Hi all. I wanted to do this when I started out blogging, but I was worried that my reader (thanks again, mom!) wouldn't comment on the post, thus making the post look silly. Now that I have multiple readers (paid by me, of course), here goes. Open Bias is where I don't say much and let you do most of the talking. Let's meet in the comment section, shall we?
My question this morning was, why do people dislike watching the Spurs so much, and like watching the Patriots so much? They're essentially the same team to me: hardworking, limit turnovers, bring in aging veterans looking for one last shot at rings, draft extremely well, have a very intelligent coach, win multiple championships and contend every year, etc. Yet people find the Patriots interesting and the Spurs boring. Why so? You might also ask, why did people disparage the Colts for their lack of toughness, and yet extol the Phoenix Suns and Dallas Mavericks for much the same type of wide-open offense?
Is it a difference between sports?
Is it small media market vs. big media market?
Is it East Coast Bias?
Is it the attitude of commentators?
Is it that the NBA is more of a highlights league, while the NFL is more of a "watch the whole game" league?
Is it somehow xenophobism (hating foreigners), because the Spurs stars are all foreign?
That's just a few ideas. Let me know in the comment section.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Monday, May 14, 2007
Dreaming of Minutae
Sign that you have read too many sportsblogs this week, from Friday night:
You awake at 3AM in the morning needing to go to the bathroom. On the way to the bathroom, you find yourself realizing that "Despite all their wide receiver trades, the Patriots still don't have a #1 receiver. Moss has slipped in skill over the last few years, while Stallworth and Welker were #2 receivers with their old clubs to Chambers and Horn. Thus the Patriots may not have fixed their wide receiver problems as much as people think they have." Congratulating yourself on your depth of analysis, you suddenly realize that
(1) It's 3AM, and you just woke up
(2) You neither are a fan of the Patriots nor a hater of the Patriots
(3) In fact, football isn't even your favorite sport
(4) Yet for some reason, you popped out of bed and immediately dropped a lucid 4 sentence paragraph that you'd be hard-pressed to match fully awake.
And that is a good reason to blog and read blogs a little less.
You awake at 3AM in the morning needing to go to the bathroom. On the way to the bathroom, you find yourself realizing that "Despite all their wide receiver trades, the Patriots still don't have a #1 receiver. Moss has slipped in skill over the last few years, while Stallworth and Welker were #2 receivers with their old clubs to Chambers and Horn. Thus the Patriots may not have fixed their wide receiver problems as much as people think they have." Congratulating yourself on your depth of analysis, you suddenly realize that
(1) It's 3AM, and you just woke up
(2) You neither are a fan of the Patriots nor a hater of the Patriots
(3) In fact, football isn't even your favorite sport
(4) Yet for some reason, you popped out of bed and immediately dropped a lucid 4 sentence paragraph that you'd be hard-pressed to match fully awake.
And that is a good reason to blog and read blogs a little less.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Guest Bloggolalia
can be found here. I actually (gasp) went back and edited my text on that post after I wrote it. I might have to try that again sometime, heh, it seems to help.
Wednesday, May 9, 2007
New Sports Magazine is Launched
No, I don't own stock, promise, but I'm thinking I won't be the first sports blogger to mention SE7EN magazine. It is marketing itself as an upscale magazine that will cover sports, gambling, and style. Check it out at http://www.sevenmagonline.com/. Two issues are out so far.
Thinking as a business man, I like the idea. ESPN the Magazine is the downscale everyman magazine: lots of content, but cheap to buy and cheap-looking. Sports Illustrated has unfortunately started to chase ESPN the Magazine a little bit in hopes of making up ground. Therefore, the upscale sports magazine spot is open. The magazine is well-designed and printed on quality stock (they charge $6 an issue). And the coverage is broad. They're getting some decent names to write for them and be interviewed, as well. You're not going to see an Alex Rodriguez interview(yet), but they look like they can handle non-"Big Three" coverage pretty well.
However, I did note that the writing is decent but somewhat flavorless. It might take them a while to find their voice. Perhaps that's also because they didn't cover the NBA in the issue I read, which is my favorite sport. And frankly, "SE7EN" is too cute of a name for me. Sounds like more of a perfume than a magazine. Finally, I didn't care for the lady-love section: it felt a little too much like SE7EN was reaching for FHM/Maxim territory.
Quibbles aside, in a time where much of the focus is on sportsblogs, I like SE7EN's moxie in trying to go the exact opposite direction. The more sports options out there for us fans, the better. When there is a monopoly on sports reporting, it results in lower quality, in my opinion. So good luck to them, from a Mr. Nobody they've never heard of.
Thinking as a business man, I like the idea. ESPN the Magazine is the downscale everyman magazine: lots of content, but cheap to buy and cheap-looking. Sports Illustrated has unfortunately started to chase ESPN the Magazine a little bit in hopes of making up ground. Therefore, the upscale sports magazine spot is open. The magazine is well-designed and printed on quality stock (they charge $6 an issue). And the coverage is broad. They're getting some decent names to write for them and be interviewed, as well. You're not going to see an Alex Rodriguez interview(yet), but they look like they can handle non-"Big Three" coverage pretty well.
However, I did note that the writing is decent but somewhat flavorless. It might take them a while to find their voice. Perhaps that's also because they didn't cover the NBA in the issue I read, which is my favorite sport. And frankly, "SE7EN" is too cute of a name for me. Sounds like more of a perfume than a magazine. Finally, I didn't care for the lady-love section: it felt a little too much like SE7EN was reaching for FHM/Maxim territory.
Quibbles aside, in a time where much of the focus is on sportsblogs, I like SE7EN's moxie in trying to go the exact opposite direction. The more sports options out there for us fans, the better. When there is a monopoly on sports reporting, it results in lower quality, in my opinion. So good luck to them, from a Mr. Nobody they've never heard of.
Discounting Draft Picks: The Deal for Brady Quinn
I found the deal for Brady Quinn fascinating because it involved valuing unknown quantities over different time spaces. What rationale did the Browns have for risking such a high future draft pick on a star which at least 13 other teams (picks #9-#22) passed on? I grouped some assumptions about discounting draft picks, and tried to think it over below.
Assumption #1: Short-term team performance is the only thing that matters
Assumption #2: Long-term team performance is the only thing that matters
By #1, the Browns absolutely made the right decision in trading for Brady Quinn this year. A cynic would point out that both Phil Savage and Romeo Crennel risk being fired if this year is not a success, and thus they are putting themselves ahead of the team in making this deal. But rookie QB’s from the draft rarely transform a team (with the slight exception of Vince Young). More importantly, the Browns have been losing for years, and the other teams in town are starting to win again. If the Browns don’t improve soon, Cleveland could become a baseball or basketball town instead.
By #2, the Browns made the wrong decision, because they have substantially hurt their prospects for next year. It’s doubtful that the Browns will have a winning record next year, and thus next year’s pick to Dallas will be higher than the #22 pick they got this year. Worse, they gave up a 2nd round pick as well.
I think #1 is closer to the truth than #2; so I’ll give the Browns a pass because of their desperate situation in terms of fan and owner impatience.
Assumption #3: The draft contains 10-15 star players at the top
Assumption #4: The draft contains 40-50 star players at the top
If most drafts aren’t that deep, as in #3, then the Browns made the right choice. (And Mel Kiper should be out of a job, then, if the talent pool is that shallow.) I am not sure that Brady Quinn was top 5, but I am pretty sure he was ranked a top 10 player. And it’s unlikely that the Browns will have two terrible seasons in a row; the law of averages should work in their favor. Their pick will probably be in the teens next year, as it was in 2006. Thus the Browns traded two average picks for a star; any team would make that move.
However, I believe in #4 in this situation. Here’s a handy rule of thumb for drafts in pro sports. To know the number of stars in the draft, take the number of players on the field (22 for football, not counting special teams; 5 for basketball) and multiply by two. So then, the NBA draft usually has 10 good players and the NFL draft thus has 44. The Browns traded two picks in the top 44 for one pick in the top 44. They did use it to select the second-ranked QB, which softens the impact of making that deal. There’s a bigger upside to success than there is at other positions. On the other hand, QB’s tend to fail more than any other position. (ESPN had a study on this; I believe QB failure was around 50%?).
I believe the Browns made the wrong decision here; #4 makes more sense than #3 to me.
Assumption #5: The key to escaping the NFL basement is fixing weak positions to become average: the key to becoming a Super Bowl contender is adding stars.
Assumption #6: The key to escaping the NFL basement is adding stars: the key to becoming a Super Bowl contender is fixing weak positions to become average
Which comes first, the chicken, or the egg? The superstars, or the solid role players that allow the superstars to look good? It’s a great question in this salary cap era, and one that I don’t think enough teams seriously consider.
I think it’s fair to say that QB is a weakness on the Browns. They have former 3rd and 6th round picks fighting for the starting job, with no veteran QB’s. However, #5 would say that they just needed to go out and get a Trent Green or Daunte Culpepper for a year. Drafting a rookie QB is not making a weak area average. It’s actually making it worse at first, as many rookie QB’s can’t keep up with the NFL game. And if he is a star, he’s just going to get pummeled because of the weak offensive line. However, the Browns have invested heavily in the line lately, so perhaps the line would be average in a year.
By #6, though, the Browns absolutely made the right decision. Sure, maybe Brady takes a bit of a beating for a few years, and runs for his life on some 8-8 teams. But if he’s a star, he’ll make the players around him better, and the team can stay competitive and fill in the holes in the team to get to the top.
I don’t know whether I believe in #5 or #6. Is it really a good idea to get your stars first, when you’ll have to trade them or risk them getting injured if the team around them is really bad? But without any stars, what about attendance? Teams underperform when they have no stars, as well, because they lack game-breaking talent. What do you think?
In the end, I think the draft graders have been a little quick to give the Browns an A on this pick. The only reason it makes sense is because the Browns are desperate. But if not, they shouldn’t have done it, because they essentially traded two for one and aren’t one player away from anything. As to whether you build with stars or role players, or with imported talent vs. homegrown, that’s a good post for another time. I want to come back to that question in the context of NBA, where it’s even more of a dilemma.
Assumption #1: Short-term team performance is the only thing that matters
Assumption #2: Long-term team performance is the only thing that matters
By #1, the Browns absolutely made the right decision in trading for Brady Quinn this year. A cynic would point out that both Phil Savage and Romeo Crennel risk being fired if this year is not a success, and thus they are putting themselves ahead of the team in making this deal. But rookie QB’s from the draft rarely transform a team (with the slight exception of Vince Young). More importantly, the Browns have been losing for years, and the other teams in town are starting to win again. If the Browns don’t improve soon, Cleveland could become a baseball or basketball town instead.
By #2, the Browns made the wrong decision, because they have substantially hurt their prospects for next year. It’s doubtful that the Browns will have a winning record next year, and thus next year’s pick to Dallas will be higher than the #22 pick they got this year. Worse, they gave up a 2nd round pick as well.
I think #1 is closer to the truth than #2; so I’ll give the Browns a pass because of their desperate situation in terms of fan and owner impatience.
Assumption #3: The draft contains 10-15 star players at the top
Assumption #4: The draft contains 40-50 star players at the top
If most drafts aren’t that deep, as in #3, then the Browns made the right choice. (And Mel Kiper should be out of a job, then, if the talent pool is that shallow.) I am not sure that Brady Quinn was top 5, but I am pretty sure he was ranked a top 10 player. And it’s unlikely that the Browns will have two terrible seasons in a row; the law of averages should work in their favor. Their pick will probably be in the teens next year, as it was in 2006. Thus the Browns traded two average picks for a star; any team would make that move.
However, I believe in #4 in this situation. Here’s a handy rule of thumb for drafts in pro sports. To know the number of stars in the draft, take the number of players on the field (22 for football, not counting special teams; 5 for basketball) and multiply by two. So then, the NBA draft usually has 10 good players and the NFL draft thus has 44. The Browns traded two picks in the top 44 for one pick in the top 44. They did use it to select the second-ranked QB, which softens the impact of making that deal. There’s a bigger upside to success than there is at other positions. On the other hand, QB’s tend to fail more than any other position. (ESPN had a study on this; I believe QB failure was around 50%?).
I believe the Browns made the wrong decision here; #4 makes more sense than #3 to me.
Assumption #5: The key to escaping the NFL basement is fixing weak positions to become average: the key to becoming a Super Bowl contender is adding stars.
Assumption #6: The key to escaping the NFL basement is adding stars: the key to becoming a Super Bowl contender is fixing weak positions to become average
Which comes first, the chicken, or the egg? The superstars, or the solid role players that allow the superstars to look good? It’s a great question in this salary cap era, and one that I don’t think enough teams seriously consider.
I think it’s fair to say that QB is a weakness on the Browns. They have former 3rd and 6th round picks fighting for the starting job, with no veteran QB’s. However, #5 would say that they just needed to go out and get a Trent Green or Daunte Culpepper for a year. Drafting a rookie QB is not making a weak area average. It’s actually making it worse at first, as many rookie QB’s can’t keep up with the NFL game. And if he is a star, he’s just going to get pummeled because of the weak offensive line. However, the Browns have invested heavily in the line lately, so perhaps the line would be average in a year.
By #6, though, the Browns absolutely made the right decision. Sure, maybe Brady takes a bit of a beating for a few years, and runs for his life on some 8-8 teams. But if he’s a star, he’ll make the players around him better, and the team can stay competitive and fill in the holes in the team to get to the top.
I don’t know whether I believe in #5 or #6. Is it really a good idea to get your stars first, when you’ll have to trade them or risk them getting injured if the team around them is really bad? But without any stars, what about attendance? Teams underperform when they have no stars, as well, because they lack game-breaking talent. What do you think?
In the end, I think the draft graders have been a little quick to give the Browns an A on this pick. The only reason it makes sense is because the Browns are desperate. But if not, they shouldn’t have done it, because they essentially traded two for one and aren’t one player away from anything. As to whether you build with stars or role players, or with imported talent vs. homegrown, that’s a good post for another time. I want to come back to that question in the context of NBA, where it’s even more of a dilemma.
Monday, May 7, 2007
Nobody (except MCBias today) Loves a Loser
I always find it interesting how many great NBA play-off performances get overlooked because there are so many play-off games going on. The memories get replaced in our heads by the next great highlight. But here's a little credit to some star performances in losing efforts:
TJ Ford and Jose Calderon were both doubtful for Game 6 after Game 5 injuries. They combined to shoot 13-22 from the field for 33 points against Jason Kidd, who's still making it on the All-Pro Defensive Team for the NBA. Despite my Canada jokes, I do believe that the Raptors have a bright future.
Antawn Jamison averaged 32.2 ppg, including a 35% clip from 3-point land, against the Cavs in round one. He did everything he could to give the Wizards a chance, short of blocking shots with those massive eyebrows. The Wizards do have a goof-off reputation sometimes, but there was nothing goofy about the way they fought in Round 1. Pure heart.
Kobe Bryant averaged "only" 32.5 ppg against the Suns, and Carmelo Anthony averaged "only" 28.2 ppg against the Spurs. Stars playing like stars, but only winning 2 games between them. Too bad.
Nene upped his ppg by about 3 points, which isn't much...except it was against the Spurs. He may yet be worth that massive contract.
By the way, I'm not sure if the play-off stats are completely updated for the first round, but that's what I found as of today.
TJ Ford and Jose Calderon were both doubtful for Game 6 after Game 5 injuries. They combined to shoot 13-22 from the field for 33 points against Jason Kidd, who's still making it on the All-Pro Defensive Team for the NBA. Despite my Canada jokes, I do believe that the Raptors have a bright future.
Antawn Jamison averaged 32.2 ppg, including a 35% clip from 3-point land, against the Cavs in round one. He did everything he could to give the Wizards a chance, short of blocking shots with those massive eyebrows. The Wizards do have a goof-off reputation sometimes, but there was nothing goofy about the way they fought in Round 1. Pure heart.
Kobe Bryant averaged "only" 32.5 ppg against the Suns, and Carmelo Anthony averaged "only" 28.2 ppg against the Spurs. Stars playing like stars, but only winning 2 games between them. Too bad.
Nene upped his ppg by about 3 points, which isn't much...except it was against the Spurs. He may yet be worth that massive contract.
By the way, I'm not sure if the play-off stats are completely updated for the first round, but that's what I found as of today.
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Pure Sport: Bambiball
As you've probably figured out by now, I'm not just going to talk about the big three pro sports. Time to pay respect to a girl who has some great soccer tricks. She goes by the alias "Bambiball". I first found out about her from Google Video. I especially appreciate the foot-dragging trick to bring a soccer ball off the ground; I can barely do that with a basketball.
Since then she's gotten better, and has appeared for different video game expos and such. The push-ups might be my favorite move here.
Go to http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=bambiball for more videos.
Since then she's gotten better, and has appeared for different video game expos and such. The push-ups might be my favorite move here.
Go to http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=bambiball for more videos.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)