First Tee Mulligan

The Sidelines: April 9

2012-04-09T20:01:00.000-04:00

Gigantic Monsters Destroy Lexington, Kentucky

2012-04-03T14:31:00.002-04:00

The Sidelines: February 6

2012-02-06T14:45:00.002-05:00

Introducing the Bob Smizik Hall of Fame Barometer

2012-01-04T17:29:00.004-05:00

Disclaimer.

Yesterday, in my first part of the 2012 Hall of Fame voting trilogy, I alluded to what I thought was the strangest Hall of Fame ballot that I could find. Well, I believe Bob Smizik has it (although Jon Heyman's, from yesterday's post, was pretty out-there).

The link to his original column can be found here.

Take it away, Bob.

Sitting in front of me, literally, is my 2011 (MLB) Hall of Fame Ballot, which I will shortly begin to fill out.

Adding the word literally did nothing to your sentence, literally.

There are 27 names on the ballot and a voter can select as many as 10. I don’t believe I’ve ever voted for more than four, and even that many is rare. Other people, whose opinion I respect, often vote for 10.

That is correct. And although I personally am in favor of a large Hall, the other viewpoint is perfectly valid.

A couple of things about how I vote:

* Unlike many voters, I do not eliminate players tainted by or actually found guilty of using performance enhancing drugs. My stance on their eligibility is quite simple: If MLB does not want a player in the Hall of Fame, it should do what it did with Pete Rose and ban him from eligibility. It's my job to vote on enshrinement, not determine eligibility. When a player has worthy credentials, I vote based on his ability. Yes, Mark McGwire used PEDs. But maybe half or more of the pitchers throwing to him also did? There are players I suspect of using PEDs who couldn’t hit .250.

* I will not vote for a players because he’s better than someone in the Hall. I may think, for example, Jack Morris is better than Bert Blyleven, who was voted in last year. But I didn’t vote for Blyleven and I don’t think he belongs. I will not allow him to be a barometer.

These are two very, very good points, and I want to give him credit for that. That being said, Bert Blyleven absolutely belongs in the Hall of Fame.

Don't worry, the fun part starts soon.

The first thing I do is eliminate the players who are on the ballot as little more than a courtesy for a nice career, but who don't begin to approach Hall of Fame standards. These are players whose records I don’t even have to check to know they don’t belong.

Ok, yeah, seems fair enough. There are a bunch of guys who automatically qualify for the Hall of Fame that no one thinks should actually be there. You can weed out a significant number of people on the ballot this way.

So it’s goodbye to, in alphabetical order, Jeromy Burnitz, Vinny Castilla, Brian Jordan, Javy Lopez, Edgar Martinez, Bill Mueller, Terry Mulholland, Phil Nevin, Brad Radke, Tim Salmon, Ruben Sierra, Bernie Williams, Tony Womack and Eric Young.

*scrolls through* Let's see...yep, yep, yep, yep, yeOH MY GOD WHAT ARE YOU EVEN.

*composes self*

Okay, okay, calm down, it's just baseball...

Okay. Edgar Martinez is one of the best handful of hitters of his era. He led the league in OBP three times, was in the top six in the league 11 times, and ranks 22nd all-time for OBP. He was in the top ten in SLG in the league six times, despite playing in a pitcher-friendly park during his peak, and is 44th all-time in adjusted OPS+. He's 70th all-time in WAR for position players. To summarize: HE WAS REALLY FREAKING GOOD AT BASEBALL.

His inclusion was not "little more than courtesy for a nice career." This is a guy whose record you clearly need to check if you don't think he "doesn't begin to approach Hall of Fame standards.

Look, it's one thing if you don't think DHs belong in the Hall of Fame. It would be a ridiculous position to take, but AT LEAST THAT'S A REASON. Please explain why this man does not even deserve consideration.

[Some readers left comments asking for the same thing. Here is the complete collection of Smizik's replies to those comments.]

Highly regarded DH but with under 309 HRs, 1,261 RBIs. Not even close.

Take a look at the career numbers of E. Martinez. They will surprise you.

309 HRs, 1,261 RBI, 312 BA. Career wise, those numbers rank 120th for HRs, 121st for RBIs, 95th for BA. A good one-dimensional player, but not, in my estimation, Hall worthy.

Batting average, home runs, and RBIs. To put it bluntly: Those career stats are about as useful in determining how good a player was as career triples, the amount of times he was caught stealing, and his jersey number. But I guess his use of those stats shouldn't surprise me, given his conclusion.

[Back to original article now.]

The 27 names have been reduced to 13.

It should be 14, but I mean, whatever.

The next step isn’t much harder because many of these players have been on the ballot before. But they require some thought before elimination.

"Unlike Edgar Martinez, because, seriously, screw that guy."

[Skipping ahead a bit]

Alan Trammell: A really outstanding shortstop for a number of years. Four Gold Gloves. Just a tad short.

"Had he won five Gold Gloves, he'd be in! But the voters decided on somebody else one year. Too bad for Trammell!"

Larry Walker: A five-tool guy, who oozed talent. But 383 HRs and 1,311 RBIs don’t cut it.

THERE ARE MORE THAN JUST THREE BASEBALL STATS.

There are seven names remaining. Now it becomes difficult.

Compared to giving the first 20 names a basic thought and/or looking up his career numbers in batting average, home runs, and RBI? I guess it would get more difficult after that.

Jeff Bagwell (42 percent of the vote last year): There’s a natural bias, which can go both ways, against/for familiar players, and Bagwell is that. He was a dominant presence in the Houston Astros lineup for many seasons. That memory says yes. His 449 home runs and 1,529 RBIs fall a shade behind Willie Stargell. Yes to Bagwell.

Bob Smizik Hall of Fame Barometer categories: dominance in Astros lineup, proximity to Willie Stargell.

Juan Gonzalez (5 percent): He hit 434 home runs, drove in 1,404 runs and had an OPS of 1.004. That’s good. It’s not great. No to Gonzalez.

Smizik just blew my mind by using a FOURTH BASEBALL STAT. Unfortunately, it's also one without much value. And I have to say this before we get any further: career numbers are useless. Any baseball player would get to 500 home runs or [however many Smizik wants] RBI eventually. Why reward only the ones who actually did?

In other words, counting stats for a career = doodoo.

Barry Larkin (62 percent): My Cincinnati friends swear by him. An outstanding offensive shortstop with three Gold Gloves. No to Larkin.

"Why did I say no to Larkin? Well, he does have a very impressive Hall of Fame resume, BUT- and this is a big "but"- my Cincinnati friends have ****ing AWFUL taste. Like, one time I really wanted to go see Sherlock Holmes 2, because we all liked the first one and I thought we would enjoy this one too, but NOOO, they wanted to see J. Edgar! And they kept saying "it'll be a great historical film with lots of interesting information," so I was like "okay, fine, let's go to J. Edgar." And guess what! It sucked! Nothing freaking happened for two and a half hours! You just can't trust those guys. Anyway, that's why I didn't vote for Barry Larkin."

Fred McGriff (20 percent): The statistical case can easily be made for McGriff: 493 home runs, 1,550 RBIs.

THERE ARE MORE THAN FOUR BASEBALL STATS.

But his OPS is under .900. No to McGriff.

THAT'S your reason for keeping him out of the Hall of Fame? That one stat? Well, I guess since you only know four, that's somewhat excusable...

Mark McGwire (20 percent): A no-brainer by my standards. Second best single-season home run number, 10th best career. He is first in home runs per at bat (10.65), well ahead of Babe Ruth (11.76). Yes to McGwire.

Okay, good, we agree on something. For vastly different reasons, sure, but at least it's agreement.

Rafael Palmiero (11 percent): Over 500 home runs and 3,000 hits. Nothing more need be said. Yes to Palmiero.

YES THERE IS MORE TO BE SAID CAREER NUMBERS FOR COUNTING STATS ESPECIALLY IN THINGS AS MEANINGLESS AS HOME RUNS OR AS TEAM-BASED AS RBI ARE VIRTUALLY USELESS IN DETERMINING A PLAYER'S VALUE

*starts breathing heavy*

...that felt kind of good.

Tim Raines (38 percent): He’s getting a lot of support as a Rickey Henderson clone. But, sorry, Tim, you’re no Rickey -- not in stolen bases, not in power, not in on-base percentage.

Bob Smizik Hall of Fame Barometer categories: dominance in Astros lineup, proximity to Willie Stargell, proximity to Rickey Henderson.

An outstanding leadoff hitter,

Only, like, the second-best ever. Not a big deal or anything.

but not a Hall of Famer. No to Raines.

"This Raines fellow wasn't as good as the best leadoff hitter ever and one of the twenty best position players in baseball history? KEEP HIM OUT FOREVER."

This man actually has a Hall of Fame vote.

-Tucker Warner

What do you think? Comment on this post or send any and all questions, comments, or insults to FirstTeeMulligan@yahoo.com. Tucker Warner likes poetry and a nice pair of slacks. You can find him on Twitter at @twarner50.

Hey-man, that's one awful ballot you got there.

2012-01-03T14:10:00.002-05:00

See what I did with that title? Pretty clever, yeah? Yeahhh!

Oh yes, and: Disclaimer. (Note: disclaimer states that no personal disrespect is meant by posts such as this and that the author of the original column, or anyone else, has the right to do a similar post with my writing.)

Anyway, the Baseball Hall of Fame voting is something that gets me riled up every year. I'm one of those people that thinks a player's induction into the Hall of Fame means a lot, probably more so than many other baseball fans, and so, even though I do not have a vote (yet. I'm working on it.), I take my Hall of Fame evaluations pretty seriously. I tend to be a little frustrated when a great baseball player is snubbed, for whatever reason, and a far less deserving player gets a place in the Hall over the first man.

At the very least, I think writers should at least give their votes a lot of thought before sending in their ballots. Jon Heyman might have given his a lot of thought- it certainly seems like he at least thought about it a lot, but what a strange thought it was. (And he's not even the worst. More to come on that front later.) It should be noted that Jon Heyman is a top-notch sports reporter and is one of the best at breaking news from around the league. Unfortunately, I am not similarly enamored with his analysis or columns.

Here's the link to his column explaining his choices:

After spending some time talking about the steroid ramifications on the Hall of Fame vote, wherein he says nothing particularly egregious, but also nothing you haven't heard before, he gets to his ballot. Take it away, Jon.

The biggest thing I look for is impact.

Roger Clemens once dented a guy's batting helmet with a fastball. First-ballot!

That means impact on the game, and on the games.

"The game, singular, which means baseball, as a whole, and the games, of baseball, in which the player of baseball played baseball."

While I do look closely at the numbers, and I certainly consider them all

Except for the numbers that are actually useful.

some numbers seem more meaningful than others.

That's true, but probably not in the way that you realize.

In any case, it's not the Hall of Numbers, the Hall of Stats or the Hall of Sabremetrics. The game is played by people, and the judges are people too, not computers. Until that changes, I'll consider somewhat murkier criteria than only the hard stats.

Great point, Jon! It's almost as if these people think that these "statistics," or "records of what players did in the game, and games, of baseball" were created by computers! But we both know that these "records of what baseball players did on the baseball field" were actually done by humans!

Without further ado, here's this year's scorecard.

The Worthy

1. Jack Morris:

GAH.

Sadly, it looks like that unsightly 3.90 ERA is going to continue to haunt him.

"Sadly, it looks like his bad result in a formula that measures how good a pitcher is at pitching is going to make him look bad."

This guy is one who's much better if you were around to witness it. The back of his baseball card just doesn't do him any justice.

This is a very weak argument to use because everyone who was not around to witness Morris's career can neither confirm nor deny this. I will say, though, that I've only heard this argument about guys who both:
1. Were well-liked, and
2. Were on the outside looking in of the Hall of Fame. I never hear it in the context of "Willie Mays [for example] sure had great stats, and he was even better if you were around to witness his career! Those stats don't do him justice!" It just happens with guys like Morris, who are close to getting into the Hall of Fame. (Curiously, this argument also showed up with guys like Andre Dawson and [in particular] Jim Rice, who both made the Hall of Fame despite having, well, shaky statistical resmues.)

Morris had great games,

So did Bobo Holloman. (That's a guy who's worth looking up, by the way.)

great seasons (seven times he received Cy Young votes)

Never had an ERA+ above 133, never had an ERA below 3.05 despite playing in a pitcher-friendly era, was only in the top 5 in the league for ERA twice, was only in the top five in the league for Pitcher WAR once.

and a great decade.

I suppose it's convenient to point out that his physical peak came during the middle years of the 1980s (bookmarked by a few below-average seasons during that time). It also doesn't speak well to his credit that he wasn't that good even during the years he was good. I'll give you that he was pretty productive in 1983 and from '85 to '87, though.

He was the ace of three different World Series-winning teams and he started 14 Opening Days. Some will argue that's a meaningless statistic,

I love it when the writer makes my point ahead of time.

and while it certainly does depend on circumstance,

And I DOUBLE-LOVE it when they understand why I would make that point! Thanks, Jon Heyman.

the only others who've started as many are Tom Seaver, Steve Carlton, Randy Johnson, Walter Johnson and Cy Young, a quintet of all-time greats.

That's pretty cool. Hey, did you know that in Jack Morris's best season, 1979, he had a lower WAR than some guy named Sid Monge? That's pretty cool, too!

2. Barry Larkin

Well, okay, at least we agree there.

He's a 12-time All-Star. That's twelve times.

That's XII times. That's doce times. That's 10+2 times. That's a dozen times.

Some might say that's a matter of circumstance too.

Because it is.

I'm not sure that Heyman understands that people receive awards because they were good, not the other way around. Explain why they were good- don't point to circumstantial evidence that others thought they were good.

[Skip ahead. More of the same for Larkin, and Tim Raines. Still on the section of who he voted for.]

4. Don Mattingly:

Ugh.

Some will argue this is geographic bias.

UGH.

But if anything, it's greatness bias.

AHHHHH.

I like players who were great for a little while a lot more than those who were merely very good forever.

AAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

*blacks out from frustration*

*wakes up two hours later*

He had a lower career WAR than some guy named Nap Rucker. WAR is far from the be-all, end-all to statistics or analysis, and preference of peak over longevity is a perfectly fine opinion, but...I mean...maybe the peak-over-longevity thing could be used for a player better than Don Mattingly? His entire career puts him tied for 423rd on the all-time WAR leaderboard.

That's Four-Hundred-Twenty-Third. Numero Cuatrocientos Veinte y Tres. Okay, I'll stop.

He didn't last forever because of a bad back I suspect was earned twisting his 185-pound body into a power hitter. Some of his total numbers aren't overwhelming, but they look a lot like those of Kirby Puckett, an obvious Hall of Famer.

Kirby Puckett was far from an obvious Hall of Famer, actually. Love the guy. But not an obvious Hall of Famer.

Was maybe the best player in the game for three straight years (he won the Sporting News Player of the Year 1984-86) and also was one of the two greatest fielding first basemen of all time.

I disagree with both parts.

First part: 1984-86 were the three best years of Mattingly's career, so already that's a bit of a cherry-pick, but whatever. Over that time, he finished no higher than 5th in the AL in WAR. Not a good start. He finished 10th in the AL in OBP in '84 and 5th in '86. Mattingly was in the top two in the AL in slugging each year from 1984 to '86, but did so in a hitter-friendly stadium. This was also a time when Cal Ripken, Rickey Henderson, Robin Yount, Tony Gwynn, Wade Boggs, and Ryne Sandberg were peaking. Mattingly's WAR over that time was 19.6. Henderson's was 19.8, Boggs's was 22.9. And those figures are from cherry-picked years designed to make Mattingly look better than everyone else.

Second part: Mattingly finished his career with a dWAR of 3.1, which is pretty good, but barely registers on the career leaderboard. In TZR (Total Zone Runs), he ranks tied for 17th among first basemen. In career RF/9 innings for first basemen, he is 51st. In RF/game for first basemen, he does not crack the top 100. One of the two best fielding first basemen of all time? I disagree.

It took me about 15 minutes to do that research. This isn't hard to do if you're a baseball writer.

5. Dale Murphy: He was great for a while (two straight MVPs), but is also known as one of the greatest guys to ever play the game.

Mike Schmidt was better than Murphy both years he won the MVP, but those were two strong years for Murphy. And he is one of the classiest men ever in uniform, but unfortunately for him, that's kind of irrelevant.

[Skipping ahead for the rest of the article. Only bits and pieces to come. Also, everyone else listed is who Heyman did not vote for.]

Fred McGriff: I feel a little guilty about this one. He's 26th in both home runs and RBI, a consistent and pure power hitter. He didn't quite make 500 home runs; he had 493. But that shouldn't be the barometer. He ranked among the top five in OPS for seven years. Not bad. But alas, it feels like something's missing.

STATS THAT ACTUALLY MATTER. THE MISSING PIECE IS STATS THAT ACTUALLY MATTER.

7. Jeff Bagwell: The percentages (.540 slugging, .408 on-base) are worthy, and that he won only one Gold Glove and one MVP may have been a matter of timing and the era. Also gets points for uniqueness; not many huge first basemen could run like him (202 stolen bases, 100 runs in eight seasons). Still thinking about it.

So...why did he not get your vote, then?

9. Juan Gonzalez: He may be the greatest player only to receive 5 percent of the vote in any year, as he did last year to barely stay on the ballot.

That honor actually belongs to Kevin Brown, who received even fewer votes last year.

Had a .561 career slugging percentage and was two-time MVP. Just can't quite do it.

But...WHY not?

11. Edgar Martinez: Maybe this is a little low as a reaction to the campaign on his behalf, but I don't think so. His percentages were great (.515 slugging and .418 on-base) and I'm not going to hold it against him that he was the fourth-best player on a team that never reached the World Series (I did vote for Ron Santo eventually). But he was a DH. And he only finished in the top 10 in MVP voting twice. (Some will say that's repeating an injustice, but I don't think so.) A great hitter, yes, but in my estimation he didn't leave a mark that was quite great enough.

But that doesn't explain WHY you didn't.....oh, forget it.

26. Mark McGwire: On accomplishment alone, he would be the top guy on my ballot. Just can't do it. The 70 home runs were a mirage.

BUT THAT'S NOT THE ONLY-

Oh, whatever.

-Tucker Warner

What do you think? Comment on this post or send any and all questions, comments, or insults to FirstTeeMulligan@yahoo.com. Tucker Warner likes poetry and a nice pair of slacks. You can find him on Twitter at @twarner50.

The Sidelines: December 12

2011-12-12T14:12:00.000-05:00

The Sidelines: December 9

2011-12-09T14:00:00.001-05:00

Out Goes Francona, In Comes Sign of the Apocalypse

2011-10-06T16:16:00.001-04:00

Last Saturday, then Boston Red Sox manager Terry Francona officially announced he would be leaving the team after eight seasons and two World Series titles. Afterwards, Francona said, “I think its time for a new voice here.” New voice? Eh, perhaps. New standards? Oh yes.

As previously mentioned, Francona spent eight seasons with the Red Sox, compiling a .574 winning percentage along with his two, yes two World Series titles. The rationale behind firing a man that has won more championships over the last eight seasons than the Padres, Rangers, Rays, Rockies, Astros, Brewers, and Angels ever have in their combined franchise histories, does not seem logical. It pains me even more to realize that my beloved Mets (embarrassing, I know) have won that many championships in 49 years.

So, as I said earlier I don’t think the Red Sox need a new voice, but a new set of standards. What’s startling is thinking about whom the Sox will hire after making such an appalling move.

Here we go, the candidates. First person that comes to mind is Bobby Valentine. His job at ESPN’s Baseball Tonight is a mere pause in his career as a manager. Valentine lived to yell at umpires and wear fake moustaches in the dugout, two things he cannot do on the set of Baseball Tonight. After Valentine on the list of managerial candidates sits about 38 current bench coaches, pitching coaches, and other miscellaneous members on teams staffs that no one cares about.

Next, the great Bill Buckner, because no matter how poorly he will do as the manager of the Red Sox, fans could not possibly hate him more than they already do. Johnny Pesky is next on the list because the only thing older than him in Fenway Park is that big yellow pole that’s named after him in right field. All joking aside, its time to reveal our final two candidates.

How about Joe Torre? This man knows everything and more about the Yankees and signing with Boston would burn a permanent hole into every Yankee fans heart. He knows a thing or two about winning World Series titles, and he can put an entire rival team’s fan base into depression. Sounds like a win-win to me.

And the final candidate to replace Terry Francona as the manager of the Boston Red Sox is…well wasn’t it obvious? Terry Francona. Yes, I said it. Terry Francona and Theo Epstein will be the modern day Billy Martin and George Steinbrenner. There simply is no better managerial candidate for the Red Sox than Francona himself. Yeah he was the leader of a team that had one of the worst collapses in September baseball history (no one will ever do worse than the 2007 Mets, ever), but the man knows how to win with this squad. The last time I checked, winning is all that matters in baseball.

But then again, I’m a Mets fan, and we would pay absurd amounts of money for wins. Oh wait, we have no money. (Sigh).

Will Gerhard used to collect baseball cards but now he just collects money because he’s a self-made entrepreneur. You can follow him on Twitter @theewillg. Correction: following him on Twitter will be the best decision of your life. “And that’s a promise from your Uncle John.” –Stealing Harvard

I Thought This Trend Ended in 2009

2011-10-03T18:46:00.004-04:00

Disclaimer.

Wallace Matthews covers the Yankees. He is, for the most part, good at his job.

However, for whatever reason, he hates Alex Rodriguez.

His original article appears here: http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/7051848/2011-alds-new-york-yankees-alex-rodriguez-battling-playoff-demons-again ...but you can find a lot of it here.

Take it away, Wallace.
There are some people in this world whom the failure monkey will simply not leave alone.

For those unfortunate souls, the monkey may hop off for a while but it never strays very far. It sticks close by, follows them around, and stays ready to jump back aboard at a moment's notice.

Like Curious George?

A.J. Burnett, for one, is so accustomed to his eternal membership in the club that he went through the pain and trouble of having a hideously grinning chimpanzee tattooed on his back, in lurid colors. Little-known but true fact.

AJ Burnett has pitched in six postseason games in his career. Six. Three of them were very good games, giving up no more than two runs in any of them, and he was largely responsible for winning an important Game 2 in the 2009 World Series. But whatever.

Also, I could absolutely imagine AJ Burnett getting a tattoo of a monkey on his back.

Consider, also, Alex Rodriguez one of those people, although unlike Burnett, far less accepting of his fate.

Sigh.

Everyone knows A-Rod is one of the best baseball players in the world. Here's his career slash-line (AVG/OBP/SLG), regular season: .302/.386/.567.

I know batting average is kind of, um, bad, but that's pretty incredible, right? He's 20th all time in OPS, and 12th in slugging. Here's his slash-line for the playoffs: .280/.387/.510. Not as good, sure, but still awesome. (Small sample size notwithstanding- he's only played 65 playoff games to this point. Oh yeah, stats accurate as of Before Game 3 Of The ALDS.)

Here's his slash-line for the World Series. I know SSS applies, but if you're arguing that A-Rod sucks because of his playoff performance, SSS probably isn't your line of argument. Anyway, A-Rod in the World Series: .250 (meh, but it's batting average, so who cares)/.423 (!!!)/.550 (!!!!!).

So Mr. Unclutch Rodriguez actually does better in the World Series than in the regular season. (The SSS people are gonna kill me for that one.) For comparison, here's Mr. Clutch November Derek Jeter in the playoffs (149 games, so not as small of a sample size): .307/.374/.468. And in the World Series: .321/.384/.449.

Let's put those side-by-side. Rodriguez: .280/.387/.510. Jeter: .307/.374/.468. Rodriguez, World Series: .250/.423/.550. Jeter, World Series: .321/.384/.449.

Yep, Mr. Clutch Captain November Hustle TrueYankee Jeter has actually performed worse than Mr. Unclutch Selfish WeDon'tLikeYou Rodriguez in the playoffs. So stop it, Wallace and others.

By the way, both have been awesome at baseball for pretty much forever. Anyway, carry on.

After the 2009 postseason, in which he hit .365 as the Yankees swept through the Minnesota Twins, the Los Angeles Angels and the Philadelphia Phillies on their way to a 27th World Series championship, it seemed as though the pesky primate had been permanently banished from Planet Alex.

And shouldn't it have been? He had an awesome run in the 2009 playoffs, proving that he doesn't have the un-clutch gene which he shouldn't need to prove because it doesn't exist anyway and helped the Yankees win because he played great baseball in the 2009 playoffs and this sentence has become a run-on SEE WHAT YOU DO TO ME WALLACE?!

No longer would he have to wear the label of October Choker, nor hear himself referred to by snide nicknames such as "The Cooler,'' a cruel reference to the chilling effect he seemed to have on teams once he joined them.

I heard he had that nickname because he was a huge fan of Alec Baldwin's movies.

But now, less than two years later, the monkey is hitching a ride on his back again, and if A-Rod doesn't shake him over the next three games, he might be around for a long time.

This is the working plot for the sequel to Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Which will probably just be called Planet of the Apes.

If the Yankees wind up losing this ALDS to the Detroit Tigers -- a prospect that became a lot more realistic following Sunday's 5-3 loss to Max Scherzer, Miguel Cabrera & Co. -- there will be plenty of made-to-order culprits, from the manager on down.

Well, yeah, in every playoff series, there's guys who don't do too well. Putting the bulk of playoff failure on A-Rod would be unfair though.

But judging from the reaction of the 50,000-plus patrons in Yankee Stadium on Sunday, who saw Freddy Garcia allow a first-inning, two-run homer to Cabrera, who scratched their heads over Joe Girardi's decision to remove Brett Gardner from the game in the seventh inning and no doubt puzzled over his decision to go to Luis Ayala in a close game rather than the reliable tag team of So-Ro-Mo, there will be no more deserving whipping boy for a Yankee collapse than Alexander Emmanuel Rodriguez.

We Yankees fans are not always rational, especially in tense situations like an important playoff game. Because the crowd booed does not mean he deserves the booing.

A-Rod had four at-bats in Sunday's game. He made out in three of them.

Give him some credit, Wallace. He got to first base three times! I'm amazed Cameron Diaz didn't notice, though.

NOTE: I quoted this verbatim. The article actually says this. Seriously.

And after the last two, he was booed heading back to the dugout as if the game were not being played in Yankee Stadium, but Fenway Park.

Those Red Sox fans really hate when A-Rod pops out in the ninth inning of a close, important game!

It isn't fair and it isn't right.

Oh, ok, so now you're going against everything you just said.

*Matthews talks about salaries for a few paragraphs and it's kinda boring, so I'm gonna skip ahead. At one point, he continues his contradiction by saying that A-Rod doesn't deserve to be blamed. He does this after blaming A-Rod.*

there can be no argument that not only is Alex Rodriguez no longer a $30 million ballplayer, he isn't even really worthy of being a cleanup hitter.

Money is a touchy subject, so I won't touch that. As far as cleanup hitter, Rodriguez is 3rd on the Yankees in OBP and fourth in slugging. So, kinda true, but I'm not sure we think agree for the same reasons.

Clearly, Robinson Cano is the best and most feared hitter on this team, as evidenced by the way clubs now routinely pitch around him, and having Alex Rodriguez hit behind him has been less protection than exposure.

You spelled "MVP candidate Curtis Granderson" wrong.

This was never more obvious than in the second-to-last game of the regular season, when Tampa Bay manager Joe Maddon walked Cano to get to A-Rod in the third inning of a game he could not afford to lose.

Yeah, that was dumb. It didn't cost the Rays, but it was still dumb. Also, Cano went 0-for-3 that game with only the intentional walk. A-Rod drew 2 walks and scored a run.

Yeah, I'll cherry pick if I wanna. Also, Curtis Granderson.

*Skipping over some more passive-aggressive meandering between blaming A-Rod and saying he doesn't deserve blame.*

Once again, Alex Rodriguez is carrying a passenger on his back every time he goes to the plate.

And he's got three games, at most, to shake him off.

Or, um, the Yankees could you know, win the series. Which would give them more than three games. But whatever.

-Tucker Warner

What do you think? Comment on this post or send any and all questions, comments, or insults to FirstTeeMulligan@yahoo.com. Tucker Warner likes poetry and a nice pair of slacks. You can find him on Twitter at @twarner50.

Sigh.

2011-09-23T18:53:00.006-04:00

Disclaimer.

One could have easily predicted that the release of the Bennett Miller-Aaron Sorkin-Brad Pitt film "Moneyball" would have prompted baseball writers across the country to unleash their inner hyperbolic selves. As expected, there were many erm, not-particularly-well-informed articles written in response to the movie's release.

One particularly um, outstanding example comes from Jason Whitlock. Whitlock, once a nationally powerful voice for writing respected and insightful columns often on controversial issues, is now writing this article. The man is talented. He does not show that talent in this article. http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/sabermetrics-moneyball-stat-geeks-are-ruining-sports-092211

I won’t be going to see "Moneyball."

Not how I would recommend starting a movie review, but go on.

The movie celebrates the plague ruining sports:

The increasingly ultra-violent nature of sports? Cheating and the use of performance-enhancing drugs? Greed? Over-commercialization? Glorifying criminals as heroic athletes? An influx of athletes athletes dying far too young?

I don't remember any of those in the book. Maybe Aaron Sorkin took some liberties with the screenplay.

sabermetrics.

Th...what? All of the problems with sports today listed above somehow pale in comparison to statistical analysis? Interesting viewpoint.

That is not intended as a shot at Bill James, Billy Beane or Michael Lewis.

"I just hate everything they stand for."

James (the inventor of sabermetrics) and Beane (the most adept user of sabermetrics) are baseball visionaries worthy of glorification. Michael Lewis (the author of the book "Moneyball" that celebrated Beane’s use of sabermetrics) is one of the most important writers of this era.

Well, I wouldn't say Beane is the most adept user of sabermetrics, but I agree with your point here.

Wait. Hell, maybe it is a dis — an unintended one — of James, Beane and Lewis.

So uh, it IS a shot at them, then?

They unwittingly conspired to remove much of the magic and mystery from baseball.

And scientists? Screw them. They took all the magic and mystery out of how the world works. Physics? Chemistry? Please. I'd rather have mystery. Why do things fall toward the ground? I don't know! Wanna find out? Nope!

They reduced the game to a statistical bore. It’s no longer enough to be down with OBP (on-base percentage). To talk the game, you now must understand OPS (on-base percentage plus slugging), VORP (value over replacement player), BABIP (batting average on balls in play) and on and on.

Well, yeah- there are a lot of stats in baseball now. As an aside, though, if you can figure out OBP and Slugging Percentage, you should probably be able to come up with OPS (which is, as Whitlock pointed out, literally the two added together).

There’s a stat for nearly every action in baseball.

And there always has been. Every action in baseball can be recorded as a statistic. This is nothing new.

Little is left to the imagination.

I disagree. When I hear that Derek Jeter hit a single, I can imagine that he hit a bloop over the shortstop's head, or that he hit one of his patented inside-out knocks into right field, or that he hit a grounder into the gap, or that he hit a line shot all the way to the wall, stepped on a still-active land mine a few steps away from first base, and despite suffering a horrific injury, managed to crawl to first base for a single before the left fielder managed to get the ball to first. He's a winner, I tell ya!

This is another way of saying "what does that even mean?"

Sports were never intended to be a computer program,

This might have something to do with the fact that baseball was invented, like, a hundred years before the computer. I don't know, just a possibility.

stripped to cold, hard, indisputable, statistical facts.

Yeah, forget facts! You know what sports should be? MYTHS AND LEGENDS.

"Legends say that Dustin Pedroia hit a game winning double last night. Legends have it that the Phillies clinched the NL East two days ago."

What else are sports supposed to be?

Sports — particularly for fans — are not science. Sports, like art, are supposed to be interpreted.

Yes, sports are supposed to be interpreted. They are also usually aesthetically pleasing, or "nice to look at," if you prefer. And that is where the differences between sports and art end. Unlike art, sports have a clear, objective goal: to win the game. And in sports, unlike art, you win the game by scoring more than the other team. That score is quantified with a number. Sports also produces other numbers. All of these numbers can be manipulated to create new numbers. Art doesn't create numbers.

It’s difficult to interpret baseball these days.

It's a tough sport to interpret. I don't blame you, or anyone, for not being able to explain everything that happens in baseball. It's a funny sport.

The stat geeks won’t let you argue. They quote sabermetrics and end all discussion.

In baseball, as well as Every Other Thing To Discuss Ever, the more information you have, the stronger your argument is. If you aren't using stats or advanced stats (also known as sabermetrics), then you don't have much of an argument to go on. I'm gonna take a guess and say that the reason your arguments have ended so early is because you haven't been able to respond with stats- and in baseball, there isn't much else to respond with.

Is so-and-so a Hall of Famer? The sabermeticians will punch in the numbers and give you, in their mind, a definitive answer.

Not only is that a ridiculous generalization, but I don't think I've met anyone in the sabermetric community who pretends that there is a definitive answer.

It’s boring. It’s ruining sports.

Boring, maybe, that's your opinion. As for "ruining sports," I don't even know where to begin to explain how incorrect this is. If you think that stats (which can be completely ignored, although they probably shouldn't be, if you want to be well-informed) are ruining sports, you probably didn't like sports that much in the first place.

Sabermetrics or analytics are overrunning football, too. ESPN is pushing a new statistical way of analyzing NFL quarterbacks, Total Quarterback Rating.

Oh hey, we agree! The reason sabermetrics are a good fit for baseball is because the result of each at bat is primarily an individual struggle between the pitcher and the batter. In football, every play involves the entire team, so advanced statistics aren't necessarily the best gauge of a player's ability.

And ESPN's new QB rating formula is, um, hooey.

Last season, the basketball analytics crowd was convinced that LeBron James and Dwight Howard deserved the MVP over Derrick Rose. The fact that Howard’s whiny, immature crybaby-ass was even in the discussion tells you all you need to know about analyzing the game solely on statistics. The Orlando Magic were a joke last season in part because of the immature environment fostered by Howard.

Advanced statistics in basketball are slightly better than those in football. To simplify, most advanced basketball stats start off analyzing the team, or the 5 players on the court, then separating the individual players.

But that's beside the point. Why does Jason Whitlock hate Dwight Howard?

As for James vs. Rose? Well, James devoured Rose in the Eastern Conference Finals. Rose’s defenders — most notably ESPN’s Ric Bucher — argued that Rose’s inferior supporting cast is what allowed the Heat and James to get the best of Rose and the Bulls. And by the time James disappeared in the NBA Finals, it was easy to see the merit of Bucher’s point.

So, the NBA MVP should've been Dirk Nowitzki, then?

It doesn’t really matter who deserved the NBA’s MVP award.

You just wasted two paragraphs.

What matters is that there was a fun, yearlong debate.

As there has been in baseball. With less than 7 games to go, the AL MVP, NL MVP, and NL Cy Young are all up for grabs. The AL MVP is mostly a three-man race between Jose Bautista (who had the award locked up in June before having a slower, but still great, second half), Justin Verlander, and Jacoby Ellsbury, with two or three dark horses who could steal some votes. The NL Cy Young is between four pitchers. The NL MVP could be won by pretty much any player in the National League, including Raul Ibanez.

Ok, maybe not Raul Ibanez.

But my point is, it's the end of the season and, apart from the AL Cy Young, we don't know who will win any of the major awards. Players have entered the race and dropped out over the course of the year, which is what I'm assuming you want. But even if that didn't happen, why does it matter? If a player is clearly the best for the entire year, why should there be a debate? The MVP award exists to reward the best player in the league, not to inspire debate amongst fans.

As much as we enjoy watching the competition on the field or court, we take equal pleasure in interpreting and debating what we just saw.

Again, I agree! The problem, though, is that it seems you're implying that those in the SABR-community don't enjoy these things the way non-SABR fans do, and you'd be wrong. We just analyze the game a different way.

Sabermetrics/analytics undermines the debate. They try to interject absolutes.

Yes and no. Sabermetrics try to provide an individual, objective analysis of certain players and teams. Really, they just try to provide a better alternative to traditional statistics. If you consider this trying to interject absolutes, ok, but that's not the goal, or the second goal. Or the third goal.

No one will ever convince me that John Elway isn’t the greatest quarterback/football player in NFL history. I know what I saw. I don’t care that Joe Montana won more Super Bowls. I don’t care that Dan Marino threw for more yards. I don’t care that Peyton Manning’s completion percentage is eight points higher.

"What I care about is Elway's .........
.........
..........
!!!"

I can and have argued credibly and passionately that Elway is the best QB and player in the history of the league. You are free to disagree. I invite you to disagree.

Ok, that's good, because we both agree that there are no absolutes in sports and that everything is open to interpretation and debate.

I’d love to refute your erroneous position.

YOU JUST SET BACK YOUR OWN ARGUMENT.

Just bring more than stats to the table. The games are about more than stats.

That's true, but I really don't see what else we're supposed to bring to the table. Or even what else we CAN bring to the table.

That’s what bothers me about this whole era of sports. In my lifetime, there have been two innovations that have significantly influenced sports fans: 1. fantasy leagues; 2. sabermetrics/analytics.

3. Cable packages like Sunday Ticket and NBA League Pass.
4. HDTV.
5. ESPN3 and live internet streaming of games.
6. The internet in general.
7. VIP/luxury boxes
8. Twitter

I could argue that 3-8 have had much more of an influence on sports fans than sabermetrics, especially since SABR principles are still just a fringe science of sorts among the majority of baseball fans. For proof of this, look at the results of any baseball poll on ESPN.com. Or just trust me on that one.

Again, the stat geeks are winning. Our perception of athletes and their value are primarily being dictated by statistics. Peyton Manning is the king of fantasy football; therefore, he is the king of real football. LeBron James is the king of fantasy basketball; therefore, he is the king of real basketball.

Your argument would be a lot stronger if you didn't cite two athletes who are probably the best at their given sports.

Is it a coincidence that James and Manning have both struggled in postseason play?

Yes.

I don’t know the answer.

It's yes.

But I want to discuss and debate it.

I think it's yes. What do you think?

And I don’t want to do it with people who simply want to quote stats.

"I want to do it with people who quote..........other things! Such as...........!"

The answers and the questions that make sports special, unique, our collective national pastime, can’t be found on a stat sheet.

Now I'm interested in where they CAN be found. The gut? The heart? Jung's Collective Unconscious? Kansas City?

They’re in our imaginations and our individual interpretation of what we witness.

Right now I'm imagining David Eckstein dunking on Wilt Chamberlain. Eckstein MUST be better at basketball!

When the "Moneyball" movie hysteria subsides, I hope the sabermeticians STFU.

Likewise.

-Tucker Warner

What do you think? Comment on this post or send any and all questions, comments, or insults to FirstTeeMulligan@yahoo.com. Tucker Warner likes poetry and a nice pair of slacks. You can find him on Twitter at @twarner50.

Fans Have Their Say In Denver QB Battle

2011-09-15T15:02:00.003-04:00

The quarterback battle in Denver between Kyle Orton and Tim Tebow apparently did not end in training camp, when Broncos head coach John Fox announced that Orton would be the team's starter. Chants of "Tebow! Tebow!" boomed throughout [Corporate Sponsor] Field at Mile High on Monday night at the end of the Broncos' 23-20 loss to the Oakland Raiders, a game in which Kyle Orton threw for 304 yards on 24-of-46 passing, with a touchdown and an interception.

Ensuring that this battle will go down in history as the "NO MORE NO MORE MAKE IT STOP" Brett Favre Memorial Storyline of the 2011 NFL season, Broncos fans are planning to take things into their own hands by putting up a series of pro-Tebow, anti-Orton billboards around Denver.

What will this do? Probably nothing besides giving the sports world another non-troversy to non-debate until a more important story pops up. (Note: Tedy Bruschi ripping Chad Johnson for no apparent reason is not a more important story.)

The, uh, controversy is the lack of vocal support for Kyle Orton. While many think he should start, the more vocal proponents of the pro-Orton camp tend to be louder when criticizing Tebow. While a quarterback battle is far from the most disruptive distraction to ever shake an NFL locker room- in fact, teams have made the Super Bowl without having a sure-thing starting quarterback- but the lack of support from the fans certainly can't help his confidence.

But despite that, I actually support the fans if they want to put up the billboards.

For too long, professional teams have forced cities to do whatever the owner wants. New stadium is financed by tax money, and the residents don't get to vote on whether they pay for it? Sure! No matter that new stadiums usually end up costing the city more money than they earn back. A team is bought by new owners, who immediately move the team halfway across the country without warning, single-handedly killing one of the city's biggest industries and perhaps thousands of jobs? Absolutely! (I'm sorry, Seattle.)

All this continued until the residents of Nassau County voted to not allow Charles Wang, owner of the New York Islanders to build a new arena. They simply didn't want to pay the additional taxes necessary to build a new stadium (and I can't blame them. Those stadiums aren't cheap). Unlike less fortunate cities, however, Long Island was able to tell the owner to shove it.

That was in August of 2011, and it was the first time in recent memory that the fans stood up to management. The Tebow billboard plan is the second.

I realize that sports teams are not running a democracy- each team is a business. But like other businesses, the consumers should be heard by the company. And whether those consumers are saying "We don't want you to force us to give you money that we'll never get back," or "Unless changes are made, more and more of us will stop going to your games," the owners need to be able to hear the fans. Even if it's just simple feedback such as "We like Tebow better than Orton." (From what I gather, one of the billboards would read "If we're going to suck, we'd rather suck with Tebow." Which, I guess, makes sense.)

Now back to relevance. The other question is: Should the Broncos start Tebow over Orton? I say no.

Not yet anyway. Tebow showed in his three starts last year that he was capable of becoming a capable quarterback in the future. However, right now he is simply adequate. If baseball's VORP metric applied to football, Tebow would be the RP. In three starts in 2010, Tebow completed exactly half of his passes, throwing 5 touchdowns and 3 interceptions. He showed that his prowess running the ball in college would translate to the NFL, rushing for 6 touchdowns and averaging 5.3 yards per carry.

Only completing half of all passing attempts isn't going to get it done in the NFL, though. Tebow is a notoriously hard worker and will presumably be able to improve his passing ability in practice and the occasional snap he will see during games. He's just not the best option right now.

And maybe he won't be good in the future. Maybe he'll be great in the future. But one thing is for sure.

This storyline is going to annoy the crap out of us for the rest of the year.

-Tucker Warner

What do you think? Comment on this post or send any and all questions, comments, or insults to FirstTeeMulligan@yahoo.com. Tucker Warner likes poetry and a nice pair of slacks. You can find him on Twitter at @twarner50.

FJM

2011-04-20T11:22:00.000-04:00

You can contact Tucker Warner by email at firstteemulligan@yahoo.com or on Twitter at http://twitter.com/twarner50

Disclaimer: I am not attacking Rick Reilly himself, just his article. I have a lot of respect for Reilly, and for all other writers that I may or may not critique in posts like these. Feel free to pick apart anything I have written also. But that's enough of that.

I am aware that prediction pieces are usually floaty in nature and quite often meaningless, but this goes above any beyond the usual standard of mediocrity found in the majority of prediction pieces. (Not to say they are all- many writers write prediction pieces with insightful points)

In this column, Rick Reilly makes a prediction about each playoff series, then makes a poor attempt at a joke for each series, calling it a "dream." It's as bad as it sounds.

Reilly's text is in bold.

NBA Playoffs: Predictions and Dreams
originally published April 15, 2011

These are happy days.

This is the first and last time we will agree.

For one thing, I get to type the phrase "Barry Bonds, convicted felon" the rest of my life.

"It's topical! It's edgy!"

For two, I'm quite sure I'll never need to spell the name Charl Schwartzel again.

Because he didn't win the 2011 Masters in historic fashion, didn't finish in the top 20 in each of the majors in 2010, and isn't currently ranked 11th in the world.

No, wait, he did all of those things.

For three, I can chart exactly how the NBA playoffs are going to go down. I'm about to make your bookie drink Natty Lights until Christmas. You're welcome.

This is a terrible lead-in, but continue.

FIRST ROUND

New Orleans Hornets vs. Los Angeles Lakers -- Forget it. Without David West, even Chris Paul on a "Limitless" pill can't win two games in this series. Lakers in 5, and Paul calls Student Movers the next day.

"Current movie reference! It's topical!"

Did I dream that? In a gesture of reconciliation toward national gay and lesbian rights groups, Kobe wears Nike Rainbow Dunks.

What? Just...huh?

The Thunder, everybody's cool new kid in class, is about to get a wedgie in front of the whole playground.

Extending the metaphor, the Nuggets are the playground bully, the Lakers are the girl everyone has a crush on, the Spurs are the moldy old lunch lady, the Grizzlies are the kid who always gets in trouble, and the Mavericks are the kid who sits by himself in the corner and never talks to anyone.

Since the Nuggets traded Melo on Feb. 21, they've been the third-winningest team in the league (.720).

Fair enough. Let's keep count of the number of actual good points Reilly makes in this column! So far: 1.

They have double-kick-start Tar Heel point guards

The Thunder, whose point guards attended UCLA and VCU, can only single-kick-start.

who can drive, score or feed to six other scorers.

Fact: All players on the Thunder are incapable of scoring. If Serge Ibaka or Thabo Sefolosha put the ball in the hoop, no points are added and there is a change of possession.

Who you gonna guard on the last shot?

Maybe they play their usual defense? Maybe the guy with the ball? Maybe whoever has been getting the majority of the touches and chances to that point in the game?

But I'll award Reilly a quarter of a point here. It would have been a half-point, but it doesn't seem like he knows any Nuggets players outside of their point guards, whom he does not name. 1.25.

Nuggets in 7, proving George Karl should've been Coach of the Year.

My favorite bad sportswriting technique- making a debatable point secondary to the rest of the column and never providing backup evidence for it, then neglecting to mention it for the rest of the article.

On a side note, Chris Paul should ABSOLUTELY win the MVP award.

Did I dream that? So many points are scored at Oklahoma City Arena in Game 2, everybody gets eight tacos.

I suppose tacos are nice.

Memphis Grizzlies vs. San Antonio Spurs -- Never pick a team with Zach Randolph on it. He has an extra punk chromosome.

Zach Randolph's team has never won a basketball game.

What's remarkable is that Memphis coach Lionel Hollins looked like a guy TRYING to lose so he could play the Spurs in the first round.

If this even means anything, which it doesn't, wouldn't it be more of a point in the Grizzlies' favor, not the other way around?

Hollins is like Phil Mickelson with two drivers. He thinks too much. Spurs in 6.

Gregg Popovich is like Rory McIlroy's putter: inanimate.

Did I dream that? Manu Ginobili flops so bad in Game 5 he gets a yellow card.

"See, it's funny because soccer players, who receieve yellow cards when they flop, flop a lot, and receive yellow cards because of it."

Portland Trail Blazers vs. Dallas Mavericks -- What do Oasis, Winona Ryder and the Mavericks have in common?

They're all comprised of people? Their names contain both vowels and consonants? Absolutely nothing?

They're massive underachievers.

Oh.

To quote Wikipedia, "[Oasis] have had eight UK number-one singles and eight UK number-one albums, and won fifteen NME Awards, nine Q Awards, four MTV Europe Music Awards and six BRIT Awards, including one in 2007 for outstanding contribution to music and one for the best album of the last 30 years as voted by the BBC Radio 2 listeners; they have been nominated for three Grammy Awards. As of 2009, the band have sold an estimated 70 million records worldwide.[1] Also the band was listed in the Guinness Book of World Records in 2010 for “Longest Top 10 UK Chart Run By A Group” after an unprecedented run of 22 successive Top 10 hits in the UK.[2] The band also holds the Guinness World Record for being the "Most Successful Act of the Last Decade" in the UK between the years 1995 and 2005, spending 765 weeks in the Top 75 singles and albums charts.[3][4]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oasis_(band)

So they might not be massive underachievers. Winona, ok, I'll grant you that one (although you might have wanted to save that joke for a year when she wasn't nominated for two SAG Awards.) It has nothing to do with basketball, of course, so you do not receive a point.

The Mavericks, on the other hand, do not necessarily fall under the title of "massive underachievers." Preceding the current season, the Mavericks have made the playoffs ten consecutive years. They have lost in the first round 4 times. They have lost in the second round four times. They have lost in the conference finals once. And they have lost in the NBA Finals once. So not terrible, not exactly what you would call a great team, but not too shabby. Let's look into their playoff performances a little deeper, though, and give each year a ranking based on how they did compared to how they would be expected to perform based on seeding, in a system where the better seed always wins.

Since over-achieving and under-achieving is different for each team because of a talent disparity between the two, I will assume that "talent level" is correlated with seeding, and use the seeding as basis for whether the Mavericks over-achieved or under-achieved, as Reilly argues, in the playoffs.

(If someone wants to do a little research and find the exact expected performance numbers, by seed, for the NBA Playoffs, it would be greatly appreciated. For now I'm just going to use the dummy version of that table.)

In 2001, they were the 5 seed and beat the Jazz in the first round. That's pretty good; they did better than expected.

In 2002, they were the 4 seed and beat the Timberwolves in the first round. They performed at exactly the expected level.

In 2003, they were the 3 seed and went to the conference finals, beating the Blazers and the Kings. Better than expected.

In 2004, they were the 5 seed and lost in the first round to the Kings. Not a good result, but based on seeding, this wasn't an unexpected result.

In 2005, they were the 4 seed and beat the Rockets in the first round. Expected result.

In 2006, they were the 4 seed and went to the NBA Finals. This is the definition of over-achieving.

In 2007, they were the 1 seed and lost in the first round to the Warriors. This was really bad. It about cancels out the NBA Finals appearance from the previous year.

In 2008, they were the 7 seed and lost in the first round to the Hornets. This is pretty much exactly what would be expected.

In 2009, they were the 6 seed and beat the Spurs in the first round. Above expectation level.

In 2010, they were the 2 seed and lost in the first round to the Spurs. Below expectation level.

So to recap, the Mavericks performed above expectation level 4 times, at expectation level 4 times (2 good, 2 bad), and below expectation level twice. The Mavericks aren't exactly what I would call "massive under-achievers", or even under-achievers at all.

So Reilly listed a possibly-under-achieving actress who did quite well in 2010, a wildly successful band, and a not-under-achieving-at-all basketball team.

When Dallas loses this one, it'll be four first-round punch-outs in the last five playoffs. Portland in 7, and let's see if anybody in Dallas has the nerve to call out Mark Cuban, cyberbully.

Sounds pretty confident to me.

Also, did you notice something?

Reilly mentions nothing about the players for either team, how they have been playing this year, either team's strengths or weaknesses, etc. He says nothing about basketball, other than the incorrect point that Dallas are massive underachievers.

Did I dream that? In attempting to break an attendance record, Cuban gets arrested by the Dallas Fire Department for using Jerry Jones' temporary Super Bowl seats.

Ha?

Indiana Pacers vs. Chicago Bulls -- Indiana relies on Roy Hibbert.

Roy Hibbert is third on his team in (per game) field goal attempts, points, and minutes played. If you want to go into advanced metrics, he is fourth on his team in PER, tenth on his team in Offensive Rating (although tied for first in Defensive Rating, but still -4 between them), sixth on his team in Win Shares, and ninth (!) on his team in Win Shares per 48 minutes.

So I think it's safe to say that Indiana does not rely on Roy Hibbert.

Chicago relies on Derrick Rose.

True, but this is mostly irrelevant to how the Bulls and Pacers will play. Reilly gets a quarter-point. 1.5.

Roy Hibbert leaves his feet and you can almost get a magazine under his shoes.

Ok, Roy Hibbert has a notable weakness with athleticism. How will this affect the Pacers? How will Noah and Boozer take advantage of this weakness? What type of effect will this have on the Pacers' rebounding? Will this weakness lead to more playing time for Jeff Foster or Tyler Hansbrough, and how will that choice affect the Pacers? Will Jeff Vogel choose to play different frontcourt lineups in order to make up for Hibbert's athletic deficiency?

Rick?

Derrick Rose leaves his feet, makes a ham-and-cheese omelette, and still gets the hoop.

Oh, okay, you're just going to compare the jumping ability of a point guard and a 280-pound center.

I'll give him half a point for mentioning a gap in Hibbert's play. That makes 2.

Also, food metaphor!

Derrick Rose is the most thrilling player in the NBA and this is a very delicious era in the NBA. Chicago in 4.

Did I dream that? An angry Michael Jordan announces his comeback at halftime of Game 2, spurred by Rose not saying hello to him during warm-ups.

Huh?

Philadelphia 76ers vs. Miami Heat -- The Heat are fueled by emotion more than any other team in the league.

The 76ers are fueled by petrol.

The world will be watching them in this series.

Or, judging by the ratings for Games 1 and 2, about 4.5 million people.

Every time the Heat have been written off, they've gathered themselves.

When the 76ers were written off, they became practicing Wiccans and slowly went insane, culminating in Evan Turner being placed in a mental hospital.

They've won eight of their last 10 and are rolling -- for now. Miami in 5, and then it gets nasty.

Finally, something about basketball. I'll be generous and give a full point- we are now at 3.

Atlanta Hawks vs. Orlando Magic -- Two odd teams.

The Hawks are coached by a trained pigeon and the Magic regularly attend polka festivals.

Orlando shoots jumpers even though it has Dwight Howard.

Jameer Nelson should only pass. JJ Redick and Jason Richardson shouldn't even touch the ball.

Atlanta shoots jumpers even though it has Josh Smith.

Josh Smith should be the only player on the floor for the Hawks. Al Horford and Kirk Hinrich only miss shots and turn the ball over. Josh Smith, meanwhile, has a field goal percentage of 101%. One of his shots went in twice. That's why they shouldn't shoot jumpers, ever.

Atlanta is the quittingest team in the league. Orlando in 6.

The Hawks' Quitting Coefficient (QC) is at .604, good for third in the league, behind the Toronto Raptors and the Sacramento Kings, who literally only showed up for 31 games this year. The other 51 were played by actors. They aren't first in QC for nothing.

Note: Atlanta won the season series against Orlando. No mention of that.

Did I dream that? At halftime of Game 4, Howard balances 18 Taipei gymnasts on his shoulders.

Brandon Bass tried to balance 2 gymnasts from Hong Kong, but he dropped them both. And that's why he shouldn't shoot jumpers.

New York Knicks vs. Boston Celtics -- Boston is the John McCain of these playoffs. Great story, good ideas, too old.

If any team was John McCain, it would be the Mavericks. Extending the metaphor, the Thunder are Barack Obama, the Blazers are John Boehner, the Knicks are Sarah Palin, the Spurs are Bob Dole, and the Cincinnati Royals are Hannibal Hamlin.

If New York had just one more big, it could win this, but it insisted on Chauncey Billups instead.

They had gaps at point guard and at center. They filled the more drastic weakness- Ronny Turiaf is better than Toney Douglas. This is a perfect example of the sliding doors theory- had they replaced Billups with a center in the mega-trade, you would be criticizing them for a lack of a point guard.

Plus, Rajon Rondo is a god. Boston in 6, Southies throw wicked rager.

I'm just not gonna touch either of these. Why bother?

Did I dream that? Knicks guard Landry Fields has five steals in the game, two of them from Carmelo Anthony.

Again, ha?

To recap: the first round is now over. Reilly has 3 good-point points, after reviewing 8 series. Not a good start.

CONFERENCE SEMIFINALS

Denver vs. San Antonio -- The Spurs were a great dynasty, but they are collapsing from within. Their center cannot hold. Tim Duncan will be 35 by this series and wearing down, bone on bone, spitting sawdust, tilting as he walks.

Decent point, but they managed to have the best record in the tough Western Conference despite this, and haven't really suffered any bad injuries all year, and there is no backing up of how this will affect the Spurs or Nuggets, so I only award half a point. 3.5.

The New Nuggets, growing stronger with every week they're together, take the No. 1 offense in the NBA and make it better.

A correct statistic! No mention of how that affects a team with the 6th highest scoring offense in the NBA, especially since they have virtually identical FG%- the Nuggets at .476 and the Spurs at .475. A generous half-point puts us at 4.

Denver's Psychology Today centerfold J.R. Smith can either be a disaster or a miracle in this series, but here he parts the seas.

In the Western Conference Finals, he will go atop a mountain and bring down two stone tablets.

Denver in 7, David Stern pukes.

I already have.

Did I dream that? Carmelo's request to be traded back is denied.

Actually not terrible, but this joke has become the "if the black box is indestructible, why don't they build the whole plane out of it?" of the 2011 NBA season.

Portland vs. Los Angeles -- Yes, Portland is long,

[insert Greg Oden joke here]

but have you seen the Lakers?

No. I actually do not watch basketball, or any sports for that matter, and spend my time studying statistics and composing sonatas.

It's like trying to shoot in the Muir Woods. Their two 7-footers make Brandon Roy weep for Greg Oden.

LaMarcus Aldridge, arguably the best of the big men in this hypothetical series, gets no mention.

Look out -- the Lakers are getting better as the playoffs get deeper, as usual. Lakers in 5.

In previous years, the Lakers have come back from losing in the first round to winning the NBA Finals in three games.

Did I dream that? Lakers forward Lamar Odom takes time during Game 2 to quickly smooch fiancée reality-star Khloe Kardashian, only to realize it's actually Blazers forward Luke Babbitt.

Heh?

Orlando vs. Chicago -- Chicago was 10 games better than the Magic in the regular season.

Doesn't matter too much, because both these teams are very good, and when you get to this point in the playoffs, the differences between the teams and how they play is much more important than their respective regular season records.

Granted, this isn't the regular season, which is the point.

Oh good, we agree! I have been waiting the whole column for this...I award you a whole po-

Rose gets more hell-bent in the playoffs.

Oh.

I take it that you are using his history of never having won a playoff series as evidence?

And I don't believe that players can "raise their games" in the playoffs anyway. Name the best playoff performers, in any sport. They're also the best players, all the time, in that sport.

And do you really want to bet on a team that reserves a significant role for Gilbert Arenas? Chicago in 6.

1. He has averaged 9 minutes per game in the first 2 games of the Atlanta series.

2. Why didn't this matter when you were predicting the first round?

Did I dream that? In Game 3, Rose scores 42 points, 11 of them after being Tasered by Orlando coach Stan Van Gundy.

Reilly: *laughs*
Tucker: *stares in confusion*
Comedy: *plunges dagger a little deeper into own heart*

Boston vs. Miami -- The showcase series of the playoffs. So many stars, some are in the third row.

This has nothing to do with basketball.

Rondo locks up Dwyane Wade,

Possibly. I can't give you a full point for this, but this is fine. 4.5.

but LeBron, making up for the hot mess he put on in the 2010 playoffs, averages 38 and 8 and three new dance moves a night.

In four games against the Celtics this year, LeBron has averaged 28.8 points and 6.5 rebounds. The rebounds could happen, sure, but you're predicting his PPG to improve by almost 10 points in this series. Bold prediction. Could happen, sure, but bold prediction.

Boston might've won this if it'd known Shaq was going to be the first superstar to retire and still show up for games. Miami in 7.

"Being hurt" is now apparently the same as "retiring."

Did I dream that? Kevin Garnett bangs his forehead on the stanchion afterward.

Hee?

CONFERENCE FINALS

Denver vs. Los Angeles -- This one is as one-sided as The Falkland Islands War.

I am at a loss for words.

The Nuggets are toast from two seven-game series and the Lakers still haven't been pushed to a sixth game. Lakers in 5.

Both from hypothetical situations you thought up.

Did I dream that? Phil Jackson, on the brink of retiring, loses his cool afterward, barking, "Do you realize I'm going for my fourth three-peat? That means I'll have had four times as many three-peats as Coach of the Year Awards! Nice going, writers. You morons could screw up a Cuban election."

Ok, look. Phil Jackson has coached, at their primes, Michael Jordan, Shaquille O'Neal, and Kobe Bryant- two of them at the same time. A dead raccoon could have coached the 90s Bulls and 00s Lakers to championships. The degree of difficulty for these jobs was a 0.0. It is far more impressive to coach a moderately-to-low-talented team to a success than it is a ridiculously-talented team to a championship.

Miami vs. Chicago -- With home-court advantage, the Bulls weather the wave after wave of attacks on Rose.

Joel Anthony will hit Rose with a tire iron while Mike Bibby stabs him with a Bowie knife.

Joakim Noah and Carlos Boozer dominate the Heat's weakness in the paint.

I'm stunned.

There's an actual basketball point in here.

Fairly obvious, yes, but it's there. And it makes sense.

5.5.

I'm assuming this means that Reilly is saving his best analysis for the Conference Finals and Finals. This is amazing. What a turnaround. I'm ecstatic. I may get to read insightful ideas in this article. I love life!

Pat Riley is so upset he actually gets a gray hair. Bulls in 7. Bye, bye Superfriends.

Did I dream that? To mock LeBron James' continued failures with buzzer-beaters, thousands of Cleveland fans attend Game 5 and hold up a giant "The Frozen One" banner.

My dreams have been shattered.

FINALS

Los Angeles vs. Chicago -- The Lakers fall apart like a Jenga tower. Andrew Bynum's legs give out. Kobe's shoulder gives out. Pau Gasol's knee gives out.

The shattered pieces that once held my dreams were just picked up and shattered. Then Reilly picked up the pieces of the pieces and shattered those.

Rose is so quick and full of energy against the Lakers, he looks like a squirrel trapped inside an assisted living home. Bulls in 6, Rose in full bloom.

Don't need to dream that.

I give up.

If these predictions turn out to be right, I'm moving to Norway.

-Tucker

2010 NFL Preview and Predictions

2010-09-11T21:10:00.000-04:00

You can contact Tucker Warner by email at firstteemulligan@yahoo.com or on Twitter at http://twitter.com/twarner50

AFC East

1. New England Patriots
2. New York Jets
3. Miami Dolphins
4. Buffalo Bills

If the NFL was the World Cup, this would be the Group of Death. 3 good teams who will compete for a spot in the playoffs, and North Korea (Buffalo).

Let's start with the Patriots. Tom Brady might not be as good as he was before his knee injury, but he will be significantly better than last year, given that his injury takes two years to fully recover from. The additions of rookies Rob Gronkowski (an Arizona graduate, and the best NCAA player last year that you never heard about), and Aaron Hernandez (a favorite target of Tim Tebow while at Florida) help make the receiving corps for New England one of the best in the league. Of course, they'll get some help from a couple of guys named Moss and Welker. Their defense will continue to be solid as always, and the overall defensive production will not change much.

The Jets will probably be the most interesting team of the season. (Hard Knocks tends to do that to a team.) Some experts say the Jets will go to the Super Bowl this year. Others say they will miss the playoffs. It's easy to forget that the Jets were 9-7 last year. It's also easy to forget that the Jets had both the best defenses and offensive lines in the NFL last year. For them to make the Super Bowl, their offensive production will have to explode. For them to miss the playoffs, their defense will have to be all kinds of bad.

The Miami Dolphins are probably the least interesting team in the league. Fun to watch, sure, with their Wildcat offense, but not interesting. They'll probably go 8-8 this year. Their quarterbacks, Chad Henne, Chad Pennington, and Tyler Thigpen, have all been starters before, but none is that much better than the other. Their draft picks this year were solid infrastructure guys, but none of them were anything to get excited about. Could they potentially make the playoffs? Sure. Could they miss them by one or two games? Of course. What they can't do is make a deep playoff run or flop. They seem incapable of doing any better or worse than average this year.

As for the Bills, you should probably know what to expect for the upcoming season. Trent Edwards is one of the worst starting quarterbacks in the league, the rest of their offense doesn't have a whole lot of upside, and their defense has more holes than Swiss cheese. Let's move on to a more intriguing subject: Chan Gailey. Last year, Gailey was hired to be the interim head coach for Buffalo after they fired Dick Jauron mid-season. I don't know how else to put this, but Gailey should not be the head coach for a professional football team. 2010 will be the fifth full year that Gailey will coach a professional team. In 1991 and 1992 he coached the Birmingham Fire of the WLAF to a combines 12-7-1 record. He never won a playoff game. In 1998 and 1999, he coached the Dallas Cowboys at the tail end of their dynasty years to a combined 18-14 record. They still never won a playoff game. It's not even as if you could justify his hiring with a stellar resume in college football. As the head coach of the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets, Gailey led his team to a combined 44-32 record over six seasons. However, they won more than seven games only once, and were 2-4 in bowl games. So to recap, that's a bad coach with a worse team. At least Buffalo still has the Sabres.

AFC North

1. Baltimore Ravens
2. Pittsburgh Steelers
3. Cincinnati Bengals
4. Cleveland Browns

Disclaimer: I do think the Steelers are a better team than the Ravens. I have the Steelers ranked second because Roethlisberger's suspension will cost them a couple games that they would have won had their starting quarterback not been a moron. By the way, I think it's safe to say that your team has a discipline problem when your quarterback has been arrested for the same crime twice in the span of just over a year.

Moving on. Baltimore's defense looks stellar, as always, but injuries to Ed Reed and Domonique Foxworth will set them back a bit. On the other side of the ball, the Ravens offense seems to be building around Joe Flacco. Their receiving corps is now probably the best in the league (Anquan Boldin! TJ Houshmandzadeh! Derrick Mason! Donte Stallworth!) and their running backs are no slouches themselves- Ray Rice is an emerging star and Willis McGahee is a more than competent backup. And they drafted really well.

As you can tell, I'm big on the Ravens this year. If the disclaimer told you anything, I'm just as big on the Steelers. Their star players are finally healthy and their defense will revert back to their dominating ways. The problems? Both the O-line and D-line are aging. The additions of Jonathan Scott and Maurkice Pouncey will take some of the pressure off the offensive line, but they are not solid enough as a unit.

The Cincinnati Bengals are destined for third place this year, barring a collapse by the Steelers. The most interesting thing about this team: The combined audiences for The T.O. Show and Ochocinco: The Ultimate Catch do not equal the audience for Hard Knocks, featuring the New York Jets, who also beat the Bengals in the playoffs last year.

The Cleveland Browns are a worst/best case scenario team. Worst case: They go 5-11. Best case: They go 3-13 and are able to draft whatever star quarterback they want in the 2011 draft. I'm as big a fan of Colt McCoy as anyone, but he's not going to get it done. Seneca Wallace and Jake Delhomme-less aren't the guys either. The defense is improving, slowly but positively. (Any improvement is a good sign for the Browns.) If they could land Jake Locker (Washington) or another QB of like ability in the 2011 draft, the Browns could be a playoff team in the future.

AFC South

1. Indianaplis Colts
2. Tennessee Titans
3. Houston Texans
4. Jacksonville Jaguars

The winner of the AFC South is never hard to predict. The Colts will win the division again. They lost very few important players, addded more infrastructure players, and are going to win the division again.

This might sound bold, but I believe it: The Titans have a chance at winning the Super Bowl. It looks sketchy at first, but think about it. Vince Young is entering his peak, they went 8-2 in the last ten games last season, and Jeff Fisher teams always win more games than expected. It's not a stretch to say that they could make a run towards the championship this year.

The Texans seem to always be a team that is picked to be a sleeper. I've bought in the past two years; this year I'm not buying in. Matt Schaub is great when healthy, but he might be overdue for an injury this year. The defense was strong last year, but apart from Mario Williams, Brian Cushing, and DeMeco Ryans, there isn't a lot of talent. The running backs and secondary will have to improve this year for Houston to make the playoffs.

And then there's the Jaguars. David Garrard is not good enough to lead a playoff-level passing attack, and the offensive isn't good enough to significantly help Maurice Jones-Drew. Oh yeah, and their blitz is awful- the Jags only made 14 sacks last year, worst in the NFL.

AFC West

1. San Diego Chargers
2. Denver Broncos
3. Oakland Raiders
4. Kansas City Chiefs

Yikes. The Need-To-Re-Chargers are the best team in this division, and it will be hard for them to win a playoff game. Problems: No proven running game, chemistry problems, a head-strong quarterback, and holdouts. And also, there is only one downfield target for Phillip Rivers for the first three games due to Vincent Jackson's suspension. The Chargers are this year's winner of the Process of Elimination Award for receiving a playoff berth simply because no one else in their division was going to.

The Broncos are um...well, um...average. They're an 8-8 team. I think Josh McDaniels could be the Coach of the Future, but he's gonna need a good team to make it to the playoffs. Even though McDaniels made Matt Cassell look good when he was quarterbacks coach for New England, the rest of the Broncos offense is not close to the Patriots offense. Good times are not yet here for the Broncos.

I think the Raiders will surprise a lot of people this year. Jason Campbell isn't one of the better quarterbacks in the league, but he's a lot better than JaMarcus Russell ever was. This will be the year Darren McFadden finally makes the leap to a top ten running back, and the defense, led by Nnamdi Asomugha, is better than commonly thought. Expect the Raiders to give the Chargers a scare in the standings in about Week 12.

Like I said in the Broncos section, Matt Cassell is not exactly who you want leading your football team. The Chiefs' youth will help them win a few games, fortunately. Their secondary also gained a huge boost with the additions of draftees Eric Berry (Tennessee) and Javier Arenas (Alabama).

NFC East

1. Dallas Cowboys
2. Washington Redskins
3. New York Giants
4. Philadelphia Eagles

This is the toughest division to predict every year, and 2010 is no exception. Any one of these teams could win the division. I'm picking the Cowboys because I like their depth at running back and their finish from last year. They have a fairly big problem with the offensive line, but they can still finish atop the NFC East. Don't expect a playoff run this year, though.

Living in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., I'm exposed to, um, "optimistic" pieces on the Redskins' chances for the upcoming season every year. This year, I'm buying in. Mike Shanahan can make any running back a 1500-yard rusher, and Donovan McNabb will complement a well-rounded offense. The O-line, the cause of most of the Redskins' problems over the past few years, has been revamped, the coaching system has completely changed, and there is a new style of football in Washington. They have everything set up perfectly for a comeback.

The Giants have struggled since their Super Bowl win three years ago. Things are looking up and down this year. Up: Brandon Jacobs is back, they drafted well in the middle rounds, the defense can only improve from last year, and they only missed a playoff spot by one game in 2009. Down: The O-line is old, they have no receiver that stands out, and Tom Coughlin will inevitably screw up again.

As for the Eagles, it's just tough to say at this point. Kevin Kolb looked pretty impressive while filling in for Donovan McNabb last season, but it's hard to say what he will do while being the starter for a whole season. If this column was one of those Predictor Challenge fantasy games, this pick would be lowest on my confidence rating.

NFC North

1. Green Bay Packers
2. Minnesota Vikings
3. Chicago Bears
4. Detroit Lions

Green Bay is winning the division this year. Aaron Rodgers is my pick to win the Offensive Player of the Year Award. Their defense is one of the best in the league, and their draft was under-the-radar good. The only problem is that two of their msot important players, Charles Woodson and Donald Driver, are aging- Woodson is 33 and Driver is 35. They will both start regressing this year.

The Vikings will not make the playoffs this year. Their success this year relies primarily on Brett Favre. For the Vikings to replicate the success of the previous year, here is what needs to happen: go undefeated at home again (because they didn't beat even an above average team away from Minnesota), and Brett Favre needs to have the same type of year as last season. The problem is that last year was the best statistical year of Favre's career and this year, his top two receivers have health and injury concerns. Not exactly a recipe for success.

The Bears have a multitude of questions this year. Will Brian Urlacher be able to regain the talent he had before the injury that kept him sidelined last year? Will Jay Cutler look like he resembles a playoff quarterback? Will they have any success in the red zone, on either side of the football, this year? The answers all point towards "No".

As for the Lions, at least it could be worse. Matt Stafford and Jahvid Best will lead the offense to at least competency. Ndamukong Suh will at least help out the defensive line. I wish I could say better for them, but it could be worse.

NFC South

1. New Orleans Saints
2. Atlanta Falcons
3. Carolina Panthers
4. Tampa Bay Buccaneers

The reigning Super Bowl champions will not be quite as good as last season, but they will certainly win the division again. Drew Brees is either the best or second-best quarterback in the league, and the offense will be just as dominant as last season. Once again, the problem is the inconsistency of the defense.

The Falcons are another rebound team. This year will look more like 2008 than 2009 for Atlanta. Matt Ryan will come back from his sophomore slump, and Michael Turner will make a lot of fantasy owners happy. The concerns center around the secondary and passing defense, but the addition of Dunta Robinson will help a little.

I think Carolina Panthers head coach John Fox is a lot better than he gets credit for. I also think Matt Moore is better than he gets credit for. At any rate, he's better than Jake Delhomme. The running back tandem of DeAngelo Williams and Jonathan Stewart is still great, but the defense will miss Julius Peppers.

As for the Buccaneers, I don't see how they're going to score. They're starting Josh Freeman at quarterback, his only target is a tight end, and Cadillac "Carnell" Williams only scored 4 rushing touchdowns last year. Oh yeah, and head coach Raheem Morris's seat is scalding. At least Tampa Bay has the Rays.

NFC West

1. San Francisco 49ers
4. Arizona Cardinals/Seattle Seahawks/St. Louis Rams (3-way tie for futility)

You know the old saying, "save the best for last"? Well, I apologize to people who live by that sentiment. The 49ers are the best team in this division, and they would be pretty good anyway, but they could win 12 games in this division. Alex Smith will finally show why he was the number 1 overall draft pick in 2005, and the defense will improve even more from last season.

As for the Cardinals, you know your season is bad when the quarterback projected to start at the beginning of training camp is behind Dan Orlovsky on the depth chart. (Speaking of which, that means a UConn alum is in front of a USC Heisman winner. Husky football is finally here!) At least Derek Anderson has Larry Fitzgerald to throw to. Sorry, that should read "aim at". Anderson will get picked off 20 times this year.

The Seahawks have an aging quarterback teamed up with a coach whose only success with a professional football team came in college football. You can't tell me that Pete Carroll won't be distracted by the NCAA sanctions at USC.

And then there's the Rams. Sam Bradford will be a good quarterback, but we don't know when. Steven Jackson is not as good as people think- his fantasy stats are inflated because of a total lack of passing success over the past few years. On the bright side, they have a better defense than the Lions.

AFC Playoff Teams: New England Patriots, San Diego Chargers, Indianapolis Colts, Baltimore Ravens, Tennessee Titans, New York Jets

NFC Playoff Teams: New Orleans Saints, Dallas Cowboys, San Francisco 49ers, Green Bay Packers, Washington Redskins, Atlanta Falcons

AFC Championship Game: Patriots over Ravens

NFC Championship Game: Packers over Saints

Super Bowl: Patriots over Packers

-Tucker Warner

Agents in the NCAA

2010-07-24T11:48:00.000-04:00

You can contact Tucker Warner by email at firstteemulligan@yahoo.com or on Twitter at http://twitter.com/twarner50

When I first started writing, I established a few standards for myself. Don't use a full sentence quote more than twice in the same story; they aren't important enough. Don't be a member of the ethics police. Always remember that I'm writing from a fan's perspective; use public information only.

And don't write about the business side of sports. We hate seeing it, we hate reading about it, and most importantly, we hate that it exists. Detractors will say that being a professional athlete is just like any other job. We have always known this, but we prefer to ignore it because we want every professional athlete to be like Derek Jeter or Michael Jordan- the guys who would play for free. Dreamy nostalgia aside, we don't like hearing about how sports is a business.

To end this disclaimer, I'd like to apologize for focusing this column on agents and money. I wish there was something more important to write about, but at the moment, there isn't. At least it's better than reading the 5000th article about how this is the Year of the Pitcher, right?

At the SEC media day on Wednesday, Alabama football coach Nick Saban likened agents who incite improper contact with collegiate football players to pimps. (His words, not mine. By the way, I think Saban's use of that word is the second-worst in history, behind only the probably-regrettably-named MTV reality show Pimp My Ride.) Saban went on to say "I don't think it's anything but greed that's creating it right now on behalf of the agents...I have no respect for people who do that to young people. None. How would you feel if they did it to your child?"

Back it up a sec, Nick. Your players practice four hours a day and participate in many other mandatory team activities, restricting most from taking other jobs. These players are on national television twelve times a year. Television networks, the college they attend, the NCAA, and the coaches themselves all make millions of dollars off these student-athletes, who are denied from receiving payment of any type under NCAA rule. How exactly are the agents who pay them the bad guys?

To put this in comparison, let's say that you are fresh out of college and take a job at a very large, very successful company. The job you take is menial and pays you next to nothing, but in four years you will be promoted to a position that is pretty prestigious and you will receive better wages. For three years you toil along and make very little over the cost of living. Then, someone from a rival company approaches you and offers you gifts if you agree to work for him in six months. You would recieve the same benefits and the same promotion at the rival company. Why would you say no?

It's not a perfect metaphor, but it seems to sum up the situation pretty well. There's no reason for the players to say no to these agents. The NCAA needs to stop pretending that these players are going rogue, when in fact they are just looking out for their own best interests. A large number of college football players come from families that are not well-off financially. They are offered gifts. What reasons do they have to say no?

The NCAA at least realizes that these players don't care if their former colleges are placed under probation or hit with fines and punishments. (It seems some of the coaches don't care either. When was the last time you heard Pete Carroll say anything about USC?) The NCAA has demanded Reggie Bush's Heisman Trophy back from USC.

Obviously, this is stupid. First off, it's not like Bush cheated. He won the trophy. Let him keep it.

Second, and more important, the NCAA is showing its blind stuborness and dumb policies in this one. They exploit their student-athletes much more than the agents they are combating against. I've already stated why I think college athletes should be compensated in some sort, which is forbidden by the NCAA. The NCAA will not allow this and now is attempting to paint the agents and the players as the bad guys.

"An Unnamed Memphis Basketball Player" never took the SAT and might not have been eligible to attend college. We all know who he is, but the NCAA has never released his name. Weslye Saunders, a tight end for South Carolina, goes to a party with some agents and his name is given to every media outlet. There's one reason for the double standard.

You guessed it.

Money.

The NCAA doesn't pay its players and doesn't want anyone else to either, darn it! There's greed behind its actions in every way.

-Tucker Warner

LeBron's Legacy

2010-05-15T18:26:00.000-04:00

You can contact Tucker Warner by email at firstteemulligan@yahoo.com or on Twitter at http://twitter.com/twarner50

What can you say after watching the debacle that was the Cavaliers-Celtics series? Well, let me change that. What can you say about LeBron James?

Sure, you can say that Coach Mike Brown hurts the Cavs more than he helps them. Sure, you can say that Cleveland GM Danny Ferry does not and will never know how to build a championship team. Sure, you can say that the team itself is so flawed that not even Michael Jordan in his prime could have won a championship with them. (It's true. There's no good second banana on Cleveland.)

And yes, all these arguments have merit. Coach Mike Brown never seems to play the right five to match up well against an opponent. For example, Anderson Varejao used his speed, jumping ability, and versatility to exploit a huge weakness in Boston's frontcourt. He averaged 21.5 minutes per game in the Celtics series, a good 7 minutes/game less than his regular season average. Um, maybe not a good decision. Oh, Coach Mike Brown also thought it would be a good idea to match up a washed-up Shaq on a still-capable Kevin Garnett, while Antawn Jamison was stuck wasting his athleticism on the always-immobile Kendrick Perkins. Yeah, that one didn't work either.

Can you blame Coach Mike Brown entirely? No, you can't blame him entirely, but that's only because Danny Ferry has also done such a horrendous job as GM that you have to blame him also.

There's something that Ferry should realize: dynasties are created by the second and third best players. Look at the championship teams over the past three decades. Bird had McHale. Magic had Kareem. Jordan had Pippen. Isiah had Dumars. Olajuwon had Drexler. Shaq had Kobe, then Kobe had Gasol. Duncan had Parker and Ginobili. On the 2008 Celtics, Garnett had Pierce, or Pierce had Garnett, or Garnett had Allen, or Rondo had all three, or something like that.

LeBron has nobody. Who's the second-best player on the Cavs? Mo Williams? Um, that's not exactly a good thing. Some people might say "But Mo Williams is good! He was even an all-star in 2007!" And these people would be called dumb. Maybe he's above average, but he's definitely not one of the best five point guards in the league. Look at all the second bananas in the last paragraph. All of them, in their prime, were in the top three in their position during their prime. Heck, Manu Ginobili even got an MVP vote this year! That's the type of guy you need as a second banana when you have the best player in the league. Not a one-time All Star who isn't even the best point guard on his team. (For the record, if LeBron was a full-time point, he'd start over Mo. This is indisputable.)

So no, you can't blame LeBron for losing the series and never getting close to a championship. But at some point, you have to say that maybe LeBron won't be one of the ten best players of all time. Put it this way: there's a reason that guys like Reggie Miller or Julius Erving never won a championship. They were missing that thing that guys like MJ, Bird, Magic, and Duncan had. Miller was missing the talent to win games without much help. Erving was missing the killer instinct.

LeBron is missing selfishness.

Yes, I said it. Selfishness is a good quality to have when you're the best player on a contending team. I don't mean Kobe-in-2005-level selfishness. I mean just enough selfishness to realize that, if you're LeBron, keeping the ball for yourselfin a key situation is a much better option than dishing off to Mo Williams. LeBron is just too loyal.

Quick tangent: that's probably why I think LeBron will stay in Cleveland. The best move would be Chicago, for many reasons (mostly because of Derrick Rose and Joakim Noah), but LeBron probably doesn't care. This is the guy who keeps around his high school buddies as his entourage and plays in pretty much his hometown. Could he leave? Yes, and I could see him doing so. But I'd bet on him staying.

Back to my main point. Here's my list of the best ten NBA players ever: MJ, Russell, Magic, Bird, Kareem, Wilt, Duncan, Olajuwon, West, and Shaq. All of them have won more than two championships. Only one (Wilt) had something inherently wrong with him that prevented him from winning, but in his case, it was okay because during his era there weren't exactly that many 7-1 athletic centers who could stay with him through a whole game. LeBron is definitely the most athletic player in the game today, but he doesn't have the capability to dominate the way Wilt did.

And that's why, at the current rate, I don't see LeBron becoming one of the ten best players of all-time. Right now, his career is an enigma. Absolutely the best player of the past two years, he has never been close to winning a championship. Dwyane Wade didn't exactly have a ton of help when Miami won the title in 2006. Chauncey Billups didn't have too much help when Detroit won in 2004. And LeBron is much better than Billups, and probably better than Wade.

And while we're not ready to wrap up LeBron's career just yet, (he's only 25 and could completely change his legacy) his free agency will show LeBron's true intentions. If he signs with Chicago, that will prove that he is committed to winning, which would negate everything I have said in this article. If he re-signs with Cleveland, then it next-to-proves that LeBron wants to win a championship, but winning is not the most important thing to him, the way it was to Jordan or Russell.

And no matter what, that's where LeBron's legacy will be when he ends his career. Undoubtedly great, but no Jordan or Russell.

-Tucker Warner

NHL Playoffs Round 1 Review/Downfall of the Capitals

2010-04-30T16:47:00.000-04:00

You can contact Tucker Warner by email at firstteemulligan@yahoo.com or on Twitter at http://twitter.com/twarner50

Round One of the 2010 NHL playoffs have concluded, leaving us with a few surprises. Although I can currently offer little solace for fans of the upset Sabres and Devils (other than they'll be back next year), there is much more to be said for the future of the Washington Capitals.

Yeah, I know they were by far the winningest team in the league this year, and that they lost to the team seeded last in the NHL, becoming the first 1-seed ever to lose a series to an 8-seed after having a 3-1 lead. (Message to Caps fans: wait until you read the rest of the article before sending me angry emails. It gets better.)

Losing this series to the Montreal Canadiens could be the best thing ever to happen to the Washington Capitals franchise.

I know it sounds ludicrous, and crazy, and ridiculous. Just hear me out for a little while.

It's important to remember that this just wasn't the Caps' year. They were not going to win the Stanley Cup. This became evident in Game 5, when the Capitals were playing in Washington with virtually every advantage in their hands and couldn't close out the series. This team was just too flawed.

Sure, they had the most points of any team during the regular season and looked unbeatable for some stretches. But you can never, NEVER, win a championship with a defense as bad as the one the Capitals had. It just doesn't happen. That was the biggest reason that the Capitals couldn't win this year, although there was also their inability to create good shots, inconsistent goaltending, a penchant for taking dumb penalties, and not enough chemistry due to players switching between lines every game.

See? This wasn't the Caps' year. But like I said earlier, it gets better.

Or rather, it COULD get better. Washington's general manager George McPhee tends to make deals that don't make a whole lot of sense, to put it nicely. During the previous offseason, McPhee operated under the basic principle that "our defense is fine." You guessed it, McPhee made very little moves on the defensive end. Never mind the fact that their defense was actually very bad and Chris Pronger was still in the free agent market. It's just that whenever you can sign two washed-up journeymen forwards, you've gotta do it. Anyone want to know the day Washington made their first move to acquire a defenseman? March 3. Funny...that date was also the trading deadline. That was the day the Caps traded for Joe Corvo, a solid defensive player. The glaring mistake in this trade was that they traded AWAY one of their top defensive players, Brian Pothier. But hey, whenever you can trade away your best defensive player to get an inferior player in every sense of the game, you've gotta do it.

Obviously, McPhee isn't the best general manager for a team that wants to win a championship. For a team that needs to become good, sure. But not for a legitimate contender. The good news, however, is this would become a wake-up call. That's where losing now comes into the picture. You don't get wake-up calls by losing in the conference finals. You get wake-up calls by losing historically in the first round. So maybe this will be the year that McPhee wakes up and realizes "Holy crap. We suck at defense." Maybe.

Moving on now, here's 4 Up and 4 Down for this round, with team power rankings at the end.

4 Up

Sidney Crosby
Did he do anything that wasn't expected? Well, not really. But he did lead the first round in scoring by a large margin and is the best player on what seems to be the best team. Also, he became the definite answer to the question: "Who's the best player in the NHL?" I'm sorry, Ovechkin fans, but your argument doesn't have any strength anymore. Yeah, maybe Ovechkin's flashier and can do more with his skill set, but how can you call him the best player in the NHL when he's only made the second round of the playoffs once? Meanwhile, Crosby is the best player on the best team, a guy who can lead the league in goals, and is one of the only player who affects games just by being on the ice. The way he can see passing angles that none of us can even conceive of is a skill that belongs to only an elite few of the NHL- Crosby, Nicklas Backstrom, Joe Thornton, and Joni Pitkanen. In addition to the off-puck skills, well, did you SEE what he did to Jason Spezza in Game 5? He kept the puck for nearly 15 seconds just circling and waiting for someone to get open. Once he passed it, his team immediately scored a goal. It's just incredible. And if you think that's impressive, imagine what this paragraph would look like if I liked Crosby.

Jaroslav Halak
Despite a lackluster at best performance in the first three games of the Canadiens' series with the Capitals, Halak recovered to lead the Habs to the second round with three straight unbelievable performances. His Game 6- the game where he had 53 saves- was one of the best postseason games by a goaltender in the history of the NHL. Enough said.

Joe Pavelski
The guy most responsible for the Sharks finally making it out of the first round was not Joe Thornton, Patrick Marleau, or Dany Heatley. It was Joe Pavelski, who led San Jose in goals with 5. Those 5 goals included game winners in Game 4 (overtime) and Game 6, and the game-tying goal in Game 2 which happened only 30 seconds before overtime. In the first game of the second-round series with the Detroit Red Wings, Pavelski scored 2 goals en route to a 4-3 victory. Pavelski also racked up a nice, complementary 4 assists. In conclusion, it's safe to say Pavelski is a necessity to the Sharks.

Brian Boucher
The Philadelphia Flyers goaltender, a 33-year-old journeyman whose last regular starting job was before the lockout, led all playoff teams in both Goals Against Average and Save Percentage in the first round. In the four wins against the Devils, Boucher gave up 1, 2, 1, and 0 goals. In the lone loss, he gave up 4 goals- the Flyers scored 3. Even when the Flyers lost, they were still in a position to win due to the impeccable play of Boucher.

4 Down

Alexander Semin
And you thought this would be Alexander Ovechkin! Nope, Ovechkin played well in the first round. Backstrom's play was acceptable, Theodore's and Varlamov's goaltending woes were not their fault, and the mediocre play of the defense was to be expected. Semin had only 2 assists and zero goals in the seven-game series, with an even plus/minus. Is this the type of play you want from what is supposed to be your second- or third-best player? Of course not. Is Semin just not a good player? I don't know. What I do know is that whoever claimed Alexander Semin was an elite player was mistaken.

Joe Thornton and Patrick Marleau
Obviously, Thornton and Marleau must not have gotten the memo that the playoffs already started. Thornton finished with 0 goals and 4 assists, with a -4 plus/minus, while Marleau picked up 1 goal and 2 assists, with a -2 plus/minus. I suppose this wouldn't be bad if they were third-line guys, but this isn't what you would want from two of your best players.

Martin Brodeur
I wouldn't say that Brodeur's case for the best goalie of all-time is toast, but the past two seasons have been a gigantic step away from securing his spot. After losing in the first round in heartbreaking style to the Hurricanes last year, Brodeur was supposed to come into this year's playoffs with a giant chip on his shoulder. Obviously, he didn't, losing 4 out of 5 games. On the playoff ranking of GAA, Brodeur is fifteenth. Fifteenth! There are only sixteen starting goalies! Incredible.

Drew Doughty and Jack Johnson
The Kings' top defensive line, starring two of the best young defensemen in the league, ranked tied for 232nd in plus/minus, good for third from last. When your best defensive line plays like THAT, you cannot win more than 3 games. It's impossible. The Kings lost their series.

Power Rankings for Second Round
1. Pittsburgh Penguins
2. Chicago Blackhawks
3. Detroit Red Wings
4. San Jose Sharks
5. Philadelphia Flyers
6. Vancouver Canucks
7. Boston Bruins
8. Montreal Canadiens

-Tucker Warner

2010 NFL Draft Day 1

2010-04-22T18:46:00.000-04:00

First Tee Mulligan- 2010 NFL Draft Day 1

Live Blog- NCAA Tournament Second Round (Saturday)

2010-03-20T11:04:00.000-04:00

NCAA Basketball Tournament Second Round (Saturday)

Live Blog: NCAA Tournament First Round- Late Friday

2010-03-19T22:29:00.001-04:00

NCAA Basketball First Round games

March Madness (3/5/2010)

2010-03-05T22:46:00.000-05:00

As I write this, I am watching one of my new favorite basketball teams, Morehead State Eagles, beat up on Tennessee Tech. I like them because of the great tandem of Kenneth Faried and Maze Stallworth, their great hustle and team play, and- more to the point- I have money riding on them.

That's what this college basketball season has led to. Me, and I'm sure many others (right?), are staying up, on a Friday night, to watch two teams starring players we will never see again, play a do-or-die game in their conference semifinal. The crowd is crazy, the players are running like their life is on the line...and the game isn't even close. So, to recap, the fans are crazy, the players are crazy, and I thought I just saw Kenneth Faried sprout a third arm. So now I'm crazy too. But it does explain his rebounding abilities.

I don't even know where Morehead State is.

But isn't this the real point of March Madness? Does it really matter that most of the games aren't that close or exciting?

For me, the greatness of March Madness starts in the first few weeks of March. Already we've had one great chills moment. Love him or hate him, Greivis Vazquez is the best player in Maryland Terrapins history not named Len Bias. In his final game at home, against the best team in the ACC, Vazquez sealed the win. In the upcoming ACC Tournament, Vazquez will likely become the Terrapins' all-time leading scorer. He could have chosen to break that record at his stadium, with his fans. He decided to win instead. It's too bad that type of thing doesn't happen in the NBA anymore. Kind of ironic that Vazquez will likely be a journeyman for his professional career, isn't it?

And that's just the start of the best three-week stretch in American sports. Next is the conference tournaments. These, more than the NCAA Tournament itself, are where the magic resides. Think about all the great games, or moments, that have happened in the conference tournamens over the past 5 years. Don't forget all the small conferences- you can't leave out Duquesne's energizing run to the Atlantic 10 or North Dakota State winning the Summit Championship in their first year of Division 1 eligibility. And those only happened last year.

But here's what I'm getting at: think of the great conference tournament games of the 1980s. Heck, even think of the great ones of the 1990s. Now think of the great NCAA Tournament games in both those decades. Don't you think of way more from the NCAA Tournament? Disregarding the Final Four, between the NCAA Tournament and conference tournaments, the product is just as good, mostly as dramatic, and usually evenly matched. But in the conference tournaments, the teams have natural rivalries and chips on their shoulders from previous games with their conference foes.

Now, I'm not going to argue that conference tournaments are better than the NCAA Tournament. It's not. But aren't they relatively equal? Shouldn't we remember some legendary games from the conference tournament?

In the 1981 Big East Final, Syracuse beat Villanova in three overtimes. The winning shot came from a Leo Rautins tip-in with three seconds left. Doesn't this sound like one of the greatest games of all time? Why is this not remembered?

And as a UConn fan and a Big East afecionado, I'm scared that the to-describe-it-as-epic-doesn't-do-it-enough-justice Six Overtime Classic in last year's Big East Tournament will suffer from the same fate. Eventually, critics will pick it apart. They will say things such as "The game wasn't very exciting at the end" or "Neither team played great". Maybe I can't disagree with those statements. All I know is that my favorite team played against their most heated rival through six overtimes on a Thursday night in Madison Square Garden. And I was there.

To say that I'm "worried" that this game falls through the annals of basketball history is an understatement. Easily the best game of the past ten years, the game will mean nothing in 2030, for no other reason than it did not occur in the NCAA Tournament.

More than anything, I support upholding the history and great moments of my favorite sport. That's why I want to meet Greivis Vazquez someday and hug him. That's why I sometimes smile just thinking about the Six Overtime Classic. And that's why I stay up on a Friday night watching Morehead State play Tennessee Tech. I'm not just waiting for another one of "Those Games" to happen. I'm fervently hunting for the next installment of college basketball's greatest games. They're buried deep in the passion. I know they are.

And that, I think, is the main reason I don't want these conference tournaments to be forgotten. Somewhere, there are the teams who cared about winning more than anything else. And that can't disappear. We can't let it.

Meanwhile, the Big South Final will be played tomorrow between Coastal Carolina and Winthrop. I'll be watching it.

As always, email us with comments, insults, and questions (whether on or off topic) at firstteemulligan@yahoo.com

Steroids and baseball, does it ever end?

2010-01-16T22:49:00.000-05:00

Mark McGwire. Adjectives that used to come to mind were “role model,” “legend,” or even perhaps “future Hall of Famer.” Now all I can think of are “juicer” or “cheater.”

There are many arguments when it comes to the fate of McGwire, but I will state my opinion first and clear; I do not care if steroids were legal at the time of his career, performance-enhancing drugs are just that, performance enhancing. If you didn’t set those records with your own strength and no help, you cheated. No exceptions.

The Steroid Era only needed one guy to start it. When one man uses it, others follow, because it’s the only way you can keep up with that level of play. So like I say about other things in life, it was “understandable yet inexcusable.” Sure it may be hard to hit a 100 mile per hour fastball, but wouldn’t you say that you have even more talent if you didn’t have aide? How fair is it to the players that didn’t use juice yet had remarkable seasons of their own and were overshadowed? Sports have rules to be fair, not to be broken.

The other day when McGwire released his statement about having used steroids, it was no surprise to me. It’s a shame to have America’s Past-time go down the tubes because of a drug. But I feel as though that this drug should be treated just like any others, with a huge fine and some jail time. But what’s Roger doing now? Probably sitting on some beach. And with no doubts in my mind McGwire will be joining him shortly.

And is it ironic that McGwire wants the new hitting coach position? Well his idea of apologizing and “starting with a clean slate” is a whole bunch of BS to me. I was reading in Sports Illustrated when I came across a quote from a reader regarding Tiger and his scandal. The quote read, “This is a very forgiving country. If Tiger is truly sorry for what he has done […] the cheers will be there for him again.” But is that true? Are we that forgiving to just let players go with these mistakes? Will we just forget about McGwire and his steroids in a few months, just as though it seems we did with Alex Rodriguez or Roger Clemens? How about big ole Barry? I think we choose to forget, and that’s not the right solution. We shouldn’t keep pushing the issue off to the side. We have the test results for crying out loud! It’s called the Mitchell Report! Steroids were a loophole, and loopholes aren’t allowed anywhere else. So why should it be different in baseball?

--Meg

NFL Playoffs Round 2 Preview, Part II

2010-01-16T18:37:00.000-05:00

Dallas Cowboys (12-5) at Minnesota Vikings (12-4)

X-factor: Tony Romo. I have no statistical proof or any evidence that led me to this decision. All I know is that this is my decision. If Tony Romo has a good game, the Cowboys' chances of winning increases. They still have to stop the Vikings' offense, but the overall success of the team lies with Romo.

Why the Cowboys can win: The Cowboys give up only 15.6 points per game, second in the NFL only to the New York Jets. Dallas gives up only 90.5 rushing yards a game, and their linebackers should hold Adrian Peterson to less than his usual 4.4 yards per carry. Dallas also has two wide receivers in the top ten in yards per catch, Miles Austin and Patrick Crayton.

Why the Cowboys can choke: Dallas has a guy named Romo who tends to choke in big games. Their defense only had 19 takeaways this season, second to last in the NFC. Momentum means nothing against top teams.

Why the Vikings can win: The Vikings are undefeated at home. Minnesota went 4-1 against teams that made the playoffs, with the lone loss coming against the Arizona Cardinals, in which Percy Harvin led the team in rushing with 22 yards...this won't happen again. Their defense is second in the NFC in yards per game. And they were considered a Super Bowl favorite for most of the season.

Why the Vikings can choke: Brett Favre and head coach Brad Childress tended to clash this year. The results? 2-3 in the last 5 regular season games, including losses to the Chicago Bears and Carolina Panthers. Adrian Peterson has become an increasingly inconsistent running back. His yards per carry each game since Week 10 are as follows: 7.4, 3.4, 3.4, 1.5, 3.7, 2.9, 3.9, 6.0. The two games that stand out in a good way came against the Lions and in the Giant Tank Game. So maybe I should switch "inconsistent" to "ineffective".

Semi-Relevant Opinion: The Cowboys need to replace Tony Romo. They will not be a great team with him. He is not very good.

1. Tony Romo wasn't wanted by an FBS college football team. He wasn't originally wanted by an NFL team. He played behind quarterbacks so old and washed-up they made Junior Seau look like Junior Seau, Junior. When did he become good?

2. Name the best quarterbacks in the NFL right now. My list, in a rough order, goes like this: Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, Tom Brady, Brett Favre, Phillip Rivers, Aaron Rodgers, Ben Roethlisberger, Matt Schaub, Kurt Warner, Carson Palmer, Eli Manning, Donovan McNabb. Does Romo even enter the debate until after McNabb is named? No. That's twelve quarterbacks before you even think about naming Romo. Which leads me to point number three.

3. If your player, coach, GM, doctor, teacher, accountant, salesman, or whatever else you can think of, is not in the top 25% at his position, then you need to get a better one as soon as possible. With 32 starting quarterbacks in the league, and Tony Romo about 14th in the league, and that's probably being generous, that does not put him in the highest 25%. It's time to get a good quarterback. It is definitely within Dallas's reach- they have the biggest market and the most money- so why not? The Tony Romo era is not working. Maybe they had a couple of solid regular seasons, but this has not translated into any actual success. It's time for Romo to go.

Prediction: Vikings 27, Cowboys 17. The deciding factor was that the Vikings were undefeated at home, including three wins against playoff teams. Could this game go either way? Absolutely. This one could definitely go either way. I see the Vikings winning this game, but would not be the least bit surprised if the Cowboys won.

New York Jets (10-7) at San Diego Chargers (13-3)

X-factor: Shonn Greene and Thomas Jones. One of them, or both, need to have a good game to prevent the Jets offense from becoming one-dimensional. Against a team as good as the Chargers, you need to establish the run and exploit the defensive gap that allowed 4.5 rushing yards per attempt.

Why the Jets can win: They have the best defense in the NFL. No, I didn't expect it either. I never would have predicted it at the beginning of the year. But they lead the league in every important defensive statistic except takeaways. The Jets can shut down any offense, especially a passing-is-the-only-means-of-production offense such as the Chargers.

Why the Jets can choke: I don't know if anyone else has noticed this, but the Jets offense is more than a little shaky. Mark Sanchez can be a typical halfway-competent rookie quarterback. And most importantly, the offense can flat out stink from time to time.

Why the Chargers can win: After the Week 6 loss to the Denver Broncos, the Chargers went into "screw you, we're not gonna lose" mode. They proceded to win the next ten games and hold the longest current winning streak. The Chargers are so good that they tanked the last two games and still won! Philip Rivers might just be so angry that he explodes.

Why the Chargers can choke: Their running game flat out sucks. Former MVP LaDanian Tomlinson averages 3.3 yards per carry. Backup Darren Sproles averages 3.7 a carry. That's not good. The Chargers are known to choke in the playoffs. Philip Rivers might just be so angry that he implodes.

Semi-Relevant Opinion: I don't like Philip Rivers because of his jawing. Jawing in football is different from trash talking in basketball. In basketball, trash talking is part of the game, and when someone stops getting trashed, that implies respect. In football, a team could be losing by thirty in the fourth quarter, but their linebacker will still be jawing if he makes a tackle. This is just dumb, there's no purpose to it. Larry Bird was the best trash talker of all time. Quick trivia question for you- who was the best football jawer of all time? Answer: No one. Not only does it mean nothing (so no one pays attention to it), but they all say the same thing!

Read the lips of football players who jaw. Here's what I got from a select few players- Shawne Merriman: "All day baby! All day!" Michael Strahan: "All day baby! All day!" Sebastian Janokowski: "Całe dziecko dnia! Cały dzień!" Ok, bad example, but you get my point.

Prediction: Jets 17, Chargers 10. No, seriously. The Chargers rushing offense will go nowhere, as it usually does, and the Jets secondary will demolish the pass. I think.

-Tucker Warner

Clippers Curse Continues

2010-01-15T22:58:00.001-05:00

Hello First Tee fans!

It’s been a while (for both Tucker and I) writing and updating, but we’re back!

I know I promised you a Blake Griffin update before my absence, so it’s only fitting that it’s the first article that I return with.

There isn’t much to say when it comes to the curse of the Clippers. It’s pretty much been around for their entire existence. Seeing that Blake Griffin won’t be returning until next season is icing on the cake for this condemned team.

Blake Griffin announced his biggest fear on Thursday (Jan 14, 2009) that he would have season ending surgery to repair his knee (B. Griffin fractured his left knee cap after jumping down from a dunk).

Originally the healing process was estimated to be about 6 weeks with the proper rest and therapy, but what wasn’t released to the public was that this was the fastest option that Big Blake had. The other option was surgery from the start. Unfortunately the first-draft pick of the 2009 draft will be sidelined, but that could possibly be beneficial to him in the end.

Weighing out the pros and cons of sitting an injured, yet phenomenal, athlete can be a difficult when your team isn’t that great to begin with. But in Blake’s case, you can’t rush it back. Seeing that the Clips don’t have much of a chance getting into the playoffs this year (shocker!), why wouldn’t you take the time off and prep for next year? He needs to take the time to study film and plays, and grow stronger. Besides, it’s not like it’s a big deal for the team in a sense because it’s his first season, the guys haven’t played with him enough to say it’s going to cost them in the long run. As long as he uses his time wisely, he can develop more so now than ever. The only con I can possibly think of is that ticket sales probably aren’t as high as they were expected to be; yet I’m sure that’s not the first time in Clipper’s history. Come on, your competing with Kobe, even Blake said the entire city of L.A. isn’t big enough for the Laker’s star.

So it’s another disappointing season for Clipper’s fans, though I’m sure it’s not a surprise. Hang in there guys; you’ve got Manny to spare you over the summer.

--Meg

NFL Playoffs Round 2 Preview, Part I

2010-01-15T19:08:00.000-05:00

Arizona Cardinals (11-6) at New Orleans Saints (13-3)

X-factor: Kurt Warner. He has the best completion percentage in NFL playoff history, he is second on the career playoff list for completion percentage, and he is throwing to the best wide receiver in the league. Need I say more?

Why the Cardinals can win: The Cardinals can score at will. They make big plays in clutch situations. Kurt Warner is one of the best playoff quarterbacks of all time, and he might have a little extra heart because this might be his last year. They scored 51 points last week, against the same team that held them to only 7 in Week 17. According to SCOUTS, Inc, the Cardinals have the advantage at every position except for offensive line and defensive backs. They retain pretty much the same team that won the NFC Championship last year.

Why the Cardinals can choke: Their quarterback is 38 years old and is about as mobile as a mountain. (Really. During Round 1 against the Packers, Warner was facing a 3rd and 6 late in the fourth quarter. The blitz came from the sides and there was a big gap in the line where Warner could have handily [In order to not make the first down by running, he would've had to pull a Mary Decker...or a hamstring] ran for the first. He stepped back and threw instead. Still got the first, but that's beside the point.) Their running game is average at best. They gave up 45 points to the Packers and allowed them to come back from a 20-plus deficit.

Why the Saints can win: That's virtually all they did this season, until they unintentionally intentionally lost, but that's another story. They became so good at scoring, at one point they were able to score six points by downing the ball. Drew Brees got so many yards through the air that Southwest Airlines awarded him frequent flier points. Their running game is multi-dimensional- the Saints have three guys who can run the ball efficiently.

Why the Saints can choke: Did you see the past few games? They lost a close game to the Cowboys (didn't tank or choke), lost in overtime to the Buccaneers (didn't tank, just choked), and lost to the Panthers (tanked and choked- on a related note, backup quarterback Mark Brunell's line from that game looked like this: 15/29, 102 yards, 0 TDs, 1 INT, 45.5 passer rating. 45.5??? Isn't that Brunell's age?). The Saints haven't soundly beaten an opponent since Week 12.

Semi-Relevant Opinion: The Over/Under for this game is 57. Last week, the Cardinals scored 51 points themselves. I'm taking the under, or I would if I was of legal gambling age.

Completely Irrelevant Opinion: How is it possible that an 18 year old American citizen can serve in the Armed Forces, but can't bet two hundred bucks on a Patriots game? This is ridiculous.

Prediction: Cardinals 31, Saints 24. No, really. The Cardinals have Kurt Warner, in the playoffs, against a defense that gave up 30 points to the Redskins.

Baltimore Ravens (10-7) at Indianapolis Colts (14-2)

X-factor: Peyton Manning. He won the MVP award, and by all accounts is the best quarterback in the NFL, and one of the five best of all time. (Don't argue against me. It's true.)

Why the Ravens can win: To be honest, I'm not so sure they can win. If anything works, it will be their running game- Ray Rice and Willis McGahee are perhaps the best running back tandem in the league. This won't happen though.

Outlandish Statement: If the Ravens beat the Colts this weekend, I will bury myself alive!

Why the Ravens can choke: The Ravens haven't beaten the Colts since December 2001. In the regular season, the Ravens were 1-6 against teams who made the playoffs. Joe Flacco is non-existant in clutch situations, especially in the playoffs (last week he only completed 4 passes of his 10 attempts, for 34 yards).

Why the Colts can win: The Colts have not lost a game they were actually trying to win. Peyton Manning is the best quarterback in the NFL. Not only have the Colts beaten the Ravens in their past four meetings, but they have also covered the point spread. The Colts are the best team in the NFL.

Why the Colts can lose: This is the only hope the Ravens have. The Colts will need to choke, and choke big, for the Ravens to win this game. Peyton Manning threw five interceptions in a loss to the Chargers a few years ago. The Ravens have a secondary that is good enough to make this happen, but the odds of Peyton Manning choking like a chain smoker on a playoff game in Saturday are about one in a million, if that. Good luck Baltimore.

Semi-Relevant Opinion: The Ravens can win with Joe Flacco only if they improve their receiving corps. The Ravens top three receiving leaders are a productive-but-old wideout (Derrick Mason), a running back (Ray Rice), and a tight end (Todd Heap). None of the other receivers have ever caught more than seven passes in a game, and never more than 100 yars in a game. Of the top three, one will retire within two years (he already retired once! It will happen again!) and one is not a downfield option by definition. I'll admit that Heap will continue to be a productive option for the next few years, but is a tight end what you really want as the future of your receiving team?

Prediction: Colts 34, Ravens 13. Would I be flabbergasted by an upset by the Ravens? It's professional sports, of course not. However, I would be willing to wager an non-vital organ on the Colts if the payoff was over $10,000. Again, this is only if I was of legal gambling age.

Stay tuned for Part II!

-Tucker

Say What?! of '09

2009-12-19T23:54:00.000-05:00

Over the past year there have been a few out-of-the-blue sports stories that have left me baffled…and I’ll gladly share them.

To begin, I’ll start with Tucker’s favorite (or so it seems) with the M.I.A Bartolo. In June of 2009, Bartolo Colon of the Chicago White Sox was temporarily assigned to their AAA team in Charlotte, when mysteriously the 5’11” 245lb pitcher went missing. No, this isn’t normal. But yet his teammate’s explanation is priceless, “he was just a depressed Michael Jackson fan.” Believe it or not, his theory was confirmed true. Over a week later Bartolo was “found”, but unfortunately the White Sox later released him in the year.

Tonight it was brought to my attention that NHL team Minnesota Wild has recently had their equipment burned to ash in the back of their transportation vans. After traveling from the Senator’s practice facility to Scotia Bank Place, firefighters were called to put out the fire started in the Wild’s equipment vans last Friday. That’s another way to say Niklas Backstrom and the boys are on fire!... or… A “Wild” fire!
I crack myself up.
**P.S. … suck it TSN.ca, I caught your mistake! (it’s Niklas Backstrom of the Wild, not NiCklas Backstrom of the Capitals). Pffft… ESPN is so much better!

ESPN covered in a quick story an interesting annual competition…Wife Carrying. Wow, and I thought curling was stupid. Basically the women locks their legs around her husband’s head and throw themselves over his back like a sack-of-potatoes. Cute? Not after you’re holding on for dear life running through rivers. What people will do for love…

Or how about the other ESPN story of the Glouchestershire Cheese Roll of 2009? This old tradition consists of many borderline insane people from around the world chasing a cheese wheel down a particularly steep hill. Only minor injuries occur such as broken arms and legs, concussions, and dislocated shoulders. So much fun! :P

Out with the old year, in with the new. It only gets better.

--meg
PS...ill be sure to add more… this is just a start of 2009 haha.
for any of your favorites, be sure to email them in!