In 2008.... wait - let me start from the beginning - which, ironically, comes way past that point. Earlier this evening (see?), whilst drinking a good amount of wine (keep that in mind while you drink this and spot any grammatical errors or jumps in logic), I played a game where I tried to guess the top 10 on Rolling Stones' 100 Greatest Singers. What I didn't realize is the list had nothing to do with the quality of singer. It was more a "Most Iconic and Influential Artist" list. Not any less important, but - spoiler alert - if Freddie Mercury isn't on your top 10 greatest singers (#18 on the RS list), your list is... well, worthless.
I'm not an expert on the subject, but I did some time as a professional musician... ok, I guess technically that makes me an expert, but not in the critical sense. Although I was a pretty choppy guitarist, I feel pretty strongly that my vocal strengths are what allowed me to be paid on a regular basis. My (drunken) point is, I feel I can make a reasonable top 10 on the best singers in popular music. I'd love to hear your list or if you REALLY feel Bob Dylan is a top 10 singer of all-time, let me know. Maybe I can have my mind changed. This is not based on influence or frontman status or songwriting ability - just the best singers in my opinion. Thanks for reading - and enjoy.
#10: Christina Aguilera - The youngest in my list is also a victim of the era in which she was popular. Though the vocal gymnastics were sometimes a bit much - and what kept Mariah off this list - make no mistake, Aguilera has a sultry, smooth voice (Genie in a Bottle, Beautiful, multiple tracks from Back to Basics) that would stand out in any decade of popular music. Also, she is able to change gears and sing with some fire and growl (Dirrrty, Lady Marmalade) unlike many artists with that angelic a voice.
#9: Steven Page - I am placing Mr. Page this LOW because of my affinity for Barenaked Ladies. I'm worried that their being my favorite group may cloud my judgment. I will tell you that for most of my adulthood, I would place Page at Number Two on my personal list of favorite vocalists. His vocal range is broad, theatrical and more powerful live when in top form than any studio recording could show. With BNL, songs like Break Your Heart, Call & Answer, and What A Good Boy featured the depth and power that he brought. After departing the band in 2009, Indecision, Entourage and A Different Sort of Solitude are a few highlights, though I'm waiting for a solo effort that showcases the amazing vocal ability and passion I've seen since I fell in love with the old band 20 years ago. It's still there, as I saw Steven this spring and - even in a small venue with mediocre acoustics - he blew the audience away. I just hope he writes a song or two that does justice to one of the best pop voices of all time.
#8: Al Green - The Rev. He doesn't have the cache or the grand number of hits that some of his contemporaries had, but his voice could carry a tune, an album, a world if it needed to. We all know about Let's Stay Together, but take a few minutes and listen to it again. The rise from soulful storytelling throughout the first verse to sensual pleading toward the end of the track is some of the most passionate singing you can find and the basis for many an R&B song later in time.
#7: Art Garfunkel - It's odd to put a "second banana" in as one of the best singers of all time. After splitting for the 2nd (and most permanent) time in 1970, Garfunkel was unable to duplicate the success experienced with Paul Simon, while his erstwhile partner found both critical and commercial approval as a solo artist. This does not diminish the pure, haunting sound of Garfunkel's tenor voice. Whether in The Sound of Silence or The Boxer or one of their many other hits, Garfunkel's harmony stays with you in a way many voices fail to.
#6: Whitney Houston - A tragic ending and a less-than-graceful fall from public adoration does not diminish what Houston was during her prime. While I considered Mariah Carey for the top 10, the vocal gymnastics that almost got Aguilera booted were what did her in. I always consider Houston, Carey and Aguilera as a lineage of sorts, but Aguilera and Houston were able to shift into a higher gear that Carey never found in my opinion (this duet helping my argument). Houston's rendition of the National Anthem remains the most powerful and memorable. "The Voice" was also able to find a more sultry tone with songs like My Name is Not Susan, among others. Of everyone on my list, Houston is the one artist who I feel could vary as high as #1, but her massive talent did not produce a "Live" album or tour of epic magnitude and longevity that would have propelled her further up.
#5: Stevie Wonder - Very few artists have the catalog or the credentials of Little Stevie Wonder. A career that spans five decades with very few valleys and many peaks along the way. Another artist who was able to change gears and demonstrate vocal range not just in tone, but in emotion, Wonder crafted hits over many years with one of the most silky smooth voices in popular music. He tells a story with each lyric and can paint a tapestry with his bee-bopping and interludes. There is a nasal quality that has gotten more noticeable over the years, but for me it is not distracting (until recently) as much as it is a unique layer to his voice.
#4: Prince - One of the most under appreciated artists in modern music, Prince partially has only himself to blame by being a recluse and a mystery. He is, however, one of the most talented musicians we've ever been graced with. He manages to be underrated as both a guitarist and a vocalist, which is extremely hard to pull off. Maybe I place too much stock in songs like Darling Nikki and Sexy MF, but Prince could... well, fuck you with his voice and there was nothing you could - or want to - do about it.
#3: Marvin Gaye - Another tragic death, and much like Houston years later, a career that deserved a much better final act. Gaye sang one of the most influential songs ever released , "What's Going On", and due to the high political impact, it was only able to be released because of the vocal quality on that record (Gaye refused to record further material until it was released, but had it not been amazing, the record label would have just sued him for the next album). Gaye had one of the most soulful voices to ever be recorded and from "Heard it Through The Grapevine" up through "Let's Get it On", influenced millions of singers to come.
#2 Elvis Presley - Much of the mystery and eccentricity that clouded his life and his death masks the fact that this man was "The King" and deserved the crown. No singer before or since has been able to cross so many genres so successfully. Whether it was gospel, soul, country or Rock 'n' Roll, Presley was a master of them all. When Garth Brooks tried to crossover and be a rock star under a different name, failing miserably, it was a reminder that Presley could effortlessly pull off that feat multiple times, sometimes on the same album.
#1 Freddie Mercury - Proof of Mercury's vocal abilities is not best found in his amazing range (bass low F to soprano high F) nor his tonal qualities on such Queen staples as Somebody to Love or Don't Stop Me Now. It is best proven by the fact that Mercury recorded an Opera album in 1988 (with operatic soprano Montserrat Caballé) that spawned a top-10 (UK & others) single. This was no vanity project - it was the official anthem of the 1992 Barcelona (the album and song name) Olympic games. Mercury's voice lived on long after his death in movies, TV and radio airplay. The songs remain fresh (well, maybe not Radio Gaga...) and his voice is still one of the most haunting, mesmerizing in history.
Other singers I debated include: Frank Sinatra, Maxwell, Michael Jackson, James Taylor, Paul McCartney, Annie Lennox, Leann Rimes, Smokey Robinson, Lionel Richie, George Michael
Who do you think I missed? Who do you think I nailed? Let me know in the comments!
Tuesday, August 06, 2013
Thursday, May 23, 2013
The Latter-day Rush to Judgment
On The Triangle blog of Grantland today, Jonah Keri examines the resurgence OR depending on your viewpoint, the continued excellence of David Ortiz. About 25% of the blog post discusses the accusations (most recently by the Boston Globe) and circumstantial evidence linking Ortiz to PEDs. Though Keri (one of my favorite baseball writers) correctly takes the Globe story to task for focusing on the gun that does not have any smoke emanating whatsoever (the 14-game small sample size vs. the previous two seasons that seemed... different), we must be reminded... that we asked for this.
In the wake of the PED scandal in Major League Baseball, one of the most frequently cried arguments and criticisms was the sport media's complicity during this time. We derided the writers and analysts who fawned over Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa and Nook Logan - ok, maybe not him so much - without question. We, the baseball-loving public that turned our own eyes, made The Fourth Estate the co-conspirator in the alleged smearing of our National Pastime. We demanded this not happen again and many people expressed betrayal and naivete mostly due to feeling duped after spending $120 on a shiny new Eric Gagne jersey.
Fast-forward a few years and Ortiz is putting up numbers that belong in the heart of the "steroids era". At his age and build, he should not be experiencing a statistical renaissance eerily similar to his original eye-opening rise to prominence in his age 26-29 seasons. Ortiz claims it is unfair for us to question the reasons for this and his defenders want to once again do their best impression of an ostrich, but they must be reminded that - right or wrong - this is what they wanted. For Ortiz, he only has his peers, and possibly himself, to thank.
In the wake of the PED scandal in Major League Baseball, one of the most frequently cried arguments and criticisms was the sport media's complicity during this time. We derided the writers and analysts who fawned over Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa and Nook Logan - ok, maybe not him so much - without question. We, the baseball-loving public that turned our own eyes, made The Fourth Estate the co-conspirator in the alleged smearing of our National Pastime. We demanded this not happen again and many people expressed betrayal and naivete mostly due to feeling duped after spending $120 on a shiny new Eric Gagne jersey.
Fast-forward a few years and Ortiz is putting up numbers that belong in the heart of the "steroids era". At his age and build, he should not be experiencing a statistical renaissance eerily similar to his original eye-opening rise to prominence in his age 26-29 seasons. Ortiz claims it is unfair for us to question the reasons for this and his defenders want to once again do their best impression of an ostrich, but they must be reminded that - right or wrong - this is what they wanted. For Ortiz, he only has his peers, and possibly himself, to thank.
Saturday, April 06, 2013
Welcome to... WrestleMANIA!
Despite the lackluster build-ups for most of the matches, the one benefit has been a wider range of possibilities as we head to the biggest night in pro wrestling. Without giving a match-by-match prediction - I'm only really hitting on the co-main events - there are some things I feel are possible that would be reasonable conclusions to some programs while also taking some major players in fresh directions.
Two things to keep in mind - nobody ever correctly predicts these things, but it's fun trying. Oh sure, you can often predict the match winner correctly using Matt Fowler's almost-scientific 85% accurate "Rule of Opposite Momentum" that states the guy with the big advantage over his opponent in the week(s) leading up to the show will... lose on the big stage. It's the story they tell in the match or the direction they take the wrestlers that people consistently try to decipher... and usually miss on. Also, if any of the "dirt sheets" or writers with a lot of eyeballs (I enjoy the above-mentioned Fowler & David skedman) correctly predicted anything leading up to the show, it's been said Vince McMahon will completely take it in a different direction - even if that new direction makes zero sense or isn't as entertaining. At least he can say nobody saw it coming.
Fortunately (?) for me, the sets of eyeballs that read this blog rarely reach triple digits so if by some miracle I channel one of the WWE writers and "call my shot", it won't matter enough to change anything. Without further ado, here are some things I feel can happen tomorrow night in MetLife Stadium.
CM Punk vs. The Undertaker
The rumors that CM Punk is taking some much-deserved time off after Wrestlemania probably doesn't change much for this match. It came together quickly and if not for the unfortunate passing of Percy Pringle, they'd have been hard-pressed to find a real reason for this match. The ideal way to keep "The Streak" alive while giving CM Punk something worthwhile would be a no-decision style finish. This would allow WWE to use the streak down the road for The Undertaker's legacy (keeping it a perfect 20-0 in their annals) while CM Punk can do what he does best - twist the ending into him beating The Phenom and using that to keep his heat while he takes some time off.
John Cena vs. The Rock
I don't see any benefit if Rocky wins this match. They made the best of having a part-time champ and The Great One already seems to be a bit bored with his return engagement. Cena teased a heel turn in the weeks leading up to this "Once in a Lifetime..." rematch and if CM Punk is taking time off, well that does leave a spot open for top heel. What I see happening is Cena winning the match mostly as a face (a couple heel-style moves but gray area things that doesn't scream HEEL TURN) but getting badly "hurt" in the process. While meekly celebrating his victory, Dolph Ziggler (who I think loses in the tag team championship with Big E Langston) brings his MITB briefcase to the ring with AJ and cashes in clean. This could set off Cena, causing him to flip out and decimate Ziggler - or even better, giving an AA to AJ - thus completing the heel turn and giving him and Ziggler a program to carry the company for the next couple of months.
Two things to keep in mind - nobody ever correctly predicts these things, but it's fun trying. Oh sure, you can often predict the match winner correctly using Matt Fowler's almost-scientific 85% accurate "Rule of Opposite Momentum" that states the guy with the big advantage over his opponent in the week(s) leading up to the show will... lose on the big stage. It's the story they tell in the match or the direction they take the wrestlers that people consistently try to decipher... and usually miss on. Also, if any of the "dirt sheets" or writers with a lot of eyeballs (I enjoy the above-mentioned Fowler & David skedman) correctly predicted anything leading up to the show, it's been said Vince McMahon will completely take it in a different direction - even if that new direction makes zero sense or isn't as entertaining. At least he can say nobody saw it coming.
Fortunately (?) for me, the sets of eyeballs that read this blog rarely reach triple digits so if by some miracle I channel one of the WWE writers and "call my shot", it won't matter enough to change anything. Without further ado, here are some things I feel can happen tomorrow night in MetLife Stadium.
CM Punk vs. The Undertaker
The rumors that CM Punk is taking some much-deserved time off after Wrestlemania probably doesn't change much for this match. It came together quickly and if not for the unfortunate passing of Percy Pringle, they'd have been hard-pressed to find a real reason for this match. The ideal way to keep "The Streak" alive while giving CM Punk something worthwhile would be a no-decision style finish. This would allow WWE to use the streak down the road for The Undertaker's legacy (keeping it a perfect 20-0 in their annals) while CM Punk can do what he does best - twist the ending into him beating The Phenom and using that to keep his heat while he takes some time off.
John Cena vs. The Rock
I don't see any benefit if Rocky wins this match. They made the best of having a part-time champ and The Great One already seems to be a bit bored with his return engagement. Cena teased a heel turn in the weeks leading up to this "Once in a Lifetime..." rematch and if CM Punk is taking time off, well that does leave a spot open for top heel. What I see happening is Cena winning the match mostly as a face (a couple heel-style moves but gray area things that doesn't scream HEEL TURN) but getting badly "hurt" in the process. While meekly celebrating his victory, Dolph Ziggler (who I think loses in the tag team championship with Big E Langston) brings his MITB briefcase to the ring with AJ and cashes in clean. This could set off Cena, causing him to flip out and decimate Ziggler - or even better, giving an AA to AJ - thus completing the heel turn and giving him and Ziggler a program to carry the company for the next couple of months.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
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.
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.
Monday, July 09, 2012
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.
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.
Friday, October 28, 2011
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
Jeff Bagwell Batting Stats for Years 2000 to 2004
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
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 | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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
Monday, October 03, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)