April 30, 2010
Who will wrongly win next year?
LeBron James has won the MVP award. No surprise there. It's his second in a row. Next year, he will deserve his third in succession, no matter who he plays for. But it's inevitable that the voters will get bored of LeBron and vote for someone else (Kobe? Durant? God forbid, Dwight Howard??). Sort of like how they incredibly voted for Karl Malone instead of Michael Jordan in 1997. It's the only thing that will stop LeBron from winning the next seven of these.
And the Favre drama begins
Brett Favre has done a nice job this season of staying quiet, not prematurely retiring only to change his mind.
Well, that's all over now. ESPN's Ed Werder reports that in order to play in 2010, Favre will need ankle surgery. He was injured during the NFC Championship loss to the Saints, presumably on the low Bobby McCray hit that inexplicably wasn't flagged under the Tom Brady rule. Wrote Favre in an e-mail to Werder:
"To play again, I would need the surgery, as I suspected. This decision would be easy if not for my teammates and the fans and the entire Vikings staff. One year truly felt like 10 -- much like Green Bay for many years. That's what I was missing in my heart I suppose, a sense of belonging."
And with that, the drama begins. Favre, you'll recall, was in the same position last year and decided to have surgery on his shoulder. So I'm sure we'll be hearing news on this every day from now until mid-August. Rachel Nichols may as well start camping out on Favre's lawn in Mississippi now.
April 29, 2010
Spurs soar, Dallas drowns
I don't know why I'm so in awe of the fact that the Spurs knocked off the Mavericks in the first round of the playoffs. I mean, I predicted this very thing to happen before the playoffs began (I have the Spurs going to the West Finals). Yet what I saw in this series was even better than I was expecting.
I have never felt at any point in the last 20 years that there was a better coach in the NBA than Phil Jackson (except for the 1998-99 and 2004-05 seasons, the first of which saw Jackson meditating in Montana, the second of which saw him having sex with Jeannie Buss while writing a book in which he lambasted Kobe Bryant). Well, I think I may have found someone who I feel is better. What Gregg Popovich has done this season is nothing short of incredible. Despite lots of injuries, including to both Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker, the decline of Tim Duncan (especially on the offensive end), young players having to play key roles (George Hill and DeJuan Blair) and attempting to incorporate veterans who didn't know how to fit in (Richard Jefferson, I'm looking at you), Popovich somehow got the Spurs to 50 wins while spending the entire season trying to get the team to gel. You know what happened? They finally came together in the final week of the season, then they dismantled a Mavericks team that was clearly its superior this season.
Popovich has me believing that a seventh-seed could win the NBA title. And if they do, it will go down as one of the most incredible coaching jobs of all-time. The Spurs always had the talent to be a championship team this season (here's one person who picked them to win it all back in October) but the chemistry never hit. Well guess what? The chemistry is hit. I don't think there's any doubt that they dismantle the Suns (I'm saying five games) and now I think they could beat the Lakers or Jazz in the West Finals. I don't know that they can beat Cleveland but would I ever put anything past the Duncan-Popovich-Ginobili-Parker Spurs? Absolutely not. I think this is the West's best team. It just took them 80 games to find that level.
As for the Mavericks, it's time for Mark Cuban to admit defeat: winning a championship is impossible if Dirk Nowitzki is your best player. Doesn't attack the basket consistently enough, settles for too many jumpers. That's fine for a second fiddle. It has no chance of working for an alpha dog. If I'm Cuban, I'm going all out to get LeBron or DWade this summer and turning the keys over to him. And don't put it past him to do exactly that.
April 28, 2010
Colby Jack
Based on these numbers, you would think he's the best hitter in the National League (at least through the season's first month). Then you see that's he has just two hits in 13 at-bats (and seven strikeouts) against lefthanded pitchers and you realize that those numbers aren't quite as good as they look.
That being said, Rasmus did have both of those hits today against the Braves so maybe he's starting to figure it out. If he can become just average against lefties (which means at least better than Ryan Howard), the Cardinals could legitimately have a Big Four of Albert Pujols, Matt Holliday, Rasmus and Ryan Ludwick which would have to at least be considered on par with the Phillies Big Four of Chase Utley, Howard, Jayson Werth and Raul Ibanez. Of course, I'll take the Phillies table-setters (Jimmy Rollins, Shane Victorino) over the Cardinals table-setters (Skip Schumaker, Brendan Ryan) any day of the week.
And yes, I'm already comparing the Cardinals and Phillies. The only team standing in the way of their meeting in the NLCS is Colorado.
This playoffs thing isn't working out so well for Alex Ovechkin
There isn't a more exciting player in the NHL than Alex Ovechkin. His game was made for the highlight reels. But, I have to say, his style of play really isn't suited for dominating a playoff series. His record in do-or-die, winner-take-all games is now a rather pathetic 1-4 since 2008 (three Game 7 losses, Olympic medal round loss) after his Capitals were stunned by the Canadiens, 2-1, tonight. With that, the best team in the NHL this regular season is out in the first round of the playoffs after blowing a 3-1 series lead.
Really, it isn't all his fault. When was the last time a team whose best player was a winger won the Cup? Has it ever happened? Maybe the Canadiens with Guy Lafleur in the late 1970s (although their best player may have been Ken Dryden or Larry Robinson). Wingers can't dominate a series the way centers can because of where they play on the ice and their lesser responsibilities. Thus, it's virtually impossible for a great winger to have as great an impact as a great center.
I hate to compare Ovechkin to Sidney Crosby because their jobs are so different but if these two are considered the two best, it has to be said that Crosby does the little things far better than Ovechkin. He's a better back-checker. He's a faceoff ace. He's better down low around the corners. No, he doesn't have Ovechkin's shot and he doesn't lay people out with open-ice shots but he does all the little things it takes to win, all while scoring over 100 points every season.
Crosby carried the Penguins over the Senators not only with his offense but with his grit, faceoffs, defensive responsibility and all-around play. When the Canadiens devoted so much attention to Ovechkin to take away his goal-scoring ability in the final three games of the series, the Great Eight became rather useless. Crosby can contribute in fifty different ways. Ovechkin can contribute in about five ways. It's why Crosby has been to the Final two year in a row, won the Stanley Cup and won an Olympic Gold Medal in which he scored the winning goal in overtime, and why Ovechkin's teams have failed miserably in big games. Unfortunately, Ovechkin can't make a difference if an opponent can slow down his offense. Crosby can and does.
That being said, I don't want to blame Ovechkin for the Capitals losing. The real culprits were the Capitals running into an incredibly hot goaltender and their own horrible defensive play, most notably by Mike Green. Jaroslav Halak stopped 131 of 134 shots in the final three games of the series. Green was directly responsible for both Canadiens goals in Game 7, one because of a penalty and the other because of a misplay. He almost gave away another goal but his goaltender, Semyon Varlamov, bailed him out.
Green is a terrific offensive player but he really is the Sandis Ozolinsh of his generation, a supremely gifted talent in the offensive end but a complete mess in his own end. This is the second consecutive spring in which Green has been a complete albatross in his own end. It's one reason why I cannot possibly put him in the same class as Nicklas Lidstrom, Drew Doughty, Duncan Keith, Shea Weber, Chris Pronger, Brent Seabrook, or even someone like Dan Boyle, who is only so-so in his own end. Green's defensive failures have been greatly responsible for the Capitals losing their last two playoff series.
It also should be pointed out that Alexander Semin was a zero in this series for the Capitals, as was Tomas Fleishmann before he was scratched for the final game. As exciting as the Capitals are, I cannot help but feel that they have a lot of players that don't want to pay the price it takes to win the battles necessary to win in the playoffs. When the game is wide open, they can and probably will beat anyone. When it's tight checking, they have a lot of players who are severely lacking.
Washington needs to improve their grit factor considerably this offseason and I don't mean just improving their checking lines (actually, their checking lines were great in this series). They need to find those gritty scorers, guys who score in the high traffic areas. They also need to find a puck-moving defenseman who is more responsible in his own end than what they have.
Best game of the season--so far
Great game in San Francisco between the Phillies and Giants today. The Phillies won in 11 innings, 7-6. It was an absolute crime that Tim Lincecum didn't get the win in this game.
April 27, 2010
Big brother is reading baseball writers' Tweets
Major League Baseball has banned all of the MLB.com beat writers from posting anything on Twitter other than baseball-related information. They also have scolded players for posting non-baseball stuff.
As someone who follows several of the beat writers (Matthew Leach of the Cardinals, Jordan Bastian of the Blue Jays, Jane Lee of the Athletics, Bryan Hoch of the Yankees), I find this to be a lousy move by Major League Baseball. Jane, undoubtedly the most attractive beat writer in baseball, doesn't post anything besides Athletics news anyway, but the others all are engaging and interact with the fans via Twitter. This strikes me as a bunch of middle-aged white men in the MLB offices not really understanding what this Twitter thing is. Ironically, by limiting what their writers can Tweet about, MLB is actually putting their own website in a competitive disadvantage against other writers from other publications who interact with their readers and show us their personal side a little bit.
No doubt, Oakland's Brad Ziegler's Tweets on Arizona immigration laws, fan protests as the possibility of the Athletics moving probably was what caused this. And, of course, the old white suits overreacted. Let's hope this doesn't last.
Game 7 prediction
The Detroit Red Wings have won four Stanley Cups and been in the Final series six times since 1995. The Phoenix Coyotes have not gotten past the first round of the playoffs since 1987, when they were the Winnipeg Jets. Tonight, they meet in a winner-take-all Game 7.
Want to know what moment defines the Coyotes/Jets franchise history to me? It was a video put out by the NHL and CBC following the 1992 playoffs. It was hosted by Ron MacLean and the great Dick Irvin of Hockey Night In Canada. It was simply a countdown of the 50 greatest goals in Stanley Cup playoff competition. Not surprisingly, Bobby Orr's Cup-winner in 1970 was first and Bob Nystrom's Cup-winner in 1980 was second.
The Jets were represented in the countdown one time. I can't remember where it ranked, exactly, but the ranking doesn't matter. The goal was scored in Game 4 of the 1990 Smythe Division semifinal by Dave Ellett. It ended a double overtime game and sent the fans at the Winnipeg Arena into a frenzy as their beloved Jets took a 3-1 series lead over the mighty (though no longer with Wayne Gretzky) Edmonton Oilers.
Of course, the Jets would go on to lose the next three games and lose the series while the Oilers would go on to win the Cup. So CBC ranked the greatest Jets playoff goal as one that happened in a series they didn't even win. Ladies and gentlemen, the Winnipeg Jets! (And the Phoenix Coyotes!)
Anyway, these Coyotes have shown a lot. They didn't even have a coach until late in camp and still don't have an owner. They have no star players. They don't have any fans, although they have a lot of people pretend to be and show up to their home playoff games dressed in white. They went to Detroit and dominated the Red Wings in Game 6 when everyone in the world thought the Red Wings would close them out.
But I don't think they're going to win. Too much baggage. Not enough talent. The Red Wings don't care about that silly White Out and Nicklas Lidstrom, Henrik Zetterberg and Pavel Datsyuk aren't ready to say goodbye to their run with a first-round loss.
The Ryan Howard reaction
Yesterday I offered my initial, knee-jerk reaction to the asinine contract the Phillies handed to Ryan Howard. My mind has not changed regarding how dumb this contract is. If it were a five-year deal that began in 2010, it would still be a bad deal because it would be paying Howard like one of the five best players of the game, something he isn't. But it would at least be defensible. That it doesn't start until 2012 makes it unbelievably idiotic and could, in fact, be the undoing of this Phillies era of prosperity. I guess they don't need to worry about that for a couple years though.
But I've changed my mind on the Albert Pujols part of it. I no longer believe that this deal is going to hurt the Cardinals in their effort to re-sign one of the three greatest hitters of all-time. Pujols was already going to be the highest paid player of all-time. Does this Howard deal change that? No. Pujols was already going to challenge the $30 million annual threshold. I don't see how this deal will change that.
If one wants to argue that Pujols' actual worth, relative to Howard's, is 150%, I would believe it. That would mean his average annual salary should be $37.5 million. But no team is going to spend that much money on Pujols. His salary will be around $30 million regardless and he's worth more to the Cardinals than he is to any other team. So if the Cardinals were willing to pay $30 million annually this past Saturday, this deal won't change anything.
As for the Phillies, my goodness. His baseball-reference page lists his career comparables through age 29 (Howard's age in 2009) as Richie Sexson, Cecil Fielder, Mo Vaughn, Willie McCovey and David Ortiz. The Phillies better hope Howard turn out like McCovey and not at all like Sexson, Fielder, Vaughn and Ortiz, hulking sluggers who all fell off a cliff early in their 30s (and if you've seen Ortiz this season, you know what I mean; fortunately for the Red Sox, this is the final season of their commitment to Big Papi). I don't know what more to say so instead, I'll throw out what some others are saying:
Rob Neyer, ESPN.com: "Last year, enjoying one of his two best seasons, Howard might have been one of the 30 best players in the majors. Maybe one of the 25 best. And maybe, just maybe, if you stretch the boundaries of analysis and tilt everything in his favor, he was one of the 20 best players in the major leagues.
"That was 2009. What will we (and the Phillies) be trying to do in 2015? Make a case for him as one of the 40 best players in the majors? One of the 50 best?
"Ryan Howard's new contract is a testament the enduring power of the Are-Bee-Eye. It's also a testament to old-school ignorance: ignorance of aging patterns, ignorance of position scarcity, ignorance of opportunity costs ... hey, take your pick. The Phillies have done a lot of things right over the last few years. But this is a big bowl of wrong."
Joshua Fisher, The Hardball Times: "They're locked into tens of millions of dollars each year at the easiest position to fill in the National League. This probably means they'll lose Jayson Werth, so Domonic Brown needs to be ready to go sooner rather than later. The Phils will likely have to suffer the drama playing out in Boston over David Ortiz, but might still owe Howard $100 million while it unfolds. Howard, a fan favorite, seems destined to end up vilified for making what is, in a vacuum, a pretty great decision for himself. Should the Phillies fall far from their current perch atop the division, however, Howard will quickly come to symbolize the organization's decline."
Matt Schwartz, Baseball Prospectus: "If major-league salaries inflate the way that they did during the middle of the 2000s, Howard is going to have plenty of leeway to age without being useless; if salaries hold steady like they have over the last few years, Howard is not only going to need to maintain his production, but might need to learn to pitch, too, in order to be worth his salary."
Bill Baer, Crashburn Alley: "Most Phillies fans will love the extension, as it keeps a fan favorite in town for a long time. Stat-savvy fans immediately dislike the deal. Most Phillies fans will come to loathe the deal in several years when the Phillies are hamstrung by Howard’s relatively large salary and declining production.
"Already, Howard has shown signs of decline as his walk rate has declined every year since 2007 and sits at a paltry 3.6% thus far in 2010. His BABIP has been lower as more and more teams have employed an infield shift against him. Opposing teams have also been bringing in more left-handed relievers to face Howard and his production against them has swiftly dropped. His strikeout rate has declined gradually but so has his isolated power. Using FanGraphs’ pitch type linear weights, Howard’s production against the fastball has dropped every year since 2006. He has swung at more and more pitches outside of the strike zone every year since he came into the Majors. Finally, his whiff rate (swinging strike percentage) has increased every year since 2006.
"This will be a fun ride for two, maybe even three more years, but it will quickly become tumultuous."
Matthew Carruth, FanGraphs: "Even if you think baseball’s salary per win goes up to $4.25 million this coming offseason and rises at a 5% clip every winter through 2017, Howard will need to produce an average of 4.75 wins from 2012 through 2017 just in order to justify his salary. If you factor in that Howard gets (even more) long-term security from this deal, then that average production levels goes up to 5.3 wins.
"In other words, Howard will need six seasons that were better than his 2009 season, except over his 32-37 years. I’m not sure I would lay even money on him achieving even half of that. This contract is both incredibly risky and unnecessary since Howard was already signed through 2011. Say hello to baseball’s newest worst contract."
Craig Calcaterra, Hardball Talk: "But the thing is, Howard doesn't even have to fall off a cliff in the next five years for this deal to be bad. It's bad on day one. Why? Because while we all like Ryan Howard, he's not as good as many like to think he is. Lefties are kryptonite to him. He doesn't walk nearly as much as a slugger like him should. While he's better than he was on defense, he's still bad and, before this contract was signed, seems like a guy who was on the DH-express.
"As of now, Ryan Howard is going to paid more than anyone in the game not named Alex Rodriguez. Unless you can tell me that you can't think of anyone else in baseball not named Alex Rodriguez who is better than Ryan Howard, this contract makes no sense. And if you tell me that, you make no sense."
Craig Corcoran, Sports Illustrated: "If Howard's deal has any impact on Pujols, it's as a reminder that Pujols exists somewhere well north of his counterpart in Philadelphia. The ludicrous Pujols-for-Howard trade rumor this past offseason helped throw the gap between the two players into sharp relief. While Howard has hit .278/.379/.589 over the past four seasons, Pujols batted .333/.427/.628 over the past nine, which is to say his entire career. In his worst season (his .314/.394/.561 performance as a 22-year-old sophomore in 2002) Pujols was every bit as good as Howard has been in his four-year peak seasons. Pujols is also a better fielder, a better baserunner, two months younger than Howard, and in his first nine seasons struck out 195 times fewer than Howard has in his previous four. If Howard is worth $125 million over five years, Pujols could easily be baseball's second $200 million player."
Buster Olney, ESPN.com: "Here's a simple barometer of whether or not this was a good deal for the Phillies: If Philadelphia were to put Howard on the trade market today, with almost seven years and $164 million remaining on his deal, how many offers would it get?
"The answer, in all likelihood: zero.
"Less than 24 hours into his contract, Howard -- a star in his prime -- is already considered by many in the industry to be overpriced.
Jonah Keri, Bloomberg Sports (via his Twitter page): "5 years, $125 million for Ryan Howard!!! A financial quagmire that'll make the Iraq War look like a slap fight."
Tim Marchman, Improve Conditions: "Howard was born November 9, 1979. Adam Dunn was born November 19, 1979. Since 2007 Howard has hit .266/.360/.560 with a 134 OPS+ and 10 steals. Dunn has hit .255/.390/.528 with a 136 OPS+ and 11 steals. Howard is a kind of tolerable defender; Dunn isn't.
"This contract would, then, seem to imply that being a Subway pitchman and a better defender than Adam Dunn is worth about $15 million per year, which bears out given that CC Sabathia, also a Subway pitchman and a better defender than Dunn, also makes about $15 million more than Dunn."
(I fully acknowledge that this deal could ultimately work out for the Phillies. In fact, here are some writers who love the move the Phillies made. But all historical trends based on Howard's production, skill-set and body type, indicate that the likelihood of this deal blowing up in the Phillies face is far greater than the likelihood of Howard coming anywhere close to justifying the contract.)
But I've changed my mind on the Albert Pujols part of it. I no longer believe that this deal is going to hurt the Cardinals in their effort to re-sign one of the three greatest hitters of all-time. Pujols was already going to be the highest paid player of all-time. Does this Howard deal change that? No. Pujols was already going to challenge the $30 million annual threshold. I don't see how this deal will change that.
If one wants to argue that Pujols' actual worth, relative to Howard's, is 150%, I would believe it. That would mean his average annual salary should be $37.5 million. But no team is going to spend that much money on Pujols. His salary will be around $30 million regardless and he's worth more to the Cardinals than he is to any other team. So if the Cardinals were willing to pay $30 million annually this past Saturday, this deal won't change anything.
As for the Phillies, my goodness. His baseball-reference page lists his career comparables through age 29 (Howard's age in 2009) as Richie Sexson, Cecil Fielder, Mo Vaughn, Willie McCovey and David Ortiz. The Phillies better hope Howard turn out like McCovey and not at all like Sexson, Fielder, Vaughn and Ortiz, hulking sluggers who all fell off a cliff early in their 30s (and if you've seen Ortiz this season, you know what I mean; fortunately for the Red Sox, this is the final season of their commitment to Big Papi). I don't know what more to say so instead, I'll throw out what some others are saying:
Rob Neyer, ESPN.com: "Last year, enjoying one of his two best seasons, Howard might have been one of the 30 best players in the majors. Maybe one of the 25 best. And maybe, just maybe, if you stretch the boundaries of analysis and tilt everything in his favor, he was one of the 20 best players in the major leagues.
"That was 2009. What will we (and the Phillies) be trying to do in 2015? Make a case for him as one of the 40 best players in the majors? One of the 50 best?
"Ryan Howard's new contract is a testament the enduring power of the Are-Bee-Eye. It's also a testament to old-school ignorance: ignorance of aging patterns, ignorance of position scarcity, ignorance of opportunity costs ... hey, take your pick. The Phillies have done a lot of things right over the last few years. But this is a big bowl of wrong."
Joshua Fisher, The Hardball Times: "They're locked into tens of millions of dollars each year at the easiest position to fill in the National League. This probably means they'll lose Jayson Werth, so Domonic Brown needs to be ready to go sooner rather than later. The Phils will likely have to suffer the drama playing out in Boston over David Ortiz, but might still owe Howard $100 million while it unfolds. Howard, a fan favorite, seems destined to end up vilified for making what is, in a vacuum, a pretty great decision for himself. Should the Phillies fall far from their current perch atop the division, however, Howard will quickly come to symbolize the organization's decline."
Matt Schwartz, Baseball Prospectus: "If major-league salaries inflate the way that they did during the middle of the 2000s, Howard is going to have plenty of leeway to age without being useless; if salaries hold steady like they have over the last few years, Howard is not only going to need to maintain his production, but might need to learn to pitch, too, in order to be worth his salary."
Bill Baer, Crashburn Alley: "Most Phillies fans will love the extension, as it keeps a fan favorite in town for a long time. Stat-savvy fans immediately dislike the deal. Most Phillies fans will come to loathe the deal in several years when the Phillies are hamstrung by Howard’s relatively large salary and declining production.
"Already, Howard has shown signs of decline as his walk rate has declined every year since 2007 and sits at a paltry 3.6% thus far in 2010. His BABIP has been lower as more and more teams have employed an infield shift against him. Opposing teams have also been bringing in more left-handed relievers to face Howard and his production against them has swiftly dropped. His strikeout rate has declined gradually but so has his isolated power. Using FanGraphs’ pitch type linear weights, Howard’s production against the fastball has dropped every year since 2006. He has swung at more and more pitches outside of the strike zone every year since he came into the Majors. Finally, his whiff rate (swinging strike percentage) has increased every year since 2006.
"This will be a fun ride for two, maybe even three more years, but it will quickly become tumultuous."
Matthew Carruth, FanGraphs: "Even if you think baseball’s salary per win goes up to $4.25 million this coming offseason and rises at a 5% clip every winter through 2017, Howard will need to produce an average of 4.75 wins from 2012 through 2017 just in order to justify his salary. If you factor in that Howard gets (even more) long-term security from this deal, then that average production levels goes up to 5.3 wins.
"In other words, Howard will need six seasons that were better than his 2009 season, except over his 32-37 years. I’m not sure I would lay even money on him achieving even half of that. This contract is both incredibly risky and unnecessary since Howard was already signed through 2011. Say hello to baseball’s newest worst contract."
Craig Calcaterra, Hardball Talk: "But the thing is, Howard doesn't even have to fall off a cliff in the next five years for this deal to be bad. It's bad on day one. Why? Because while we all like Ryan Howard, he's not as good as many like to think he is. Lefties are kryptonite to him. He doesn't walk nearly as much as a slugger like him should. While he's better than he was on defense, he's still bad and, before this contract was signed, seems like a guy who was on the DH-express.
"As of now, Ryan Howard is going to paid more than anyone in the game not named Alex Rodriguez. Unless you can tell me that you can't think of anyone else in baseball not named Alex Rodriguez who is better than Ryan Howard, this contract makes no sense. And if you tell me that, you make no sense."
Craig Corcoran, Sports Illustrated: "If Howard's deal has any impact on Pujols, it's as a reminder that Pujols exists somewhere well north of his counterpart in Philadelphia. The ludicrous Pujols-for-Howard trade rumor this past offseason helped throw the gap between the two players into sharp relief. While Howard has hit .278/.379/.589 over the past four seasons, Pujols batted .333/.427/.628 over the past nine, which is to say his entire career. In his worst season (his .314/.394/.561 performance as a 22-year-old sophomore in 2002) Pujols was every bit as good as Howard has been in his four-year peak seasons. Pujols is also a better fielder, a better baserunner, two months younger than Howard, and in his first nine seasons struck out 195 times fewer than Howard has in his previous four. If Howard is worth $125 million over five years, Pujols could easily be baseball's second $200 million player."
Buster Olney, ESPN.com: "Here's a simple barometer of whether or not this was a good deal for the Phillies: If Philadelphia were to put Howard on the trade market today, with almost seven years and $164 million remaining on his deal, how many offers would it get?
"The answer, in all likelihood: zero.
"Less than 24 hours into his contract, Howard -- a star in his prime -- is already considered by many in the industry to be overpriced.
Jonah Keri, Bloomberg Sports (via his Twitter page): "5 years, $125 million for Ryan Howard!!! A financial quagmire that'll make the Iraq War look like a slap fight."
Tim Marchman, Improve Conditions: "Howard was born November 9, 1979. Adam Dunn was born November 19, 1979. Since 2007 Howard has hit .266/.360/.560 with a 134 OPS+ and 10 steals. Dunn has hit .255/.390/.528 with a 136 OPS+ and 11 steals. Howard is a kind of tolerable defender; Dunn isn't.
"This contract would, then, seem to imply that being a Subway pitchman and a better defender than Adam Dunn is worth about $15 million per year, which bears out given that CC Sabathia, also a Subway pitchman and a better defender than Dunn, also makes about $15 million more than Dunn."
(I fully acknowledge that this deal could ultimately work out for the Phillies. In fact, here are some writers who love the move the Phillies made. But all historical trends based on Howard's production, skill-set and body type, indicate that the likelihood of this deal blowing up in the Phillies face is far greater than the likelihood of Howard coming anywhere close to justifying the contract.)
April 26, 2010
Seventh heaven
The Canadiens defeated the Capitals tonight, 4-1, to force Game 7 on Wednesday night. Every playoff series the Capitals have participated in the Alex Ovechkin era (this will be the fourth) has gone seven games.
Long-term outlook: Pujols leaves St. Louis, Phillies have regrets
If Ryan Howard is worth $25 million per season, I don't see how the Cardinals can re-sign Albert Pujols. Everyone already knows Pujols is the best player in the game but he's considerably better than Howard (who I don't believe is even the best player on his own team; good luck to the Phillies when it comes time to sign Chase Utley to a new deal). What is Pujols going to be seeking now? $32 million per season?
Meanwhile, the Phillies are really gambling here. Howard is already 30 years old and his body type and skill-set would suggest he won't still be destroying the ball at 33, 34, 35 years old. Hugely built power hitters are more than capable of losing it in an instant, as we've seen with Mo Vaughn and now with David Ortiz. It's the same risk whatever team signs Prince Fielder between now and the winter after the 2011 season will be taking.
$25 million for a below-average fielder who strikes out 200 times a year, hits for a low average, doesn't draw that many walks (81 and 75 the last two years, which isn't that many given that he's hit 58, 47, 48 and 45 homers the last four seasons) and really, really, really struggles against lefties (.207/.298/.356 last season; .226/.309/.443 career). Methinks the Phillies are going to really regret this deal and the Cardinals are going to be really burned by this deal.
Meanwhile, the Phillies are really gambling here. Howard is already 30 years old and his body type and skill-set would suggest he won't still be destroying the ball at 33, 34, 35 years old. Hugely built power hitters are more than capable of losing it in an instant, as we've seen with Mo Vaughn and now with David Ortiz. It's the same risk whatever team signs Prince Fielder between now and the winter after the 2011 season will be taking.
$25 million for a below-average fielder who strikes out 200 times a year, hits for a low average, doesn't draw that many walks (81 and 75 the last two years, which isn't that many given that he's hit 58, 47, 48 and 45 homers the last four seasons) and really, really, really struggles against lefties (.207/.298/.356 last season; .226/.309/.443 career). Methinks the Phillies are going to really regret this deal and the Cardinals are going to be really burned by this deal.
Ranking the NFL play-by-play guys
With the NFL draft over, I decided this would be a good time to look at the people that broadcast NFL games.
Not counting the retiring Dick Enberg, there are currently 18 NFL play-by-play guys on four networks that televise games. Enberg, who is now doing Padres baseball games full-time, has said he hopes to do a few low-level games for CBS after the baseball season is over, presumably those really bad matchups between teams that won't be in the playoffs. That means if Enberg gets his wish, the October 24 Jaguars-Chiefs game has his name written all over it.
It also means the best play-by-play guy to appear on CBS would be relegated to the lowest level game. That's a shame in two ways: that CBS' best guy is doing a nothing game (December 16, Chiefs-Rams, come on down!) and that CBS' best guy is in his mid-70s, sometimes is a little behind the play and sometimes mispronounces names. See, in doing this project, I've realized that the NFL is really lacking in quality play-by-play guys. We're nowhere near the 1980s when NBC unleashed a murderer's row of an in-his-prime Enberg, Marv Albert, Charlie Jones and a still-rock solid Don Criqui. Or the very early-1980s when CBS had a lineup that was the equivalent of the Big Red Machine: Pat Summerall (at his very peak, when he was first paired with Madden), Vin Scully, Jack Buck, Frank Glieber.
Now, we have FOX trotting out Thom Brennaman and a way-past-his-prime Dick Stockton. Yecch. Anyway, my ranking of the announcers.
1. Al Michaels, NBC: He's had an up-and-down career, in my view. He's always been the best play-by-play guy but his performance fluxuated based on who his partner was. He excelled when he was with Gifford and Dierdorf on Monday Night Football, tried his best with Boomer Esiason, failed when he was with Fouts and Dennis Miller because he always had to get the last word edge-wise over Miller, then failed with Madden because he didn't know how to set him up and had no chemistry with him at all, even though they worked together for seven seasons. Then he started losing interest in games that became blowouts before flex scheduling came about. But he nailed Super Bowl 43 with Madden (their final broadcast together and easily their best) and being paired with Cris Collinsworth revitalized him. Collinsworth is the perfect partner for Michaels and vice versa. When with the right partner Michaels is without peer and he's with the perfect partner right now.
2. Kenny Albert, FOX: If he were only a little better looking, he would probably be the star of FOX. Unfortunately, he has an abnormally large head, or it seems when looking at him on an HD screen. I remember hating him a few years ago when he was teamed with lesser partners but putting him with Moose Johnston and Tony Siragusa have made him shine. Kenny, Moose and Goose are easily the most entertaining of the Sunday announcing teams and it's clear Albert is the glue. I hated the Moose-Goose tandem when they were with Stockton a few years ago but with Albert, it works perfectly.
3. Kevin Harlan, CBS: Love how excited he gets at big moments while not making the moment about him. It's rare to find a play-by-play guy that does that, especially in football. I'd love to hear him with a better partner than Solomon Wilcots. Maybe CBS will pair him with Fouts now that Fouts' partner is off doing bad Padres games instead. Great on NBA games for TNT also.
4. Gus Johnson, CBS: Not the legend he is on March Madness but still pretty darn entertaining. Unlike Harlan, I'm not entirely sure he really knows all that much but his excitement level on the big moments remains off the charts. Remember this call in Week 1 last season:
Plus, he makes me laugh with some of his ridiculous calls (just as he does during March Madness). For example:
Can you imagine how awesome his call would have been on the Saints interception return for a touchdown that sealed the Super Bowl?
5. Joe Buck, FOX: Here's the problem with ranking Joe Buck fifth: I think he's mediocre at best as a football announcer. He can have his moments when he is really on top of things (like the fourth quarter and overtime of the Minnesota-New Orleans NFC Championship) but more often than not hearing him makes me wish someone else was in the booth. But then I look at the rest of the play-by-play guys and think Buck is better than all of them. That's the sad fact. Think he's great at baseball though. Wish he did a baseball game on FOX every weekend and then did a few lesser NFL games if he insists on doing football.
6. Mike Tirico, ESPN: Love the chemistry he has with Jaworski and Gruden, even if I don't really think he's all that great a play-by-play guy. Still think he's best cast as a studio host.
7. Jim Nantz, CBS: Solid when he hosted the NFL Today, mediocre as a play-by-play guy. Better on NFL games than he is on March Madness but there's no doubt he should basically be sent out to the Masters and tucked away in the studio the rest of the season. Perhaps he would be better if paired with better partners but he has had the misfortune of teaming up with Phil Simms all these years. Surprisingly entertaining when on Bill Simmons' podcast earlier this month.
8. Sam Rosen, FOX: Awesome on hockey. So-so at best on football. In fairness to him, FOX has teamed him with Jerry Glanville, Bill Maas and now Tim Ryan. Those three could bring down any play-by-play guy.
9. Greg Gumbel, CBS: CBS has the three best studio hosts around in James Brown, Gumbel and Nantz. Unfortunately, only one can host the NFL Today and JB is clearly the best studio host in the business (JB is without peer in this department). So Gumbel is forced to do play-by-play and he's not very good at it. The only good thing is that CBS realized he was miscast as a lead NFL play-by-play and took him out of that role a few years ago. Not a bad basketball play-by-play guy but CBS uses him in the studio there. Would be smart to put Gumbel on the March Madness games and let JB be the host.
10. Chris Myers, FOX: Not actually a good play-by-play guy and is by far best when conducting interviews but I had to move him up a few spots just because of this moment:
I laughed.
11. Ian Eagle, CBS: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Impossible for a play-by-play guy to sound more boring. Needs to be paired with someone a little more exciteable than Rich Gannon to make sure the viewer doesn't fall asleep.
12. Craig Bolerjack, CBS: Non-descript. Fortunately he's relegated to those low-level games than Enberg wants to take over so I rarely have to see him.
13. Bill Macatee, CBS: See Bolerjack. Exact same description, word-for-word, applies.
14. Ron Pitts, FOX: Now we've entered the really awful portion of the ranking. Ladies and gentleman, Ron Pitts! Here's the thing though: I actually like Pitts style. Understated. Doesn't try to take over the moment. Let's the pictures do the talking. You know, sort of like Summerall was. Unfortunately, Pitts just isn't good at it. As a former player, he engages in analysis far more than most play-by-play guys do and he's actually really good at that. FOX should either make him an analyst or put him in a Siragusa sort of role as an analyst on the sideline. I think he'd be really good at that.
15. Bob Papa, NFL Network: Completely miscast on television. I'm sure he does fine work on Giants radio broadcasts and that's where he should stay. He broadcasts on television like he is doing a radio broadcasts, seems completely confused when replays are shown and doesn't really know how to mesh with his analysts. His constant mentioning of third down conversion statistics between a certain yardage range makes me want to set my eyebrows on fire. It doesn't help that he's paired with Matt Millen, a really good analyst until you think to yourself, "Wait, isn't this the same Matt Millen who was the worst GM in NFL history?" and can no longer be taken seriously. On the bright side, it's sort of fitting that a bad play-by-play guy and the least credible analyst are the announcers for the NFL Network since, week-in and week-out, that network produces the worst broadcasts of any of the networks. So I suppose it fits.
16. Thom Brennaman, FOX: He cannot stop talking. From beginning to end, he talks. And talks. And tells stories. And talks more. His over-the-top crush on Tim Tebow when working FOX BCS games a couple years ago could best be described as "disgraceful" and "embarrassing." He's spent his whole career being a solid second-tier baseball guy, where a play-by-play guy has to fill dead time with stories. He's brought that same approach to football and it doesn't work. Not even working with Brian Billick, who is really, really good, elevates him. I'd love to see Billick teamed with someone else although really, FOX doesn't have much in the stable. Maybe he could salvage Rosen.
17. Dick Stockton, FOX: Yikes. He once had a really good voice and was generally on top of the action, even if no one has ever delivered worse calls on great moments (listen to his call of Tate George's March Madness buzzer-beater or Carlton Fisk's famous homer in Game 6 of the 1975 World Series and you'll cringe). But now, it's clear he shouldn't still be doing football games. His performance during a Jets-Falcons game last season set the play-by-play profession back about 50 years and he was rightly skewered in the New York papers and in the blogs for his performance, a game in which he misidentified players, the score and even the teams involved. And how about this classic moment:
Yeah, I know that whoever did the graphic is the one who really got it wrong but the way Stockton reads it so matter-of-factly without even thinking to himself, "wait, there was no Dawson in this game!" speaks volumes about where he is in his career.
It's time for Stockton to retire and if he's not ready to accept that, then FOX has to make the decision for him.
18. Don Criqui, CBS: I really feel bad putting Criqui here because at one point, he may have been the best in the business. I'm not even kidding about that. Go back and watch the legendary Chargers-Dolphins playoff game that Criqui worked with John Brodie and you will hear a play-by-play guy who absolutely nails it. In fact, here's his call of the famous hook-and-lateral in that game (4:14 into the clip):
In fact, if you listen closely, it's almost like there's a little bit of Gus Johnson in him. "That goes to Canton!" And it went on like that for the entire second half and all of overtime.
Now? Wow. It's really sad to listen to him. I don't think he was ever the same after NBC broke him and Bob Trumpy up.
Not counting the retiring Dick Enberg, there are currently 18 NFL play-by-play guys on four networks that televise games. Enberg, who is now doing Padres baseball games full-time, has said he hopes to do a few low-level games for CBS after the baseball season is over, presumably those really bad matchups between teams that won't be in the playoffs. That means if Enberg gets his wish, the October 24 Jaguars-Chiefs game has his name written all over it.
It also means the best play-by-play guy to appear on CBS would be relegated to the lowest level game. That's a shame in two ways: that CBS' best guy is doing a nothing game (December 16, Chiefs-Rams, come on down!) and that CBS' best guy is in his mid-70s, sometimes is a little behind the play and sometimes mispronounces names. See, in doing this project, I've realized that the NFL is really lacking in quality play-by-play guys. We're nowhere near the 1980s when NBC unleashed a murderer's row of an in-his-prime Enberg, Marv Albert, Charlie Jones and a still-rock solid Don Criqui. Or the very early-1980s when CBS had a lineup that was the equivalent of the Big Red Machine: Pat Summerall (at his very peak, when he was first paired with Madden), Vin Scully, Jack Buck, Frank Glieber.
Now, we have FOX trotting out Thom Brennaman and a way-past-his-prime Dick Stockton. Yecch. Anyway, my ranking of the announcers.
1. Al Michaels, NBC: He's had an up-and-down career, in my view. He's always been the best play-by-play guy but his performance fluxuated based on who his partner was. He excelled when he was with Gifford and Dierdorf on Monday Night Football, tried his best with Boomer Esiason, failed when he was with Fouts and Dennis Miller because he always had to get the last word edge-wise over Miller, then failed with Madden because he didn't know how to set him up and had no chemistry with him at all, even though they worked together for seven seasons. Then he started losing interest in games that became blowouts before flex scheduling came about. But he nailed Super Bowl 43 with Madden (their final broadcast together and easily their best) and being paired with Cris Collinsworth revitalized him. Collinsworth is the perfect partner for Michaels and vice versa. When with the right partner Michaels is without peer and he's with the perfect partner right now.
2. Kenny Albert, FOX: If he were only a little better looking, he would probably be the star of FOX. Unfortunately, he has an abnormally large head, or it seems when looking at him on an HD screen. I remember hating him a few years ago when he was teamed with lesser partners but putting him with Moose Johnston and Tony Siragusa have made him shine. Kenny, Moose and Goose are easily the most entertaining of the Sunday announcing teams and it's clear Albert is the glue. I hated the Moose-Goose tandem when they were with Stockton a few years ago but with Albert, it works perfectly.
3. Kevin Harlan, CBS: Love how excited he gets at big moments while not making the moment about him. It's rare to find a play-by-play guy that does that, especially in football. I'd love to hear him with a better partner than Solomon Wilcots. Maybe CBS will pair him with Fouts now that Fouts' partner is off doing bad Padres games instead. Great on NBA games for TNT also.
4. Gus Johnson, CBS: Not the legend he is on March Madness but still pretty darn entertaining. Unlike Harlan, I'm not entirely sure he really knows all that much but his excitement level on the big moments remains off the charts. Remember this call in Week 1 last season:
Plus, he makes me laugh with some of his ridiculous calls (just as he does during March Madness). For example:
Can you imagine how awesome his call would have been on the Saints interception return for a touchdown that sealed the Super Bowl?
5. Joe Buck, FOX: Here's the problem with ranking Joe Buck fifth: I think he's mediocre at best as a football announcer. He can have his moments when he is really on top of things (like the fourth quarter and overtime of the Minnesota-New Orleans NFC Championship) but more often than not hearing him makes me wish someone else was in the booth. But then I look at the rest of the play-by-play guys and think Buck is better than all of them. That's the sad fact. Think he's great at baseball though. Wish he did a baseball game on FOX every weekend and then did a few lesser NFL games if he insists on doing football.
6. Mike Tirico, ESPN: Love the chemistry he has with Jaworski and Gruden, even if I don't really think he's all that great a play-by-play guy. Still think he's best cast as a studio host.
7. Jim Nantz, CBS: Solid when he hosted the NFL Today, mediocre as a play-by-play guy. Better on NFL games than he is on March Madness but there's no doubt he should basically be sent out to the Masters and tucked away in the studio the rest of the season. Perhaps he would be better if paired with better partners but he has had the misfortune of teaming up with Phil Simms all these years. Surprisingly entertaining when on Bill Simmons' podcast earlier this month.
8. Sam Rosen, FOX: Awesome on hockey. So-so at best on football. In fairness to him, FOX has teamed him with Jerry Glanville, Bill Maas and now Tim Ryan. Those three could bring down any play-by-play guy.
9. Greg Gumbel, CBS: CBS has the three best studio hosts around in James Brown, Gumbel and Nantz. Unfortunately, only one can host the NFL Today and JB is clearly the best studio host in the business (JB is without peer in this department). So Gumbel is forced to do play-by-play and he's not very good at it. The only good thing is that CBS realized he was miscast as a lead NFL play-by-play and took him out of that role a few years ago. Not a bad basketball play-by-play guy but CBS uses him in the studio there. Would be smart to put Gumbel on the March Madness games and let JB be the host.
10. Chris Myers, FOX: Not actually a good play-by-play guy and is by far best when conducting interviews but I had to move him up a few spots just because of this moment:
I laughed.
11. Ian Eagle, CBS: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Impossible for a play-by-play guy to sound more boring. Needs to be paired with someone a little more exciteable than Rich Gannon to make sure the viewer doesn't fall asleep.
12. Craig Bolerjack, CBS: Non-descript. Fortunately he's relegated to those low-level games than Enberg wants to take over so I rarely have to see him.
13. Bill Macatee, CBS: See Bolerjack. Exact same description, word-for-word, applies.
14. Ron Pitts, FOX: Now we've entered the really awful portion of the ranking. Ladies and gentleman, Ron Pitts! Here's the thing though: I actually like Pitts style. Understated. Doesn't try to take over the moment. Let's the pictures do the talking. You know, sort of like Summerall was. Unfortunately, Pitts just isn't good at it. As a former player, he engages in analysis far more than most play-by-play guys do and he's actually really good at that. FOX should either make him an analyst or put him in a Siragusa sort of role as an analyst on the sideline. I think he'd be really good at that.
15. Bob Papa, NFL Network: Completely miscast on television. I'm sure he does fine work on Giants radio broadcasts and that's where he should stay. He broadcasts on television like he is doing a radio broadcasts, seems completely confused when replays are shown and doesn't really know how to mesh with his analysts. His constant mentioning of third down conversion statistics between a certain yardage range makes me want to set my eyebrows on fire. It doesn't help that he's paired with Matt Millen, a really good analyst until you think to yourself, "Wait, isn't this the same Matt Millen who was the worst GM in NFL history?" and can no longer be taken seriously. On the bright side, it's sort of fitting that a bad play-by-play guy and the least credible analyst are the announcers for the NFL Network since, week-in and week-out, that network produces the worst broadcasts of any of the networks. So I suppose it fits.
16. Thom Brennaman, FOX: He cannot stop talking. From beginning to end, he talks. And talks. And tells stories. And talks more. His over-the-top crush on Tim Tebow when working FOX BCS games a couple years ago could best be described as "disgraceful" and "embarrassing." He's spent his whole career being a solid second-tier baseball guy, where a play-by-play guy has to fill dead time with stories. He's brought that same approach to football and it doesn't work. Not even working with Brian Billick, who is really, really good, elevates him. I'd love to see Billick teamed with someone else although really, FOX doesn't have much in the stable. Maybe he could salvage Rosen.
17. Dick Stockton, FOX: Yikes. He once had a really good voice and was generally on top of the action, even if no one has ever delivered worse calls on great moments (listen to his call of Tate George's March Madness buzzer-beater or Carlton Fisk's famous homer in Game 6 of the 1975 World Series and you'll cringe). But now, it's clear he shouldn't still be doing football games. His performance during a Jets-Falcons game last season set the play-by-play profession back about 50 years and he was rightly skewered in the New York papers and in the blogs for his performance, a game in which he misidentified players, the score and even the teams involved. And how about this classic moment:
Yeah, I know that whoever did the graphic is the one who really got it wrong but the way Stockton reads it so matter-of-factly without even thinking to himself, "wait, there was no Dawson in this game!" speaks volumes about where he is in his career.
It's time for Stockton to retire and if he's not ready to accept that, then FOX has to make the decision for him.
18. Don Criqui, CBS: I really feel bad putting Criqui here because at one point, he may have been the best in the business. I'm not even kidding about that. Go back and watch the legendary Chargers-Dolphins playoff game that Criqui worked with John Brodie and you will hear a play-by-play guy who absolutely nails it. In fact, here's his call of the famous hook-and-lateral in that game (4:14 into the clip):
In fact, if you listen closely, it's almost like there's a little bit of Gus Johnson in him. "That goes to Canton!" And it went on like that for the entire second half and all of overtime.
Now? Wow. It's really sad to listen to him. I don't think he was ever the same after NBC broke him and Bob Trumpy up.
April 25, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)