Our recent post on surprise division leaders generated some discussion about whether Florida's strong start can hold up, so we've decided to go a little deeper into this:
In the meantime, Miller has improved with virtually every start, although he has yet to pitch more than five innings and his ERA is still barely below 8.
Schedule
No sooner did we emphasize the Marlins' easy schedule than they impressively took 2 of 3 at Milwaukee this past weekend. Some other upcoming series that will help determine if this team is for real:
May 20-22: hosting the Diamondbacks for a 3-game set.
May 26-June 5: a 10-game road trip including 3 at the Mets, 3 at the Phils, and 4 at Atlanta.
Still, the Hawaii offense has been one of the most fun to watch in college football in recent years, and it will be interesting to see if Brennan can stick with the Redskins. The odds of it happening are slim though, especially now that Spurrier's "fun-and-gun" is no longer in place in DC.
1. This has got to be one of the least exciting draft weekends in recent memory - the no. 1 pick was settled well in advance, no draft day trades on the level of last year's Randy Moss stunner, no precipitous drop of a big name guy like we saw with Brady Quinn, most of the biggest picks were offensive or defensive linemen, and the most exciting player in the draft ended up in Oakland.
4. The Big Lead says that ESPN's coverage of the draft kills the suspense of watching it unfold. Then again, the fact that the NFL draft is a TV event at all is pretty ridiculous.
Florida's run seems the most likely to be a fluke - they've got a negative run differential, have beaten up on the Pirates and Nats, and their starting pitching hasn't been there: of their rotation, only Scott Olsen and Mark Hendrickson have ERAs under 6. Things could get ugly fast if the heavily-taxed bullpen starts to wear down or Hanley Ramirez goes into a slump. Also, despite their strong start, they're again having trouble filling the seats.
Greg Cote thinks Miami should draft Matt Ryan with the #1 pick, as opposed to likely top pick Jake Long or one of the high-rated defensive linemen. A defensible argument - probably - but what's really interesting about his column is the way it falls for the myth of the Savior Quarterback:
"Jake Long could be another Richmond Webb just as Chris Long could be another Taylor (minus the cha-cha). But those are not positions of defining impact, which is partly why Webb and Taylor, together, have the same number of Super Bowl rings as your neighbor Fred."
1. If Webb's and Taylor's lack of Super Bowl rings means their positions don't have a "defining impact," then what about the fact that Marino doesn't have one either? Add Jim Kelly and Warren Moon as two other recent HOF QBs with no ring.
2. If you want a #1 OL pick that had a "defining impact" in terms of Super Bowl impact, think Orlando Pace. No way the Rams' deep-pass offense of that era would have been able to work without that offensive line, which Pace anchored.
3. While we're on 1990s drafts, let's remember Jonathan Ogden, picked 4th overall by Baltimore. The 2000 team won the Super Bowl, mostly because of its record-setting defense, but also because its running game - 5th in the NFL - was able to make up for having the mediocre Trent Dilfer at QB.
4. On defensive end not being an impact position - this year's Giants team basically won the Super Bowl with their pass rush. Also, Bruce Smith was a number one draft pick, and he helped the Bills get to four Super Bowls (of course there are some 1st-pick DEs who turned out to be duds - Courtney Brown comes to mind - but the same is of course true of QBs).
When I read that Steve McNair retired yesterday I instantly thought back to his memorable SI cover and the accompanying article. This was still when what SI wrote and who graced its cover mattered a lot more, and I became a McNair fan on that alone.
The article is a good read, if anything to see just how much "black quarterback" was part of the conversation only 15 years ago, or for lighter gems like:
"He's on the same level as the best quarterbacks I've seen since I've been scouting," says Dwight Adams, director of player personnel for the Buffalo Bills. "Testaverde, Bledsoe, Shuler, Mirer, Dilfer.
McNair's retirement dates me as a sports fan. He came into the league when I was in grade school, the formative years as far as fandom is concerned. To put it in perspective: he was the last high draft pick QB to start his career with the now-archaic two year bench apprenticeship without much of a fuss being made over it. To compare, consider how much talk their was about Vince Young sitting behind Billy Volek, or Carson Palmer behind Kitna.
He never threw for 3,500 yds or 25 TDs in a season but neither did Troy Aikman. To go by his numbers and say he wasn't among the elite QBs of his generation would be myopic. Jeff Fisher told him to hand it off, and so he did. He made those Titan teams go and his 2003 MVP was well-deserved. What would his numbers look like if he had a true number one receiver? (No, Derrick Mason does not count).
He patented the Red Zone QB draw and was part of a memorable rivalry with the Ravens. An organic rivalry to boot - two teams with no history, simply playing hard against each other each time out.
He said he couldn't do it physically anymore, and that's not surprising. He leaves behind an archive of injury reports and a legacy as one of the toughest players to ever play. Some relevant Steve Young commentary, circa 2003 playoffs, via Simmons:
Someone mentioned how McNair finally started limping on that final drive, how that may have derailed the Titans more than anything. So Steve Young casually mentions, "I think the painkillers started wearing off -- they usually don't last for the whole game."
That was McNair in the 17-14 Divisonal loss to the Pats, playing with a torn calf.
If it's not the barrage of injuries, the prevailing memory will certainly be, "one yard short." Naturally, his unbelievable scramble-and-pass (1:55 mark) on the prior play has been forgotten.
He was a fun player to grow up with. And that's coming from a Jags fan.
There are many arguments to be made: the awesomeness of the dunk, the sweet crispness of a catch and shoot three, etc, but the most fundamental difference is that basketball allows a synchronization unavailable in other sports. Obviously all team sports require teamwork, but basketball more than the rest relies on and even thrives on creative teamwork.
A taste.
Basketball, Hockey and Soccer are obviously all similar in this regard. Football relies heavily on planning and strategy and is segmented. Sure, a runner scores a touchdown because of the blocking, but rarely is a block conceived spontaneously. Similarly the Favreian improviser is praised because that quality is so unusual.
If football is segmented, then baseball is almost completely a collection of individual moments assembled together. It lacks fluidity. It's why the Jamesian numbers approach gained such traction, whereas its been more difficult to apply similar concepts to other sports.
Hockey, Soccer and Basketball are similar in their essence, but the former two are expressly more restrictive. In hockey the full range of motion is constrained because on skates players are locked to the ground. And even on the ground they can only turn around or move laterally in limited ways; the acrobatics happen in spite of the skates.
Soccer is closest to basketball, but because it is played on such a large field, it's play is more spaced out and thus moments of hyper-connectivity are fewer. Plus there's the obvious limitation of playing handsless. Having to use your feet and being on skates are what makes soccer and hockey respectively interesting. But by limiting the body's capabilities they limit synchronization.
Basketball at its peak is the pinnacle of wordless communication: the no look pass, the behind the back pass, the alley-oop...Isn't that an instinctive pleasure - to be in sync with others?
This dovetails with our CP3 post from last week re the resurgence of watchable basketball after a decade-plus of isos, 10 second post-ups, and scores in the 80s.
Thats why it was so easy for everyone to jump on the Suns bandwagon a few years back,
or the Warriors bandwagon last spring.
Sure, an 8-1 upset is compelling in its own right, but no one was lovin' the '94 Nuggets that much.
Open-court, pass-happy basketball, ie basketball played the right way, engages even the uninterested non-fan, because that kind of creative and spontaneous athletic communication strikes a chord universally.
Two guys in their mid-20s. One in San Fran by way of Providence and Boston, one in NYC by way of Atlanta, both transplants from South Florida.
Send links to Badsnap@gmail.com
Posts
