McFadden (3)

2014  Justin Gilbert (1), Johnny Manziel (1)

2015  Danny Shelton (1), Cameron Erving (1)

It’s pretty easy to reach of couple of conclusions.  This list is not full of household names.  And these players have not been in many Pro Bowls.  Here’s the same list with games played, possible games played, Pro Bowls, and possible Pro Bowls.

2010  J. Haden 101/128, 2/8; T.J. Ward 107/128, 3/8

2011  P. Taylor 44/112, 0/7; J. Sheard 105/112, 0/7

2012  T. Richardson 46/96, 0/6; B. Weeden 34/96, 0/6

2013  B. Mingo 78/80, 0/5; L. McFadden 34/80, 0/5

2014  J. Gilbert 35/64, 0/4; J. Manziel 15/64, 0/4

2015  D. Shelton 46/48, 0/3; C. Erving 42/48, 0/3

In aggregate, the top two draft picks for the Browns have played in 65% of the games played since they were drafted.  The same players have played in five of a possible 66 Pro Bowls.  Most of the players are either out of the league or off the Browns.  Three of the players (B. Mingo, J. Sheard, and T.J. Ward) were lucky enough to get traded to teams which subsequently won a Super Bowl.  I have unofficially set the over/under on when the Brown will win a Super Bowl at 2050.

Most of the good in these numbers dates to 2010.  The person (whether GM or some other title) responsible for those selections was fired three or four GMs ago.  Whoever drafted D. Shelton and C. Erving, the second best draft year, has been fired.  And the guy who replaced him has also been fired.

There has been only one constant in the generation of putridity:  owner Jimmy Haslam.  He is the genius who decided that current coach Hue Jackson, whose record with the Browns is 1-31, is just the guy to turn things around.  And he might.  It literally can’t get worse than last year’s 0-16.

Which brings us to tomorrow’s draft.  The Browns have picks 1 and 4 in the draft.  Even though another new person is in charge of the draft for the Browns, there is little reason to think he will fare any better than the last four or five GMs.

There is always hope, but I expect the Browns to once again chase a fairy tale quarterback.  Some commentators have suggested that they might use both first round picks on a QB.  Sadly, I can’t rule it out.  It underscores their belief that they can’t win without a franchise QB.  As if they were one great QB away from something significant.

From 1990-2014, 60 QBs were drafted in the first round.  Some of them have been outstanding Hall of Fame caliber players:  Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, and Ben Roethlisberger are probably the three best.  They were drafted 1st, 24th, and 11th respectively.  The best three quarterbacks in that time period drafted outside the first round are Tom Brady, 6th round, Bret Favre, 2nd round, and Drew Brees, 2nd round.  They are all terrific, but I might slightly prefer the guys drafted outside the first round.

And here’s the real problem:  the QBs drafted in the first round included many phenomenal duds.  Ryan Leaf, drafted 2nd in 1998, lasted 25 games.  Akili Smith, drafted 3rd overall in 1999, lasted 22 games.  Injuries didn’t end their careers, awful passing did.  JaMarcus Russell, drafted 1st in 2007, lasted 31 games.  David Carr in 1994 and Tim Couch in 1999 (by the Browns) were drafted number one overall.  They weren’t horrible, but they weren’t good either.  Jeff George, Sam Bradford, and Drew Bledsoe were drafted #1, no Hall of Famers there.

Cam Newton, Carson Palmer, Alex Smith, Matthew Stafford, Andrew Luck, and Michael Vick were all drafted #1.  They have all been good, at times great, but it was never enough to lift their team to a Super Bowl victory.   The only QBs drafted first overall since 1990 to win a Super Bowl are the Manning brothers, Peyton and Eli.

It should be clear that drafting a QB with the first pick is no panacea.  One group of football commentators concluded that only about 30% of QBs drafted in the first round become franchise quarterbacks.  http://www.footballperspective.com/what-should-be-the-expectations-for-a-first-round-qb/   The percentage is higher for top five picks, but the list of duds is still pretty impressive.  I would guess that half of the top four QBs in this draft will be duds – I just don’t know which two (of Sam Darnold, Josh Rosen, Baker Mayfield, and Josh Allen).  And I’m pretty sure the Browns don’t either.

Using ten different websites,[1] I plugged the best players into a spreadsheet.   Only four players appeared in the top ten on all ten lists – none of the QBs.  None of the QBs managed to be in the top 20 on every list.  Sam Darnold was the highest ranked QB, averaging 5.1 on nine lists; Josh Rosen averaged 5.9 on nine lists, Baker Mayfield averaged 10.9 on nine lists; Josh Allen averaged 8 on six lists, meaning he was outside the top 20 on four lists.

The highest ranked players are Saquon Barkley (RB) 2.2, Quenton Nelson (G) 3.4, Bradley Chubb (DE) 4.0, and Minkah Fitzpatrick (S) 4.6.  These players could all be game changers and have low bust potential.

I suspect the Browns will select a QB.  The shame of that is that they already have a good quarterback.  Tyrod Taylor will not be the weak link on the Browns.  The Browns have had decent QBs before, but never surrounded them with the best possible team because of their endless quest for a better quarterback.  End the quest.

The goal should be the best possible team, not the best possible quarterback.  I believe the Browns should draft two of the best four players and take a QB later, when the consequences of a bust are less dramatic.  But they won’t.  Even so, I think they will win more games than they won last year.  At worst, they won’t win fewer.

Good luck Browns fans.

[1] drafttek.com, jenkins at nfl.com, mayock at nfl.com, si.com, bleacherreport.com, usatoday.com, philly.com, bleedinggreennation.com, sbnation.com, and miller at bleacherreport.com

A Proposal to Consider while Watching the Super Bowl

Football is a great spectator sport, whether in person, at a bar, or sitting at home.  It’s also fun to bet on.  There is a relatively big game this weekend with many people expected to watch and wager.  We are having a small party at our house and will have the requisite supply of sheets for people to bet on Super Bowl Props (propositions).  I keep it pretty simple – first touchdown, first commercial after half-time, etc.

Random trivia:  Since the 1950s, one job classification tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics has been rendered obsolete by technology.  What is it?

As great as football is, it could be better.  For one thing, there could be fewer concussions, which the guardians of the game appear to be working on.  But it is a violent game and injuries are inevitable.

My radical proposal is not designed to address that issue, though it would have a bit of an impact.  My proposal is to eliminate kicking.  Entirely.  No more kicks.  Now the details of my 14-word (15 depending on how your treat hyphens), 4-point plan.

  1. Punting is ok. We can’t require a team to go for it on fourth and 20 from its own ten-yard line.  It wouldn’t be fair.  So for the sake of sticking with my “no more kicks” theme, I declare that a punt is a punt, not a kick.
  2. No more kickoffs. This will have a modest impact on concussions.  Kick returns are among the plays that are most likely to result in injury because the players are going in opposite directions at full speed and some of the collisions are vicious.  Even now, many kickoffs aren’t returned.  At a minimum, 35% of kicks were not returned in 2017 because that is the lowest touchback percentage for a team.  At the other extreme, 85% of Carolina’s kickoffs were not returned.

The 1000 or so kicks that were returned yielded only seven touchdowns.  I’m suggesting that we wouldn’t miss much if we got rid of kickoffs.  Just give the appropriate team the ball at the 25-yard line to start each half and after each score.

The one exception would be onside kicks late in a game, when the team behind needs to get the ball back.  In those situations, teams recover approximately 20% of the time.  Surprise onside kicks are recovered over 50% of the time, but there aren’t very many surprises.  http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2009/09/onside-kicks.html

The NFL has already legislated away one surprise tactic – going for two.  Extra-points used to be initiated from the two yard line, meaning that teams occasionally attempted a surprise play to garner two points.  Now extra-points are initiated from the 15-yard line.  Nobody attempts to score two points from there.  The lack of surprise onside kicks would have about as much impact on a season (and my enjoyment) as the lack of surprise two-point attempts.

  1. No more extra-point kicks. Repeat after me:  this is the most boring play in sports.  In 2010, NFL kickers made 1203 out of 1214 extra-point kicks, that’s 99.1%.  After a rule change, extra-point kicks are now from 13 yards farther back.  In 2017, NFL kickers made 1066 out of 1134 extra-point kicks, 94%.  Slightly more suspenseful, but still boring.  What a collective waste of time for the players, the fans at the field, and the fans at home.

Here’s one way to handle it moving forward.  Consider all touchdowns to be worth seven points.  If a team chooses to “go for two,” they can.  If they make it, the touchdown would be worth eight points; if they miss it, the touchdown would be worth six points.  That would truly be taking points off the board.  I estimate there would be as much furor over eliminating the extra-point kick as there was when Major League Baseball started allowing automatic intentional walks.[1]

  1. No more field goals. This would definitively change the game (in my opinion) for the better.  First, let’s restate the obvious:  kicks are boring, whether they are for extra points or for field goals.  The snap is almost always good, the hold is almost always good, the kick is almost always good.  Modern NFL kickers are absurdly good.[2]  That makes them extra boring.

Field Goals in 2017

Yards Attempted Made Percent
0-19         9         9 100%
20-29     243     238 97.9%
30-39     301     258 85.7%
40-49     320     254 79.7%
50-59     154     107 69.7%

Even beyond 50 yards, NFL kickers are 70% accurate.  That causes a problem:  coaches are relying too much on their kickers for points.  With kickers this good, a scoring drive might only require one or two first downs.  It’s too easy.  Coaches are too prone to take the points instead of going for the first down.

If this “plan” is ever implemented, touchdown scoring will go way up as coaches forcibly become more creative.  Instead of handing off to the fullback on third and 12 from the 35-yard line (and settling for a 40-something yard field goal), the coach will have to try to gain 12 yards on two plays.  That seems much more interesting to me than kicking another dull-as-dishwater field goal.

There are no more elevator operators.  Did anybody guess that?

I haven’t even mentioned the side benefits:  freeing up a roster slot and a bit of money for a non-kicker, freeing practice time for real football plays and players, and avoiding all the photos of kickers celebrating game-winning field goals or depressed about misses.  The list likely goes on and on.  And what’s the downside of eliminating kicks?  Well, there would be an unseemly rise in the unemployment rate for kickers.

[1] The only people I can imagine complaining are kickers and their immediate families.  Because they are not a protected group, I am not concerned about legal complications.

[2] Has a job ever been eliminated because the people performing it were especially good?

Basketball Suggestions

The NHL and college basketball seasons started (relatively) recently with all the fanfare of a 34th birthday.[1]  Serious fans likely noticed, but really how excited were you.  It’s not like the start of college football, which is hyped for months until its orgiastic crescendo in late August.

I don’t have much to say about the NHL.  “Thankfully,” you all silently mouth.  I love attending games live – the speed and excitement are unrivaled in sports.  But following the puck on TV is difficult for most non-fans since the demise of the FoxTrax.  HD helps, but the sport’s TV ratings do not match the other major sports in this country.

I have plenty to say about basketball.  First – there is still too much traveling.  (See 4/1/17 post https://www.notesfromnokomis.com/?p=652 .)  Second – basketball is the sport that is the most enjoyable to play.  Anybody can grab a ball, find a nearby hoop and start shooting.  Find a friend and you can play H-O-R-S-E.[2]  Find a few friends and you can play three-on-three.  Collect a couple of passers-by and a full court game is in the offing.  No other sport has that kind of flexibility and all of the variants are fun.[3]

Third – bsaketball is not perfect.  So in the spirit of giving, I proffer three rule changes for your consideration as you watch the NBA on Christmas Day.  Be honest, you will watch at least some of one of the five games scheduled.

Kicking the ball is already against the rules, but there is no penalty.  The most common use of the kick is to deter a bounce pass to a back-door cutter.  That is my favorite play in basketball.  We should encourage it, not allow flagrant rule-breaking to stymie it without punishment.

Therefore I suggest that a kicked ball (a true kick) should be considered a technical foul (though not a personal foul) and the other team should be awarded a foul shot and (of course) keep the ball.  Implementing this rule would cause players to stop kicking the ball.  I can think of no negative unintended consequences.

The second rule change would involve calling technical fouls for flopping.  If a player wants to take a change, he should stand in there and take the charge.  He should not attempt to deceive the refs by acting like he was run over by a bull charging a red flag.[4]  Similarly, players (especially point guards) who react to incidental contact with a violent head flop (as if they have been rear-ended at high speed) should be charged with a technical foul.  The flopping is unsportsmanlike and should be penalized.  The refs have a hard enough job without worrying about whether players are intentionally deceiving them.  After a few technical foul calls, I suspect the deceptions would diminish and the game would improve.

Finally, (for now, there will undoubtedly be future posts about basketball) we need a way to minimize the influence of three-point shooting.  Too many players launch long shots with alacrity and impunity because of the 50% bonus that is granted.  The original bonus was intended to loosen interior defense because the game had become something of a slugfest.

In the 1979 NBA season, the first with a three-point line, teams shot an average of 227 threes.  That was 3% of all shots taken.  Last year, almost a third of all shots taken were three-pointers.  It’s an epidemic, not without good reason.  A made 3-point shot is worth 50% more than a made layup.  The following chart shows team averages in the NBA. (3PA = three point attempt, 2PA = other shot attempts, FGA = all shots attempted)

3PA % of shots 2PA Total FGA
taken
1979-80 227 3.05% 7205 7433
1991-92 626 8.74% 6537 7163
2003-04 1224 18.70% 5321 6545
2015-16 2214 31.61% 4790 7004

 

Larry Bird was one of the greatest shooters in the history of the NBA.  His first year coincided with the first year of the three-point line.  He twice led the NBA in three-pointers made.  His season high was 98 made three-point shots.  Last year, 91 players made more than 98 three-point shots, including centers DeMarcus Cousins (131), Marc Gasol (104), and Karl-Anthony Towns (101).  An unintended consequence of the three-point rule is that centers now move away from the basket to take three-pointers.  Nobody would have predicted that in 1979.

Even though three-point shooting is better than ever in percentage terms, overall shooting is not–because so many shots are long, lower percentage shots.

 

3P% 2P% FG%
1979-80 0.280 0.488 0.481
1991-92 0.331 0.486 0.472
 
2003-04 0.347 0.460 0.439
2015-16 0.358 0.503 0.457

 

Basketball is not better when more players are taking more shots from farther from the rim.  Basketball is better when players pass and help each other get open (preferably easy) shots.  I can’t argue that players should take fewer three-point shots – because the 50% bonus is so advantageous.  But I will argue that we should do something to restore the balance between good shots and rules-advantaged long shots.

I suggest awarding three points for layups.  “Preposterous,” you scream.  Perhaps so, but hear me out.  I would only grant three points if the player who shot the layup caught it (meaning someone passed it to him) with at least one foot in the restricted area[5] and that he shot without dribbling.

We already reward many long bad shots with an extra point if the shot is made.  Why not reward a shot that can only be achieved through teamwork?  It wouldn’t be that hard to enforce, no harder than the three-point shot.  The key feature is the same:  the placement of the feet when the shot is taken.

This rule change would encourage teams to pass and set up good shots, instead of just open long ones.  Watching a team chuck up a bunch of long shots is not as interesting as watching a team strive to get easy short shots.

Whether you agree or disagree (and I expect more of the latter), have a Merry Christmas and enjoy the games.

[1] I was traveling and distracted, but my favorite college basketball team had played two games before I realized the season had started.

[2] If you need “horse” explained, this post probably isn’t for you.

[3] “Horse” is a game, not a sport.  For further explanation see 2/2/17 post https://www.notesfromnokomis.com/?p=630 .

[4] The redness of the flag is irrelevant.  Bulls are color blind.  The bulls charge the flag because it is moving.

[5] This area is already marked on the floor to prevent players from drawing charges while standing, essentially, under the basket.  The arc extends 1.25 meters from the basket, that’s 4.1 feet.