Murphy's Pub: Reflecting on the Minnestoa Loss

Four seconds left, a road win pretty much in hand. For some reason, Minnesota, down three, decides to attack the rim rather than taking a 3. Instead of conceding the layup, Myers Leonard stands his ground, Hollins gets bailed out with a foul (Leonard's fifth), makes the tough layup and hits the free throw. The Illini go on to lose in overtime and fall to 4-4 in the Big 10.

I went through a lot of stages of anger at that call. I was angry that the ref 35 feet away from the basket made a call that is a no call 95% of the time (though contrary to some reports, Leonard was not straight up and it WAS probably a foul). I was angry at Leonard for even bothering to contest the shot (giving up the layup in that situation probably seals the game for the Illini - and by fouling out, Leonard killed the Illini in OT). I was angry at Weber for not effectively telling his team not to foul under any circumstances. And I was angry at this Illinois team for letting a game they should have won get away... again (same thing I was feeling after both the Penn State and Wisconsin games).

Last night's loss got me thinking about the state of the Illinois program and Bruce Weber's tenure at Illinois. Since Dee and Augustine graduated in '06, Illinois has been a bubble team almost every year. Look at the results:

'07 - bubble team, sneak into the tournament as a 12 seed, lose a heartbreaker to Virginia Tech in the first round.
'08 - No postseason, not even good enough to qualify for the NT.
'09 - 5 seed. Lose to Western Kentucky in the first round.
'10 - NIT.
'11 - 9 seed. Lose in the second round to Kansas.

The reality is that Illinois has become a mediocre B1G program and the Illini are heading to the bubble again this year (for the 4th time in 6 years - '08 and '09 the exceptions). Those results are unacceptable and it's time for the program to head in another direction.

Drinking away another loss, here at Murphy's Pub.

Murphy's Pub: A Belated Ode to Brandon Paul's Historic Night

Brandon Paul scored 43 points Tuesday in a shocking upset win over a really good Ohio State team on only 15 field goal attempts. Paul added 8 rebounds and 4 emphatic blocks in the finest individual performance I have ever seen from a basketball player in the Orange and Blue.

Paul has been, at best, extremely inconsistent this year. He put the Illini on his back late in the win over St. Bonnaventure. His defense against John Shurna in the second half of the Northwestern game was a huge factor in the Illini grabbing that crucial road win.

The bad for Brandon Paul? He has been so bad offensively (29% from 3 heading into the Ohio State game, countless random passes to no one throughout the season) that during the Minnesota-Illinois game, I was a part of the Brandon Paul drinking game. Essentially, every time Paul made a mistake, we had to drink. And none of us were feeling good after the game.

But Paul is redeemed. With no shortage of hyperbole, Brandon Paul's performance against Ohio State made him immortal. I have been an Illinois fan for a very long time. I've seen Brian Cook score 20+ in a half. I've seen Dee Brown making 28 footers whenever he wanted against Michigan State in '06. I have never seen someone put together two flawless halves like Paul did on Tuesday. In fact, no one in the Big 10 has seen a game like that since Glenn Robinson was dominating the Big 10 at Purdue in the mid 90s. Someday, years from now, an Illini guard is going to be going crazy. Making threes with hands in the face, getting to the line, putting the Illini on his back. And the announcers will bring up Brandon Paul's night from 2012 as the measuring stick for how good of a game that future Illini is having.

Enjoy it Brandon Paul. Cheers from Murphy's Pub.

The Steroid Era, Ron Santo and the Absurdity of the Baseball Hall of Fame

The Inductees

Barry Larkin and Ron Santo make up the Baseball Hall of Fame (HOF) class of 2012. Barry Larkin was the best shortstop of the 90s and, one could argue, something of a revolutionary player. Larkin played solid defense and had some pop... at shortstop. A position to that point epitomized by the Ozzie Smith’s of the world: light hitting, defensive wizards. Larkin bridged the gap between Ozzie Smith and a generation of shortstops who hit for power. Barry Larkin clearly deserves a place in Cooperstown.

Santo, however, is a different story. Ron Santo was an above average third baseman for a number of years, played excellent defense, and, let’s face it, he was a nice guy who grew in popularity after his time in baseball was done. Prior to the steroid era, there were certain benchmarks that put a player into the Hall of Fame. 3,000 hits. 400 homeruns. Santo didn’t reach either. The most memorable team he played for was the ‘69 Cubs, a team known for giving away a huge lead down the stretch. So he doesn’t hit historical benchmarks, and he doesn’t have that memorable moment that gets him in (see Bill Mazeroski and any other undeserving Hall of Famer who got in on the basis of a mediocre career with a flash of brilliance).

Baseball Reference.com has a wonderful feature where they discuss who a player is most similar to across eras both over the course of their career and by season. Santo’s #1 contemporary per Baseball Reference is Dale Murphy. For each year of his career, the third baseman he projects most closely to is Adrian Beltre. Murphy and Beltre are both nice players, but if they are Hall of Famers, we may as well open the door to anyone that plays decent baseball for a decade. It’s important to note that Santo never received more than 43% of the vote from the writers (75% is necessary for enshrinement) and was elected by the Veteran’s Committee. What does all this mean? It means Santo was enshrined because he was a good guy. He was well liked by his fellow players. His campaign picked up steam in recent years because of the wonderful documentary, This Old Cub and because of Santo’s enormous popularity as a wildly entertaining color guy for the Cubs on WGN.

The Steroid Era

Which brings me to the biggest HOF hot button issue since Pete Rose. What to do about the steroid era. This question will truly come to a head next year when both Bonds and Clemens are eligible for induction for the first time.

Jayson Stark over at ESPN has written some wonderful articles on this subject. Voters ultimately fall into a number of different camps. There are those who won’t vote for anyone from that era, there are those who won’t vote for anyone who ever was linked to steroids, there are those who are going to vote for everyone, and there are those that won’t vote for anyone who tested positive after MLB officially outlawed steroid usage.

If I had a HOF vote, I would vote for who I considered to be the best players of that era. The HOF is, first and foremost, a museum. It’s a museum that tells the story of baseball. There are exhibits to the pioneers of the game, to the individual achievements (see Roger Maris’ 61 home runs while the man himself fails to obtain induction), and to the players that meant something. The museum tells the tale of the greatest players of each and every era. The HOF includes pioneers (Jackie Robinson) and noble, well spoken men (Hank Aaron among others). It also includes cheaters (Gaylord Perry), racists (Ty Cobb), and any number of other shady characters. The HOF should not be a whitewashed exhibit that glosses over the stains on the game. The HOF sells nostalgia, but ignoring the scandals and negative history of the game makes it a representation of what we would like baseball to be rather than what baseball actually is.

In the history of baseball, two deserving men have been denied inclusion to the HOF on grounds beyond what happened on the diamond. Shoeless Joe Jackson and Pete Rose, on their merits, are the among the best that ever played the game. But they gambled on the game and their punishment is to never have their bust in Cooperstown. Equating the steroid era guys to that is complete and utter nonsense.

So how do you actually grade these guys? Admittedly, past HOF benchmarks cannot be used. 400 homeruns isn’t a reasonable benchmark anymore. Hell, based on the way Rafeal Palmiero has been treated, 500 homeruns is no longer enough. In my mind, the analysis hasn’t changed in 100 years. You get into the HOF in one of two ways. The first, a player is just on another level for a 6-7 year run. Think Sandy Koufax. Think Pedro Martinez. If you have that long of a run of being an elite player, you belong in Cooperstown. The second, you have a long sustained career of excellence. These guys might not have won an MVP award, but they were really good for a really long time with a couple brilliant years thrown in there (see Barry Larkin). If you take the guys from those two columns, you can pretty fairly replicate the baseball players who mattered over an era. To handle the voting in any other way just validates the fact that a large number of the HOF voters are sanctimonious a-holes.


If I Had a Vote

My ballot this year would have included:

Barry Larkin

Jeff Bagwell - 400 HRs and 200 steals. Name me another 1B that can claim that. Top 3 in MVP voting three times (won in the strike shortened 1994).

Tim Raines - loses points with the writers because of his admission that he didn't slide into second in the early 80s because of the vials of cocaine in his back pocket. Raines has the 5th most stolen bases in history (behind Rickey Henderson, Lou Brock, Billy Hamilton and Ty Cobb). Tim Raines was the Moneyball leadoff hitter before Moneyball (.385 career OBP). Raines, as the second best leadoff hitter of the modern era, gets my vote.

Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmiero - Grouping the two admitted PEDers together. Palmiero fits category 2 (really good for a really long time). Palmiero may have only finished in the top 5 in MVP voting once (5th 1999), but you can't argue with 3,020 hits. Palmiero is in. McGwire was the most feared hitter on the late 90s before Bonds stole the torch. He's absolutely in.

Edgar Martinez - Saving my last vote for my favorite. The argument that Edgar Martinez somehow is barred from the HOF because he was a DH is absurd. Closers are in the HOF and they only pitch an inning a game. If you are allowing specialized players into the HOF, why not a DH? Especially the greatest DH of all-time? And seeing as how Mark Reynolds, Adam Dunn and Ryan Howard all managed to play in the NL, doesn't it stand to reason that if Edgar Martinez had played in the NL between 1995 and 2001, he wouldn't have been able to be a terrible fielding first baseman (his worst season during that time was a .306/.423/.543 with 23 HRs and 116 RBIs)?

Feel free to debate in the comments...

The Lighter Side

Let’s look at some of the absurdities of Hall of Fame voting. One of my favorite things to do every year is look at what ridiculous players are on the HOF ballot. This year? Bill Mueller (you may remember him from his mediocre years on the Cubs) 4 votes. Brad Radke (really?) 2 votes. Eric Young and Javy Lopez (1 vote each - were their mothers awarded HOF votes?). Jeromy Burnitz, Rueben Sierra, Terry Mulholland. All somehow on the ballot. Brian Jordan (you may remember him as the last baseball/football player). And my personal favorite, Tony Womack. Yes, the same Tony Womack who, over the course of his career had a WAR (wins above replacement) of 1.2. That means that for his career, Tony Womack was a little over 1 win better than the average baseball player. Who puts Tony Womack on the HOF ballot? Absurd.

I love the HOF... debate in the comments.

Murphy's Pub: Adaptation is good for the soul

As Gene Hackman would say, "My team is on the floor!" Today's Illinois team is the same team we, as Illini fans, are going to have to deal for the next year and a half (Michael Orris, a lightly recruited point guard, is next year's sole addition). Yes, they are going to compete and play hard, and we will love them for that. But they are going to have days like today where they just cannot buy a basket (contrast today to the Gonzaga game).

When you are a fan of a basketball team, there are things you can forgive (a team that competes hard and just misses shots - much of today's issues) and there are things you cannot get over. Today, there were several instances where the Illini made mistakes a 7th grade team wouldn't have made.

Case in point. Illinois cut UNLV's lead today to 8 late in the second half. They had the ball. Sam Maniscalco (a fine point guard, but one who is already horribly overrated by the Illini fan base - the people who say that Maniscalco is better than McCamey was are insane) pounded the ball at the top of the key for 25 seconds and the Illini turned the ball over. Now, if you have played basketball, you know that the fault on this particular play isn't on Maniscalco. The point guard brings the ball down, the big men set screens, and you have two guys popping out to the wing, the point guard makes the entry pass and the offense is moving. When no one popped out on that particular play, Bruce Weber needed to take a timeout and just berate his team. This is basic basketball. You can't play winning basketball when your point guard is wearing out the ball at the top of the key without any outlet.

The problem for the Illini is that they only really have three solid offensive options. Brandon Paul and DJ Richardson are solid Big 10 guards. When they have it going (and DJ did today with 17 points and 5 threes), you can run offense through either of them (see Brandon Paul late against St. Bonaventure). But Illinois needs to run offense through Myers Leonard to maximize their potential.

Leonard is a lottery pick in waiting. He's a 7'1" freak athlete. He has soft touch offensively (1-6 from the line today notwithstanding) and he's a surprisingly good passer for a guy his size. Not to go all Gene Hackman on the readers (reader), but any time Leonard is on the floor, he absolutely must get a touch in the post. This is simple. Guard pops out to the wing, Leonard posts and gets the ball. Double team comes, Leonard finds the open man. Double team doesn't come, Leonard scores. Bruce Weber MUST run the offense through his best player and if he doesn't, then he is over coaching and needs to go.

And here is the problem with coaches like Weber. They put the system ahead of the pieces on the floor. Weber's offense was perfect for the '05 team. Absolutely spot on perfect. But the '05 team isn't walking through the Assembly Hall tunnel. Other than Leonard, there isn't an NBA player on the roster. So simplify your offense. Play to your team's strengths. This Illinois team has plenty of strengths. They are very strong defensively they compete like mad, but other than DJ and maybe Maniscalco, they aren't going to shoot anyone out of the gym. And other than Brandon Paul, they don't have a guard that can create their own offense.

So let this be an informal plea to Bruce Weber. Simplify your system, run offense through Leonard, play to your team's strengths, and get the most out of a likeable, hard working Illini squad.

Cheers from Murphy's Pub.

Kenny Williams Makes a Trade!

The Hobbserver is back! Yes my loyal reader, I'm writing again with a goal to make two posts a week. Much like Cosmo Kramer's late Merv Griffin show, we took some time off to re-tool and are back - scandals and animals and all.

There's a lot to talk about in the world of sports. The Illini and UCLA will meet in what is likely to be the worst bowl game ever. Illinois basketball is off to an 8-0 start and is back in the Top 25. The NBA released its schedule and the Bulls are allegedly chasing Dwight Howard. With all that going on in the Hobbserver world, however, Kenny Williams was the man who forced my triumphant return to be about my beloved Chicago White Sox.

Kenny Williams made his first step on the road to rebuilding, trading closer Sergio Santos to the Blue Jays for 22 year old minor leaguer Nestor Molina. Why would the Sox trade an affordable closer with a live arm, under team control for the next 3 years (with an additional 3 years of club options) for Nestor Molina? And why do I actually love the trade?

(1) Nestor Molina immediately becomes the White Sox second best prospect (more on number 1 in a minute). Some scouts love Molina. Some don't. According to John Sickels, he was the number 2 prospect in a deep Blue Jays system. Another publication has Molina as the number 44 prospect in baseball period. According to Baseball America, on the other hand, he's a career reliever. The things I know: (1) The Sox scouts love Molina - they would not have traded a valuable chip like Santos for him otherwise. (2) Molina's numbers last year were absurd. In 130+ innings between A and AA, Molina struck out 148 batter and walked 16. That is just an absurd ratio. So even if Molina's stuff is average, you can't teach that kind of control.

(2) Closers are a luxury and their value fluctuates wildly. Santos had a great year last year. But he's 28 years old. His out pitch is a slider (meaning he has to pitch out of the strike zone to get outs). I mean, the Sox didn't move Mariano Rivera here. Plus, in what is likely a rebuilding year, a closer is the last thing you. Accordingly, there's no rationale for not getting value for a closer. I have absolutely no problem with the Sox selling high on Santos.

(3) And then there's the insurance policy - the top prospect in the White Sox system is Addison Reed. Reed was the Sox third round pick in 2010 and advanced insanely quickly through the Sox system last year going from A ball to AAA with an insane WHIP of .738 and 155 Ks in 108+ innings. At AAA Charlotte, Reed allowed 11 base runners in 21 innings. As a poster on Soxtalk.com said today, Addison Reed is "a machine designed to get people out." Reed is your closer next year and is the closer on the next White Sox contender.

(4) Really the only criticism of this trade that I can get behind is that Kenny Williams was too in love with Molina, fixated on him, and didn't explore other ideas that might have netted a greater return. No matter who much you love a prospect, prospects have an extremely high attrition rate. That's why most teams look to get multiple prospects back when they deal an asset. Peter Gammons indicated that Baltimore and Boston would have paid more for Santos. So Williams is taking a gamble that Molina is going to be a #3 starter or better at the next level. There is no room for error with this trade...

So there you have it. I love that the Sox moved Santos. I just really, really hope that Nestor Molina was worth the risk.

An Ode to Bob Bradley: Closing a Solid Chapter of US Soccer

Sigh. I know. Another post about soccer. Don't worry. Football season starts soon enough and then there will be more than enough Big 1G posts to go around.

With that being said, US soccer is entering into an exciting new chapter. The United States Soccer Federation (USSF) ended a five year flirtation with former German national team coach and diver extroardinaire, Jurgen Klinsmann, and unveiled him as the newest coach of the United States Men's National Team (USMNT).

Believe it or not, I have thoughts about the Klinsmann hire. Those thoughts can wait for another day. Today, I would like to take a moment to pay homage to the most under appreciated coach in USMNT history, Bob Bradley.

Bradley engineered a particular level of hatred from the most vocal portions of the USMNT fanbase. Carles over at Grantland brought up one of the more ridiculous reasons for the Bradley hate. For some reason, fans of US soccer underrated the coach's son to an absurd degree. To listen to those critics, Michael Bradley, arguably the best American field player at the World Cup, was only on the National Team because his coach was the dad. Pay no attention to Bradley's 18 goals at SC Heerenveen in the Dutch top division (the most goals in a single season by an American in a top European league). Pay no attention to Bradley's beautiful goal against Egypt that helped the US move onto the knockout round at the '09 Confederation Cup. Pay no attention to Bradley's fantastic goal against Slovenia at the World Cup salvaging a draw. Any unbiased observer would say that Michael Bradley is a pretty good soccer player.

Bradley haters liked to say that he hated Latinos. Let's ignore the fact that Bradley handed a critical start to Jose Torres against Slovenia at the World Cup (where Torres was awful by the way). That hasn't stopped Torres from reaching mythic proportions amongst the US fanbase. David Hirshey at ESPN rated Torres as the only true number 10 (playmaking midfielder) in the US player pool. Of course Hirshey failed to acknowledge the fact that Torres played sparingly in Mexico in the season following the World Cup. Is Torres a promising young player? Yes. Does he have a future with the national team? Yes. Does he need to play consistently for his club in Mexico before he passes Bradley, Maurice Edu, Jermaine Jones, Stuart Holden, Benny Fielhaber and Alejandro Bedoya on the US depth chart? Yes. Does Bob Bradley hate Latinos? There is no evidence to support that conclusion.

Bradley haters talked about how he never called in new players. Bradley gave 60 players their first cap (national team appearance). Bradley's haters somehow managed to criticize him for calling Freddy Adu onto the Gold Cup roster AND for not playing him soon enough. Bradley could never win. This was not a vocal minority of the fan base. This was the majority of the fan base.

To an objective viewer, Bob Bradley has an unmatched resume amongst USMNT coaches. Bradley coached the US to a Gold Cup win in '07 (Benny Fielhaber with a wonder goal to beat Mexico in Chicago). Bradley led the US to a win over Spain in the '09 Confederation Cup (ending Spain's 35 match unbeaten streak against essentially the same Spain team that won the World Cup the next year) and took the USMNT to its first ever final in a major tournament. Bradley's '10 World Cup squad drew with England and somehow managed to actually win their group.

Did Bradley fall in love with certain players? Rico Clark, Jonathan Bornstein, Robbie Rogers and Robbie Findlay certainly suggest that was the case. But Bradley was working with a talent pool where Clint Dempsey (a very good player on a mid table Premier League side) was his best field player. American soccer fans seem to have an overly optimisic sense of how good American soccer players are. No single field player on the US roster would make the 18 (11 starters + 7 bench players) for Spain, Brazil or Argentina (Tim Howard notwithstanding). The US should always be one of the top two teams in CONCACAF (with Mexico), but that's what they are, a regional power that just does not have the talent to compete with the best on the international level. For some reason, American fans put the blame for that lack of talent on Bob Bradley which is incomprehensible.

Was moving on from Bob Bradley the right move? Absolutely. No soccer coach should ever get more than one World Cup cycle with the National Team. You need fresh ideas after four years. And the USSF has apparently given Klinsmann unprecedented control. Klinsmann will have input at every level, from the youth teams on down, that Bradley never had. Klinsmann has the potential to actually influence the direction that USSF takes, from the national team on down to American youth soccer. So yes, the USSF made the right decision moving on. They ended their 5 year flirtation with Klinsmann and moved on. Let's just all acknowledge that Bradley's stewardship of the USSF left the national team in a better place than it was when he took over. So, I raise my glass to Bob Bradley tonight for a solid, and at times spectacular, 5 years as the head coach of US soccer. To an under appreciated coach. Cheers.

Kenny Williams Makes a Controversial Trade?

It must be July. In an annual rite of spring, Kenny Williams set the White Sox message boards aflame by making a deadline deal. The facts are these: the White Sox moved soon to be free agent Edwin Jackson and the awful Mark Teahen contract (3 years, $14 million for almost no production and awful fielding) to the Blue Jays for reliever Jason Frasor and prospect Zach Stewart. The Blue Jays then moved Jackson to the Cardinals for enigmatic center fielder Colby Rasmus.

I like how the Sox came out in this deal. I assume (probably making an ass out of me) that the Sox will use the Teahen money to re-sign Mark Buehrle. I like that Jason Frasor is a solid back of the bullpen guy with a cheap option for 2012 (3.75 million). I like that Zach Stewart is a live arm and jumps into the Sox five best prospects immediately (Stewart was rated as the Jays top prospect in '09 before regressing slightly this year - though it should be noted that the Blue Jays have a White Sox bad farm system). And I like that the Sox didn't really give anything up. Jackson is walking next year and with the emergence of Phil Humber this year, the Sox had an excess starter to move.

Ultimately, how you feel about this trade depends on how you feel about Colby Rasmus. Obviously the Sox could have had Rasmus. A 24 year old center fielder who, in his second full season ('10) hit .276 with 23 home runs and had an OPS of .859. Rasmus regressed this year (.246 BA and .753 OPS) but has all the tools to be a steal for Toronto. But you can't discuss Rasmus without also discussing his baggage. Rasmus wore out his welcome with Tony LaRussa (who, to be fair, has never had much patience for young players). He employed his own hitting coach. His dad is rumored to be, essentially, a stage dad (shocking considering his son is 24 years old).

To read the White Sox message boards, the Sox missed out on the second coming of Willie Mays for the benefit of adding an ok prospect and a decent reliever. The reality is that the ceiling for Rasmus is probably Carlos Beltran, a guy that will give you above average defense and hit .270 with power and the ability to run. The floor is Corey Patterson. I think it's telling that the Cardinals gave up Rasmus for 2 months of Edwin Jackson. That is all I need to know to tell me that Rasmus (1) has never had lower value and (2) is probably closer to Corey Patterson than Beltran.

Ultimately, the deal makes the Sox better today. The deal allowed them to call up De Aza who hit a huge homer in his big league debut, a two run bomb in a 2-1 win over Detroit, makes the bullpen better this year and next, gives them additional payroll flexibility going forward, dumps the Teahen contract, potentially opens the door for Viciedo to get a call up, and adds a promising young arm to the farm system. I give Kenny Williams and this trade a hearty, Hobbserver thumbs up.