If the Bulls win the NBA title this year, it will be an unprecedented achievement in modern NBA history. You are reading that and thinking: Wow, that’s a fair amount of hyperbole from a Bulls homer. But I have the facts to back it up. Since 1984, the list of NBA champions with their best player in parenthesis:
1984: Boston (Bird)
1985: Lakers (Magic/Kareem)
1986: Boston (Bird)
1987: Lakers (Magic/Kareem)
1988: Lakers (Magic/Kareem)
1989: Detroit (Isiah)
1990: Detroit (Isiah)
1991: Chicago (Jordan)
1992: Chicago (Jordan)
1993: Chicago (Jordan)
1994: Houston (Hakeem)
1995: Houston (Hakeem)
1996: Chicago (Jordan)
1997: Chicago (Jordan)
1998: Chicago (Jordan)
1999: San Antonio (Duncan)
2000: Lakers (Shaq/Kobe)
2001: Lakers (Shaq/Kobe)
2002: Lakers (Shaq/Kobe)
2003: San Antonio (Duncan)
2004: Detroit (Billups)
2005: San Antonio (Duncan)
2006: Miami (Shaq/Wade)
2007: San Antonio (Duncan)
2008: Boston (Pierce/Garnett)
2009: Lakers (Kobe)
2010: Lakers (Kobe)
Of those teams, only the ‘89, ‘90 and ‘04 Pistons won the title when their best player was their point guard (arguably every title won by the Showtime Lakers falls in this category as well, but the fact that Magic had the second best center of all-time and the guy who scored the most points in NBA history excepts those Lakers teams from this discussion). The ‘04 Pistons were unique in that their entire starting lineup was, at a minimum, a fringe All-Star. The Isiah Pistons were the closest approximation to the current Bulls team. They had a rugged frontline, a deep bench, and clearly, their best player was their point guard (Lambieer = Noah, Vinnie Johnson was their Kyle Korver - a guy they can run offense through for extended minutes off the bench, Deng was Mark Aguirre). But Isiah Thomas had a perfect complement in Joe Dumars. Dumars was good enough to carry the Pistons offensively for stretches, and an extremely good defender (at 6'3" you could argue he defended Jordan better than anyone ever). The Bulls lack their Joe Dumars (though if you could combine the best attributes of Korver and Bogans you might create a Dumars clone - the other half of Keith Borver would be the worst player in the league). And therefore, they run afoul of the fundamental rule in modern NBA history, to which only two Pistons teams are the exception: you do not win a title with a point guard as your best player and the focal point of your offense. You win with a dominant, taller scoring guard, a dominant big man or both. The 2010-2011 Bulls have neither. The counter to this argument, of course, is that Isiah proved that what mattered was not whether you had the taller scoring guard or a dominant big man, but rather whether you had the best player. And the Bulls should feel comfortable that, other than against the Heat, in the East, they will have the best player on the floor at all times.
But think about the great point guards over the past 20 years: Gary Payton made the ‘96 Finals with Kemp, but when Kemp lost his edge, Payton never made it back. John Stockton made the ‘97 and ‘98 Finals, but it was his relationship with Karl Malone that got them there - and again, no titles to their credit. Jason Kidd made the Finals with New Jersey in ‘02 and ‘03 when he quite literally was their team (with all due respect to Kerry Kittles, Kenyon Martin and Richard Jefferson). Kidd was at his apex those two years and made everyone 20% better offensively. But Kidd failed to win a title. Steve Nash won MVPs in ‘05 and ‘06 but he never made a Finals. Chris Paul and Deron Williams have yet to make a Finals as the best player on their respective teams. The last small guard to have the offensive responsibilities of Rose was Allen Iverson, and he made the Finals only once, in 2001 (although it should be noted that the Sixers destroyed Iverson’s title chances by never giving him a remotely decent supporting cast).
Rose is a great player; in a few weeks, the smart money has him winning the MVP award at the age of 22. He is brilliant with the ball in his hands, a combination of Iverson and Lebron offensively with an improved jump shot that forces defenders to go above, not below, high screens to defend the shot. Every team in his way has weaknesses. The Celtics are aging and, after the Kendrick Perkins trade, lost some of their edge. The Heat have absolutely no bench and will be destroyed by the Bulls on the inside. Orlando and San Antonio may not get out of the first round. The Lakers clearly cannot defend a quick point guard (see the re-emergence of Chris Paul as he kills the Lakers). Dallas is as much of a one man show on offense as the Bulls are. The Thunder are younger than the Bulls (though if the Bulls make the Finals and run into OKC, that’s a nightmare matchup for the Bulls - Westbrook is as athletic as Rose and Durant fits the bill of tall, elite scorer that wins titles). The Bulls aren’t competing against the Showtime Lakers, the Bird Celtics, the Jordan Bulls, the Shaq/Kobe Lakers or even the Duncan Spurs. There is no dominant NBA team this year and the title is there for the taking, just like it was for a unique Pistons team in ‘04. But years of recent NBA history tell us that high scoring point guards don’t win titles. Then again, before '91, Jordan wasn't going to win a title without a big man. Six titles later, conventional wisdom changed again. Rose is going to need a lot of help from Boozer and Deng to change that conventional wisdom and hoist the Larry O’Brien trophy.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Monday, April 25, 2011
Pat Forde and I hate the NBA Age Rule
Pat Forde wrote a column on ESPN today about Josh Selby over at Kansas. Basically, Josh Selby was one of the top 5 recruits in the country in the high school class of 2010. If the NBA’s age limit was not in place, he would have been a lottery pick last year. Then, he arrived at Kansas, broke his hand, and never lived up to his hype. He is heading to the NBA draft anyway, even though he will probably be a late first round pick at best. Millions of dollars disappeared due to the college age rule. Forde’s thesis was that the age rule does a disservice to athletes and universities alike and that the NBA’s age rule should be abolished. I agree.
College provides kids with an education and a degree that maximizes their earning potential over time (even if they major in Philosophy). Those lucky few, people like Josh Selby, or Kevin Garnett, or Lebron James, or Gerald Green, have been blessed with abilities that make college unnecessary (much like Bill Gates was blessed with an ability that made college unnecessary). They can make millions of dollars right out of high school. For some of these kids (see Gerald Green) college could have either (a) exposed weaknesses in their game and cost them millions or (b) provided them with the valuable coaching and maturity needed to maximize their career and earning potential over time. The kids that are ready for the NBA immediately are the exception, not the rule. But shouldn’t the NBA recognize that exception instead of creating barriers to earning a paycheck?
There are talented players who come to college, recognize how much fun it is, and realize that the money will still be there in a few years. Harrison Barnes and Jared Sullinger both fall into that category. But who is David Stern to say that, at 18, a kid who needs the money has to turn back in his winning lottery ticket to go to “school” for a year. Isn’t it incredibly paternalistic to tell a kid that they have to go to school for a year when they neither want to go or need to go? And doesn’t that, in turn, take a scholarship away from another kid that both wants to and needs to go to school? I mean, I get it, NBA teams like the age rule because it gives them an extra year to evaluate players. Fans like the age rule because it prevents the college product from becoming overly diluted. The rule protects the kids who get bad advice from the wrong people and throw away their college eligibility to never get drafted. But the age rule needs to be abolished, a true minor league system put in place, and sanity needs to be restored to college basketball.
College provides kids with an education and a degree that maximizes their earning potential over time (even if they major in Philosophy). Those lucky few, people like Josh Selby, or Kevin Garnett, or Lebron James, or Gerald Green, have been blessed with abilities that make college unnecessary (much like Bill Gates was blessed with an ability that made college unnecessary). They can make millions of dollars right out of high school. For some of these kids (see Gerald Green) college could have either (a) exposed weaknesses in their game and cost them millions or (b) provided them with the valuable coaching and maturity needed to maximize their career and earning potential over time. The kids that are ready for the NBA immediately are the exception, not the rule. But shouldn’t the NBA recognize that exception instead of creating barriers to earning a paycheck?
There are talented players who come to college, recognize how much fun it is, and realize that the money will still be there in a few years. Harrison Barnes and Jared Sullinger both fall into that category. But who is David Stern to say that, at 18, a kid who needs the money has to turn back in his winning lottery ticket to go to “school” for a year. Isn’t it incredibly paternalistic to tell a kid that they have to go to school for a year when they neither want to go or need to go? And doesn’t that, in turn, take a scholarship away from another kid that both wants to and needs to go to school? I mean, I get it, NBA teams like the age rule because it gives them an extra year to evaluate players. Fans like the age rule because it prevents the college product from becoming overly diluted. The rule protects the kids who get bad advice from the wrong people and throw away their college eligibility to never get drafted. But the age rule needs to be abolished, a true minor league system put in place, and sanity needs to be restored to college basketball.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
NBA Playoffs: The First Round in the East
Today we are talking about the first round in the East. I touched on the two series I thought would be close in yesterday’s column (New York-Boston and Atlanta-Orlando) but today we will go in depth:
(8) Indiana Pacers v. (1) Chicago Bulls
The Bulls have a hard fought 2-0 series edge as the series heads back to Conseco Fieldhouse. Believe it or not, but Tyler Hansborough is an extremely difficult matchup for the Bulls. All year, the Bulls defense has thrived because they are such good help defenders. As a result, the Bulls are able to hide Rose (an average - but improving - defender) and Boozer (an average defender at best). Well, the help defense leads to open shots for Hansborough, and with Boozer struggling to close out, Hansborough gets 18 footers to his heart’s content. Ultimately, though, late in both Game 1 and Game 2 when the defenses tighten up, the Pacers lack a go to guy to make the Bulls pay. They may steal a game either Thursday or Sunday in Indy, but I cannot imagine this series going past a 5th game. *Note, expect a very long post later this week or over the weekend detailing my thoughts about the Bulls playoff chances as a whole*
(7) Philadelphia v. (2) Miami
Not a lot to say about this series after the rout that was Game 2 in Miami yesterday. The Sixers overachieved all year behind a pretty good coaching job by Doug Collins. But they just have a weird roster. Andre Iguodola improved greatly this year, embracing his role as a defensive stopper, but they really lack anyone with offensive punch. The Heat’s weaknesses (lack of size, who gets the ball at crunch time, lack of any semblance of a bench) will not be tested by the Sixers. This series will be lucky to go 5.
(6) Knicks v. (3) Celtics
One of the more intriguing postseason matchups on paper (made slightly worse by the Chauncey Billups injury). Boston and New York are rife with basketball history, the Knicks have been waiting since Ewing retired to root for a good basketball team, the Celtics, for the third striaght year have been pronounced to be on their last legs, oh, and there was something about a Carmelo Anthony trade this offseason? This series is a story in contrasts: the Celtics are a strong defensive team, the Knicks are all offense. Ultimately, this Knicks team has two fantastic pieces in place for the future (Melo and Amare) but they need to model themselves after the Bulls. Surround two subpar defenders with good defensive players, surround them with a defensive minded coach (not Mike D’Antoni), and see if you can contend with Chicago and Miami for the next 5 years. In a series of offense vs. defense, you pick defense (especially with Billups out). Celtics will win in 6.
(5) Atlanta v. (4) Orlando
John Hollinger had a pretty good article today about how Jason Collins is the key to the series because he is in the league for the sole purpose of defending Dwight Howard and Shaq. Now, Howard went off for 46 points and 19 rebounds in a Game 1 loss, but, according to Hollinger, Howard has 12 points and 6 turnovers when Collins was on the floor. This is not the same Orlando team that made the finals in ‘09. Remember that Hedo Turkoglu was the crunch time scorer on that team (before completely destroying his career for a year in Toronto and returning to Orlando a very different player). Jason Richardson and Gilbert Arenas have given Orlando very little of late. Atlanta, on the other hand, has one of the better young players in the game in Al Horford and high scoring, but somewhat streaky and certainly overpaid scorers in Joe Johnson and Jamal Crawford. And they have the most athletic player in the series in Josh Smith - a guy that for some reason fancies himself a jump shooter. The Hawks lost their last 6 to end the season and nearly every basketball writer decided they had quit on their coach. On top of all that, the Bulls would run through Atlanta in Round 2. So I am trying desperately to talk myself into Atlanta winning this series. At the end of the day, Arenas will get hot one game, Orlando will get some offense from Brandon Bass and Ryan Anderson, and the Hawks will regress to the mediocre offensive team they are. Orlando wins in 7.
(8) Indiana Pacers v. (1) Chicago Bulls
The Bulls have a hard fought 2-0 series edge as the series heads back to Conseco Fieldhouse. Believe it or not, but Tyler Hansborough is an extremely difficult matchup for the Bulls. All year, the Bulls defense has thrived because they are such good help defenders. As a result, the Bulls are able to hide Rose (an average - but improving - defender) and Boozer (an average defender at best). Well, the help defense leads to open shots for Hansborough, and with Boozer struggling to close out, Hansborough gets 18 footers to his heart’s content. Ultimately, though, late in both Game 1 and Game 2 when the defenses tighten up, the Pacers lack a go to guy to make the Bulls pay. They may steal a game either Thursday or Sunday in Indy, but I cannot imagine this series going past a 5th game. *Note, expect a very long post later this week or over the weekend detailing my thoughts about the Bulls playoff chances as a whole*
(7) Philadelphia v. (2) Miami
Not a lot to say about this series after the rout that was Game 2 in Miami yesterday. The Sixers overachieved all year behind a pretty good coaching job by Doug Collins. But they just have a weird roster. Andre Iguodola improved greatly this year, embracing his role as a defensive stopper, but they really lack anyone with offensive punch. The Heat’s weaknesses (lack of size, who gets the ball at crunch time, lack of any semblance of a bench) will not be tested by the Sixers. This series will be lucky to go 5.
(6) Knicks v. (3) Celtics
One of the more intriguing postseason matchups on paper (made slightly worse by the Chauncey Billups injury). Boston and New York are rife with basketball history, the Knicks have been waiting since Ewing retired to root for a good basketball team, the Celtics, for the third striaght year have been pronounced to be on their last legs, oh, and there was something about a Carmelo Anthony trade this offseason? This series is a story in contrasts: the Celtics are a strong defensive team, the Knicks are all offense. Ultimately, this Knicks team has two fantastic pieces in place for the future (Melo and Amare) but they need to model themselves after the Bulls. Surround two subpar defenders with good defensive players, surround them with a defensive minded coach (not Mike D’Antoni), and see if you can contend with Chicago and Miami for the next 5 years. In a series of offense vs. defense, you pick defense (especially with Billups out). Celtics will win in 6.
(5) Atlanta v. (4) Orlando
John Hollinger had a pretty good article today about how Jason Collins is the key to the series because he is in the league for the sole purpose of defending Dwight Howard and Shaq. Now, Howard went off for 46 points and 19 rebounds in a Game 1 loss, but, according to Hollinger, Howard has 12 points and 6 turnovers when Collins was on the floor. This is not the same Orlando team that made the finals in ‘09. Remember that Hedo Turkoglu was the crunch time scorer on that team (before completely destroying his career for a year in Toronto and returning to Orlando a very different player). Jason Richardson and Gilbert Arenas have given Orlando very little of late. Atlanta, on the other hand, has one of the better young players in the game in Al Horford and high scoring, but somewhat streaky and certainly overpaid scorers in Joe Johnson and Jamal Crawford. And they have the most athletic player in the series in Josh Smith - a guy that for some reason fancies himself a jump shooter. The Hawks lost their last 6 to end the season and nearly every basketball writer decided they had quit on their coach. On top of all that, the Bulls would run through Atlanta in Round 2. So I am trying desperately to talk myself into Atlanta winning this series. At the end of the day, Arenas will get hot one game, Orlando will get some offense from Brandon Bass and Ryan Anderson, and the Hawks will regress to the mediocre offensive team they are. Orlando wins in 7.
Monday, April 18, 2011
NBA Playoff Edition: The First Round in the West
I am going to piggyback off of every major NBA writer here today and say that this year’s playoffs have the potential to be the best in my lifetime. After everyone has played one game, I am going to preview the conference’s and preview each first round matchup. I am previewing the West today because there is a lot more uncertainty in the early rounds out West (I’ll go out on a limb and say that the Hawks and, maybe, the Knicks are the only lower seeds in the East who could pull off a round 1 shocker). Without further adieu:
(8) Memphis v. (1) San Antonio
Memphis stole game 1 in San Antonio yesterday and, really are in a position to star in the most interesting 1 v. 8 matchup since Golden State shocked the Mavs in 2007. In basketball, it is all about matchups. Zach Randolph and Marc Gasol (with an underrated Darrell Arthur coming off the bench) have the talent and strength to wear down an aging frontcourt of Tim Duncan and Antonio McDyess. The Spurs desperately need Manu Ginobli back because he is the only guy they have who can draw a double team and create for his teammates. Really, it is unfortunate for the Grizzlies that they lost Rudy Gay to injury. A healthy Gay would give them the pieces to beat a full strength San Antonio. As it stands, if the Spurs get Ginobli back, they should move past their hiccup in game 1 and move on to the next round.
(7) New Orleans v. (2) Lakers
Another massive upset pulled off in the West. Chris Paul looked like CP3 circa 2008 in shredding the Lakers defense in game 1. Of course, everyone overreacted to this game by telling us that “Chris Paul is the greatest point guard ever” (let’s ignore the fact that Paul actually went scoreless in 29 minutes against Mike Conley and Memphis two weeks ago) and “What is Wrong with the Lakers?!” The reality of the situation is that the Lakers are not built to stop an elite point guard. Derek Fisher can’t guard Chris Paul and neither can Kobe or Artest. The Lakers last two titles were won against a team without an elite point guard (Orlando) and in spite of their inability to stop Rondo (Boston). For the Hornets to win this series, they will need vintage Chris Paul every single game in addition to continuing no shows from the LA frontline. Extremely unlikely. The Lakers will win this series, but Paul exposes their glaring weakness defensively (how many points would D Rose score in a finals matchup against the Lakers?).
(6) Portland v. (3) Dallas
JA Adande from ESPN had a great point about this series on Bill Simmons’ podcast the other day. He essentially compared this series to Wisconsin v. Belmont in the tournament this year. Portland has become such a trendy upset pick that they almost feel like the favorite. And this should be a great series. Dirk v. Aldridge is a matchup of two of the top 15 players in the league. Portland has a better supporting cast as well (Gerald Wallace was the perfect addition to their team). But in a close game late, I would rather have Dirk than anyone on Portland. Dirk will shoot over Wallace and Aldridge will not be able to stay in front of him. I will balk conventional wisdom and take the Mavs in 7.
(5) Denver v. (4) Oklahoma City
A dream matchup for fans of up tempo, attractive basketball. A nightmare matchup for the Nuggets. Since the Melo trade, the Nuggets have run their opponents into the ground. Led by Ty Lawson’s speed, Denver plays fast and scores a lot of points. In fact, I would have liked Denver’s chances against any of the other seeds above them. But Oklahoma City is just as young and their legs are just as fresh. Serge Ibaka, Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook will gladly get up and down the floor with the Nuggets. And late in a close game, Kevin Durant certainly trumps Aaron Aflalo, Lawson or any other Nugget. Ultimately, the two best players in the series (Durant and Westbrook) play for the Thunder and the Nuggets lose the advantage that their style of play brings to the table; that swings the series to the Thunder in no fewer than 6 games.
(8) Memphis v. (1) San Antonio
Memphis stole game 1 in San Antonio yesterday and, really are in a position to star in the most interesting 1 v. 8 matchup since Golden State shocked the Mavs in 2007. In basketball, it is all about matchups. Zach Randolph and Marc Gasol (with an underrated Darrell Arthur coming off the bench) have the talent and strength to wear down an aging frontcourt of Tim Duncan and Antonio McDyess. The Spurs desperately need Manu Ginobli back because he is the only guy they have who can draw a double team and create for his teammates. Really, it is unfortunate for the Grizzlies that they lost Rudy Gay to injury. A healthy Gay would give them the pieces to beat a full strength San Antonio. As it stands, if the Spurs get Ginobli back, they should move past their hiccup in game 1 and move on to the next round.
(7) New Orleans v. (2) Lakers
Another massive upset pulled off in the West. Chris Paul looked like CP3 circa 2008 in shredding the Lakers defense in game 1. Of course, everyone overreacted to this game by telling us that “Chris Paul is the greatest point guard ever” (let’s ignore the fact that Paul actually went scoreless in 29 minutes against Mike Conley and Memphis two weeks ago) and “What is Wrong with the Lakers?!” The reality of the situation is that the Lakers are not built to stop an elite point guard. Derek Fisher can’t guard Chris Paul and neither can Kobe or Artest. The Lakers last two titles were won against a team without an elite point guard (Orlando) and in spite of their inability to stop Rondo (Boston). For the Hornets to win this series, they will need vintage Chris Paul every single game in addition to continuing no shows from the LA frontline. Extremely unlikely. The Lakers will win this series, but Paul exposes their glaring weakness defensively (how many points would D Rose score in a finals matchup against the Lakers?).
(6) Portland v. (3) Dallas
JA Adande from ESPN had a great point about this series on Bill Simmons’ podcast the other day. He essentially compared this series to Wisconsin v. Belmont in the tournament this year. Portland has become such a trendy upset pick that they almost feel like the favorite. And this should be a great series. Dirk v. Aldridge is a matchup of two of the top 15 players in the league. Portland has a better supporting cast as well (Gerald Wallace was the perfect addition to their team). But in a close game late, I would rather have Dirk than anyone on Portland. Dirk will shoot over Wallace and Aldridge will not be able to stay in front of him. I will balk conventional wisdom and take the Mavs in 7.
(5) Denver v. (4) Oklahoma City
A dream matchup for fans of up tempo, attractive basketball. A nightmare matchup for the Nuggets. Since the Melo trade, the Nuggets have run their opponents into the ground. Led by Ty Lawson’s speed, Denver plays fast and scores a lot of points. In fact, I would have liked Denver’s chances against any of the other seeds above them. But Oklahoma City is just as young and their legs are just as fresh. Serge Ibaka, Kevin Durant and Russell Westbrook will gladly get up and down the floor with the Nuggets. And late in a close game, Kevin Durant certainly trumps Aaron Aflalo, Lawson or any other Nugget. Ultimately, the two best players in the series (Durant and Westbrook) play for the Thunder and the Nuggets lose the advantage that their style of play brings to the table; that swings the series to the Thunder in no fewer than 6 games.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Closers Wanted: Ranting About Ozzie Guillen and Closers by Committee
The White Sox sit at 7-8 right now, 3.5 games behind the Royals and Indians in the AL Central race. But the story is not the record, the story is not the offense, the story is their failure to close out games. Matt Thornton came into the season as the closer, but he has been nothing short of awful this year. Thornton is 0-4 in save attempts. Now, to be fair, 6 of the 10 runs he has allowed in those situations were unearned, but Thornton is not getting the job done. And now, Ozzie Guillen is confused and making things worse. Case in point, on Wednesday, the White Sox were holding a 4-1 lead in the 9th. Thornton, the closer, doesn't get the ball. Chris Sale gets the ball. Great, this means the Sox have a new closer! Sale gives up a leadoff double and two singles. The game is now 4-2 but, as the new closer, Sale should have the opportunity to pitch out of this jam. Instead, Ozzie goes to the bullpen. On comes Jesse Crain. What?! Is Crain the closer? No, he walks Dan Barton and strikes out Suzuki. Bases are loaded, one out, Sox up 2. And here comes Matt Thornton. Thornton strikes out Ryan Sweeney, then gives up a two out single. Tie game. Ok, blown save for the closer. They happen. But then Ozzie brings Thornton back out in the 10th in a tie game. Thornton gets lit up for 3 runs. Game over. Sox lose 7-4.
So what is the problem in all this? I believe that closing is the most difficult job in baseball. As a closer, you are charged with getting the three toughest outs in a game. You only come in with the game on the line. Closing requires great stuff, but more importantly, it takes the right mentality. Baseball history is paved with pitchers who either never had that mentality (see Letroy Hawkins), or guys that lost that mentality (Byung Hung Kim after the '01 World Series, Brad Lidge for a short time after giving up countless huge homeruns in the '05 postseason). The worst thing a manager can do with a closer is make the closer's job more difficult. Think of it this way: athletes thrive on routine. A closer knows exactly when they will be called on and can start their routine. Closer by committee takes that away. And that's where Ozzie failed Wednesday. If Sale is your closer (and presumably he is coming in to close in a 3 run game in the 9th), then let him close. If Thornton is your closer, after 3 straight blown saves, why bring him in with one out in the 9th and the bases loaded in a 2 run game? And if Thornton is your closer, why bring him back out in the 10th when the game is tied? Define the role and pick a closer. I don't care if it's Matt Thornton, if it's Chris Sale or even if it's Sergio Santos. Instead, Ozzie is overmanaging and making the toughest job in baseball more difficult than it already is.
Ultimately, we're 15 games into a 162 game season. Kansas City and Cleveland probably won't be there in September and Minnesota is off to a miserable start. But there are going to be plenty of close games this year and the White Sox will need a closer. Define the roles in the bullpen and the Sox will be fine.
So what is the problem in all this? I believe that closing is the most difficult job in baseball. As a closer, you are charged with getting the three toughest outs in a game. You only come in with the game on the line. Closing requires great stuff, but more importantly, it takes the right mentality. Baseball history is paved with pitchers who either never had that mentality (see Letroy Hawkins), or guys that lost that mentality (Byung Hung Kim after the '01 World Series, Brad Lidge for a short time after giving up countless huge homeruns in the '05 postseason). The worst thing a manager can do with a closer is make the closer's job more difficult. Think of it this way: athletes thrive on routine. A closer knows exactly when they will be called on and can start their routine. Closer by committee takes that away. And that's where Ozzie failed Wednesday. If Sale is your closer (and presumably he is coming in to close in a 3 run game in the 9th), then let him close. If Thornton is your closer, after 3 straight blown saves, why bring him in with one out in the 9th and the bases loaded in a 2 run game? And if Thornton is your closer, why bring him back out in the 10th when the game is tied? Define the role and pick a closer. I don't care if it's Matt Thornton, if it's Chris Sale or even if it's Sergio Santos. Instead, Ozzie is overmanaging and making the toughest job in baseball more difficult than it already is.
Ultimately, we're 15 games into a 162 game season. Kansas City and Cleveland probably won't be there in September and Minnesota is off to a miserable start. But there are going to be plenty of close games this year and the White Sox will need a closer. Define the roles in the bullpen and the Sox will be fine.
Monday, April 11, 2011
The Statistical Revolution: Why Both Sides Need to Calm Down
The Derrick Rose MVP debate brings to a head an issue that has been simmering in the sports community for the better part of a decade. Sports have undergone a statistical revolution in recent years. Words like VORP (value over replacement player), WAR (wins above replacement) and PER (Player Efficiency Rating) have become a casual part of conversation amongst sports fans. Each one of these stats aids in providing a greater understanding of the game; Sabermetrics add a great deal of context to any statistical debate and their importance should not be understated. Unfortunately, the proponents of advanced statistical metrics thumb their noses at the traditional stats thereby undervaluing stats like wins and RBIs. Two camps have formed on the statistical landscape. In one camp, you have the traditionalists. They see advanced statistical metrics as confusing simple games. Their thinking is simple: as a pitcher, the ultimate goal is to win the game. Hence, wins are an important stat. The ultimate goal of the offense is to score runs. Hence, RBIs are an important stat. They are easy to calculate and easy to understand. Advanced metrics complicate a simple game. In the second camp, you have the stat heads. The people that come up with these advanced metrics aim to give a better sense of what is actually happening on the field. They are correct that arbitrary factors outside of a pitcher’s control lead to wins (bullpen blows the game, offense is shutout, defense commits errors), just like errors are not indicative of a shortstop’s defensive value (Jeter committed fewer errors last year than Alexi Ramirez, but Jeter’s limited range - as calculated by range factor - shows that he reached far fewer balls than Ramirez and was a weaker defensive shortstop). But the proponents of Sabermetrics tend to look down at the traditionalists as simple minded people unable to understand a complex game. I am here today to say that there is value in both approaches and each leads to a greater understanding and enjoyment of the game. As baseball has the most developed advanced stats, in addition to being the sport that holds statistics most dear, this analysis will be limited to that topic.
I would argue that traditional statistics offer a fairly complete picture of an athlete’s career over time in the context of pitching and hitting, but fail to adequately address fielding. The advanced metrics are correct in that a lot of variables determine stats like wins and RBIs. The problem with wins is that a 10-6 win counts the same for a pitcher as does a 1-0 win and for more than a 1-0 loss. Bullpen, run support and defense are external factors beyond the pitcher’s control. Stats like WHIP (walks and hits per inning pitched) more accurately measure a pitcher’s effectiveness because it takes the majority of those variables out of play. Felix Hernandez’s Cy Young season last year is example A. Hernandez had a record of 13-12, but with an ERA of 2.27 and a WHIP of 1.057, he was far and away the best pitcher in the American League, out pitching 21 game winner CC Sabbathia and 19 game winner David Price. Wins fail to account for the fact that the Mariners had a truly putrid offense and only won 61 games while the Rays and the Yankees won 96 and 95 respectively. Now, over the course of his career, many of those variables will even out. Hernandez should eventually have seasons with a better offense providing him run support and a better bullpen to maintain leads. Thus, if Hernandez pitches like he did last year for the next several years, his wins should, over time, correlate to his value as a pitcher. As a metric to determine how well a pitcher pitched in a single season, however, a stat like WHIP is more indicative of a pitcher's performance.
The same holds true with RBIs, a stat that is clearly influenced by opportunity. Adam Dunn, toiling away with the Nationals, had far fewer RBI opportunities than he will for the White Sox this year. If Dunn knocks in more runs this year, does that mean that he is a better player? Not necessarily. And that is where stats like OPS (On Base Plus Slugging) come into play.
Where advanced metrics really help, however, is in analyzing fielding. Errors provide such a limited view of defensive prowess because they start from the premise that each player is exactly the same defensively. As noted above, Derek Jeter can no longer make a play deep in the hole like he used to. Alexi Ramirez, on the other hand, gets to far more ground balls than Jeter. Does he make more errors? Yes. But errors fail to quantify the number of additional hits conceded by the Yankees because of Jeter’s lack of range and the number of additional hits Ramirez saves. That is not to undermine errors as a stat. Errors are relevant (anytime you give a team an extra out in baseball, it is relevant), but stats like range factor put errors in the proper context, as one of several metrics to quantify how many additional outs you give the opposing team defensively over the life of a season.
The ultimate problem with advanced metrics, however, are twofold. The first is that, while advanced metrics provide a greater picture of what is happening on the field, they are much more difficult to calculate. When I was a kid, falling in love with baseball, I loved stats. I kept track of my favorite players’ batting averages, I scoured box scores to see how Frank Thomas’ rivals were doing and what Frank needed to do to win the homerun, RBI, or batting average titles (I have a vivid memory of Frank Thomas, down a single RBI to Albert Belle in 1993 on the final day of the season, being intentionally walked with a runner on first against Cleveland - and swinging at two of the pitches - and how livid I was that Cleveland would resort to that tomfoolery to get Albert Belle the RBI title). They were easy stats for me to track and follow. Ask me to calculate VORP and I look at you blankly. VORP is an extremely valuable stat, but 10 year old me would not have been able to follow VORP with the same zeal that I followed batting averages and ERAs (note, I probably would have loved VORP, I just would not have been able to calculate it).
The second is that the real die hard stat heads seek to remove the human element from baseball entirely. They add all these metrics that really do provide a more accurate tool to compare players, but they are not all encompassing the way many proponents of advanced statistical metrics would have you believe. Two examples of this: (1) Tadahito Iguchi played second base for the White Sox in 2005. Iguchi was the consummate professional that season. He gave up outs to move runners over and was, arguably the most valuable offensive player on the Sox that year. Now, if you look at his OPS, you are going to be underwhelmed. To my knowledge, there is no stat that takes into account sacrifice for the team (Iguchi did lead the league in productive outs that year, but you are digging pretty deep to reach that stat). (2) Javy Vazquez is the type of pitcher who defies stats. If you need someone to throw a two hitter against the Royals in July, he’s your guy. But to my knowledge, there is not stat that can show how terribly Vazquez performs in big games. The point in all this is that, even the most advanced metrics fail to account for the space between an athlete’s ears. Iguchi was willing to give up his numbers to benefit the team. Vazquez pitches terribly when the chips are on the line. Stats do not tell me that.
The ultimate point here is that there is a place in baseball for both traditional stats and advanced stats. But for some reason, both sides have a tendency to shout each other down. The goal of statistics is to make the game easier to understand and more fun to follow. I love a good argument about the relative merits of Player A vs. Player B. I will call on advanced stats when it matters (see discussing how good Adam Dunn is offensively) and I will fall back on stats like batting average when necessary to make a point (see my famous argument with one Tom Smith over the merits of the Mets giving Carlos Beltran the contract they gave him - a truly epic argument over beers in a Breckinridge, Colorado bar our Senior year of undergrad). They both tell a story, and they both are important when it comes to enhancing interest in the game. If only the two sides could see eye to eye.
I would argue that traditional statistics offer a fairly complete picture of an athlete’s career over time in the context of pitching and hitting, but fail to adequately address fielding. The advanced metrics are correct in that a lot of variables determine stats like wins and RBIs. The problem with wins is that a 10-6 win counts the same for a pitcher as does a 1-0 win and for more than a 1-0 loss. Bullpen, run support and defense are external factors beyond the pitcher’s control. Stats like WHIP (walks and hits per inning pitched) more accurately measure a pitcher’s effectiveness because it takes the majority of those variables out of play. Felix Hernandez’s Cy Young season last year is example A. Hernandez had a record of 13-12, but with an ERA of 2.27 and a WHIP of 1.057, he was far and away the best pitcher in the American League, out pitching 21 game winner CC Sabbathia and 19 game winner David Price. Wins fail to account for the fact that the Mariners had a truly putrid offense and only won 61 games while the Rays and the Yankees won 96 and 95 respectively. Now, over the course of his career, many of those variables will even out. Hernandez should eventually have seasons with a better offense providing him run support and a better bullpen to maintain leads. Thus, if Hernandez pitches like he did last year for the next several years, his wins should, over time, correlate to his value as a pitcher. As a metric to determine how well a pitcher pitched in a single season, however, a stat like WHIP is more indicative of a pitcher's performance.
The same holds true with RBIs, a stat that is clearly influenced by opportunity. Adam Dunn, toiling away with the Nationals, had far fewer RBI opportunities than he will for the White Sox this year. If Dunn knocks in more runs this year, does that mean that he is a better player? Not necessarily. And that is where stats like OPS (On Base Plus Slugging) come into play.
Where advanced metrics really help, however, is in analyzing fielding. Errors provide such a limited view of defensive prowess because they start from the premise that each player is exactly the same defensively. As noted above, Derek Jeter can no longer make a play deep in the hole like he used to. Alexi Ramirez, on the other hand, gets to far more ground balls than Jeter. Does he make more errors? Yes. But errors fail to quantify the number of additional hits conceded by the Yankees because of Jeter’s lack of range and the number of additional hits Ramirez saves. That is not to undermine errors as a stat. Errors are relevant (anytime you give a team an extra out in baseball, it is relevant), but stats like range factor put errors in the proper context, as one of several metrics to quantify how many additional outs you give the opposing team defensively over the life of a season.
The ultimate problem with advanced metrics, however, are twofold. The first is that, while advanced metrics provide a greater picture of what is happening on the field, they are much more difficult to calculate. When I was a kid, falling in love with baseball, I loved stats. I kept track of my favorite players’ batting averages, I scoured box scores to see how Frank Thomas’ rivals were doing and what Frank needed to do to win the homerun, RBI, or batting average titles (I have a vivid memory of Frank Thomas, down a single RBI to Albert Belle in 1993 on the final day of the season, being intentionally walked with a runner on first against Cleveland - and swinging at two of the pitches - and how livid I was that Cleveland would resort to that tomfoolery to get Albert Belle the RBI title). They were easy stats for me to track and follow. Ask me to calculate VORP and I look at you blankly. VORP is an extremely valuable stat, but 10 year old me would not have been able to follow VORP with the same zeal that I followed batting averages and ERAs (note, I probably would have loved VORP, I just would not have been able to calculate it).
The second is that the real die hard stat heads seek to remove the human element from baseball entirely. They add all these metrics that really do provide a more accurate tool to compare players, but they are not all encompassing the way many proponents of advanced statistical metrics would have you believe. Two examples of this: (1) Tadahito Iguchi played second base for the White Sox in 2005. Iguchi was the consummate professional that season. He gave up outs to move runners over and was, arguably the most valuable offensive player on the Sox that year. Now, if you look at his OPS, you are going to be underwhelmed. To my knowledge, there is no stat that takes into account sacrifice for the team (Iguchi did lead the league in productive outs that year, but you are digging pretty deep to reach that stat). (2) Javy Vazquez is the type of pitcher who defies stats. If you need someone to throw a two hitter against the Royals in July, he’s your guy. But to my knowledge, there is not stat that can show how terribly Vazquez performs in big games. The point in all this is that, even the most advanced metrics fail to account for the space between an athlete’s ears. Iguchi was willing to give up his numbers to benefit the team. Vazquez pitches terribly when the chips are on the line. Stats do not tell me that.
The ultimate point here is that there is a place in baseball for both traditional stats and advanced stats. But for some reason, both sides have a tendency to shout each other down. The goal of statistics is to make the game easier to understand and more fun to follow. I love a good argument about the relative merits of Player A vs. Player B. I will call on advanced stats when it matters (see discussing how good Adam Dunn is offensively) and I will fall back on stats like batting average when necessary to make a point (see my famous argument with one Tom Smith over the merits of the Mets giving Carlos Beltran the contract they gave him - a truly epic argument over beers in a Breckinridge, Colorado bar our Senior year of undergrad). They both tell a story, and they both are important when it comes to enhancing interest in the game. If only the two sides could see eye to eye.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Murphy's Pub: Jereme Richmond to the NBA and Other Illini Thoughts
It is never too early to talk about Illinois basketball circa 2011-2012. And the offseason got off to a roaring start today when Jereme Richmond made himself eligible for the NBA draft. While no one has stated whether Richmond has hired an agent, everyone seems to be on the same page that he will not be back. Whether grades or attitude led to this departure, the general internet wisdom seems to be that Richmond would not have been welcomed back at Illinois. Richmond had enormous potential, but it is hard to believe an NBA team will spend a first round pick (and guaranteed money) on a guy with no jump shot who struggled to beat players off the dribble (props to Tom Smith - real name - for making the comparison to James Johnson earlier today). Richmond's potential adds him to the All-Time Illinois What If team (off the top of my head, Ben Wilson (tragically killed before stepping on campus), Marcus Liberty (the last number 1 recruit in the country to land at Illinois - left early for the NBA draft due to financial issues before making the impact everyone expected), Richmond, Marcus Griffin (what if he hadn't had to go to JUCO for two years), and Charlie Villanueva (committed to Illinois until Self left for Kansas)).
More importantly, however, is the impact Richmond's departure has on next year's lineup. Illinois looks solid at guard (PG: Bradley transfer Sam Maniscalco should start while freshman Tracy Abrams learns the ropes; Wings: DJ, Brandon Paul, Head, Bertrand and freshman Mychael Henry) but they seriously lack for depth in the frontcourt (Myers Leonard is the only guy who played any real minutes last year; Tyler Griffey and freshmen Nnanna Egwu and Michael Shaw will compete for minutes). The lineup I was looking forward to next year had Richmond at power forward with Leonard as the center. Unless Griffey starts making shots, Shaw or Egwu play like veterans, or Weber manages to pick up a Junior College big man who can play right away, we may see Head or Henry guarding power forwards, which is not an exciting prospect.
But there is something to be said for the importance of chemistry in basketball. If Richmond was as much of a problem as anonymous posters on internet message boards would have us believe, then the loss of Richmond could be a case of addition by subtraction. Ideally, Paul and/or DJ turn into a legitimate scorer, Maniscalco stays healthy and plays like he did at Bradley his Junior year, and Leonard makes the leap most big men make from their Freshman to their Sophomore year and becomes a force on the low block. If that happens, Illinois could compete in a weakened Big 10 next year. If it doesn't, there won't be enough Guinness at Murphy's Pub to get us through the season. Go Illini.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)