Catch the Fever!

The current BCS setup is stupid. Everybody knows this. Even if the whole bowl thing is pretty cool, which it certainly is, it has commonly been accepted that a playoff system would be a much better and saner way of going about things. A simple 8 team, 3 round affair would do. Nothing complicated, just a straight up single elimination tournament to keep the big conferences happy and let one or two mid-majors have their moment in the sun. It’d be worth it just to let the little guys have a shot. Imagine Boise State from a few years ago, toppling Oklahoma, getting a chance to turn their amazing comeback into a national championship bid. How amazing would that hook-and-ladder play have been, in that case?

Oh, and of course, none of that silly split championship stuff anymore….

Unfortunately, the only people in the world who have not thought this through also happen to be the people who run the BCS. So, no matter how much I complain, the championship for the BCS will be decided by just 2 polls which inherently bias certain teams and conferences rather than by actual competition.

Well, if the NCAA is not going to indulge my fantasy of allowing Alabama, Texas Tech, Florida, Texas, USC, Oklahoma, Penn State, and Utah square off in a three round competition for the title, then I guess I’m just going to have to dream.

Every year, I dream of BCS possibilities. Like every fan of a team who has no shot at it all (read: Notre Dame), I just want the most absurd matchup imaginable. USC-Florida? Boring. Alabama-Texas? No way. I’m looking for Texas Tech-Utah, for Boise State-TCU, or for South Florida-Southern Methodist.

Ok, maybe not the last one. But, there is a game, still remotely possible, that I would love to see. And that’s Texas Tech vs. Boise State. Texas-Tech is easily the most exciting team in the country right now. That game against Texas last weekend was the most exciting thing I’ve seen all year. And Crabtree and Harrell made Oklahoma State look silly on Saturday. And that was a top 10 team!

Boise State has always been a pet favorite of mine. The Oklahoma upset a few years back aside, I have always loved what coach Chris Peterson has been able to do with their limited recruiting pull. But for me, I just love the idea of a minor conference team (BSU plays in the WAC) getting a shot in the biggest game of the land. Utah, while having a great year, just doesn’t get me as excited– plus, I suspect they just aren’t as good as either Boise State or Texas Christian (aka TCU). 

So, how would this happen? Well, I’m not going to lie, it’s quite the longshot. But, I think it could very well happen, especially with a very upset-prone Big 12 and SEC. Here’s how I see it going down:

The first step already happened: Penn State had to lose Saturday at Iowa. Penn State, possibly a really talented team, is tainted by its membership in the Big Ten, a conference that has not fared well in recent major bowl play. One loss and their done.

A missed opportunity was LSU losing at home to Alabama. A win by the Bayou Bengals, and Boise State’s odds of getting to the title game improved exponentially. The way I see it, Florida is the real problem here in the SEC. They are the best team in college football, and, because they play in the SEC, I can see them getting into a championship game, much as LSU did last year, by winning the conference title game. Fortunately for fans up in Idaho, Alabama is also in their way. An SEC title game of Alabama-Florida will mean that one of them is bound to lose. So all that needs to happen in Alabama or Florida needs to lose one of their remaining games and then the other needs to win the SEC title. A one-loss Alabama or a two loss Florida will be hard to choose if Boise State is still undefeated. And with games against South Carolina and Florida State still on the schedule for the Gators….

Texas Tech, obviously, needs to win out. That would take care of Oklahoma and Texas, since you can’t have an all Big 12 championship game. 

That leaves USC. Thanks to the incredibly weak PAC-10, the Trojans may find themselves the beneficiary of the collapse at the top which is bound to occur, simply by virtue of the fact that so many of these top ten teams are in the same 2 conferences. But if USC, a team which has a lot of trouble scoring, falls to someone like Oregon State (hmmm, Notre Dame?) once more…

Well, then it’s going to get interesting. Utah, I think, will lose to BYU in their rivalry game. TCU and BYU already have losses. In my eyes, if Texas, Oklahoma, USC, and Florida all have two losses, and Alabama is not the SEC champion, I don’t see how the voters can deny Boise State the chance. My dream would be complete.

Is it going to happen? Hell no. The odds are longer than long. Nevertheless, I dream. And in some ways, this dream seems so much more possible than dreams past. Maybe it was just seeing Texas Tech finally beat Texas in such dramatic fashion, but I really think their could be something this preposterous could really be in the making. Here’s hoping!

Well, I can’t say I didn’t see that one coming.

I was thrilled when the Yankees didn’t make the playoffs this season. This was the first time in 14 years I could watch the postseason without the constant fear that Derek Jeter would somehow make my sports life even more miserable. Year after year, I have lived each playoff game knowing that Yankee victory meant more and more agony for my beloved Mets the following season.

This year, of course, I was spared that terrible task. And it didn’t alleviate my suffering one bit. Thank you, Cole Hamels. Now, for 19 games in 2009, I will be forced to listen to Phillies fans yell about how great World Series championships are, and how we should consider getting one. It’s going to be great.

My only solace came from the fact that the Philly-Tampa World Series was the most unpopular World Series of all time. Seriously. The FOX broadcast drew a lower share than any previous broadcast of the World Series on television in history. I know people Philadelphia might not really care, but if my archrival is going to win something, I at least want no one watching.

I suppose this series low ratings shouldn’t really suprise me. Tampa Bay has a tiny fan base. No one gives a crap about the Rays. 5/6ths of Americans didn’t even know they were called the Rays before this World Series… And people were so excited to see the Cubs in the World Series that I don’t think any NL team except Chicago was going to generate any excitement for a general audience. Oh yeah, and I’ve heard there is some sort of election going on right now. So maybe people are actually paying attention to something other than baseball…

But the lowest ratings in history? Now that does suprises me. Baseball has been growing more popular in the last two or three years, not less. Attendance around the league was up. Parity seemed to be bringing people back to America’s second most popular pastime. Milwaukee, Philly, Detroit and Cleveland had all seen their fan bases resurgent. 

Now I’m not so sure.

Let’s face it. The real reason people didn’t watch this series is because the teams were small market teams. We wanted Sox-Cubs. Angels-Dodgers. Mets-Yanks. We know the players on those teams. We know the history. They are compelling stories.

Phils-Rays can be compelling too… but only if you know the players. I’ve always felt that baseball is really only interesting if you know the individual stories of the players involved. Whereas basketball and football are fun to watch regardless of who is playing, baseball only excites me if I know who is involved. That’s why I can’t really enjoy NCAA baseball, but college football and college bball are awesome. I just have no idea who these guys are…

Same seems true in MLB. If you’ve never seen Evan Longoria play, then it would likely be pretty boring to watch him struggle all series. How can you really appreciate what is going on? With A-Rod at bat, however, it’s easy. We’ve all seen A-Rod hit homeruns. So when he strikes out 15 times in the ALDS, it’s exciting. For that casual fan who doesn’t follow the game as fanatically as I do, I can imagine that seeing a team called the Rays who you have never seen because they are never on Sunday Night Baseball could be pretty boring.

The numbers are a bit unclear, but it does seem evident that big teams fare better in the postseason ratings. Of course, baseball has just grown increasingly unpopular over the last quarter decade. Games that used to regularly register 20+ share are now struggling to hit 10. This we knew. Baseball has been decaying in the inner city, losing athletes to basketball and football, and in the process, losing those fans as well. These trends, though disturbing, are beginning to buck somewhat. MLB seemed, in the past few years, to finally be righting the ship.

But if baseball is to regain some of its popularity, this World Series has to come as a depressing fact for Bud Selig and Co. If MLB, which has been working to restore parity in the league for years, has actually created a league where teams like the Rays and Brewers can be successful in any given year, will people pay attention? My gut a few weeks ago would have said yes. After all exciting young teams ususally generate a fair amount of positive attention.

Given these ratings, the answer may be no. America just may want more and more Yanks-Sox. Sad as it is, big market teams may be the only way baseball can compete with the NFL for attention.

Sorry, Tampa. Not that you really care about baseball.

Okay, so I’m officially terrified of the Phillies winning the World Series.

It’s a 1-in-8 chance, I kept telling myself. They’ll never do it. Sabathia’ll shut ‘em down. Manny is waay too hot to lose right now. The Rays are awesome.

All wrong.

I must be prepared to face the inevitable: the Phillies will be the 2008 World Series Champions. I will be reminded of this fact for 19 long games next season, and probably ever single time I encounter my Phillie Phan Phriends with their stupid little curly P’s and their obnoxious Jimmy Rollins T-shirts. It’s going to be awful. Possibly even worse than in 2000, when I was forced to live in a neighborhood full of Yankees fans immediately after becoming the final victim of their latest dynasty. At least in 2001 the Yankees played in a different league…

Yes, life as me is tough.

Even the NFL couldn’t cheer me this past weekend. The Pats and Bills won, Brett Favre looked like Ray Lucas, and Laverneus Coles, my favorite player, got a concussion. Oh, and the Jets lost, in overtime, to the Raiders, the team I despise most in the whole world that doesn’t where pinstripes or the color red!

These events have left me (as is usual for Mets, Jets, and Knicks fans) in a terrible sports mood. Only one thing to cheer me up, I thought, before the Jets take the field today to face good ole Herm Edwards and the hapless Chiefs: let’s look at how many more points the Jets will score on KC with Favre instead of Pennington. Bashing Chad Pennington always makes Jets fans happy!

Uh-Oh. Wait a minute….take a quick look at these numbers.

Yds: Favre, 1321; Pennington, 1396

Yds/Attempt: Favre, 6.77; Pennington,  8.12

TD/INT: Favre, 13/8; Pennington, 6/3

Sacks: Favre, 15; Pennington, 10

Com. Percent: Favre, 68.2%; Pennington, 68.6%

What’s happening?! Why is Pennington putting up better numbers than Favre?! Why did my team release a quarterback who is more impressive by almost ever single metric, and trade for a more expensive, older, not quite as good QB?

Well, for one, I probably shouldn’t make too big a deal out of raw numbers from the quarterback position. They certainly do not tell the whole story. But they do say something. Pennington is beating Favre in Yds/Attempt but with a similar completion percentage? Smells funny to me. The fact that Favre, a quarterback known for his strong arm and reckless style is looking more like Chad Pennington than Chad Pennington is beginning to annoy me.

And it’s not just in the numbers. It was evident in the game last Sunday. The Jets rushed for over 200 yards against an incompetent Oakland team, and yet couldn’t muster more than 13 points, even with a miraculous last second field goal. They had 3 points late in the fourth! To me, there seem to be one of two possible things going on here:

1) The Jets are coddling Favre. Teaching the lifetime Packer a new set of terminology and a new set of plays, the Jets coaching staff is trying not to overwhelm Brett with too much information in the short time he has been with the team. As a result, he is working with a limited playbook, and is only throwing short easy routes and is building up his repertoire each week.

or 2) Brett Favre isn’t a good fit with the Jets’ system and the Jets organization made a huge mistake letting Pennington go. His many interceptions (second highest total in the NFL, I believe– only J.T. O’Sullivan is worse at not throwing interceptions) indicate that he is not at home in the offense and is trying to do too much. Or that Brett Favre loves throwing picks. He has the most all time, after all.

At the beginning of the year, I was completely willing to go with theory number one. Give him a few weeks, I thought. That first month might be a rough one for the O. Lots of bubble screens, I envisaged. But then it would all be okay. Favre would get stronger with each week. And the Jets’ O might be dangerous.

I know it’s only Week Seven, but I’m losing hope. I think the Jets might have made the wrong decision. Favre might not be the guy. Yes, yes, I know. He threw 6 TD’s against Arizona. There, he looked good. But the Jets’ D caused Kurt Warner to fumble 43 times in the second quarter of that game. A lot of those TD’s were gimmies. And that may be the only time Favre has looked remotely comfortable all year. Look at the games against Cincinnati and Oakland. He, and the offense, is getting worse, not better.

Favre still, obviously, has time to turn it around. It’s early. And far better Jets teams have lost in Oakland before.  But the initial numbers for Brett and Gang Green are disturbing. With Chad Pennington more than holding his own on a largely putrid Miami team, I’m definitely wondering what might have been with Chad at the helm this season…

Wow… what a weekend in sports!

I don’t know what was the most exciting– between the thousands of late finishes in the NFL, the Rays taking out the Sox in 11 innings on Sunday, the Dodgers and Phils fighting, and Sarah Palin getting booed in Philadelphia (the only time I have watched NHL highlights all year), I felt like I was on my feet screaming at my television all break.

Aside from the Jets game being the single most boring TV event since the PBS biography of Millard Fillmore, I was thrilled with the NFL highlights this week. I can’t quite decide what my favorite play was. At first, I thought it had to be that Ronnie Brown, in the wildcat formation, tossing to Chad Pennington for the ole reverse-pass, crazy-something-or-other which resulted in a 50 yard touchdown. The best part of the play: even though the receiver was open by 40 yards, Pennington still could only barely reach him.

But then, later in the game, I was even more amazed– impressive, because I always immensely approve of trick plays. Schaub’s QB sneak to win it was awesome, and you couldn’t have asked for a more exciting finish, but the play of the game belonged to Andre Johnson. On 4th and 10, late in the fourth quarter, Schaub dropped back on a designed rolling pocket to the right. Without even looking to see if the guy was covered, Schaub wildly flung the ball across the field to his left to Johnson, who was not just completely covered by two defenders, he was completely out-positioned. Didn’t matter. I have no idea how, but Johnson just took the ball right out of the defenders hands for the first down in the ‘clutchest’ play I have seen in a while. And I hate that word. NFL.com, of course, makes you watch all of Johnson’s plays from that day to see it, but he’s a pleasure to watch, so check it out.

(Side note: How annoying is it that the NFL does not allow ESPN to show any footage? I hate watching those same 4 photos of Brett Favre over and over again whenever they talk about him!)

But even that wasn’t my favorite highlight from Sunday. No, that would belong to my buddy Dan Orlovsky, who forgot where the back of the end zone was against the Vikings. In a way, I can’t blame the guy–I would run like hell if the reigning NFL sack leader was chasing me, but this play was so typical of the Lions last 10 years, and the fact that they lost by two only made the play that much more hilarious.

So, believe it or not, I actually had something to say this week other than “I like football” and “Dan Orlovsky is funny.”

It’s taken us a few weeks to really assess the state of the temporarily post-Brady NFL, and perhaps not surprisingly, there is not a heck of a lot one can definitively say. For starters: who is the NFL’s best team?

A few weeks ago, I would have said the Cowboys, hands down. But now, with Romo hurt and back to back ugly looking losses to Washington and Arizona (good teams, no doubt), I’m not sure.

Is it the Giants? Well, before today, they were certainly looking like the team to beat; but now Eli’s incredibly weak performance against Cleveland tonight has NYG looking a bit shakier. Plus, don’t forget how week the Giants schedule has been so far. The win against Seattle was impressive, but they came awfully close to losing to Cincy, and now they got their clocks cleaned by a team that had struggled all year long.

Pittsburgh is good but struggles to score. Denver lost to K.C. the other week. Buffalo is untested. Tampa could be good, but I’m hesitant to put them in that same class. And Indy and Jacksonville seem to have regained some of their old swagger this week. Oh right, and Tennessee. I always forget the Titans. They’re 5 and 0, but 4 of those 5 are against Houston, Minnesota, Baltimore, and Cincy. Those teams will make any D look great.

So yeah, the NFL has parity. What else is new? We’ve known this for years, and yet every year it suprises the heck out of me when supposedly top teams are beaten by those below. And I know that seasons always seem more upset laden then they actually are– but this in particular seems to be a surprising year. Partly because the teams on top are surprising– Buffalo, Atlanta, Denver, and Tennessee are all wildly surpassing expectations– but also because normally reliable players are having lackluster seasons (Brady’s out, LT is banged up, Peterson’s had fumblitis (sp?), P Manning’s been iffy), I feel like this could be a changing of the guard year in more than just Green Bay.

But I seem to say that every year…

Well, perhaps I’m a little angry. After all, losing to the Marlins on the last day of the season to be eliminated from the playoffs at home two years running is hard on a person. But let’s be honest, we all saw that coming. If I’m really angry about something, it’s that the Mets resigned their GM less than a week before this terrible season came to a close. Now I don’t think Minaya is a bad GM– I certainly don’t think he is a good GM either, of course– but when you spend the second most money in all of baseball, and you go into the season claiming that this will be your year, you need to make the postseason.

The only real positive result of this whole debacle is that turn my attentions toward rooting for Tampa Bay to win it’s first World Series. Though that would give the 2 Florida teams more World Series victories than the Mets. Hmmm… And I won’t feel too spiteful if the Cubs finally do it this year. Not having to hear Cubs fans complain any longer might even sooth some of my baseball pain…

So who do I pick to win? Why the Los Angeles Dodgers, of course.

What?!, you say. Everyone knows the Dodgers are the worst team in the playoffs! The NL West shouldn’t even be a division! It was terrible! Until Manny was plopped in his lap, Joe Torre couldn’t get his team to score even with Olympic extra innings rules in Coors Field! Their starting pitching is unimpressive. Their manager is always asleep. Their bullpen is their only asset, and it’s probably not even as good as the Cubs’ pen.

But this is no joke. I really am picking the Dodgers to win the World Series. In 6 games. Over the White Sox.

Why? Well certainly not because I think the Dodgers are good. Hell no. I’m picking the Dodgers because I think the MLB postseason is inheirantly unpredictable. I’m predicting LA because there is almost no way to tell who is going to win.

Let’s start with their first round series against the Cubs. There’s no way the Dodgers win this one, right? The Cubs had the best offense, front-end starting staff, and bullpen in the league (all by fairly wide margins), and LA was 13th in runs scored. That should be enough for everyone to pick the Cubs, correct? It’s simply a matter or how many games.

I’d argue no. Let’s not start with their run differentials, because although I am a huge proponent of run differentials (Runs Scored minus Runs Against) as an indicator of a teams ability, they don’t tell the whole story. Let’s not even to the traditional thing and go position by position and talk about ‘clutch’ and ‘postseason experience.’ Let’s look at winning percentage.

The Cubs won a touch over 60% of their games this season (.602, if you love numbers even more than I do)finishing with a record of 97-64. The Dodgers won about 52% of their games at 84-78, against essentially the same competition. Now let’s say that the Cubs were to play their entire season against the Dodgers. All 162 games. What would their record be?

Now I suppose I could run a computer simulation and figure these things out, but I don’t really have the know-how (or the computer). So let’s approximate. Clearly the Cubs, being the demonstrably better team, would win more games, so they’d have a winning percentage of over 50%. How much higher than 50%? Well, clearly not more than 60%, because that was their winning percentage against average competiton, and the Dodgers, as a playoff team and a team with an above .500 record, are above-average. Approximating quite generously, it seems fair to say that over the course of this hypothetical 162 game season, the Cubs would have a winning percentage somewhere around .550 (Ironically, just above the Mets winning percentage).

Ok, now what’s the point of all this? We’re taking about a 5 game series, not a 162 game series. Well, pick any random five games you want from our imaginary series. What are the odds the Cubs win those random 5 games? Well since the chances of the Cubs winning any one game is around 55%, which means that in any four game set, it is very much possible that the Dodgers grab two games. Which means it is very likely our 5 game series could go to five games. And in that last game, as they say, “anything could happen.”

This may seem like a lot of nonsense at first, but if you think about it, it jives with our conventional understandings of baseball. In baseball, the worst team in history (the 1962 Mets) won exactly 25% of their games. That’s not too bad if you think about it. Last year, the worst team in the NFL won 6% (1) of their 16 games. If they played 162 (I know, I know, that’s obviously ridiculous), they might only win 10, 11 games. Can you imagine a baseball team winning only 10, 11 games all year?

Of course not. The reason is, baseball games are reliant on so many unpredictable factors that it is hard to know what is going to happen in any given game. Hell, the Nationals (sorry, Carson) win a pretty darn good share of their ball games, even with a roster where the best players might be cut from the top contenders. In the NFL, where teams are much closer in terms of talent, no bottom of the league team will win 30% of it’s games. In MLB, you need a 162 game season to differentiate between teams. Even then, sometimes, wierd things happen, and a crappy Arizona Diamondbacks team wins 94 games (see 2007). Over the short term– like 5 or 7 games– there’s just too much going on to predict.

Need I say anything more than 2006 Cardinals? This team had no buisness being on the field with the Mets, and they beat them in 7. So Taguchi hit a HR off of Billy Wagner. What’s more unpredictable than that?

So, why the Dodgers then? Well, I don’t think the Dodgers have a very good chance at winning the World Series. It’s probably somewhere around 10%. But, no team has particularly good odds. The Cubs may be slight favorites in every round, but when you add it all up, I don’t see them having more than a 15% chance. Maybe 20%.

Therefore, with the odds between the Dodgers and Cubs so slim, I’m going with LA. Sure, the Cubs have a slightly better chance, but if the Dodgers win, then I look like the biggest genius in history. If I pick the Cubs, I’m Captain Obvious. Given that the playoffs are such a crapshoot, I might as well pick the most absurd thing ever.

So it’s Dodgers 4-2 over White Sox– you heard it here first. And probably last.

I have to admit, I’m one of those Mets fans who takes great pleasure in seeing the Yankees fail. It’s not that I’d rather see the Yankees lose than the Mets win. It’s just that the Mets seem to lose so often (and in such mind-numbing ways) that come October, there is little left for a National League-oriented New Yorker to do but hope someone can beat the Yankees in the most heart-breaking way possible.

Does that make me a terrible person? I don’t know.

But it does make me a terribly happy person.

Because, of course, yesterday marks the first day in 14 years (that’s more than 2/3 of my life!) that the New York Yankees have been eliminated from playoff contention. Not only does this call for days of endless celebration across all of New England (as well as isolated sections of the New York area), but it means that we get to hear from Buster Olney, author of thousands of articles on the collapse of the Yankee Dynasty and on how Derek Jeter is great. As you can tell, I like him.

Actually, Olney’s article pleasantly surprised me. I thought we were going to hear a lot about Jason Giambi, A-Rod, and Carl Pavano. You know: how the Yankees got away from the clutch-proven winner-Paul O’Neill types, and instead relied too much on player who “don’t know how to play in October.” Instead, Olney actually gave a solid, and well evidenced, argument for the fall of the Yankee powerhouse– poor drafts. (If you have the time, check it out– interesting numbers for evaluating GM’s.)

Now, unusually, I don’t disagree with Olney. The Yankees have not, until recently, drafted well, or placed a lot of emphasis on drafting. They have not been built on youth and on players from their farm system, but on spending a lot of money, and trading for great players. This much is not really up for debate.

But I do take issue with the assumption that those late 1990’s teams were. Or, by extention, that the Yankees in the 2000’s have failed because they were not focused enough on youth. 

As everyone is quick to point out, the best position players on the ‘dynasty’ team were homegrown. Lifetime Yank Bernie Williams consistently had the highest OPS+ on the team, Jeter and Posada were excellent players in their prime, and I suppose Andy Pettite was an ‘ace.’ Let’s not confuse matters, however: this was hardly the Oakland Athletics. Most of this team, and the parts that really made the 1998 team better than their 2000 counterparts, were acquired players: Tino Martinez, Chuck Knoblauch, Scott Brosius, Darryl Strawberry, Paul O’Neill, David Cone, David Wells, and El Duque. Never mind everyone except Mo in the bullpen. According to baseball-reference.com, that Yankees time, the second greatest of all time, perhaps, had only 6, maybe 7 homegrown players, and that’s only if you include El Duque and HIdeki Irabu, who were hardly products of the Yankee farm system. It’s not as if the Yanks were a small market team built on good young players. This was a team with a good Yankee (TM) core, and lots of important supplementary free-agent types.

This year, the Yanks used upwards of 10 young, homegrown players, including well known stars like Robinson Cano and Joba Chamberlin. The problem here isn’t quite that they didn’t have the young, farm talent (which for the better part of the decade, Olney is correct, they didn’t have). It’s that the young stars they did have either got hurt, or underperformed, or both. That’s why the Yanks stunk this year. Philip Hughes and Ian Kennedy stunk so badly that they undermined a very nice (and quiet) year from Mike Mussina. Melky Cabrera, Cano, and whoever was catching were such huge holes in the lineup that they dragged down what could have been an impressive offense. In reality, the best part about this team was its free-agent veterans. Mussina was great, A-Rod and Abreu were solid, and Giambi provided enough bombs to keep this team out of fourth place.

So why am I bringing this up? Well, mostly because I’m upset the Mets lost. But also because I think that there is a tendancy today in the game to see ‘farm-based’ teams as the only way to win. Certainly ‘farm-based’ teams are nice. Or at least cheap.

But not necessarily better. In a year where the Yankees lost precisely because they didn’t trade away their propsects for a Johan or a Sabathia, and where the 2 best teams in MLB, the Sox and Cubs, are primarily free agent based, let’s not get carried away with how important prospects are.

My, oh my, how the Brewers have fallen.

A few weeks ago, when the Mets swept Milwaulkee in three games (in Milwaulkee, mind you), I thought perhpas the Brewers might be in a bit more trouble than they bargained for. Prince Fielder wasn’t hitting. Ben Sheets was hurting. And the bullpen was argueably the second shakiest in the National League. Of course, only the Mets’ pen saved the Brew Crew from having that dubious honor.

13 games and 9 losses later, Aaron Rodgers has surplanted Ryan Braun as the young gun on everybody’s TV screen. So what did the Brewers do? Well, about the only thing you can do after the August 31 trading deadline– they fired the manager.

I know next to nothing about Ned Yost as a manager– my many Brewers fan friends have yet to fill me it– except possibly the fact that he loved to throw C.C. Sabathia’s arm into the dirt. I don’t know if he’s a nice guy, if he uses his pitchers well, if he is addicted to crack. I have no idea.

But I do know that firing a manager with less that 2 weeks to go in the season when you are tied for the wild card lead is really silly.

Now, I don’t normally stand up for managers or coaches, especially in baseball. The firing of a millionaire who will very soon be hired by ESPN or FOX as a consultant is hardly a reason to get upset or shed tears–and yes, that means I wasn’t outraged by the whole Willie Randolph thing– I was for firing Art Howe, for firing Joe Torre, for firing Grady Little, certianly for firing Dusty Baker in whatever job he holds, and I still own a “Fire Isiah” T-shirt.

But it makes no sense to fire Ned Yost.

The reason is, managers in baseball don’t do anything. Even in the National League, where Torre is occasionally called upon to send up a pinch hitter or to make a double switch, managers exert very little influence on the game. Let’s be honest- there isn’t one of us, who, if we watched enough games during the season, wouldn’t be able to arrive at the same decisions. This isn’t football, where great coaches make great teams. In baseball, great teams make great managers. (Side note- is it possible that someone will come up with a Quest-tech for managers which grades the statistical wisdom of their decisions? That’d be sweet.)

So ordinarily, I don’t think firing a manager does a heck of a lot, except perhaps if that manager is preaching a particular philosophy to his hitters or pitchers that is harmful: ie, telling them not to take pitches, or not to worry about walking batters. Other then those considerations, managers are essentially cheerleaders. Firing them for reasons other than their managerial philosophies is like firing the PA guy for not playing the right pump up music or the play by play guy for jinxing the team.

So why do I have a problem with the firing of Yost then if I don’t think it will affect the strategy of the game over the next few weeks? And if I think the psychological factors in the Brewers collapse have been overstated? Because the Brewers are risking upsetting their entire clubhouse for little to no benefit.

Let’s face it. It’s not as if the Milwaulkee players don’t want to make the playoffs. They obviously do. As most professional ball players have some concept of Games Back and Games Left To Play, it is also likely that every member of the Brewers is aware of the urgency of the situation. The Brew Crew does not need”a fire lit beneath them” –even if we admit that this proverbial “fire” was capable of making them play better baseball.

So why take the chance that the Brewers players really like Yost and will be less inclined to try and push very hard (and in C.C.’s case, risk their career) for Dale Sveum, the interim manager? Now, the odds of this happening may be very slim, but when all you stand to gain from firing Yost is more angst-indusing media coverage, why would you risk doing so this late in the season? If you really think the team is panicking/pressing, why make a panicky decision instead of standing calm?

This seems to defy even traditional baseball logic, with which I am rarely in agreement!

Now I try not turn turn my blog into a series of complaints about the Mets, Jets, Knicks, and Fighting Irish, but today I have to make a special request: can the Mets PLEASE beat the Washington Nationals. I really can’t afford this level of agita any more.

As of this writing, the amazing Amazin’s are up 8-3 on the Nationals, a score that is not even remotely safe with the state of this bullpen. Jose Reyes needs to hit at least 4 more home runs for me to truly feel confident. And even then, only confident.

Ok, rant over. My apologies.

So, of course, the great question of the week: Did Mike Shanahan make the right call? (Or, if you are a Chargers fan, perhaps the question is did Ed Hochuli make the right call?)

Reviving memories of Boise State-Oklahoma (still the greatest game of anything I have ever seen), the Broncos ignored the conventional wisdom and played for the win on Sunday, going for 2 when down only 1 with less than 30 seconds to play, thereby causing the entire game to come down to one play.

Now, this is exactly the sort of thing that makes a lot of people really uneasy. I’m not sure why, but for most of the coaches and even sportswriters around the NFL are extremely orthodox in their understanding of when to go for two, and when not to. In this situation, becuase a simple extra point would provide a tie game that was almost certain to go into overtime, the convential wisdom would suggest that, especially at home, you take your chances with a coin flip and play it safe.

Is going for one really playing it safe, however?

Safe, to me, implies that the odds for victory are higher. And I’m not sure that’s the case for any team in Denver’s shoes– and especially for the Broncos on Sunday, considering the first 3 and 29/30 quarters of the first game.

For starters, the odds of making any given two-point conversion in the past few years has been right around 50%. I believe last year it was something around 49.5%, which, for all intents and purposes, might as well mean that any team that goes for it in this situation has a 50-50 shot at winning. Ironically, excatly the same odds of winning the OT coin toss.

But it’s not quite that simple. First off, in Sunday’s game, there was still time left on the clock– about 29 seconds, I think. Now this is not terribly significant, but it does mean that, should the Broncos miss their two point try, they can still attempt an onside kick and try a long field goal, a possiblity that pushes the odds of victory in favor of the bold team.

More importantly, as the NY Times, not normally known for its sportswriting, points out that going for two could potentially put one’s strongest feature, one’s offence, against the opponent’s weaker, defense. In this scenario, it makes perfect sense to go for two, because now the game is being decided precisely in the area in which you have the biggest edge.

Watching the game on Sunday, this argument is certainly applicable. Denver had been moving the ball well all game, and with San Diego’s return game looking so strong, it made little sense to let San Diego have one more chance to let Darren Sproles loose.

So, perhaps, going for two was, in reality, the safe, albeit unorthodox, decision. Why is that NFL teams cannot figure this out? Why are teams willing to blitz 8 players, run double-reverses, kick on side at strange places, but almost never go for two late in the game to take the lead? I don’t understand…

I am tempted to turn this in a new direction: ranting about teams going for it on fourth and 2 or less, but I think I’ll save that for another post, when the Jets get me really riled up. I think the Mets are doing a good enough job of that already…

Plus 65: that’s the run differential of the supposed best team in baseball, the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, the club with more letters in its acronym (5) than starters with On Base Percentages over .340 (4).

Just so everyone is aware of how not impressive that is, five teams in the American League have played stronger baseball so far this season than LAAOA: Boston (+155), Toronto (+97– strongest team in MLB no one is talking about), Chicago (+86), Tampa Bay (+85), and Minnesota (+84). Even in the weakish NL, three teams (Cubs, Mets, and Phils) have played better, and Milwaukee and St. Louis are not far behind LA.

Now I know what everyone is thinking: Run differentials do not equal wins and losses. Wins and losses do. And there, LA has a 1 game lead on Tampa as the best team in baseball (Actually, they’re tied in the loss column). This is faulty logic. Good teams don’t just win. They win big. Those 8-3, 4-0 wins: those are the true indicators of excellence, of beating up on weaker teams and of having talent on both sides of the ball. A team’s record in close games is really more an indication of how fortunate it has been than how skillfully it has played.

Don’t believe an Amherst college senior who hasn’t played baseball in ten years? Well, listen to the experts then. 

This is the real significance of K-Rod’s record tying 57th save. Yes, K-Rod is great. But he is not the greatest closer in history because of this meaningless accomplishment. Nor is LAAOA a “great” team because they have accumulated 57 saves. On the contrary, the Angels are weaker than they seem precisely because their asses have needed so much saving!

Oy. The Angels always get me riled up.

Oh, and ESPN/NY sports media: can we please stop talking about anyone but Albert Pujols as MVP of the NL?