I must’ve woken up on the wrong side of the bed. Either that or the sleep deprivation from my trip to Las Vegas this past weekend has left me feeling hostile. Anyway, to quote that bloated bastard Peter King, here are some of the things I am thinking about today:
1. The Knicks 85-82 loss last night to the LA Clippers was a pathetic display on the part of my hometown team. It was also incredibly instructive. I learned that the Knicks, as a basketball team, are not as bad as their record would indicate. They have talented scorers at all five positions, they have a fairly deep bench, they have a desirable mix of youth and athleticism with just the right amount of veteran players sprinkled in to keep the team from running hog wild on the road. What they don’t have is a coach. Larry Brown is a Hall of Fame coach, the best teacher in the business and one hell of a devious bastard. I believe he is purposely putting his team in position to consistently fail. I believe he is silently sabotaging the team. What I can’t figure out is why.
There are two possible reasons that I’ve come up with. He’s either doing it to make the players look so bad that eventually he gets the type of control he’s looking for to trade players out and get his guys in or he’s doing it to sink the team so badly that management is forced to buy him out of his contract because the situation has deteriorated so rapidly. Now I know I’ve just made one hell of an accusation. But when I look at last night’s game, I am positive of my beliefs. Case in point, the Knicks were down 83-80 with roughly 37 seconds left in the game last night. Jalen Rose raced down the court, drove the lane and got fouled with 28 seconds left. After sinking both free throws to cut the Clippers lead to 83-82, a coach of Larry Brown’s pedigree would know that the right play is to either foul immediately on the inbounds pass or to foul after the other team clears the ball to half court, thus stopping the clock and ensuring that, at worst, the Knicks are down by three (after two made free throws) with at least 15 seconds left, if not a full shot-clock. What did the Knicks do upon Brown’s instructions? They chose to let the Clippers bring the ball up, dribble around for 23 seconds and then prayed that Elton Brand would miss a shot at the end of the possession. Fortunately he did and the Knicks got the rebound. But had he made the basket or, even worse, had a Clippers player gotten an offensive rebound, the Knicks would’ve lost without so much as a chance to get the ball back. Larry Brown put his team in a position where the best-case scenario was the least likely outcome.
Of course, SportsCenter has now shown that the Knicks lost after getting the rebound on Brand’s miss, calling a timeout and then failing to inbound the ball with 2.2 seconds left due to Rose’s five-second inbounds violation. This botched play was another of Larry Brown’s little games. By running Channing Frye and Jamal Crawford as the primary screeners for Eddy Curry, the Knicks were guaranteed to fail because it’s beyond difficult to expect an entry pass into the post from mid court.
All of this is a mere footnote to Brown’s irregular substitution patterns, his odd penchant for benching productive players like rookies David Lee and Channing Frye, and his distaste for creating continuity in the starting lineup. The final result is another Knicks loss, this time in a unique and silly way. Last night represents just another loss for a talented team that is being soundlessly murdered by a coach operating own agenda.
2. Murray Chass, the New York Times’ “esteemed” baseball columnist wrote a piece yesterday that would’ve made me laugh if I wasn’t too busy gagging on my own tongue. It boggles the mind how inconsistent the Times’ opinions are – one day they’re shilling the old-school, small-ball style of baseball and the next they’re buying KY Jelly for a date with their favorite Red Sox, of whom the New York Times owns 20%.
Yesterday’s piece by Chass was a total shredding of “Moneyball” based on stupendously faulty logic and a blind spot the size of Curt Schilling’s ego. The main premise of Chass’ argument was that “Moneyball” doesn’t work because the three main proponents of the system, Billy Beane, JP Ricciardi and Paul DePodesta, have yet to attain true on-field success. Of course, Chass first needs to be reminded (by me, since his editors obviously won’t do their job) that “Moneyball” is the title of a book written in 2003 by Michael Lewis and not a baseball theory. In fact, those three general managers believe in something called “talent evaluation and roster-building through the use of statistical analysis and market efficiency analysis, among other methods” as their guiding philosophy. I can see why “Moneyball” sounds better but there’s just no such thing. Chass tries to prove that “Moneyball” doesn’t work because the main players described in the book, Kevin Youkilis, Jeremy Brown, and Scott Hatteberg, either haven’t achieved the level of success expected of them or, in the case of Hatteberg, because he was non-tendered and is no longer with the A’s ballclub. Uh, yeah, Murray, real strong case there. I’m now convinced that using statistics as one method to evaluate players doesn’t work because three players out of a sea of thousands aren’t Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron and Willie Mays. Sure. Color me unimpressed with Chass’ intellect.
Chass takes special glee in ripping JP Ricciardi by using the following quote:
“You are spending too much money,” Ricciardi reportedly told Godfrey. “I can make you cheaper and better. It’ll take a couple of months to make you cheaper and a couple of years to make you better. But you’ll be a lot better.”
Godfrey liked what he heard, but four years later, the Blue Jays achieved the same 80-82 record they had the year before Ricciardi arrived, and that performance followed a far worse season (67-94).
As for cheaper, the Blue Jays’ payroll last season was $46 million, down from $65 million the year before Ricciardi took over. But this year, Ricciardi is operating on a budget $25 million higher, which means the Blue Jays won’t be cheaper than they were when he interviewed with Godfrey.
Wait, so because the Blue Jays payroll has increased this year back to the level they were spending at the time of Ricciardi’s hire, that’s indicative of something? I’ll tell you what it’s indicative of, Murray. The owner of the Blue Jays, Rogers Communications, just spent $25M to buy the SkyDome facility. By controlling their facility and all of the revenue streams derived from such control, the Blue Jays are better able to invest in their on-field product. It has NOTHING to do with Ricciardi blowing off “Moneyball” and EVERYTHING to do with the team emerging from financial crisis with a better, more solid base to do business.
Naturally, Chass saves his best for last, piling onto Paul DePodesta’s baseball grave like so many other scribes, all of whom give new meaning to the words “we mock what we don’t understand.” Chass fails to mention that firing DePodesta after two years in Los Angeles was one of a long line of unstable and self-defeating moves made by team owner Frank McCourt since his purchase of the team. Because it is nearly impossible to transform an entire baseball culture, let alone its development and evaluation systems after 24 months, I remain convinced that DePodesta’s tenure was incomplete and thus impossible to characterize as a failure. Try telling that to guys like Chass, however, and you’re more likely to convince a deaf dog to speak Swahili.
My advice to Murray Chass, if he chooses to pull his head out of Larry Lucchino and Theo Epstein’s behinds, is to walk down the hall and talk to Richard Sandomir, his colleague and the Times’ sports business columnist. Such silly mistakes could’ve been easily avoided.
1. The Knicks 85-82 loss last night to the LA Clippers was a pathetic display on the part of my hometown team. It was also incredibly instructive. I learned that the Knicks, as a basketball team, are not as bad as their record would indicate. They have talented scorers at all five positions, they have a fairly deep bench, they have a desirable mix of youth and athleticism with just the right amount of veteran players sprinkled in to keep the team from running hog wild on the road. What they don’t have is a coach. Larry Brown is a Hall of Fame coach, the best teacher in the business and one hell of a devious bastard. I believe he is purposely putting his team in position to consistently fail. I believe he is silently sabotaging the team. What I can’t figure out is why.
There are two possible reasons that I’ve come up with. He’s either doing it to make the players look so bad that eventually he gets the type of control he’s looking for to trade players out and get his guys in or he’s doing it to sink the team so badly that management is forced to buy him out of his contract because the situation has deteriorated so rapidly. Now I know I’ve just made one hell of an accusation. But when I look at last night’s game, I am positive of my beliefs. Case in point, the Knicks were down 83-80 with roughly 37 seconds left in the game last night. Jalen Rose raced down the court, drove the lane and got fouled with 28 seconds left. After sinking both free throws to cut the Clippers lead to 83-82, a coach of Larry Brown’s pedigree would know that the right play is to either foul immediately on the inbounds pass or to foul after the other team clears the ball to half court, thus stopping the clock and ensuring that, at worst, the Knicks are down by three (after two made free throws) with at least 15 seconds left, if not a full shot-clock. What did the Knicks do upon Brown’s instructions? They chose to let the Clippers bring the ball up, dribble around for 23 seconds and then prayed that Elton Brand would miss a shot at the end of the possession. Fortunately he did and the Knicks got the rebound. But had he made the basket or, even worse, had a Clippers player gotten an offensive rebound, the Knicks would’ve lost without so much as a chance to get the ball back. Larry Brown put his team in a position where the best-case scenario was the least likely outcome.
Of course, SportsCenter has now shown that the Knicks lost after getting the rebound on Brand’s miss, calling a timeout and then failing to inbound the ball with 2.2 seconds left due to Rose’s five-second inbounds violation. This botched play was another of Larry Brown’s little games. By running Channing Frye and Jamal Crawford as the primary screeners for Eddy Curry, the Knicks were guaranteed to fail because it’s beyond difficult to expect an entry pass into the post from mid court.
All of this is a mere footnote to Brown’s irregular substitution patterns, his odd penchant for benching productive players like rookies David Lee and Channing Frye, and his distaste for creating continuity in the starting lineup. The final result is another Knicks loss, this time in a unique and silly way. Last night represents just another loss for a talented team that is being soundlessly murdered by a coach operating own agenda.
2. Murray Chass, the New York Times’ “esteemed” baseball columnist wrote a piece yesterday that would’ve made me laugh if I wasn’t too busy gagging on my own tongue. It boggles the mind how inconsistent the Times’ opinions are – one day they’re shilling the old-school, small-ball style of baseball and the next they’re buying KY Jelly for a date with their favorite Red Sox, of whom the New York Times owns 20%.
Yesterday’s piece by Chass was a total shredding of “Moneyball” based on stupendously faulty logic and a blind spot the size of Curt Schilling’s ego. The main premise of Chass’ argument was that “Moneyball” doesn’t work because the three main proponents of the system, Billy Beane, JP Ricciardi and Paul DePodesta, have yet to attain true on-field success. Of course, Chass first needs to be reminded (by me, since his editors obviously won’t do their job) that “Moneyball” is the title of a book written in 2003 by Michael Lewis and not a baseball theory. In fact, those three general managers believe in something called “talent evaluation and roster-building through the use of statistical analysis and market efficiency analysis, among other methods” as their guiding philosophy. I can see why “Moneyball” sounds better but there’s just no such thing. Chass tries to prove that “Moneyball” doesn’t work because the main players described in the book, Kevin Youkilis, Jeremy Brown, and Scott Hatteberg, either haven’t achieved the level of success expected of them or, in the case of Hatteberg, because he was non-tendered and is no longer with the A’s ballclub. Uh, yeah, Murray, real strong case there. I’m now convinced that using statistics as one method to evaluate players doesn’t work because three players out of a sea of thousands aren’t Babe Ruth, Hank Aaron and Willie Mays. Sure. Color me unimpressed with Chass’ intellect.
Chass takes special glee in ripping JP Ricciardi by using the following quote:
“You are spending too much money,” Ricciardi reportedly told Godfrey. “I can make you cheaper and better. It’ll take a couple of months to make you cheaper and a couple of years to make you better. But you’ll be a lot better.”
Godfrey liked what he heard, but four years later, the Blue Jays achieved the same 80-82 record they had the year before Ricciardi arrived, and that performance followed a far worse season (67-94).
As for cheaper, the Blue Jays’ payroll last season was $46 million, down from $65 million the year before Ricciardi took over. But this year, Ricciardi is operating on a budget $25 million higher, which means the Blue Jays won’t be cheaper than they were when he interviewed with Godfrey.
Wait, so because the Blue Jays payroll has increased this year back to the level they were spending at the time of Ricciardi’s hire, that’s indicative of something? I’ll tell you what it’s indicative of, Murray. The owner of the Blue Jays, Rogers Communications, just spent $25M to buy the SkyDome facility. By controlling their facility and all of the revenue streams derived from such control, the Blue Jays are better able to invest in their on-field product. It has NOTHING to do with Ricciardi blowing off “Moneyball” and EVERYTHING to do with the team emerging from financial crisis with a better, more solid base to do business.
Naturally, Chass saves his best for last, piling onto Paul DePodesta’s baseball grave like so many other scribes, all of whom give new meaning to the words “we mock what we don’t understand.” Chass fails to mention that firing DePodesta after two years in Los Angeles was one of a long line of unstable and self-defeating moves made by team owner Frank McCourt since his purchase of the team. Because it is nearly impossible to transform an entire baseball culture, let alone its development and evaluation systems after 24 months, I remain convinced that DePodesta’s tenure was incomplete and thus impossible to characterize as a failure. Try telling that to guys like Chass, however, and you’re more likely to convince a deaf dog to speak Swahili.
My advice to Murray Chass, if he chooses to pull his head out of Larry Lucchino and Theo Epstein’s behinds, is to walk down the hall and talk to Richard Sandomir, his colleague and the Times’ sports business columnist. Such silly mistakes could’ve been easily avoided.
No comments:
Post a Comment