EVIL~! alkeiper

And what the hell got into Cory Lidle? The man learned how to pitch.

That's always been the case. From Wilt Chamberlin to MJ to Kobe Bryant. That's a good point. I am not saying there are no bad things in the NBA. I am simple arguing that these are not a new phenominon. I do think the NBA itself could take steps to improve the quality of the game, but I think the players themselves are as good as always.

Razateca, you referenced free throws. This is also addressed to MikeSC, you referenced an "utter lack of good shooting." Free throw percentage has remained constant at least over the last 25 years. If players are bad shooters, how come they have no trouble shooting from the foul line? As for the defense, understand I am NOT saying defenses 15-20 years ago were bad. They were a product of their eras. I am a believer that you compare teams relative to their eras. If the 89-90 Pistons allowed fewer points than most of the league, than they were a good defensive team.

I didn't see it, but it sounds possible that Roberts ventured outside of the baseline.

Well, a guy who punches the clubhouse wall in frustration obviously cares about the game he's playing. Seriously, players care, and they try. I'm sick and tired of this "my team doesn't care" sentiment. If you think they're not trying, write tem letters and ask them to start trying again. I'm sure they are thrilled when they lose games and look bad. For the time being, however, I am not tolerating any more of it. Subject closed.

First off, defense wasn't BAD 15-20 years ago. It was different. As time passes, teams adjust, and become better prepared to meet the challenges of offenses. The style of play changes. Forty years ago, teams scored 111 points a game. Were defenses bad? No, teams ran the court and shot. The biggest effect on today's low scoring is not shooting percentage. It's the lack of shots. In 1984, the average team scored 110.1 points a game. In 2004, it was 93.4. If the average team in 2004 shot as many times as the teams in 1984, they would score 100 points a game, even with the lack of shooting percentage. So take all the assumptions about today's players. They can't shoot, they take bad shots, they don't look for their teammates, etc. Why are they shooting significantly LESS? As for the Lakers, that's one example, and its of a team that got blown out in five games, and only won their one game because of a miracle shot. You'll need to do better then that. As for college, I don't have statistics in front of me, but my gut reaction would be that the quality of the players, and consequently the defense, is not as good as in the NBA.

As far as turnovers go, look over your list. These players who commit alot of turnovers are also the players given the responsibility of handling the ball most often for their team. These players are not any more likely to turn the ball over than anyone else on the court, but they rack up huge numbers of turnovers because they are always carrying the ball for their team. John Hollinger developed a statistic called turnover ratio. It compares turnovers to how many times a player was involved in a play, by counting his shot attempts, assists (when he held the ball but passed it), and turnovers. The most turnover prone players for 2002-03.... Darvin Ham Joel Pryzbilla DeSagana Diop Jerome James Smush Parker Andrew DeClerq Greg Ostertag Mark Blount Jerome Moiso Corie Blount It's not such a glamour list as before, but it makes sense that turnovers would come from less-talented big men. As for Iverson and Bryant. This is a common criticism. But one, are they harming their teams by not passing (often to inferior shooters), and two, is this a new phenominon? Iverson does take large numbers of shots. But he's a unique player, and doesn't have much offensive support. He does pass the ball often. His 6.8 assists per game last year was second to Eric Snow on the team. Meanwhile, look at Dominique Wilkins. He took 20.1 shots per game for his career, and had only 2.5 assists per game. Iverson takes 22.9 shots per game, but collects 5.7 assists per game. So again, its our clouded memory, rather than objectivism, which causes us to view these players in this way.

The funny thing is Brown was never injury prone. He had the back problem which caused him to miss time, but there's nothing else before this season. He didn't miss significant time in any year between 1991 and 2000, and he led the league in starts three times.

Apparently, Kevin Brown broke his left hand punching a wall. The Yankees may very well be dead at this point.

The Yankees are 28-19 (.587) since the All-Star break. That's not bad, its 5th in the AL. The problem is the Red Sox are 31-15 (.674) since the break. Most great stretch runs aren't the result of one team collapsing. They're the result of another team putting together an incredible run.

I had a good discussion over at WDI discussing the current trends in the NBA. I argued that the quality of play had not declined, and I set along to gather data in my defense. In any analysis of today's NBA, you will usually hear how fans, commentators, and analysts are sour on today's game. They agree that it is simply not as good as it was before. This has always puzzled me. Sports are a competitive enterprise, where it takes the best to win. In order to win, teams must strive to improve, find their opponent's weakness, and exploit it. Players and teams who regressed in skills would find themselves out of a job or business fairly quickly. So what happened. Is something backwards in the NBA? Or has our thinking been clouded? Nostalgia makes fools of us all. We remember the highlights without remembering the full picture. I have seen sloppy passes and poor shots in old NBA games. Hell, I own a BLOOPER tape of 80s NBA action. Do fundamentally sound, team players make bloopers? Apparently they do. But for the time being, let us see if we can not examine some of the myths prevailent in today's NBA and make sense of them. Myth: Players today are worse shooters than players in previous eras. Fact: Field goal percentage has regressed over time, from a high of 49.2% in 1984, to a low of 43.7% in 1999, the strike year. Last season, the NBA Field Goal Percentage was 43.9%. So players today naturally shoot worse, correct? Not necessarily. I contend that better defense is responsible for the drop in fielding percentage. This improvement in defense is not reflected in steals or turnovers, but we will get to those in a moment. The ultimate measure of defense is points allowed. They have declined heavily in the last ten years. Of course, you could argue this is a result of poor offense as well. But let us look at some other statistics. Three point percentage. Those players of the 80s, with their fundamentals and ability to shoot, shot in the 20-30% range in the decade following the adoption of the 3 point line. The odd thing is that three point percentage took a noticeable jump right before points per game took a sharp drop. As three point percentage rises, teams take more three point shots. But in any case, players are better behind the arc than they were 15-20 years ago. How about free throw percentage? If players today can not shoot, then that percentage must have declined as well. It has not. Free throw percentage has barely moved over the last 25 years. If defenses are better, contested field goals would decline. But free throws are uncontested. Unhindered by defense, the percentage remains the same. Finally, I ran a test where I removed three point shots from field goal percentage. In the early 80s, the average team would take less than 200 3 point shots an entire season. So their field goal percentage remains closely the same. However, the distance between their field goal percentage and our era's tightens. Whereas previously, players in 1984 shot 5.3% better, with three pointers removed they shot just 3.9% better. They are still better, but the discrepancy is not as noticeable. Myth: Today's players are more concerned with shooting the ball, and less concerned with passing. Fact: Today's players take less shots per game than their predecessors. In 1979, NBA players took 91.7 shots per game. In 1984, they took 88.4 shots per game. In 1989, they took 89 shots per game. In 1994, they took 84.4 shots per game. Last season, they took just 79.8 shots per game. This would indicate players that take less shots, and use more of the shot clock setting up their shots. (As an aside, this may also explain the drop in shooting percentage, as teams are forced to make desperation shots at the end of the shot clock). A friend replies that assists per game are down. Of course, because teams are taking less shots. Let us look at assists per basket instead. In 1979, 57.8% of field goals included an assist. In 1984, this number climbed to 60.2%. The cresendo of this stat came in 1994, when the percentage reached 62%. Last season, it was 60.8%. There was a jump after 1979, but after that, there has been almost no change in the relative number of assists per basket. There is no evidence to suggest that players are passing less. Myth: Players today are sloppier than players of previous eras. Fact: The first measure of sloppiness is a bevy of turnovers. Turnovers have steadily decreased over time, reaching an all time low this season of 14.2. An ALL TIME LOW. Think about that. These sloppy, fundamentally lacking players are better at maintaining control of the basketball than any of their predecessors. So what happened to cloud our judgement? As a league ages and progresses, deviations in performance tend to even out. In baseball, for example, it is much harder to hit .400. An evolutionary process makes it harder to dominate. In the NBA of the past, we remember the play of players such as Jordan, Bird, Magic, Erving, and so on. And they were legitimately great players. But for all of those greats, there were scrubs. Players you will never remember, and players you could never be expected to remember. The best player in the NBA may not be as good as the best player in the NBA 15 years ago. But I am willing to bet that the 5th best player on a team is usually better than a team's 5th best player 15 years ago. In any case, I think the argument deserves a second look.

Just step back and take a deep breath. And Gavin Floyd goes 7 innings, allowing a single run.

Very impressive debut from Gavin Floyd tonight. Six innings thus far, and just one run allowed.

It castrated them where it counted though. It might not be a solid link, but it's not a myth made up by the sports media. Think about it. A single loss in an Olympic Hockey game causes the Soviet Union to fall eleven years after it occurs? Besides, wouldn't the Soviets' victory in mens basketball in 1988 completely counter-balance that loss?

It's a spurious link to make, at best. The Soviet Union didn't fall due to weak emotions from their citizens.

Kevin Millwood is just an example. It's reasonable to expect he'll pitch better, he could be undervalued, and they just need a 4th starter. The difference is that you have a team good enough to win the division, and leave it at that. The Yankees try to assemble juggernaut teams, and it doesn't work. And by winning the division, I don't mean not good enough to win it all. Any team that makes the playoffs can win the championship.

Which is why they should be trying to hold onto their draft picks and trying to replenish the farm system, Picks that won't win us anything for quite some time, if they do at all. The Yankees, with the staff they have, aren't doing anything next year. Moves need to be made. Seriously, who do you have pencilled in as the Yankees starting rotation in 05? Let's see. Brown, Mussina, Vazquez, and two others. They don't need top of the rotation guys. They need depth. Of course, if they are smart, there are always teams that don't offer arbitration, so signing those guys wouldn't require draft picks. Kevin Millwood will likely cost no draft picks to sign. As for picks, yeah, they usually aren't good immediately. But they are a good long term solution, and a necessary one at that. The Yankees got where they are because they developed Jorge Posada, Derek Jeter, Bernie Williams, Andy Pettitte, and Mariano Rivera through their farm system. You have to let the farm system grow. There's no reason the Yankees can not remain competitive, but they can't keep swimming for the fences every year. Yes, the object is to win, but you run the real danger of a total collapse when you keep mortaging the future.

Justice is a real winner. I remember a recent column bashing Billy Beane, in particular for his gall to draft college players. If you disagree with Moneyball, that's one thing. But these columnists go out of their way to bash anything related to the book.

The biggest moment I can think of would be Joe Carter's home run. If dubvious moments make the list, then they have to have Ben Johnson fairly high on there.

At least he never traded Sammy Sosa.

The big series is obviously the Rangers vs. Red Sox. The Cubs and Marlins are schedules, but tonight's game is already cancelled due to Hurricane Francis. Gavin Floyd makes his big league pitching debut for the Phillies tonight against the Mets.

That's what I was saying. It's somewhat possible that that was his regular line up. I didn't see your post when I wrote that, but you are right.

That's what I was thinking, until I remembered the Miami Heat.

Grover Alexander hadn't allowed a baserunner to that point, so its possible Ruth didn't expect his teammates to get a hit off Alexander. As for Meusel batting cleanup, the best explanation would be that Miller Huggins probably didn't want his two lefties hitting back to back. The Cardinals did have an effective lefty, Wild Bill Hallahan, in the bullpen, and Huggins may have been concerned about that. Its worth noting that Huggins used that lineup all series. Unfortunately, we don't have boxscores available for the 1926 season itself.

The Lazzeri strikeout is always credited to the legend of Grover Alexander. Lazzeri just happened to be there. It's interesting, because the three runs Waite Hoyt allowed were unearned, and came about because of a pair of errors Bob Meusel and Mark Koenig made. If not for those runs, its probable that the Yankees take that series.