Possible solution to NBA age-limit rules

After reading the always-excellent Howard Bryant's take on the current state of the NCAA tournament, one thing in particular stood out to me.

Bryant wrote, "Only the NBA's unethical (if not illegal) age limit keeps the top tier of college player in school for a year."

Eventually, some aspiring and talented young man with the inability to pass the required college entrance exams - or the lack of resources to have them passed for him - will challenge this rule. There are ways the NBA and NCAA can defend it since they allow a player to go overseas or the developmental league, however that is not always in the best interests of the player involved. Brandon Jennings' draft stock took a hit when he went overseas for a year, costing him money and possibly slowing his development due to the different style of play and the major cultural and language differences. Recently, Aquille Carr has made the decision to play abroad due to the money. If he were able to be drafted into the NBA, that would make it possible - even as a likely 2nd-round draft pick - to provide for his family (he has a child) and still get the coaching and structure needed to help him reach his potential. Now, if his draft stock falls while overseas like Jennings' did, he may not be drafted next year.

Maurice Clarett unsuccessfully attempted to use litigation to forgo the final years of his college eligibilty when he was drafted after his freshman year at OSU. That doesn't mean the NBA will be able to thwart a challenge especially when the argument involves being able to provide for a baby. There is a possible way, however, to make sure every high school senior that wants to enter the NBA can't do so before they are mentally and emotionally ready (if they're not physically ready, the NBA scouts and GMs will take care of that part by not drafting them).

By allowing students who want to bypass the one-year waiting period an opportunity to take a Wonderlic-style test (including on-court questions as well as off-court), with a minimum score required to enter the NBA draft, you are minimizing litigation risk and also avoid diluting the NBA product as was happening with so many "not quite ready for primetime players" that were entering the draft in the years before the 2005 CBA was ratified. If a student does not reach the required score - and you should make it so only 10-15% qualify - they are required to attend a college program for either one or (preferably) two years before qualifying for the draft.

While many students would not be able to skip college, they can't say it's because of an unfair NBA rule - they will be forced to recognize it's because they are not ready to pursue their career of choice and get the training and coaching needed to realize their dream.

WARNING FOR THE YANKEES

Despite going into the All-Star break with the best record in baseball and the largest division lead they have had since 2004 (also 7.0 games), there is reason for concern for the New York Yankees.

The concern is not - and almost never is - about making the playoffs. With the addition of a second wildcard team, the Yankees look to remain a postseason presence for years to come. As is always the case in New York, it's not about making the playoffs, it is about winning in the playoffs and this is where the Yankees may do what they've done ten of the last 11 years... fail.

Offensively, despite the frequent cries, the issue is neither "relying" on the long ball or an "inability" to hit with runners in scoring position. Long known for their ability to wear down a pitching staff, the Yankees are on pace for 1168 strikeouts. This would be their highest K total since 2002 and the third consecutive year that number has increased. The Yankees are also on pace for 575 walks. The only year since 2001 they have failed to eclipse 625 was 2008, also the only year the Yankees have not made the playoffs in this century. These combine to put the Yankees on pace for their lowest on-base average in over ten years.

As the core of the Yankees offense continues to age (32.7 average hitters' age - highest in team history) and their bats continue to slow, it makes sense that they must make their decision to swing earlier, thus decreasing their pitch recognition ability leading to increased swings and misses and decreased pitches out of the strike zone taken. Mark Teixeira (.334) is currently in his fourth year of a sliding OBA. Derek Jeter (.354) and Alex Rodriguez (.357) both are getting on base at a rate 28 points lower than their career marks. Raul Ibanez - getting way more action than the Yankees were hoping due to Brett Gardner's injury - has a ghastly .298 OBA. Even the relative spring chicken Nick Swisher (.336) is heading toward his lowest OBA as a Yankee.

Over the course of a season, when facing weaker teams with diluted pitching staffs, the deficiencies are not as glaring. However, when facing the best pitching staffs as you do in the postseason, along with no fifth starter, the inability to run up pitch counts and get on base will hurt. In a not-so-small sample size of 27 games, the Yankees currently average 3.9 runs per game against likely postseason opponents (Rangers, White Sox, Rays and... Orioles (!)) while scoring an average of 5.3 runs against all other teams.

Most Yankee fans cannot tell you how many 100 win seasons the Yankees have had in the last 11 years (four) because that is not what's important to them. Ask them how many times the Yankees have been Champions and they are far more likely to know the answer - an answer that will likely remain unchanged come November 1.

Berkman for President!

I never thought of myself as a big Lance Berkman fan. I always thought he was a good player who seemed likeable. Not ever the best at his position or in the game but borderline-elite in his prime.

The reason I write this is a blog post on grantland.com today that when reading it comes across as somewhat mocking Berkman, saying he "has been in the category of athletes who genuinely believe they were as good as one of their more buzzed-about teammates... Lance is a two-time member of this club, first as an Astro with Jeff Bagwell and currently as a Cardinal with Albert Pujols. Comparing Bagwell and Pujols' numbers with Berkman, it seems insane for him to think he's as good, if not better."

The biggest issue I have with this blog is there is absolutely no substance to back this claim up. I don't remember EVER seeing anything that gave that impression whether it was an interview, a story, a clubhouse gripe, etc. I did a few Google searches (Lance Berkman jerk; Lance Berkman on Jeff Bagwell) and found nothing. I asked the writer, thinking maybe the evidence or links had been edited out. His response to me via twitter: "he wasn't picking up the phone this morning. line was busy." Now, at first, I wasn't quite sure what he meant by this. I thought maybe he misunderstood my question, but as I thought about it more, I realized he was probably just mocking me for questioning his blog post. Maybe I'm wrong and missing the joke or the point. Either way, I feel when you say someone is firmly entrenched in a club of some sorts, you probably should have seen the membership card.

Then, as I thought about it, I wondered how far apart Berkman was from Bagwell when they played together. That's really the only time period you can count when comparing in this fashion. Although Bagwell at his peak was a historic hitter, they played together for the first five full seasons of Berkman's career and the last five of Bagwell's.

Lance Berkman Batting Stats for Years 2000 to 2004

Year	Tm	G	PA	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	SB	CS	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	OPS+
2000-2004	HOU	741	3142	2590	506	792	193	17	152	520	35	25	489	521	.306	.420	.569	.989	149
Average		148	628	518	101	158	39	3	30	104	7	5	98	104
per 162 games		163	689	568	111	174	43	4	34	114	8	6	108	115

Jeff Bagwell Batting Stats for Years 2000 to 2004

Year	Tm	G	PA	AB	R	H	2B	3B	HR	RBI	SB	CS	BB	SO	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS	OPS+
2000-2004	HOU	794	3508	2938	585	842	170	11	183	549	44	20	498	631	.287	.395	.539	.934	134
Average		159	702	588	117	168	34	2	37	110	9	4	100	126
per 162 games		162	716	600	120	172	35	3	38	112	9	5	102	129

In only their first full season together did Jeff Bagwell have a higher OPS (1.039 to .949). Every other season they played together, Lance Berkman was - by most statistical accounts - a better hitter. So, I guess what I'm saying is if Berkman DID think he was a better player than Bagwell during their time together, it's possibly because he WAS. Go figure.

Also, the other player Berkman was compared to? Albert Pujols? His slashline this year: .299/.366/.541; Berkman's was .301/.412/.547. Again, I don't know that Berkman feels he's as good as Pujols, but for this season - their only season together - he was.

This post was written with statistics from baseball-reference.com and information from the usually awesome Grantland.com and writer Rembert Browne's post here: http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/8186/lance-berkman-finally-right-about-lance-berkman

An Indecent Proposal

There is almost no worse feeling in fantasy football than to see one of your early-round draft picks run into a mascot and wreck his knee in the month of September. One feeling that IS worse, however, is to see another stud you own get carted off the field the very next week. Your #1 running back (Jamaal Charles - 1st Rd), gone for the year. #1 receiver (Kenny Britt - 4th Rd) - same fate.

Unfortunately, both injuries happened early in their respective games and I lost those weeks partially due to their minimal opportunities. The other primary reason I lost was a deficiency at tight end. I scored 3 points with my TE the first three weeks combined.

The one position that I had excellent depth was quarterback. I took Aaron Rodgers with my 2nd round pick - ecstatic that he was still available at that point. I also was lucky enough to get both Matthew Stafford late and Josh Freeman, who was still available in the next-to-last round. I needed to make a move.

I had good depth at both RB and WR, but I was worried that I didn't have a true #1 anymore. Some of my other high picks (Frank Gore & Dwayne Bowe) had disappeared at least two of the three weeks and did not look like they could be counted on to carry my team. I knew to have any real shot at coming back - I needed to make a big move. I knew I would not be able to get equal value for Stafford. Although I think he will perform close to Rodgers most weeks - and through three weeks, he had outscored Rodgers - he would not bring the same return that Rodgers would. I decided I would try and trade Rodgers for a top-flight RB or WR. The only problem was, the only teams that had a need for a QB did not have anyone I wanted. I briefly discussed Rodgers for Ray Rice but was quickly shot down. I also proposed Rodgers for Jones-Drew but was rejected. Those were the only two RB I felt would outscore my current backs enough to make a trade worth it. I had two choices - I could keep my roster intact, wasting one top 5 QB every week on my bench or I could go for broke.

The movie "Moneyball", though not entirely true to the book and the premise, delves into taking advantage of "market inefficiencies". In it's simplest form, it is when current prices do not reflect actual or future value to the organization or the actual information. A better reference point is the book "The Extra 2%" by Jonah Keri which is also about finding gains in players other organizations undervalue but in broader terms, describes how the Tampa Bay Rays used ANY imbalance or advantage they could to gain even the slightest edge. I decided I would look to take advantage of a market inefficiency. I would also use basic math to find arbitrage in a deal.

Rob Gronkowski of the Patriots was the #1 TE by a margin of 20 points through three weeks. He had been consistently targeted and effective for a top offense that loves to throw the ball. He also plays for a coach that when he finds a strength will continue to use it to his advantage - the two-TE setup along with Wes Welker in the slot is very difficult to cover for most of today's defensive schemes and his targets had increased three consecutive weeks. "Gronk" had outscored my TEs by 13, 20 and 22 the first three weeks. Rodgers overall had been outscored by Stafford by four points. If I had Gronkowski in my lineup and had used Stafford all three games instead of Rodgers, my record would be 2-0-1 instead of 1-2. By trading Rodgers for Gronkowski, I was causing a NET GAIN in my points each week. Was it risky? Absolutely. Could it backfire? Yes, but by outscoring the AVERAGE TE by nine points every week and not losing any points by switching quarterbacks, Gronkowski was considerably more valuable to MY team than Rodgers at the time.

I know some may look at this and say, "Well, that's a small sample size and Stafford won't outscore Rodgers the rest of the way. Look at what Rodgers did this Sunday!" That may be fair, but how much will he outscore him by on an AVERAGE week. Sunday's game was a freak occurrence. Nobody will score 48 points consistently. Even taking into account the outlier game that Rodgers had, he has outscored Stafford by an average of seven points. If, for the rest of the season that holds true (it will more likely be 3-4 points/week) and Gronkowski averages 12 points per game which was 10 more than my current waiver wire TE strategy, I have still made a trade that improved my team in two ways. I have increased my net average total per week AND have a larger advantage at a specific position over my opponent. Just like the stocks, past performance is not an indicator of future results and that bore fruit this week when Gronkowski was shut down by the Raiders and Rodgers had a career game against the Broncos. That'll happen, but due to the injuries to my star players, I felt by staying put I guaranteed myself no shot at the playoffs - I had to think outside the box and I still like the trade I made.

Statistics from ESPN were used in this post as well as general information from Moneyball and The Extra 2%. If you only read one of these books (you should read both), read the latter.

I'm back, baby!

Over the past week, while fighting off bronchitis and the flu, I found myself falling into a funk. I figured it was a combination of my sickness (right now, I spent five minutes trying to come up with a witty "feeling like... " but no analogy I could come up with short of dog's ass fit adequately and I didn't even think that quite fit) and the stress of my current situation and the feelings that inevitably go along with it.

What I didn't even consider is that my funk could by explained simply by the fact that I couldn't do my pushups at night.

Up until last Monday, when I really started to feel terrible, I would do pushups every night before bed. I have to give credit here, my coworker Hugo Lujan is a competitive bodybuilder and looks amazing. I asked him a way to build up my arms at home and he suggested the nightly pushup routine. I'll never forget when he said, "Within a week or two, if you stick to it you won't be able to go to bed without doing them. They become addictive." I shrugged that off. I love being active and playing sports, but I've never been a workout guy. Don't like running, don't like working out for the most part.

I started about a month ago with two sets - the first set was 20; the second, 15. I didn't feel sore after but my shoulder bothered me a bit while I was doing it and I didn't want to push it. My goal (and Hugo's goal for me) is to get to 100 pushups per night. Each night, regardless if I had been out, been drinking, been doing whatever, I came home, either put on the "workout" channel on DirecTV or queued up some songs on Spotify and did my pushups. After a few days, my shoulder didn't hurt so I moved up to sets of 20 and 20. Approximately each week since then I've moved up five per week and last week before I fell ill, I moved up to 30 and 25.

Then I got sick. My first night, I forced my way through the pushups because I refused to believe I was really sick and just blamed stress. The next six nights, this was not an option. There were times I couldn't make it down the stairs to make tea, let alone do pushups. So over the weekend, I really started to feel down. I was slowly feeling better physically and got out of the house, but I was just sad and upset. I had a hard time feeling good about myself, my situation, even my new apartment. Today, I still have the cough from the bronchitis, but for the most part I feel good yet I felt terrible. There were exceptions, I have some great people in my life who put smiles on my face and I appreciate them immensely, but I was feeling very low.

Tonight, I said, "I'm doing my pushups". I'm not about to let myself go. I've dropped 48 pounds in the last nine months and there's no way I'm ever being lethargic, inactive or unhealthy again (like I've been forced to be the past week). I put on my tunes and planned on taking a couple extra sets because of the time off, but making sure to get in my 55. First set, 20. OK, I told myself, your strength isn't back all the way, don't get frustrated. Second set, 20. The arms were feeling a bit trembly, but 15 more was all I had left. My next set, 10. Oh, no! What did I do? Is my body still weak from being sick? Did I lose that much ground? New song hits (99 Problems, for what it's worth) and I'm determined. I did 12 crunches and found a second wind. 4th set, 15 more. We blew past 55 but it took double the sets and the song just started. I decided I wanted to hit 80. 12 more crunches and I'm feeling great. This is the "high" that I had fallen in love with. One more set of 15 left. I blew through the first 12 and the last three had that sweet burn that I never thought I would enjoy. 80 pushups.

You know what happened next? I felt amazing. I felt clarity. I felt peace. Everything made sense again. Even my chest and sinuses felt better. Whatever amazing endorphins go through your body when you work out each night, when you deprive your brain of that after a few days, I think it rebels. Mine certainly did. So if you're feeling in a funk - break out a few pushups or go for a run. You might be amazed how much better you feel after.

Jack of all trades... master of - any?

The bio I had for my original twitter account said, "Jack of all trades, master of none". There are times when this is a blessing and times when it is a curse.

I've been lucky enough to have a plethora of different experiences in my life and made money while experiencing them. Everything from overnight security at a Christmas Tree lot on the Upper East Side (86th in between 2nd & 3rd) to sportswriter for a regional newspaper to a musician and poker player. I've learned a lot about many different things, but what is my specialty?

If you ask me what I do BEST, I would probably say communicate. It's why I've always done very well in sales and customer service (man, I could sell an $80. Christmas tree to a drunk couple at 3 AM like NOBODY!) but also done well with behavioral health and writing.

It seems like in today's world, everyone has a niche. I can do a lot of different things for many people, but does that help me fit in anywhere if I'm going to work for someone else? When you're self-employed (been there, too), that is a plus because you're not outsourcing everything that needs to be done and you don't have to stop multiple times a day to learn what to do in different situations - but when you're in the market for a job, how do you explain to a company that your core competency is... a little bit of everything? Your primary benefit to your employers is you're always the one who can be handed off-the-wall assignments and tackle them effectively. That's hard to describe in a cover letter or resume.

Another look at Jeter and some shocking comps

It seems everyone has written about the relationship and negotiations between the New York Yankees - mostly Brian Cashman and the Steinbrenner Bros. - and Derek Jeter and his agent, Casey Close. I didn't think I would have much unique to add until I was observing a debate about Jeter's worth to the Yankees going forward. I'm surprised at how many Yankee fans and baseball fans in general think the Yankees should give in and pay "El Capitan" whatever he wants for services rendered and not punish him for one bad season despite his advanced age.

If Jeter were 31 and coming off his worst season, I don't think the Yankees would be giving pause to paying him like an elite ballplayer. The problem is, the chances are high that he is not an elite ballplayer anymore. To give him four years or more at $20M plus, would exacerbate an already problematic budget situation in the years ahead.

The Yankees have $95M committed for the 2013 season to four players - Mark Teixeira (33 that season), A.J. Burnett (36), C.C. Sabathia (33) and Alex Rodriguez (38). There is a reasonable chance that they will also be paying the replacements for Burnett in the rotation and Rodriguez at 3B if he moves to DH. With the Yankees, it's never safe to assume who will be signed long-term, but it would be a worthwhile bet to say they will be paying large truckloads of cash to Robinson Cano, Cliff Lee and any other Free Agent they go after over the next three seasons.

There are only three active players born in the same year as Jeter (1974) with a higher career OPS (on-base avg. plus slugging pct.). We'll get to the names in a bit, but what we're trying to do is take away the name and just look at the anticipated value. They have all been All-Stars multiple times, have all made at least $13M in a season, all had a higher OPS last season than Jeter, but all had lower OPS marks than their career mark. Despite having better offensive statistics throughout their career AND last season, nobody is lining up to pay these players anything near the amount the Yankees are reportedly offering Jeter ($45M/3Yrs) because it is recognized they are in the twilight of their career with declining skills.

Two of the players were paid $7M LESS in 2010 than they were in their peak. The third is in this FA class with Jeter and will absolutely take a marked pay cut to play in 2011. The players? Two former teammates that the Yankees quickly cut bait with in previous years when it was generally assumed their best years were behind them. Hideki Matsui - let loose after winning World Series MVP in 2009 - and Bobby Abreu, who was dumped after a 20HR/20SB, .296/.371/.471 season in 2008. The third player - Magglio Ordonez - is coming off a season-ending injury which complicates the comparison, but was on pace for 20+ HR and a .300 BA.

The Yankees were not wrong for cutting ties with these players to get younger and to avoid paying players for past performance instead of future returns. It was the right move. The problem is the name - Derek Jeter. The Captain. Mr. November. Author of "The Flip Play" and "The Dive". Master of his "patented jump throw".

The more accolades & nicknames you receive as a ballplayer, the less likely you are to live up to them in the future.

Someone involved in the online debate mentioned earlier (Patrick Gallagher - host of The D League Show - www.thedleague.com) said he wouldn't give those players the $20M/year he would give Jeter because "they have not been consistent. Last season was Jeter's 1st bad season in some time." If you took a poll of Yankee fans - or maybe even people in the game - they would generally agree with that assessment (I did before investigating) and justify the higher price tag for Jeter. A closer look at the numbers, however, flush out the truth.

In 13 full seasons, Abreu has had 12 seasons with an OPS of .800+. In 10 full seasons (and three partial seasons due to injury), Ordonez has only fallen short of an .800+ OPS once. In six full seasons, Matsui has eclipsed .800 in every one but his rookie year. Pretty consistent, eh? In 15 seasons, Jeter has failed to reach an .800 OPS four times. There goes that argument.

Sometimes a closer look reveals all the wrinkles you don't want to see. $20M+ for more than three or four years? If it weren't for the name Jeter, you wouldn't even think twice.

As always, baseball-reference was used extensively for the statistics found in this blog. In addition, ESPN Insider Keith Law's top 50 Free Agents was referred to for information. Special thanks to Patrick Gallagher and Megan Marshall for their entertaining debate that gave birth to this blog idea.