Note: If you wouldn't say it to someone's face, don't say it here. Comments deleted on a whim.
That was a good article that put to words the raise of the eyebrow I had when I read of the deal. For all his risk-adverseness and recent tendency to sign the Batistas of the world, Ryan would never entertain the thoughts of doing something so stupid.
Well, this just means there'll be less money out there for the Twins to compete with for the next few off-seasons.
Just a question for anyone who cares to read this,
Is Jim Caple a complete moron or is he just becoming dispondent?
Check this out and then answer the question again:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/p...ge=caple/
061027
I'll have at least one legitimately big announcement to make early next week...
Are you signing a $300M/10yr deal with the Orioles to be their starting CF? Wait, I forgot, you signed with nbcsports.com before the market exploded. You must be hanging out too much with Dennys Reyes' agent.
(On a serious note, though, how stupid must Reyes think his agent is right now? I think Reyes could have gotten at least Jamie Walker money.)
So my favorite Morneau V. Jeter factoid - Jeter was directly involved in 21.6% of his teams runs. Morneau was directly involved in 24.1% of his teams runs.
For all the injuries, and guys Jeter had to "carry on his back", I don't think any of them were named Ford, Castro, Batista, Tyner, or White. Hell, A-Rod still arguably had a better year than Jeter at the plate, but from the way everyone talks, you'd think Jeter was pulling the train with his teeth or something.
Hey what about us Canadians!?! I'm at work with no new Gleeman!
For all his risk-adverseness and recent tendency to sign the Batistas of the world, Ryan would never entertain the thoughts of doing something so stupid.
Absolutely, which is why you'll never see me critize Ryan for not going after the biggest names on the free-agent market.
Well, this just means there'll be less money out there for the Twins to compete with for the next few off-seasons.
That might seem like it'll be the case, but somehow I doubt it.
Are you signing a $300M/10yr deal with the Orioles to be their starting CF?
I've lost a ton of weight--87.5 pounds as of this morning--but I'm pretty sure my range still limits me to the outfield corners.
On a serious note, though, how stupid must Reyes think his agent is right now? I think Reyes could have gotten at least Jamie Walker money.
Maybe he'd rather have $2 million in Minnesota than $12 million in Baltimore.
So my favorite Morneau V. Jeter factoid - Jeter was directly involved in 21.6% of his teams runs. Morneau was directly involved in 24.1% of his teams runs.
Couple things on this ...
One, I find it amusing that so many Twins fans continue to rage against the Jeter-for-MVP campaign despite the fact that MORNEAU WON. Seth Stohs did it the other day and numerous commenters have done it over the past couple days. It's almost like people are so shocked that Morneau won that they can't stop themselves from saying the stuff they expected to say when he lost.
Beyond that, I think it's worth noting that a first baseman producing more runs at the plate than a shortstop isn't exactly a big surprise. The fact that Jeter's percentage in the above stat you quoted is so close to Morneau's is, in my opinion, potentially a point in Jeter's favor (although I think you quoted the percentages wrong, if you were just adding RBIs and runs together).
Plus ... David Ortiz: 30.7%. Raul Ibanez: 29.9%. Just saying.
Hey what about us Canadians!?! I'm at work with no new Gleeman!
Yeah, but you have free healthcare, right? So it all evens out in the end.
Just wanted to thank you for a great blog; been reading itvirtually since day 1.
BTW, I live in SD, and we were arguing recently over the lack of foresight the Padres showed in letting Piazza go (still productive, lock HOFer, great mktg opportunity, and signable). One of the guys in our group (who wishes to remain anonymous) is a former NL pitcher who remains very active in the game. He contends that in the second half, team officials noticed that Piazza grew distant, shut out teammates, essentially forcing the team to not resign him. As a diehard Mets fan, I don't remember any incidents like this in Piazza's career. In private, I'll tell you who my source is , but he's someone who would know. If it's true, it explains what to me was a no-brainer resign. Just the mktg alone would pay off his contract.
I think it's worth noting that a first baseman producing more runs at the plate than a shortstop isn't exactly a big surprise. The fact that Jeter's percentage in the above stat you quoted is so close to Morneau's is, in my opinion, potentially a point in Jeter's favor (although I think you quoted the percentages wrong, if you were just adding RBIs and runs together).
I don't think the MVP should be based on whose production is more surprising. Jeter, like Mauer, has an OPS+ comparable to Morneau primarily because of the large amount of time he spent on first base. Jeter's speed gives him an edge over Mauer here, apparent by his advantage in runs scored. But when comparing to Morneau (whose run production is very similar to Jeter's), it's important to remember the Yankees scored nearly 130 runs more than the Twins. Hence, my favorite factoid (which, by the way, uses the old run production stat - runs+rbis-HR, then divides by total team runs).
Regarding Papi and Ibanez, Morneau played defense for a contender, giving him an edge (in my mind) over these two consideration-worthy sluggers.
I only continue to beat this horse because so many Yankee fans (and Dayn Perry) b!tched so long and hard about it. I got an email from a friend yesterday asking me what "winshares" meant, and why Jeter got more. Some nasty Yankees fan was throwing geek-speak (a term I use lovingly, no worries) at him, and my poor friend was near tears.
Regarding Papi and Ibanez, Morneau played defense for a contender, giving him an edge (in my mind) over these two consideration-worthy sluggers.
So, Morneau's defensive edge over Ortiz and Ibanez is important, but Jeter's defensive edge over Morneau ... not so much? I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, but I really think a lot of these "arguments" touting Morneau are very iffy and inconsistent. In terms of making a numbers-based case for him deserving the award, you have to do a lot of qualifying and explaining to make it work.
(Not to mention that metrics like VORP show Jeter as being better offensively anyway. Yes, I know you're not a believer in that, but I am.)
I got an email from a friend yesterday asking me what "winshares" meant, and why Jeter got more. Some nasty Yankees fan was throwing geek-speak (a term I use lovingly, no worries) at him, and my poor friend was near tears.
Yeah, all those nasty, mean numbers and their silly, biased conclusions! :)
At the end of the day, you either think various performance-based metrics like Win Shares (and better stuff) have merit in a discussion like this, or you don't. What bothers me on some level is that people who otherwise think these metrics have merit are willing to basically look the other way in this case.
That's fine, of course, but that's not really the way I view it. The fact that the situation involves someone from my favorite team doesn't suddenly make me change the entire way I view player value (despite all the comments yelling at me for "not being happy for Justin" because I just don't think he was the MVP).
(Incidentally, I'd like to point out that I'm not the one who brought up--or re-brought up--the MVP stuff again today.)
The Cy Young award is for the best pitcher and there is likely more room for statistical analysis and direct comparison between pitchers vying for the hardware than is the case with the MVP award. There has been and will likely continue to be winners of the Cy Young award from losing teams while the MVP winner is mostly from a winning team. The top 10 candidates this year in the AL all had some reasonable basis for consideration because there was not a clear distinctive dominant season from any player to distance themselves from all other players.
The comparison and objective look at the contributions and supposed value of each player is interesting reading. I would love to have any of these players on my team. I am not understanding the apparent venom in many blogs much less the foaming of national writers. Baseball fans love good players and a good game which is why we can pull over on the way home from work and watch a high school game when we have no knowledge of the players or the schools.
I am thankful for the solid work of AG and others, particularly with respect to their work in reporting on minor league players these past 4 years that I have spent reading these posts. Happy Thansgiving and keep up the good work.
The Cy Young award is for the best pitcher and there is likely more room for statistical analysis and direct comparison between pitchers vying for the hardware than is the case with the MVP award.
This most certainly is the case in terms of how it actually is with the 28 voters, but I definitely don't agree that it should be that way. Which, of course, is largely the basis for the various MVP arguments seen here and elsewhere.
I am not understanding the apparent venom in many blogs much less the foaming of national writers.
Not only that, but the venom from Twins fans and Morneau backers even AFTER he won! :) I have no venom on this issue whatsoever, as I said earlier this week. It's a nice feeling to have, actually (although it doesn't keep you from getting yelled at, apparently).
On a completely unrelated note ... Since I don't link to these nearly enough (read: ever), here are my latest Daily Dose articles over at RotoWorld:
http://www.rotoworld.com/
content...articleid=26988
http://www.rotoworld.com/
content...articleid=27009
Feel free to check them out if you're bored this morning. The first one is, I think, fairly amusing (at least for my standards).
AG, you didn't pop into the comments yesterday but I was wondering if you saw my comment about the market for Centerfielders. I'll copy/paste it again
On a seperate topic, not to be a jerk but you seemed fairly confident that there were plenty of very cheap options that the Twins would have to replace Torii for 2007 and the 6 names you threw out were Edmonds, Lofton, Pierre, Roberts, Matthews, and Payton. Are you willing to admit you were wrong on that? Edmonds signed an extension for 2 years $19 million. Pierre's getting over $8 million a year for 5 years and Matthews will propably get at least that much. Obviously Lofton, Roberts, and Payton won't get 8-9 million a year, but given how the market is so inflated I don't think they'll be available for the 1-3 million a year you had in mind either. Maybe locking Torii up for only $10 million (after you take the sunk cost $2 million buyout out of the equation) wasn't such an overpay given the market as you argued endlessly a month ago? If you're going to gloat about all the I told you so's (ie the Liriano injury) you may want to show some humility as well when you're wrong.
First, I never thought Edmonds, Pierre, and Matthews were going to be low-cost options. That they signed big contracts (or re-signed with their current team, in Edmonds' case) changes nothing about the Hunter situation, at least not in terms of his one-year contract.
I still think Lofton, Payton, Roberts or a similar trade option would have been available to the Twins at a significant discount over Hunter for 2007 (and also may have given them a 2008 option, which Hunter does not).
Is the market a lot higher than I expected? Absolutely. It's a lot higher than I think anyone could have expected. But I don't know that it necessarily means anything about Torii Hunter's one-year contract. In fact, if anything it suggests to me that the Twins would have been smart to trade Hunter at some point, given the demand for veteran center fielders at this stage. If teams are paying $50 million for Juan Pierre and Gary Matthews, what would they give up to get Hunter?
As for "showing some humility" when I'm "wrong" ... well, OK. But this is what I actually wrote about Hunter's situation on the day they picked up his option:
I've long been of the opinion that the Twins would have been smart to trade Hunter at some point over the past couple seasons and there's little reason to think he'll be worth 20 percent of the team's payroll in 2007, but that doesn't necessarily mean picking up his option is a major mistake. In fact, it's tough to call any one-year commitment to a good player a huge blunder, because there simply isn't much room for regretting the decision financially.
Then, in concluding the entry, I wrote:
As long as the Twins avoid offering Hunter a multi-year deal at this price, I have no problem bringing him back in 2007. They're overpaying with money that could be used to upgrade the offense elsewhere or bring in a starting pitcher, but it's not the end of the world. If Hunter's unproductive or injured, the deal isn't an albatross. If he's productive and healthy but the team falls out of contention, he can be traded. If he's productive and healthy while the team contends, no one will care about wasting a little cash.
If you think there's the need to issue a mea culpa over those statements, then I guess I will. But I'm not sure that's really warranted (although feel free to use it as further evidence of what a horrible jerk I am!). My opinion about picking up Hunter's option for 2007 remains the same, as does my feeling that they should have looked into trading him prior to this year.
Before the inevitable occurs, I'd like to point out how quickly a short, seemingly innocent "I'm taking a two-day vacation for Thanksgiving" entry can turn ugly in the comments section.
(Hopefully I am wrong about that, in which case I'll gladly say so!)
What exactly does "legitimately big announcement" mean? Is that like, you're moving to New York and NBC is putting you on TV? Or is like, you're getting a full-time column? There's a lot of room for interpretation in "legtimately big."
Happy Thanksgiving AG, and enjoy your "vacation"...
Re: Jeter having more "help" in the lineup.
I don't think that this standard has ever been consistently applied. Does Joe Morgan not deserve his MVP awards because his team had 3 other HOFers in the lineup? The Big Red Machine would have won several pennants without Joe Morgan in the lineup, but does that make him less valuable because he was the best player on a historic team? If this standard is applied, any team that finishes more than 3 games ahead for a playoff spot shouldn't have an MVP candidate.
I think that there are logical arguments against Jeter being the MVP, but that argument isn't compelling in my eyes.
So, Morneau's defensive edge over Ortiz and Ibanez is important, but Jeter's defensive edge over Morneau ... not so much? I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, but I really think a lot of these "arguments" touting Morneau are very iffy and inconsistent. In terms of making a numbers-based case for him deserving the award, you have to do a lot of qualifying and explaining to make it work.
I don't think Morneau has any defensive edge over Ibanez. Ibanez' team didn't contend, which is an issue for me. He'd have to be head and shoulders above other players to get serious consideration, and he wasn't (like Hafner). With Papi, well, it's very close for me. I tend to compartmentalize defensive contributions, focusing on quality and influence separately. I wouldn't penalize Morneau or Papi for not playing a more influential position. Others, like Jeter or Mauer, may get extra credit for defensive influence, but only if the defense is adding value to the team. I have a hard time buying the notion Jeter's defense at short prevented runs above replacement level. If it didn't, I wouldn't give him credit for his defense. Mauer's defense at catcher probably did add a bit of value to the Twins, but I doubt it was the 30 run difference represented by Morneau's advantage in run production.
Back to Big Papi, as I said, it's close for me. Jeter's right in there as well. I think those three (Jeter, Ortiz and Morneau) could have gone in any order, and I'd be fine with it, if they're the top three position/offensive players. And that's really my point. I'm not saying Morneau should have been a slam dunk. More like Ken Rosenthal - it was a very close MVP race, as it should have been.
Koop -
I certainly understand how Morneau comes out looking like the MVP in your view, but I definitely don't agree with the qualifications, explanations, leaps, and bounds needed to get there (including the adjustments--contending, lineup around them, etc.--needed just to separate Morneau from various other sluggers).
It seems to me that if you're unwilling to adjust offensive contributions for positional context and you're unwilling to credit someone like Mauer with +30 runs defensively over someone like Morneau, then you're almost always going to have a slugger be your MVP choice. I disagree with that view pretty strongly, which I think I've made clear any number of times, and so I'll leave it alone now.
Maybe he'd rather have $2 million in Minnesota than $12 million in Baltimore.
Maybe, but that's one heckuva home town discount for a guy who has only been with his team for one season. (And I doubt that Baltimore would've been the only team throwing a big wad of cash at him.)
This might have been his only chance to really cash in, and he went the conservative route. Actually, looking at it that way, maybe it was destiny that he would sign with TR!
More like Ken Rosenthal - it was a very close MVP race, as it should have been.
Incidentally, I agree that it should have been an extremely close MVP race. As I wrote last week, I think there were three candidates who were legitimately MVP worthy and would have been fine with any of them winning the award. I just don't think Morneau was one of those three players.
I was checking out Baseball Musings this morning, and they quoted a Royals blog who suggested that the Royals should be shopping Mark Teahen in anticipation of the emergence of Alex Gordon (as opposed to shifting Teahen to a corner OF spot). The article at Daily Lancer suggested the Twins as a possible trading partner because we need a 3B and have SP prospects to spare.
Would it be worth parting with a top pitching prospect to go after a guy like Teahen who has shown legitimate power as well as terrific OBP skills? Could he be a long-term answer at 3B? Intriguing...
Even if all you care about for an MVP is hitting, I still don't see how Morneau was the best guy. He ranked 7th in AVG, 6th in SLG, 8th in OPS, 10th in OPS+, and didn't rank among the top 10 in OBP, HR or RUNS. At least a couple guys (Dye, Ortiz, whatever) beat him in nearly every key hitting stat. The only thing he was truly elite at was driving in runs, where he ranked second to Ortiz. So yeah ... RBIs!
There's no way in hell all these Twins fans who read this site would be touting Morneau for MVP if he played for another team. It's funny that Gleeman's catching shit for not agreeing with them. As someone who couldn't care less about the Twins, I applaud you for not being just another homer who lets fandom cloud your judgment. There's plenty of that as it is. Plus, it's fun to watch all these people freak out because you're not saying "Yay for Justin!" as your only response.
I definitely don't agree with the qualifications, explanations, leaps, and bounds needed to get there (including the adjustments--contending, lineup around them, etc.--needed just to separate Morneau from various other sluggers).
For the record, what I said off the bat doesn't take all that much explaining or adjusting - it's pretty self explanatory:
"Jeter was directly involved in 21.6% of his teams runs. Morneau was directly involved in 24.1% of his teams runs."
As I've said before, if Jeter was a decent defensive SS, I'd give him credit for it. Since he's not, I don't see the need to adjust his offense. Perhaps Papi ought to be considered more valuable. Had his team played any meaningful games in September, he probably would have. I certainly didn't invent the "rule" that a guy's team has to contend to be considered, but there is something to "value" that implies team success, I think.
Anyway, I really don't think I've been doing that much explaining and adjusting. I think we just don't see eye-to-eye on this issue, which is fine. Just think how boring the discussion would be if everyone agreed on what "valuable" meant.
As I've said before, if Jeter was a decent defensive SS, I'd give him credit for it. Since he's not, I don't see the need to adjust his offense.
So because Jeter isn't a good defensive player, you see no need to make any positional adjustments, offensively or defensively, when comparing him to a first baseman? That's probably right around the time you begin to lose me for good.
For the record, what I said off the bat doesn't take all that much explaining or adjusting - it's pretty self explanatory:
Sure it does. You have to first qualify that you only want guys who play for contenders, because you have a specific definition of "valuable" that goes beyond simply picking the best player. Then, even among contenders, some guys get written off because their teams were either too good (Jeter) or not quite good enough (Ortiz). That's already more than I'm personally willing to go along with.
Then you have to qualify your take on defense. Then your take on not adjusting offense. Then you have to commit to runs and RBIs being the best indicators for offense, to the point that you use them to come up with a percentage of total offense that you did above. And then there's still qualifying for lineup strength or when a player did most of his hitting, etc.
In the end, it just seems like an awful lot of stuff has to be accounted for or qualified in order for Morneau to emerge, and a lot of it seems misguided to me. As Joe Sheehan sort of said in his column today, if you can't explain your stance on the MVP in one sentence, it's probably not one I can agree with.
Just think how boring the discussion would be if everyone agreed on what "valuable" meant.
See, I even disagree with this! If every single person agreed with me 100 percent on what valuable means and how value should be counted for MVP discussions, there would still be a ton of debate over Jeter, Mauer or Santana for the top spot. I've seen several otherwise intelligent people say stuff like "if you do it your way, you could just print out a spreadsheet with VORP and declare a winner." That's nonsense, because I had a tough time picking a winner for my own ballot.
My stance on the MVP is incredibly simple: "pick the best player." And it's still tough to do.
So because Jeter isn't a good defensive player, you see no need to make any positional adjustments, offensively or defensively, when comparing him to a first baseman? That's probably right around the time you begin to lose me for good.
Yes. By no coincidence, you lose me about the time you argue that position, regardless of performance, warrants offensive adjustments.
Then, even among contenders, some guys get written off because their teams were either too good (Jeter) or not quite good enough (Ortiz). That's already more than I'm personally willing to go along with.
A) never wrote either off. As I said before, I'd be fine with the top three finishing in any order (with the understanding that Santana would still be my clear-cut winner in a perfect world).
B) even if I was writing Jeter off, it wouldn't be because his team was too good. The argument is that Morneau was responsible for more of his teams run production.
if you can't explain your stance on the MVP in one sentence, it's probably not one I can agree with.
Not that you'll agree (I think that's the point), but I did this already - "Jeter was directly involved in 21.6% of his teams runs. Morneau was directly involved in 24.1% of his teams runs." (Two sentences, but they're short).
I've seen several otherwise intelligent people say stuff like "if you do it your way, you could just print out a spreadsheet with VORP and declare a winner." That's nonsense, because I had a tough time picking a winner for my own ballot.
OK, but I wasn't saying that either. I'm just saying you and I disagree on what valuable means. If we agreed, we may come up with different ballots, but would likely have Morneau in the same range.
Right now, my stance is pretty representative (I think) of the traditional thikning - run production is the most important part of an offensive players job, defense can matter, but only if it's good defense, and team contention is at least somewhat important. So in debate terms, the burden of proof is on you. Not to be a jerk, but in my eyes, you are the one who has been doing all the adjusting and explaining. ;^)
Not that you'll agree (I think that's the point), but I did this already - "Jeter was directly involved in 21.6% of his teams runs. Morneau was directly involved in 24.1% of his teams runs." (Two sentences, but they're short).
Right, except that still doesn't make Morneau MVP, because he's not even the league leader in that stat you chose to use. You need a lot more than two sentences, even to explain that. :)
So in debate terms, the burden of proof is on you.
This assumes, I think, that I'm interested in trying to sway traditional thinking. I actually gave up on that a long time ago, at least when it comes to MVP talk (which is why my entry the other day wasn't all about tearing down Morneau's case). It's far too tough (and not worth it, anyway) to get people off the "run production is king" way of thinking.
Not to be a jerk, but in my eyes, you are the one who has been doing all the adjusting and explaining.
Well, I'll say this: I don't need to be defining what "valuable" means. :)
And on that note, I'm officially out of here (probably until Monday, but who knows).
Aaron, you arent't running for President are you? I'd probably vote for you over the current options... even without knowing what you stand for. :)
happy thanksgiving, AG.
Before the inevitable occurs, I'd like to point out how quickly a short, seemingly innocent "I'm taking a two-day vacation for Thanksgiving" entry can turn ugly in the comments section.
.
it's pretty absurd isnt it. i read this, smiled and laughed, and proceeded to read the ongoings of MVP complain-a-thon, and continued to smile and laugh.
and thank you for addressing the issue of Asshat Cowley's voting maneuver. ill put that debacle down on my list of top 10 favorite idiocies of 2006.
this is totally offhand, and hopefully this doesnt turn into heat #2 of the complain-a-thon, but who's your NFL MVP so far??? I'm saying Tomlinson already accepting it.
Would it be worth parting with a top pitching prospect to go after a guy like Teahen who has shown legitimate power as well as terrific OBP skills? Could he be a long-term answer at 3B? Intriguing...
Teahen did much better than I expected this year (or ever), and I agree he seems to have become a nice player. If you'd told me two years ago he'd be way better in 2006 than Hank Blalock, I wouldn't have believed you. Would it help to have Teahen? Yes.
And maybe because Ryan isn't very good at efficiency and optimization my suggestion isn't plausible, but if I were Ryan and planned to bring in a 3Bman with the pitching chips I hold, I'd want a RH bat. I think we're going to find that Mauer, Morneau, and Kubel will be fixtures in the Twins lineup for a long time, and they will need RH bats to break them up.
Obviously, 2006 saw both Mauer and Morneau (especially Morneau) make strides vs lhp, so I'm not as worried as I was at this time last year, but I really think they will need a rh bat behind Morneau when Hunter goes.
As far as what it would take to get Teahen, my guess is "a lot," especially because KC probably won't want to sell him to a division rival that doesn't play the free agency game. The Twins would have to offer a lot more than other teams, IMO.
If we wanted to look into bringing in a RH batting 3B, on the cheap (so to speak), I'd explore the option of dealing for Morgan Ensberg.
I think Joe Crede is a free agent. He has a great glove and a good bat but is probably out of the Twins price range.
No, Crede is not a free agent.
Long time reader....just wanted to comment on AL MVP voting.
Of all the year-end awards...this was BY FAR the most compelling. It was amazing that the twins had 3 players even in the top six IMO. So many players were deserving of this year's award.
A.J. though, was not one of them. Morneau, as many have stated, was most likely the third best choice on the twins. But then again; Carlos Guillen had legimate MVP claims by virtue of being one of the best players on the best team on AL for the whole season; but nobody was making his case.
1. Santana
2. Mauer
3. Jeter
4. Dye
5. Morneau
6. Thomas
7. Ortiz
8. Guillen
9. Papelbon
10. Sizemore
Ivan Maisel wrote this on ESPN today...
"Notre Dame is an inkblot and project on it what you will. The Irish finished 10-2, which is great. They played an easy schedule, which means they're phonies. They appear headed for a BCS bowl for the second consecutive year, which is great. They haven't beaten anyone they shouldn't have beaten in Charlie Weis' two seasons, which is not good. Two years in, Weis has turned around a program that appeared mired in mediocrity. Two years in, an athletic gap between the Notre Dames and the USC/Michigans of the world remains wide. We could go on like this all day."
Most truth I've heard spoken about the Fighting Irish pretty boy team in God knows how long. BCS bowl by behind.
that was me.
They played an easy schedule, which means they're phonies.
That's actually not true. Well, at least according to the Sagarin ratings. They've got Notre Dame at the 19th toughest schedule in the NCAA. ND played some patsies, but who doesn't? Playing a couple top ten teams certainly helps to balance that out.
They haven't beaten anyone they shouldn't have beaten in Charlie Weis' two seasons, which is not good.
This is perhaps one of the most contrived standards of success I've heard. Whether a team beats teams that we (as fans, analysts, whoever) rank ahead of them says at least as much (if not more) about how good we are at ranking teams than it says about how good the teams are.
Notre Dame's been in perfect position to be overrated, though. The pollsters have been overrating them thanks to "tradition" and a couple of story lines they like to beat down our throats. And the computer polls have been overrating them because the BCS committee won't let the computers consider the point spread--that is, the computer polls are forced to use less information than the human voters are given--so that no one on a crappy team gets their feelings hurt because they can't stop the other team from scoring. Which would all be fine and dandy by me, except that this is a competitive league, not some company pick-up game. Anyway, I digress. Once again, I've been pulled into a discussion about a championship system that exists solely to keep people talking about whether it's any good or not.
I almost totally agree with you. They souldve been beaten by MSU, though, but wins are wins, and "woulda, shoulda, coulda" definitely could be said. They played very well against the teams they beat (minus MSU and their first game aginst G. Tech), but got the tar beat out of them by the two of the best teams in the nation, Mich. and USC. They arent a bad team, but as we both agree, their pretty darn overrated.
I'm just happy someone over at ESPN isnt raising high blood pressure by talking about how theyve been in the title hunt all year and that Brady Queen is the second coming of Christ.
i need spell check.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
