Hi everyone! I've been trying my luck at previewing the MLB season for a few years now, trying to take a stab at how teams will fare, which players will outperform or underperform expectations, and who will be taking home the hardware - both individually and as a team - come the end of the year. I've always published my NL predictions on one day and my AL predictions shortly after, but last year I decided that the preview should be a 3-part series, the first part of which isn't preview at all! In short, if I go making predictions, I at least ought to check how well I did last year before asking you to view my picks with any level of confidence.
As a review of my review:
For the 2011 season, my mean error on predicted # of wins was 9, and median was 7.
For the 2012 season, my mean error on predicted # of wins was 9.7, and median was 9.
Drumroll:
For the 2013 season, my mean error on predicted # of wins was 7.7, and median was 7.
Basically, I'm getting smarter. A few comparisons, in increasing order of how much I respect the publication:
For 2013, Robert Knapel at Bleacher Report had a mean error of 8.3 and median of 7.
For 2013, Sports Illustrated's Baseball Preview had a mean error of 7.3 and median of 5.
For 2013, Grantland's Jonah Keri had a mean error of 6.7 and median of 6.
I'll take that. Seeing as I'm, you know, a full-time student, and also lazy, I'll call my 2013 unspectacular but respectable, and go ahead and predict I'll be even better this year.
Like last year, I'll go through division-by-division, letting you know where I effed up, where I feel I was particularly clairvoyant, and what should have been obvious in hindsight. After that, we'll take a look at how I did forecasting the awards.
NL EAST
Braves: 96-66, predicted 89-73
Nationals: 86-76, predicted 96-66
Mets: 74-88, predicted 74-88
Phillies: 73-89, predicted 83-79
Marlins: 62-100, predicted 61-101
This is my "home division," as it were, being a Phillies fan, and was one of the two that I clearly did better than the experts on. My 96 wins for the Nationals were actually fewer than most people were picking (I saw 100+), and I was able to leverage some good old hometown pessimism into a Phillies pick that was more in line with reality than expectation. I had hoped, at least, that Giancarlo Stanton would be as much of a bright spot for the Marlins as many were predicting. I ventured .280/40/120. Instead, he hit .249/24/62 and missed 46 games due to injuries. One more season of getting banged up and we'll have to put him in the "injury prone" box. That would be really sad for all of baseball.
NL CENTRAL
Cardinals: 97-65, predicted 88-74
Pirates: 94-68, predicted 72-90
Reds: 90-72, predicted 93-69
Brewers: 74-88, predicted 85-77
Cubs: 66-96, predicted 71-91
When I made my NL Central picks, I was not as optimistic about the Pirates as most people. That turned out to be a big, big mistake. No one had them in the 90s, but I saw a lot of 82s and 85s and so, and that struck me as generous. Instead, McCutchen snagged an MVP award that he definitely deserved, Starling Marte established himself as a force for a long time to come, Russell Martin and A.J. Burnett each put up their best season since their pre-Yankee years, and the bullpen performed at a ridiculous level. I don't think anything else was particularly ill-informed. Meh, probably the Brewers' pick. I've always overrated them, for some reason.
NL WEST
Dodgers: 92-70, predicted 92-70
Diamondbacks: 81-81, predicted 84-78
Giants: 76-86, predicted 86-76
Padres: 76-86, predicted 67-95
Rockies: 74-88, predicted 77-85
The Dodgers finished with the record I predicted, although if you had asked me about the trajectory of their season, I don't think I would've given you a 40-8 stretch. I tried to tell people that the World Series-defending Giants wouldn't be heading back to the playoffs, but no one listened, projecting them for 92 and 94 and 97 wins. They just didn't have that much talent. Nothing else in this division was particularly exciting, although the Padres showed flashes of young development a little earlier than I thought they might. They should continue to build.
AL EAST
Red Sox: 97-65, predicted 87-75
Rays: 91-71, predicted 90-72
Yankees: 85-77, predicted 83-79
Orioles: 85-77, predicted 73-89
Blue Jays: 74-88, predicted 86-76
Believe it or not, with all those misses by 10+, this is actually the other division where I beat most experts. The highest predicted win total I saw for the Red Sox was 82, but this is the other side of the Giants coin: they were just far too talented to be a .500 team. Everyone either said "the Yankees will be the Yankees," or went all doom and gloom on them, meaning every other prediction was off by 10 or so in one direction or the other. Once again, the Orioles continued to produce with Five Guys Burgers and Fries as their starting rotation, and the Blue Jays (who I was more pessimistic on at 86 wins than most writers, who predicted them to win the division) proved that if you ship a core of losers from Miami to Toronto, you'll just end up with a bunch of Canadian losers.
AL CENTRAL
Tigers: 93-69, predicted 95-67
Indians: 92-70, predicted 73-89
Royals: 86-76, predicted 80-82
Twins: 66-96, predicted 64-98
White Sox: 63-99, predicted 83-79
We all knew the Tigers were going to be really good, and the Twins were going to be really bad. But if you had asked me which of the other three teams would push the Tigers for the division all year, I would've guess the Indians fifth. What no one accounted for was a top 5 rotation for Cleveland, with Ubaldo Jimenez, Justin Masterson, Scott Kazmir, and the loved-by-SABR-nerds-duo of Danny Salazar and Corey Kluber all seeming to outperform expectations. Look for a long discussion of Salazar in the AL Predictions. The Royals finally got a winning record in the one season I didn't pick them to have a winning record in.
AL WEST
Athletics: 96-66, predicted 83-79
Rangers: 91-71, predicted 91-71
Angels: 78-84, predicted 94-68
Mariners: 71-91, predicted 74-88
Astros: 51-111, predicted 54-108
Really whiffed on the Athletics (who I expected to fall, not rise, after their surprising run to the playoffs in 2012) and the Angels (who, for the second season in a row, majorly disappointed). At least I nailed the Rangers on the head. And let's take a moment to consider that I was among the most optimistic about the Astros. I saw predictions as low as 44-118. Yikes.
AWARDS
NL MVP
1. Troy Tulowitzki - When I picked him for MVP, I said "if he's healthy. Well, Tulo was back to his popping self when he was healthy, and snagged .312/25/82. He only played in 126 games, though. This was still good enough for 17th in the MVP voting. If he had been healthy enough to play in 150, you're looking at .312/30/99. Those are real MVP numbers, and would have put him 3rd to 5th in last year's race. When I picked him for MVP, I said "if he's healthy.
2. Joey Votto - Sixth in MVP voting. Playing all 162 games for the first time in his career, Votto continued to be more valuable to his team than he appeared. Old-school MVP voters look at .305/24/73 from a 1B and just don't see that as MVP numbers, but more are coming to realize that his .435 OBP is truly an MVP number.
3. Jason Heyward - Didn't receive votes. We all thought this would be the year Heyward exploded, but his joints actually did most of the exploding. Only played in 104 games. Rumor has it that Atlanta offered Freeman's 8/110 to Heyward first, but Heyward feels that if he can stay healthy a whole season that offer will appear a mere pittance compared to what teams will be lining up to give him. .254/14/38 in two thirds of a season.
4. Giancarlo Stanton - see above. Again, hurt. Man.
5. Ryan Braun - hahahahahahahaha. Sigh.
AL MVP
1. Miguel Cabrera - I mean, come on. The best hitter in the game. .348/44/137 - actually a better offensive line than his 2012 MVP campaign - and he was fighting a core injury for the last month. Do yourself a favor: go to fangraphs, and type "Miguel Cabrera inside pitches." There are pitches that would actually hit some batters that Cabrera smashes into the bleachers.
2. Prince Fielder - Didn't get votes. I expected that Fielder would be able to capitalize on Cabrera's success. Instead, he had a terrible year by his standards, his worst since 2006, and put up a career-low 25 HRs. .279/25/106, with plummeting peripherals, isn't good enough for a no-defense-no-speed 1B who really should be DHing.
3. Dustin Pedroia - Again, I was higher on the Red Sox than most, and felt Pedroia would lead the charge. He finished 7th in MVP voting (probably a little higher than he deserved, boosted by the Red Sox regular season success), getting back above 5 WAR and playing 160 games for the first time in his career. .301/9/84 is pretty damn good from a 5'8" second baseman.
4. Robinson Cano - 5th in MVP voting. That 2013 wasn't spectacular by Cano's standards doesn't mean that it wasn't spectacular. In fact, it means the most spectacular thing about him is his ridiculous consistency. In the last 7 years, he's missed a total of 14 games. He's gone 5 straight years with 25+ HRs. And now he appears to be playing +, or at least run-neutral, defense, which was something he had to learn over the first few years of his career. Did he deserve 10 years and $240 million? No. But he's as close to deserving as almost anyone not named Trout or Cabrera.
5. Adam Jones - 13th in MVP voting. Jones was just good-not-great, continuing to be the kind of guy that's more valuable in fantasy (because he does everything fantasy cares about pretty well) than in real life (because he virtually never walks and is pretty bad in CF, despite those really incredibly undeserved Gold Gloves he earned).
NL Cy Young
1. Zack Greinke - Ended up in 8th place, boosted by the Dodgers' high-profile success and great offense even though he actually had his worst statistical season since 2010 or 2007, depending on how you look at it. The measurables were quite good - 15-4, 2.63 ERA - but his strikeout rate plummeted and his strand rate was unrepeatably high.
2. Stephen Strasburg - Hit something of a sophomore slump (if we call 2012 his first real season), going 8-9 with a 3.00 ERA and 191 Ks. Seemed to get very little run support. Still had the 2nd-highest average fastball velocity, behind Matt Harvey.
3. Cole Hamels - Was not the Phillies' pitcher who finished 6th in Cy Young voting (that would be Clifton Phifer Lee). I actually saw 4 games he pitched in person, and the Phillies scored a combined 4 runs in those games. He remained a very good pitcher with a nasty changeup but, like Strasburg, got very little help or luck. Had fewer quality starts than only Clayton Kershaw and Adam Wainwright in the NL.
4. Johnny Cueto - I took him as an upside pick and, well, he did all right when he played. Mr. Cueto only managed 11 games, though, as he was sidelined with injuries for most of the year. He did go 5-2 with a 2.82 ERA in those games, but after a strong 2012, his '13 campaign was a lost year.
5. Clayton Kershaw - Saying he was "too talented not to include," and that "he might be top-3 for the next 5 years," I tacked on the eventual Cy Young winner at the end. The then-25-year-old managed an ERA of 1.83, put up 232 Ks, and amassed a 16-9 record to win the trophy and earn himself a huge contract extension. Like Felix Hernandez, it seems like he's been in the league forever because he started when he was so young.
AL Cy Young
1. Justin Verlander - Dude puts up 5.2 WAR and that's an off year. Amazing. He was overshadowed by the more measurable success of his teammate (more on him to come), but the difference between his Cy Young campaigns and 2013 was almost entirely explainable by a spike in BABIP, much of which can be contributed to the Tigers rolling out an historically bad defense. There's no cause for alarm in the Verlander camp.
2. Yu Darvish - Finished 2nd in the voting. Last April, fangraphs.com published this article demonstrating, visually, why Darvish is a monster on the mound. The fastest of the pitches shown is a 97 mph fastball. The slowest is a 64 mph curve. And the delivery for all of them looks identical. Darvish led the majors in strikeouts by a wide margin (277 to Scherzer's 240), and although his win total dropped from 2012 (16 to 13), so did his ERA (3.90 to 2.83).
3. Chris Sale - An example of a very good player on a very bad team. Sale went 11-14 last year, although his numbers were very good (3.07 ERA, 226 Ks, 5.1 WAR). The voters realized it, and he came in 5th in Cy Young voting despite the losing record.
4. David Price - No repeat for the '12 winner, as his ERA was up, his Ks were down, and he put up only half as many wins as the year before (10 in '13, 20 in '12). It didn't keep him from being the biggest trade target this offseason (and, as we found out, the most difficult piece to acquire), nor did it keep the Rays from snagging a Wild Card spot fairly easily. It did keep Price off the voters' ballots, though.
5. Max Scherzer - Once again, the last name on my short list brings home the hardware. I said of the dichromatic hurler "he has the pieces, just needs to put them together" after a 2012 campaign that saw a huge jump in strikeouts (8.03 per 9 in 2011 to 11.08 per 9 in 2012). A jump in strikeouts is often an indicator of future success, and Scherzer managed to get more than 10 strikeouts per 9 while lowering his walk and home run rates to the lowest of his career. All of that added together, plus a very good offense behind him, means a 21-3 season that looked for a while like it might end up 25-1 or so. Brilliant performance for a good guy.
So, there you have it. Three of the four award winners were on my shortlists, and my picks were, if not sterling, at least informed.
NATIONAL LEAGUE 2014 PREDICTIONS OUT TOMORROW!!!
Friday, March 28, 2014
Sunday, January 26, 2014
"Her": FIRST EVER Official Ruby Rankings MOVIE REVIEW!!!
Those of you who know me are aware that I love the act of ranking more than any one particular type of thing that can be ranked. With that in mind, with a view toward emphasizing the rankings part of Ruby Rankings, this is the first ever RUBY RANKINGS MOVIE REVIEW!!! Best yet, I won't spoil crap (except spoiling whether the film was good or bad).
Film: Her (2013)
Dir: Spike Jonze (also writer, producer)
Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Amy Adams, Scarlett Johansson
Allow me to oversimplify things for a moment. A lot of movies are predictable without being inevitable. By that, I mean, you can see how the film is going to end, but the film hasn't really earned that ending. It's possible to make a perfectly good film this way, and a lot of films have to be like this. Disney films, for example. Why did things work out for Merida in Brave? The short answer is: because, duh, she's the hero. She's a strong independent good-role-model type, and the point of Disney/Pixar films is that these sorts of people win. I very much enjoyed Brave on a lot of levels. Feeling emotionally invested in the ending wasn't one of them.
Good movies, more often than bad movies, have endings that are, ok, predictable, more or less, but also inevitable. The writers, directors, and actors have really shown their work, making a film that works towards a very good payoff. That you can predict the Act 3 payoff at the close of Act 2 is no knock on these films, and a lot of masterpieces are in this category. The Usual Suspects is one of these, depending on how much you've heard about it. I raved about Gravity all winter. You knew how it was going to end, emotionally, even if you didn't know the details. It's emotionally fulfilling for a cycle of rebirth to come to the 360th degree. Even films like Hot Fuzz are like this; I'm not saying that you ever know the exact details of how something's going to end, but after the reveal makes things so absurd that the film sort of explodes out of the confines of its genre, you know the ending is going to be absurd to match.
Only a few films have endings that are perfectly inevitable but completely unpredictable. These are the ones where, after Act 2, you can't imagine in your wildest dreams how Act 3 is going to transpire, but after you've seen it, you can't imagine any other way it could've gone. You realize that something truly new happened. Many of my very favorite films are like this, such as All About Eve, Moonrise Kingdom, and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.
So, what does that have to do with Her? I'm getting there. But first, let's talk about the plot, yes?
Her is about Joaquin Phoenix's attempts to find true love. It's also about artificial intelligence, organic intelligence, free will vs. mechanism, physical vs. spiritual, and a lot of other philosophical-type metaphysical-type things. But at its core, the story's told from the perspective of a man who's trying to find love (and getting over a break-up, and having things get complicated, etc.). It's a fairly conventional narrative with a very creative, sophisticated philosophical overlay.
If the movie's not exactly explosively innovative, there are definitely individual scenes that qualify as such. In particular, the film contained what I think is the best scene with a completely black screen as I've seen in film. There's also some true hilarity, although less and less as the film goes on.
Do note that an enormous percentage of the screen time is focused directly on Joaquin Phoenix's mustachioed face. Like, a ridiculously huge percentage. There are long conversations during which Theodore and Samantha (the not-quite-disembodied voice of Scarlett Johansson) simply talk while the camera is fixed on Phoenix's face. I mean, listen. I find his face quite pleasant to look at. So, that worked for me.
Why should I, the hypothetical reader asks, go see Her?
You should go see Her because it's a very well-made story of love and loss with enough complexities to keep things interesting (not exciting; I don't think it's ever exciting, but you're not going to Her for excitement). You should see Her because the colors and sounds are beautiful, and the individual scenes are top-notch. Again, I'm not convinced the overall narrative is a triumph or anything, but the individual scenes are so well-crafted that this movie should easily win Best Original Screenplay. The score is glorious, as is to be expected when it's created mostly by Arcade Fire with some help from Karen O. Perhaps very intentionally, it really aims to be something of a sensory experience. The filming and camera work reinforce the subject matter quite well.
Any drawbacks?
It's a little long, at 126 minutes. That is to say, there are movies that come in at 126 minutes that I think could have benefited from being expanded. This was not in that category. There were two particular instances at which I thought the movie could've ended, and one at which I thought it actually was going to end (during the song "Photograph"). I'm not certain the narrative couldn't have stood on its own if it stopped there, but what happens at the end really is an emotionally mature conclusion. It might not be the one we want, but it's the one we should learn to accept.
So, back to the ridiculous idiosyncratic discussion of narrative theory...
Right, right. In short, Her is a very well-crafted example of the second kind of film. It was a top-notch effort, with an ending that was truly emotionally earned, but it didn't shatter any of my worldviews. Her is something that any reflective person should take in, reflect on, and not dismiss.
There were two films I saw this year that I hoped would be true masterpieces. Gravity was a true masterpiece. Her wasn't, and the point I'm trying to make is this: we should be all right with that.
RANKING SYSTEM!!!
Of course we need a ranking system. Basically, I've seen 412 full-length films in my life, and I've created a "Medal" system as follows:
Unranked: Bottom 50%
Bronze (B): Roughly one of the top 50% of films I've seen.
Double Bronze (BB): Top 40%.
Triple Bronze (BBB): Top 25%.
Silver (S): Top 15%
Double Silver (SS): Top 12%
Triple Silver (SSS): Top 7.5%
Gold (G): Top 5%
Double Gold (GG): Top 2.5%, roughly one of the 10 best films I've ever seen.
Triple Gold (GGG): Top 1%, roughly one of the 5 best films I've ever seen.
FINAL VERDICT ON HER:
Her was very good but not great. It was one of the very best films I've seen in the last 3 or 4 years, and a worthy Oscar nominee, pretty firmly in the "must-see" category. It wasn't a game-changer for me, though, and I'm not sure how it could have been.
Borderline BBB/S.
Film: Her (2013)
Dir: Spike Jonze (also writer, producer)
Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Amy Adams, Scarlett Johansson
Allow me to oversimplify things for a moment. A lot of movies are predictable without being inevitable. By that, I mean, you can see how the film is going to end, but the film hasn't really earned that ending. It's possible to make a perfectly good film this way, and a lot of films have to be like this. Disney films, for example. Why did things work out for Merida in Brave? The short answer is: because, duh, she's the hero. She's a strong independent good-role-model type, and the point of Disney/Pixar films is that these sorts of people win. I very much enjoyed Brave on a lot of levels. Feeling emotionally invested in the ending wasn't one of them.
Good movies, more often than bad movies, have endings that are, ok, predictable, more or less, but also inevitable. The writers, directors, and actors have really shown their work, making a film that works towards a very good payoff. That you can predict the Act 3 payoff at the close of Act 2 is no knock on these films, and a lot of masterpieces are in this category. The Usual Suspects is one of these, depending on how much you've heard about it. I raved about Gravity all winter. You knew how it was going to end, emotionally, even if you didn't know the details. It's emotionally fulfilling for a cycle of rebirth to come to the 360th degree. Even films like Hot Fuzz are like this; I'm not saying that you ever know the exact details of how something's going to end, but after the reveal makes things so absurd that the film sort of explodes out of the confines of its genre, you know the ending is going to be absurd to match.
Only a few films have endings that are perfectly inevitable but completely unpredictable. These are the ones where, after Act 2, you can't imagine in your wildest dreams how Act 3 is going to transpire, but after you've seen it, you can't imagine any other way it could've gone. You realize that something truly new happened. Many of my very favorite films are like this, such as All About Eve, Moonrise Kingdom, and One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest.
So, what does that have to do with Her? I'm getting there. But first, let's talk about the plot, yes?
Her is about Joaquin Phoenix's attempts to find true love. It's also about artificial intelligence, organic intelligence, free will vs. mechanism, physical vs. spiritual, and a lot of other philosophical-type metaphysical-type things. But at its core, the story's told from the perspective of a man who's trying to find love (and getting over a break-up, and having things get complicated, etc.). It's a fairly conventional narrative with a very creative, sophisticated philosophical overlay.
If the movie's not exactly explosively innovative, there are definitely individual scenes that qualify as such. In particular, the film contained what I think is the best scene with a completely black screen as I've seen in film. There's also some true hilarity, although less and less as the film goes on.
Do note that an enormous percentage of the screen time is focused directly on Joaquin Phoenix's mustachioed face. Like, a ridiculously huge percentage. There are long conversations during which Theodore and Samantha (the not-quite-disembodied voice of Scarlett Johansson) simply talk while the camera is fixed on Phoenix's face. I mean, listen. I find his face quite pleasant to look at. So, that worked for me.
Why should I, the hypothetical reader asks, go see Her?
You should go see Her because it's a very well-made story of love and loss with enough complexities to keep things interesting (not exciting; I don't think it's ever exciting, but you're not going to Her for excitement). You should see Her because the colors and sounds are beautiful, and the individual scenes are top-notch. Again, I'm not convinced the overall narrative is a triumph or anything, but the individual scenes are so well-crafted that this movie should easily win Best Original Screenplay. The score is glorious, as is to be expected when it's created mostly by Arcade Fire with some help from Karen O. Perhaps very intentionally, it really aims to be something of a sensory experience. The filming and camera work reinforce the subject matter quite well.
Any drawbacks?
It's a little long, at 126 minutes. That is to say, there are movies that come in at 126 minutes that I think could have benefited from being expanded. This was not in that category. There were two particular instances at which I thought the movie could've ended, and one at which I thought it actually was going to end (during the song "Photograph"). I'm not certain the narrative couldn't have stood on its own if it stopped there, but what happens at the end really is an emotionally mature conclusion. It might not be the one we want, but it's the one we should learn to accept.
So, back to the ridiculous idiosyncratic discussion of narrative theory...
Right, right. In short, Her is a very well-crafted example of the second kind of film. It was a top-notch effort, with an ending that was truly emotionally earned, but it didn't shatter any of my worldviews. Her is something that any reflective person should take in, reflect on, and not dismiss.
There were two films I saw this year that I hoped would be true masterpieces. Gravity was a true masterpiece. Her wasn't, and the point I'm trying to make is this: we should be all right with that.
RANKING SYSTEM!!!
Of course we need a ranking system. Basically, I've seen 412 full-length films in my life, and I've created a "Medal" system as follows:
Unranked: Bottom 50%
Bronze (B): Roughly one of the top 50% of films I've seen.
Double Bronze (BB): Top 40%.
Triple Bronze (BBB): Top 25%.
Silver (S): Top 15%
Double Silver (SS): Top 12%
Triple Silver (SSS): Top 7.5%
Gold (G): Top 5%
Double Gold (GG): Top 2.5%, roughly one of the 10 best films I've ever seen.
Triple Gold (GGG): Top 1%, roughly one of the 5 best films I've ever seen.
FINAL VERDICT ON HER:
Her was very good but not great. It was one of the very best films I've seen in the last 3 or 4 years, and a worthy Oscar nominee, pretty firmly in the "must-see" category. It wasn't a game-changer for me, though, and I'm not sure how it could have been.
Borderline BBB/S.
Monday, January 13, 2014
Some thoughts on the 2014 Australian Open!
Hey everyone. For as much as I love sports, Tennis is the only one I actually played in an organized capacity after the age of 13. Just like most athletic endeavors, I found myself very knowledgeable about what was going on and completely unable to make my body do the things it had to do. Alas!
But now that I'm, ostensibly, grown up, I remain a tennis fan. I watch the Slams pretty religiously, and at least nominally keep tabs on the remainder of the season. So, I'm pretty thrilled about the 2014 season finally starting up! Tonight (Day 2 of the Open) I finally look at the Men's and Women's Singles Draws, and here are some preliminary thoughts:
Men's Draw
-Wasn't Jordan Thompson v. #20 Jerzy Janowicz fun? Now, even after he got up 2-0, I gave the kid maybe a 40% chance of taking the match - come on, Janowicz can't lose to a guy making his TOUR DEBUT, eh? - but those first two sets were certainly fun to watch. A total of 5 unforced errors over those two sets will give the 19-year-old something to look back on fondly as he tries to climb into the Top 100 and the Tour scene.
- I think #11 Milos Raonic has a pretty good shot to get to the QFs to face Nadal. He'll have to take out (if seeding holds) Hanescu, #22 Dimitrov, and #5 Del Potro to do so, but I think that's a fairly kind road. I am a big JMDP fan, but with all the injuries he's been very inconsistent lately (truth be told, I haven't heard anything about his present health). It wouldn't shock me if, like last year, he made at least one Grand Slam SF this year and also bowed out in R64 of a Grand Slam.
- I really like the 32nd of Cilic v. Granollers and Brands v. #18 Simon. Whoever gets out of that foursome - keep your eye on Cilic - is set to face #10 Tsonga. Whoever wins that match will face a beatable #6 Federer for a berth in the QFs.
- #7 Tomas Berdych (crazy striped shirt and all) is a popular SF pick, and he should be. The other seed in his 16th is #32 Dodig, and #12 Tommy Haas already retired from his 8th. That leaves #19 Kevin Anderson as Berdych's only big-name competition before a QF match-up with #3 Ferrer. Berdych is definitely the kind of player who can beat Anderson at the big man's own game, and Ferrer is the usual whipping boy among the Top 4 Seeds. If Berdych and Ferrer meet, I call it a coin flip.
- The bottom quarter seems to be the most straightforward, and the most likely QF match-up in the whole tournament, I think, is #8 Wawrinka v. #2 Djokovic. I'd be *very* surprised if they didn't meet in the last 8.
Joe's Picks:
QFs: #11 Raonic v. #1 Nadal; #10 Tsonga v. #4 Murray; #7 Berdych v. #3 Ferrer; #8 Wawrinka v. #2 Djokovic
SFs: What a Shock!!! #1 Nadal v. #4 Murray; #3 Ferrer v. #2 Djokovic!!! I NEVER expected THAT.
Finals: #1 Nadal v. #2 Djokovic
Winner: #2 Djokovic
Women's Draw
Admittedly, I follow the Women's game a little less closer than the Men's, but I still follow it, which is a lot more than most of my tennis-watching fans can say. I do often catch myself cheering for the prettier player, and I keep reminding myself that this is not proper, and whatnot, but I digress. Like on the Men's side, I have my favorite players in this draw as well.
- Obviously, #1 Serena Williams is going to win. Right? Yeah. Probably. I'll give her, maybe, 60%, which is probably short-changing her. Interestingly, Serena's best record is in the Australian Open (5 wins in 13 tries), but she's gone longer without hoisting the trophy than she has for the other 3 Slams. Interestingly enough, she's never reached the QFs without winning the tournament. To get to the QFs, she'll have to beat #31 Hantuchova - not a pushover - and either #17 Stosur or #14 Ivanovic.
- And who will Williams face in the QFs? Yesterday was a bad day for the Italian women, with #12 Vinci and #7 Errani both falling. That leaves #30 Bouchard and #18 Flipkens as the remaining seeds. Obviously, the wild card is - hopefully, for we Yanks - going to be 18-year-old American Madison Keys, who is currently 36th but is predicted by many to leap as high as the Top 10 by year's end. Keys doesn't have an easy path; her first match is against Zheng Jie, the 2010 Aussie Semifinalist who defeated Keys in the first round of the 2012 Australian Open. However, an 18-year-old vs. a 30-year-old is quite different from 16-vs.-28, and Keys should be the favorite. She'll then have Flipkens and Bouchard to contend with, in that order. Call me a homer, but I'll say Keys makes her first big breakthrough here.
- Much like Serena, #4 Li Na has seen her main stumbling block to the Semifinals - #6 Petra Kvitova (a favorite player of Joe's, alas) - fall in the first round. Unlike Serena, though, she won't find her path a cakewalk, as #26 Safarova, #15 Lisicki, and especially #9 Kerber are significant threats. I still like Li to win this quarter, but would not be surprised if Kerber, Lisicki, or maybe even an unseeded opponent like Luksika Kumkhum, who looked fantastic taking out Kvitova, got there instead.
- The third quarter is #3 Sharapova's to lose, but lose she might. The winner of #8 Jelena Jankovic and #11 Simona Halep (who is one of the bust players in the world, ha ha! But seriously. Look up her story, which raises, among other things, interesting sports ethics questions) will pose a serious threat.
- Finally, call me an unabashed #5 Agnieszka Radwanska fan. She and #10 Wozniacki - Rory McIlroy's newly ringed fiancée - should be the best QF match if it happens. Obviously, though, #2 Victoria Azarenka, who is looking for a three-peat in Australia, is Serena Williams's biggest threat.
Joe's Picks:
QFs: #1 Williams v. Keys; #4 Li v. Kumkhum; #11 Halep v. #3 Sharapova; #5 Radwanska v. #2 Azarenka
SFs: #1 Williams v. #4 Li; #11 Halep v. #2 Azarenka
Finals: #1 Williams v. #2 Azarenka
Winner: #1 Williams
Let me know why I'm an idiot! Time to go back to my room and watch all of the people I just put in the SFs lose and make me look dumb.
But now that I'm, ostensibly, grown up, I remain a tennis fan. I watch the Slams pretty religiously, and at least nominally keep tabs on the remainder of the season. So, I'm pretty thrilled about the 2014 season finally starting up! Tonight (Day 2 of the Open) I finally look at the Men's and Women's Singles Draws, and here are some preliminary thoughts:
Men's Draw
-Wasn't Jordan Thompson v. #20 Jerzy Janowicz fun? Now, even after he got up 2-0, I gave the kid maybe a 40% chance of taking the match - come on, Janowicz can't lose to a guy making his TOUR DEBUT, eh? - but those first two sets were certainly fun to watch. A total of 5 unforced errors over those two sets will give the 19-year-old something to look back on fondly as he tries to climb into the Top 100 and the Tour scene.
- I think #11 Milos Raonic has a pretty good shot to get to the QFs to face Nadal. He'll have to take out (if seeding holds) Hanescu, #22 Dimitrov, and #5 Del Potro to do so, but I think that's a fairly kind road. I am a big JMDP fan, but with all the injuries he's been very inconsistent lately (truth be told, I haven't heard anything about his present health). It wouldn't shock me if, like last year, he made at least one Grand Slam SF this year and also bowed out in R64 of a Grand Slam.
- I really like the 32nd of Cilic v. Granollers and Brands v. #18 Simon. Whoever gets out of that foursome - keep your eye on Cilic - is set to face #10 Tsonga. Whoever wins that match will face a beatable #6 Federer for a berth in the QFs.
- #7 Tomas Berdych (crazy striped shirt and all) is a popular SF pick, and he should be. The other seed in his 16th is #32 Dodig, and #12 Tommy Haas already retired from his 8th. That leaves #19 Kevin Anderson as Berdych's only big-name competition before a QF match-up with #3 Ferrer. Berdych is definitely the kind of player who can beat Anderson at the big man's own game, and Ferrer is the usual whipping boy among the Top 4 Seeds. If Berdych and Ferrer meet, I call it a coin flip.
- The bottom quarter seems to be the most straightforward, and the most likely QF match-up in the whole tournament, I think, is #8 Wawrinka v. #2 Djokovic. I'd be *very* surprised if they didn't meet in the last 8.
Joe's Picks:
QFs: #11 Raonic v. #1 Nadal; #10 Tsonga v. #4 Murray; #7 Berdych v. #3 Ferrer; #8 Wawrinka v. #2 Djokovic
SFs: What a Shock!!! #1 Nadal v. #4 Murray; #3 Ferrer v. #2 Djokovic!!! I NEVER expected THAT.
Finals: #1 Nadal v. #2 Djokovic
Winner: #2 Djokovic
Women's Draw
Admittedly, I follow the Women's game a little less closer than the Men's, but I still follow it, which is a lot more than most of my tennis-watching fans can say. I do often catch myself cheering for the prettier player, and I keep reminding myself that this is not proper, and whatnot, but I digress. Like on the Men's side, I have my favorite players in this draw as well.
- Obviously, #1 Serena Williams is going to win. Right? Yeah. Probably. I'll give her, maybe, 60%, which is probably short-changing her. Interestingly, Serena's best record is in the Australian Open (5 wins in 13 tries), but she's gone longer without hoisting the trophy than she has for the other 3 Slams. Interestingly enough, she's never reached the QFs without winning the tournament. To get to the QFs, she'll have to beat #31 Hantuchova - not a pushover - and either #17 Stosur or #14 Ivanovic.
- And who will Williams face in the QFs? Yesterday was a bad day for the Italian women, with #12 Vinci and #7 Errani both falling. That leaves #30 Bouchard and #18 Flipkens as the remaining seeds. Obviously, the wild card is - hopefully, for we Yanks - going to be 18-year-old American Madison Keys, who is currently 36th but is predicted by many to leap as high as the Top 10 by year's end. Keys doesn't have an easy path; her first match is against Zheng Jie, the 2010 Aussie Semifinalist who defeated Keys in the first round of the 2012 Australian Open. However, an 18-year-old vs. a 30-year-old is quite different from 16-vs.-28, and Keys should be the favorite. She'll then have Flipkens and Bouchard to contend with, in that order. Call me a homer, but I'll say Keys makes her first big breakthrough here.
- Much like Serena, #4 Li Na has seen her main stumbling block to the Semifinals - #6 Petra Kvitova (a favorite player of Joe's, alas) - fall in the first round. Unlike Serena, though, she won't find her path a cakewalk, as #26 Safarova, #15 Lisicki, and especially #9 Kerber are significant threats. I still like Li to win this quarter, but would not be surprised if Kerber, Lisicki, or maybe even an unseeded opponent like Luksika Kumkhum, who looked fantastic taking out Kvitova, got there instead.
- The third quarter is #3 Sharapova's to lose, but lose she might. The winner of #8 Jelena Jankovic and #11 Simona Halep (who is one of the bust players in the world, ha ha! But seriously. Look up her story, which raises, among other things, interesting sports ethics questions) will pose a serious threat.
- Finally, call me an unabashed #5 Agnieszka Radwanska fan. She and #10 Wozniacki - Rory McIlroy's newly ringed fiancée - should be the best QF match if it happens. Obviously, though, #2 Victoria Azarenka, who is looking for a three-peat in Australia, is Serena Williams's biggest threat.
Joe's Picks:
QFs: #1 Williams v. Keys; #4 Li v. Kumkhum; #11 Halep v. #3 Sharapova; #5 Radwanska v. #2 Azarenka
SFs: #1 Williams v. #4 Li; #11 Halep v. #2 Azarenka
Finals: #1 Williams v. #2 Azarenka
Winner: #1 Williams
Let me know why I'm an idiot! Time to go back to my room and watch all of the people I just put in the SFs lose and make me look dumb.
Saturday, January 4, 2014
NFL PLAYOFFS?! YAYYY! ^__^ WILD CARD SATURDAY: Predictions, Analysis, and Snark
Everyone! It's NFL Playoff time! This is, obviously, a good thing, a seasonal consolation for those of us who return to school around this time every year. It's an excuse to stay inside out of the cold. It's an excuse to drink, whether in joy or agony. Most of all, it's about 40 hours of fun spread out over 4 weekends.
Before I take a look at this year's playoff games, let's take a quick look at the teams I picked to get into the playoffs. In the AFC, I snagged 3 of the 4 division winners (Patriots, Broncos, and Colts, all of who were never really in danger), and admitted that I really was not confident in my Ravens pick. I did have the Bengals as my first wild card, noting that their offense was the probably the third-best in the AFC, behind the Broncos and Pats. Well, what do you know: the top 3 AFC scoring offenses were the Broncos, Pats, and Bengal; the Chargers sneaked ahead of the Bengals into 3rd place in total yards. I really liked Cleveland coming into this year, and took a flyer on them as the last wild-card team. That... didn't work, but, whatever. Gordon was fun to watch.
Predicted: 1) Broncos; 2) Ravens; 3) Patriots; 4) Colts; 5) Bengals; 6) Browns
Actual: 1) Broncos; 2) Patriots; 3) Bengals; 4) Colts; 5) Chiefs; 6) Chargers.
I picked the Broncos to get to the Super Bowl. Really went out on a limb there.
Like in the AFC, I managed to pick 4 of the 6 NFC teams, although it was a little more jumbled here. In the East, noting that no one had any bloody idea what would happen, I picked the Cowboys to win. Of the Philadelphia Eagles, I wrote: "[they] will be one of three things: 1) the most exciting playoff team in the NFL, 2) the most exciting mediocre team in the NFL, or 3) the most exciting trainwreck in the NFL." I am thrilled that they are pretty darn close to #1. I expected #2.5. In the North, I had the Packers, but with 12 wins, not 8 and a half. I had the Saints in the playoffs as the 6-seed (bingo!) but was (like virtually everyone) mistaken about which team would go 12-4 to take the South. In the West, I got the two squads, but had them switched.
Predicted: 1) 49ers; 2) Packers; 3) Falcons; 4) Cowboys; 5) Seahawks; 6) Saints
Actual: 1) Seahawks; 2) Panthers; 3) Eagles; 4) Packers; 5) 49ers; 6) Saints
Here, I picked the Packers. Ultimately, I had a rematch of Super Bowl XXXII - the first one I watched! - going the other way, with Rodgers getting his second ring.
So, that was the plan. I'm gonna give those picks a B. I got all the ones that were more likely than not, and both of my Super Bowl teams made it. We now, however, have an entire season's worth of games and statistics and storylines to take into account, so perhaps we can be even more successful going forward!
Fat chance. I'd call three of this weekend's four games a coin-flip, but I think it's more like four. Here's my Informed Analysis(c)(notreally) of this weekend's games:
(5) Kansas City @ (4) Indianapolis - 4:35 Saturday
Kansas City surprised a lot of people with their 9-0 start, but came way back down to earth with a 2-5 finish. Those five losses came to the Broncos, Broncos, Chargers, Chargers... and Colts, albeit in a game that didn't have much meaning for either team. The Colts played in the easiest division in the NFL this year; the Jaguars never had much of a chance, and while I wasn't shocked the Texans missed the playoffs - I had them stumbling to a flat 8-8 - I don't think anyone envisioned them deciding whether to keep or trade the #1 overall pick. Even the Titans, at 7-9, had the worst record of any division runner-up.
Chiefs Offense
... starts and ends with Jamaal Charles, is how that sentence goes. Charles was 3rd in the NFL in rushing this year, the only player in the pass-heavy AFC to be in the top 6. He was tied for the most rushing TDs with 12, which is likely the lowest total ever in a 16-game season (I only checked back to 2003). The NFL these days is very different from the game that Priest Holmes (27 in 2003), Shaun Alexander (27 in 2005), and LaDainian Tomlinson (28 in 2006) played only a few years ago. Even in a run-depressed NFL, it's clear that Charles has to be on any intelligible shortlist of offensive MVP candidates. That's in large part due to his amazing consistency catching the ball out of the backfield too; despite being the single-game receiving yards leader for the Chiefs only twice this year, he led the team in receiving yards, receptions, and touchdowns.
In other news, another season goes by and we *still* have no idea if Alex Smith is any good. What he can do: win when he has weapons. Get a good number of TDs without throwing picks, which is a damn-valuable skill (just ask Jay Cutler or Eli Manning). Run, apparently - he snagged 431 rushing yards this year (his previous high was 179). Also, he hasn't lost a fumble since 2006. That's 70+ games.
What he can't do, though, it seems, is go downfield, make a particularly athletic play, or really do any of the things that separate good, plus QBs from the ones we remember, the ones that win playoff games, the ones that win even though the opposing defense is better than their own offense. I am an unashamed QBR fan, and Smith comes in at a 49.4 this year. That's the very definition of mediocre.
Ultimately, even with Charles, if I was drafting playoff team offenses, these guys would be in the bottom three.
Colts Offense
And so would these guys, I think. When Andrew Luck came into the league a mere 20 months ago, I told people that he would, physically, in terms of arm strength, make throws that only 5 or 6 other starters could make. I had him, when he first stepped on an NFL field, as the 12th-best QB in the league. It did take him a little while to really hit his stride, but he's a quick learner, and those forlorn franchises that have had x+1 QBs over the last x years (Bills, Browns... looking at you) must be furious that the Colts went from one sure-fire franchise QB to the next.
The Colts are actually 20th in rushing, although their leading rusher - Donald Brown - only snagged 537, good for 42nd individually in the NFL. Trent Richardson... who the hell knows? I have no idea why he can't move the ball in the NFL, but after he was traded to the Colts, his yard per carry actually went down. He snagged only 2.9 per with Indy.
T.Y. "Don't Call Me Ty" Hilton was Luck's favorite target this year, going over 1,000 yards and legitimately stepping up when Reggie Wayne was lost for the season. Coby Fleener, Luck's Stanford buddy, has done all right as well.
Although the pieces are good-not-great, you can do a lot with a little when you don't turn the ball over. The Colts only turned the ball over 14 times this year, four better than the second-most efficient team which, as you should have guessed by now, is the Chiefs.
Colts Defense
Defensively, the Colts seem to match up poorly with KC. Robert Mathis was the Colts' only Pro Bowl selection on either side of the ball, and he certainly earned it; as far as OLBs go, however, he's quite pass-oriented. He snagged 19.5 sack this year (the next-highest LB had 12), but much of the run-stopping was done by the solid team of Antoine Bethea and LaRon Landry, both safeties. Ultimately, the Colts ended up 7th-worst against the run. This might be because no one in their division could throw, but this front seven isn't the sort that will strike fear into Jamaal Charles's heart.
The Colts are 5th in the AFC in takeaways, and - much like last year - this is a squad that is better than its names suggest. That's a credit to the coach. Ultimately, though, I'm not too high on this unit. I probably should be into these guys more, especially since they were 9th in points allowed, and I'm about to talk about how the Chiefs are great because they're 5th in points allowed, but remember: the Colts played in the barren South, and the Chiefs played in the explosive West.
Chiefs Defense
Here's where the star power in this game is. The Chiefs' defense has 5 Pro Bowlers, and is one of the best in the game. The unit is a testament to the worthlessness of Total Yardage statistics; KC is 24th in total yards allowed but 5th in points allowed.
A big part of that is the Chiefs' ability to get turnovers. Their 36 takeaways trailed only the near-legendary Seahawks' defense this year. Justin Houston and (Penn Stater) Tamba Hali, both Pro Bowlers, each had 11 sacks, and Hali was one of only 4 players to return both an INT and fumble for a TD this year (not that there's any predictive value to that info, but, hey, it's neat).
PREDICTION:
I know KC stumbled to the finish line, but in the NFL, the more talented team wins more often than not. The team with more talent is the Chiefs, and they're going to storm into Indy this afternoon and snag a tough victory. KANSAS CITY 31, INDIANAPOLIS 21
(6) New Orleans @ (3) Philadelphia - 8:10 Saturday
These teams combined for 11 wins last year, the fewest of any possible playoff duo this year unless the Chiefs and Eagles make it to the Super Bowl (that'd be 6 combined wins). Most people who were paying attention expected the Saints to get back after the Bounty-gate hiccup, and most people who were paying attention still had no idea whether Chip Kelly would work, whether the defense could actually tackle, or whether Nick Foles was going to set the all-time TDs to INTs ratio for someone with at least 13 TDs.
An interesting note: Nick Foles and Drew Brees graduated from the same high school, Westlake HS in Austin, Texas. It's also worth noting that Brees is one of the shortest QBs in the league - listed at 6'0" but widely believed to be 5'11" - and Foles comes in at 6'6". I wonder if anyone's compiled a list of the biggest height differences in playoff games. If not, they should. If so, they should send it to me.
Saints Offense
Obviously top notch, with the caveat that everyone believes them to be far worse on the road than at home. Let's see if that's true:
- 8-0 at home, 3-5 on the road. Oohf.
- 34 ppg for at home, 17.5 ppg for on the road. Ouch.
- 15.6 ppg allowed at home, 22.4 ppg allowed on the road. Meh.
Of course, almost all teams will have some significant shift home-to-away, but that seems pretty extreme. When everyone believes something to be true and stats suggest it's true, it's a lot easier to think "hey... it's probably true."
But let's get to the actual offense. Just for kicks, whenever I cite a player stat, I'll put home and road splits too. Drew Brees is obviously a fantastic passer. I still remember thinking he was done when the Chargers let him go, and the Dolphins didn't want to take a flyer on him. Yeah. In his 8 seasons with the Saints, he's only missed one game. He put up his 4th-highest passer rating this year, notching a 104.7 (126.3 home, 84.8 road). He was also second in the NFL in TDs, with his 39 scores (27 home, 12 away) equal to approximately 70% of Peyton Manning's total.
A big part of that success is Jimmy Graham, who, with apologies to the injury-riddled Rob Gronkowski, is almost certainly the biggest single match-up problem in the NFL. Graham led the league in receiving TDs (including WRs) with 16 (10 home, 6 road). Note that, if the Saints are to have offensive success in the Linc, it will be led by Graham, who has actually has more receptions and yards on the road despite missing the shockingly-unlikely defeat to the Patriots at Gillette.
No one would mistake the Saints' offense for a rushing attack; their 92.1 per game slot them at 25th in the NFL and worst among the playoff teams. They have a real RB-by-committee thing going; they have 6 players with a rushing TD and none with more than 3. The real RB threats are Darren Sproles and Pierre Thomas coming out of the backfield to receive. Pierre Thomas is a true screen back: he has 513 total receiving yards but 642 yards after catch (tops in the league). That means his 77 receptions were made an average of 1.7 yards behind the line of scrimmage. Sproles is just as good, and probably more explosive, with 604 yards, 507 YAC.
One of the best offenses in the league, but at 25.9 per game they're not the true air-it-out circus we've seen in the past from this team.
Eagles Offense
Also among the best in the league. It's hard to look at season stats for this squad, because of the QB switch mid-season. Even with the Birds scoring 10 combined points in back-to-back division losses this year (with Matt Barkley at the helm for most of that time), they ended up with the 4th-highest scoring offense in the league (27.6), just fractions of points per game behind the Bears and Patriots (both 27.8). Oh, yeah, and 10.3 behind the Broncos. But... the Broncos.
A lot has been made of Nick Foles's tremendous season, and I won't beat it to death here. Suffice to say that, although he's been tremendous statistically (27:2 TDs:INTs, more importantly: 9.12 yards per attempt, which is ridiculous), a fair portion of it is the system he's in. He is not the Eagles' best offensive player.
That would be LeSean McCoy who, after leading the NFL in rushing TDs a few years ago, got his rushing yardage title this year, his 1,607 besting Matt Forte by 268. When this guy touches the ball, special things happen. His 5.1 yards per carry was 5th-best, and his 9 runs of 20+ yards was worse only than Alfred Morris's 10. McCoy may be the best in the NFL at making really stop-and-start cuts (at least when Peterson's banged up).
People complained about Foles being snubbed for the Pro Bowl, but I think DeSean Jackson was maybe the bigger snub. Maybe I'm biased, because I was sitting in Row 17 when he went for 193 in the Eagles' Week 2 loss to the Chargers, but he had arguably his best season, putting up a career-high 1,332 yards. Importantly, he was simply far more sure-handed this year than in years past: coming into this season, he had caught just over 52% of the passes thrown to him; this year, he improved that mark to 65%, which translated to almost 20 more catches. How much of that is system, and how much of that is better passing, and how much of that is Jackson... well, it's an interesting question, but no one will care as long as it keeps happening.
Basically, this is a match-up of two of the 6 or 7 best offenses in the league, and - especially with the Saints on the road, in the cold - the Eagles get the edge in this one.
Eagles Defense
Much maligned a year ago (though not like the Saints; more on this soon), the Eagles' defense managed to be at least mediocre this year, with a lot of individual performances standing out (at least to the fans, who were treated to a bland mixture of missed tackles and lethargy last year). It definitely appears as though the unit got better as the year wore on; over the first four games, they allowed 27, 33, 26, and 52 (to the Broncos, of course), whereas they only allowed more than 22 once in their last 12 games (a seemingly aberrational 48-30 loss at Minnesota in Week 15). The Eagles gave up a league-high 290 passing yards per game, but we've seen over and over that that stat doesn't matter much, because the team in that spot is often one with a quick, high-powered offense that a lot of teams have to play catch-up against. More telling is the Passer Rating of QBs facing the Eagles D: 84.0, good for 15th in the NFL. Also, the Eagles' 31 takeaways were 2nd-best in the NFC, helping them tie for 2nd-best in the NFC in turnover margin (+12).
When talking about the Eagles' defense, you simply can't overstate the importance of DeMeco Ryans as a stabilizing force. In his second year as an Eagle after coming up from Houston, Ryans has been a rock in the middle of the field, doing a little bit of everything. Trent Cole and Connor Barwin both came up huge, the latter especially in the Week 17 win over the Cowboys. And the rest of the defense - Mychal Kendricks, Nate Allen, Cedric Thornton, Brandon Boykin, Fletcher Cox - basically reads like a list of future Pro Bowlers.
The thing that Eagles fans need to keep in mind, even if Philly loses today, is this: the arrow is pointing up on these guys. This team will be better next year, and you can't say that with any confidence about most of the NFC.
Saints Defense
Rob Ryan quipped that he'd be unemployed for five minutes. Well, someone probably should have snatched him up in four. While the Cowboys watched their defense go from held-together-by-threads to completely in pieces, Ryan simply went to the Big Easy and turned an historically bad defense - granted, one with some talent (but with no motivation or direction) - into one of the best units in the game. The Saints were 4th-best in terms of both total yards and scoring defense. Against the Eagles' rushing attack, though, it's worth noting that the Saints were 2nd against the pass and 19th against the run.
A big part of their success against the pass was their pass rush, led by the breakout seasons of Cameron Jordan (12.5 sacks) and Junior Galette (12.0). Interestingly, the Saints' defensive success has not translated into takeaways, as their 19 is dead last in the NFC.
The Saints defense has been very good this year. Not flashy, not exciting, but good. Very Ryan-like.
PREDICTION:
The Eagles won't be able to keep up with NO if this turns into a pure QB battle. New Orleans's defense is too good, Jimmy Graham's too good, and Drew Brees is too good. But there are a lot of reasons why this shouldn't turn into a passing battle: it's in Philly, it's gonna be COLD, and the Eagles would be content with feeding LeSean McCoy the ball over and over. The Eagles aren't built to try to keep the other offense off the field, but they should be better at it than the Saints. If it was in New Orleans, I'd say Saints 35, Eagles 34. But it's in Philadelphia. PHILADELPHIA 28, NEW ORLEANS 20.
So, that's what we have for today's action. I'll hit you with another monster opus before tomorrow's games!
Seriously, comment. Tell me how much of an idiot I am, or why you agree with everything I've said, or something in between.
Before I take a look at this year's playoff games, let's take a quick look at the teams I picked to get into the playoffs. In the AFC, I snagged 3 of the 4 division winners (Patriots, Broncos, and Colts, all of who were never really in danger), and admitted that I really was not confident in my Ravens pick. I did have the Bengals as my first wild card, noting that their offense was the probably the third-best in the AFC, behind the Broncos and Pats. Well, what do you know: the top 3 AFC scoring offenses were the Broncos, Pats, and Bengal; the Chargers sneaked ahead of the Bengals into 3rd place in total yards. I really liked Cleveland coming into this year, and took a flyer on them as the last wild-card team. That... didn't work, but, whatever. Gordon was fun to watch.
Predicted: 1) Broncos; 2) Ravens; 3) Patriots; 4) Colts; 5) Bengals; 6) Browns
Actual: 1) Broncos; 2) Patriots; 3) Bengals; 4) Colts; 5) Chiefs; 6) Chargers.
I picked the Broncos to get to the Super Bowl. Really went out on a limb there.
Like in the AFC, I managed to pick 4 of the 6 NFC teams, although it was a little more jumbled here. In the East, noting that no one had any bloody idea what would happen, I picked the Cowboys to win. Of the Philadelphia Eagles, I wrote: "[they] will be one of three things: 1) the most exciting playoff team in the NFL, 2) the most exciting mediocre team in the NFL, or 3) the most exciting trainwreck in the NFL." I am thrilled that they are pretty darn close to #1. I expected #2.5. In the North, I had the Packers, but with 12 wins, not 8 and a half. I had the Saints in the playoffs as the 6-seed (bingo!) but was (like virtually everyone) mistaken about which team would go 12-4 to take the South. In the West, I got the two squads, but had them switched.
Predicted: 1) 49ers; 2) Packers; 3) Falcons; 4) Cowboys; 5) Seahawks; 6) Saints
Actual: 1) Seahawks; 2) Panthers; 3) Eagles; 4) Packers; 5) 49ers; 6) Saints
Here, I picked the Packers. Ultimately, I had a rematch of Super Bowl XXXII - the first one I watched! - going the other way, with Rodgers getting his second ring.
So, that was the plan. I'm gonna give those picks a B. I got all the ones that were more likely than not, and both of my Super Bowl teams made it. We now, however, have an entire season's worth of games and statistics and storylines to take into account, so perhaps we can be even more successful going forward!
Fat chance. I'd call three of this weekend's four games a coin-flip, but I think it's more like four. Here's my Informed Analysis(c)(notreally) of this weekend's games:
(5) Kansas City @ (4) Indianapolis - 4:35 Saturday
Kansas City surprised a lot of people with their 9-0 start, but came way back down to earth with a 2-5 finish. Those five losses came to the Broncos, Broncos, Chargers, Chargers... and Colts, albeit in a game that didn't have much meaning for either team. The Colts played in the easiest division in the NFL this year; the Jaguars never had much of a chance, and while I wasn't shocked the Texans missed the playoffs - I had them stumbling to a flat 8-8 - I don't think anyone envisioned them deciding whether to keep or trade the #1 overall pick. Even the Titans, at 7-9, had the worst record of any division runner-up.
Chiefs Offense
... starts and ends with Jamaal Charles, is how that sentence goes. Charles was 3rd in the NFL in rushing this year, the only player in the pass-heavy AFC to be in the top 6. He was tied for the most rushing TDs with 12, which is likely the lowest total ever in a 16-game season (I only checked back to 2003). The NFL these days is very different from the game that Priest Holmes (27 in 2003), Shaun Alexander (27 in 2005), and LaDainian Tomlinson (28 in 2006) played only a few years ago. Even in a run-depressed NFL, it's clear that Charles has to be on any intelligible shortlist of offensive MVP candidates. That's in large part due to his amazing consistency catching the ball out of the backfield too; despite being the single-game receiving yards leader for the Chiefs only twice this year, he led the team in receiving yards, receptions, and touchdowns.
In other news, another season goes by and we *still* have no idea if Alex Smith is any good. What he can do: win when he has weapons. Get a good number of TDs without throwing picks, which is a damn-valuable skill (just ask Jay Cutler or Eli Manning). Run, apparently - he snagged 431 rushing yards this year (his previous high was 179). Also, he hasn't lost a fumble since 2006. That's 70+ games.
What he can't do, though, it seems, is go downfield, make a particularly athletic play, or really do any of the things that separate good, plus QBs from the ones we remember, the ones that win playoff games, the ones that win even though the opposing defense is better than their own offense. I am an unashamed QBR fan, and Smith comes in at a 49.4 this year. That's the very definition of mediocre.
Ultimately, even with Charles, if I was drafting playoff team offenses, these guys would be in the bottom three.
Colts Offense
And so would these guys, I think. When Andrew Luck came into the league a mere 20 months ago, I told people that he would, physically, in terms of arm strength, make throws that only 5 or 6 other starters could make. I had him, when he first stepped on an NFL field, as the 12th-best QB in the league. It did take him a little while to really hit his stride, but he's a quick learner, and those forlorn franchises that have had x+1 QBs over the last x years (Bills, Browns... looking at you) must be furious that the Colts went from one sure-fire franchise QB to the next.
The Colts are actually 20th in rushing, although their leading rusher - Donald Brown - only snagged 537, good for 42nd individually in the NFL. Trent Richardson... who the hell knows? I have no idea why he can't move the ball in the NFL, but after he was traded to the Colts, his yard per carry actually went down. He snagged only 2.9 per with Indy.
T.Y. "Don't Call Me Ty" Hilton was Luck's favorite target this year, going over 1,000 yards and legitimately stepping up when Reggie Wayne was lost for the season. Coby Fleener, Luck's Stanford buddy, has done all right as well.
Although the pieces are good-not-great, you can do a lot with a little when you don't turn the ball over. The Colts only turned the ball over 14 times this year, four better than the second-most efficient team which, as you should have guessed by now, is the Chiefs.
Colts Defense
Defensively, the Colts seem to match up poorly with KC. Robert Mathis was the Colts' only Pro Bowl selection on either side of the ball, and he certainly earned it; as far as OLBs go, however, he's quite pass-oriented. He snagged 19.5 sack this year (the next-highest LB had 12), but much of the run-stopping was done by the solid team of Antoine Bethea and LaRon Landry, both safeties. Ultimately, the Colts ended up 7th-worst against the run. This might be because no one in their division could throw, but this front seven isn't the sort that will strike fear into Jamaal Charles's heart.
The Colts are 5th in the AFC in takeaways, and - much like last year - this is a squad that is better than its names suggest. That's a credit to the coach. Ultimately, though, I'm not too high on this unit. I probably should be into these guys more, especially since they were 9th in points allowed, and I'm about to talk about how the Chiefs are great because they're 5th in points allowed, but remember: the Colts played in the barren South, and the Chiefs played in the explosive West.
Chiefs Defense
Here's where the star power in this game is. The Chiefs' defense has 5 Pro Bowlers, and is one of the best in the game. The unit is a testament to the worthlessness of Total Yardage statistics; KC is 24th in total yards allowed but 5th in points allowed.
A big part of that is the Chiefs' ability to get turnovers. Their 36 takeaways trailed only the near-legendary Seahawks' defense this year. Justin Houston and (Penn Stater) Tamba Hali, both Pro Bowlers, each had 11 sacks, and Hali was one of only 4 players to return both an INT and fumble for a TD this year (not that there's any predictive value to that info, but, hey, it's neat).
PREDICTION:
I know KC stumbled to the finish line, but in the NFL, the more talented team wins more often than not. The team with more talent is the Chiefs, and they're going to storm into Indy this afternoon and snag a tough victory. KANSAS CITY 31, INDIANAPOLIS 21
(6) New Orleans @ (3) Philadelphia - 8:10 Saturday
These teams combined for 11 wins last year, the fewest of any possible playoff duo this year unless the Chiefs and Eagles make it to the Super Bowl (that'd be 6 combined wins). Most people who were paying attention expected the Saints to get back after the Bounty-gate hiccup, and most people who were paying attention still had no idea whether Chip Kelly would work, whether the defense could actually tackle, or whether Nick Foles was going to set the all-time TDs to INTs ratio for someone with at least 13 TDs.
An interesting note: Nick Foles and Drew Brees graduated from the same high school, Westlake HS in Austin, Texas. It's also worth noting that Brees is one of the shortest QBs in the league - listed at 6'0" but widely believed to be 5'11" - and Foles comes in at 6'6". I wonder if anyone's compiled a list of the biggest height differences in playoff games. If not, they should. If so, they should send it to me.
Saints Offense
Obviously top notch, with the caveat that everyone believes them to be far worse on the road than at home. Let's see if that's true:
- 8-0 at home, 3-5 on the road. Oohf.
- 34 ppg for at home, 17.5 ppg for on the road. Ouch.
- 15.6 ppg allowed at home, 22.4 ppg allowed on the road. Meh.
Of course, almost all teams will have some significant shift home-to-away, but that seems pretty extreme. When everyone believes something to be true and stats suggest it's true, it's a lot easier to think "hey... it's probably true."
But let's get to the actual offense. Just for kicks, whenever I cite a player stat, I'll put home and road splits too. Drew Brees is obviously a fantastic passer. I still remember thinking he was done when the Chargers let him go, and the Dolphins didn't want to take a flyer on him. Yeah. In his 8 seasons with the Saints, he's only missed one game. He put up his 4th-highest passer rating this year, notching a 104.7 (126.3 home, 84.8 road). He was also second in the NFL in TDs, with his 39 scores (27 home, 12 away) equal to approximately 70% of Peyton Manning's total.
A big part of that success is Jimmy Graham, who, with apologies to the injury-riddled Rob Gronkowski, is almost certainly the biggest single match-up problem in the NFL. Graham led the league in receiving TDs (including WRs) with 16 (10 home, 6 road). Note that, if the Saints are to have offensive success in the Linc, it will be led by Graham, who has actually has more receptions and yards on the road despite missing the shockingly-unlikely defeat to the Patriots at Gillette.
No one would mistake the Saints' offense for a rushing attack; their 92.1 per game slot them at 25th in the NFL and worst among the playoff teams. They have a real RB-by-committee thing going; they have 6 players with a rushing TD and none with more than 3. The real RB threats are Darren Sproles and Pierre Thomas coming out of the backfield to receive. Pierre Thomas is a true screen back: he has 513 total receiving yards but 642 yards after catch (tops in the league). That means his 77 receptions were made an average of 1.7 yards behind the line of scrimmage. Sproles is just as good, and probably more explosive, with 604 yards, 507 YAC.
One of the best offenses in the league, but at 25.9 per game they're not the true air-it-out circus we've seen in the past from this team.
Eagles Offense
Also among the best in the league. It's hard to look at season stats for this squad, because of the QB switch mid-season. Even with the Birds scoring 10 combined points in back-to-back division losses this year (with Matt Barkley at the helm for most of that time), they ended up with the 4th-highest scoring offense in the league (27.6), just fractions of points per game behind the Bears and Patriots (both 27.8). Oh, yeah, and 10.3 behind the Broncos. But... the Broncos.
A lot has been made of Nick Foles's tremendous season, and I won't beat it to death here. Suffice to say that, although he's been tremendous statistically (27:2 TDs:INTs, more importantly: 9.12 yards per attempt, which is ridiculous), a fair portion of it is the system he's in. He is not the Eagles' best offensive player.
That would be LeSean McCoy who, after leading the NFL in rushing TDs a few years ago, got his rushing yardage title this year, his 1,607 besting Matt Forte by 268. When this guy touches the ball, special things happen. His 5.1 yards per carry was 5th-best, and his 9 runs of 20+ yards was worse only than Alfred Morris's 10. McCoy may be the best in the NFL at making really stop-and-start cuts (at least when Peterson's banged up).
People complained about Foles being snubbed for the Pro Bowl, but I think DeSean Jackson was maybe the bigger snub. Maybe I'm biased, because I was sitting in Row 17 when he went for 193 in the Eagles' Week 2 loss to the Chargers, but he had arguably his best season, putting up a career-high 1,332 yards. Importantly, he was simply far more sure-handed this year than in years past: coming into this season, he had caught just over 52% of the passes thrown to him; this year, he improved that mark to 65%, which translated to almost 20 more catches. How much of that is system, and how much of that is better passing, and how much of that is Jackson... well, it's an interesting question, but no one will care as long as it keeps happening.
Basically, this is a match-up of two of the 6 or 7 best offenses in the league, and - especially with the Saints on the road, in the cold - the Eagles get the edge in this one.
Eagles Defense
Much maligned a year ago (though not like the Saints; more on this soon), the Eagles' defense managed to be at least mediocre this year, with a lot of individual performances standing out (at least to the fans, who were treated to a bland mixture of missed tackles and lethargy last year). It definitely appears as though the unit got better as the year wore on; over the first four games, they allowed 27, 33, 26, and 52 (to the Broncos, of course), whereas they only allowed more than 22 once in their last 12 games (a seemingly aberrational 48-30 loss at Minnesota in Week 15). The Eagles gave up a league-high 290 passing yards per game, but we've seen over and over that that stat doesn't matter much, because the team in that spot is often one with a quick, high-powered offense that a lot of teams have to play catch-up against. More telling is the Passer Rating of QBs facing the Eagles D: 84.0, good for 15th in the NFL. Also, the Eagles' 31 takeaways were 2nd-best in the NFC, helping them tie for 2nd-best in the NFC in turnover margin (+12).
When talking about the Eagles' defense, you simply can't overstate the importance of DeMeco Ryans as a stabilizing force. In his second year as an Eagle after coming up from Houston, Ryans has been a rock in the middle of the field, doing a little bit of everything. Trent Cole and Connor Barwin both came up huge, the latter especially in the Week 17 win over the Cowboys. And the rest of the defense - Mychal Kendricks, Nate Allen, Cedric Thornton, Brandon Boykin, Fletcher Cox - basically reads like a list of future Pro Bowlers.
The thing that Eagles fans need to keep in mind, even if Philly loses today, is this: the arrow is pointing up on these guys. This team will be better next year, and you can't say that with any confidence about most of the NFC.
Saints Defense
Rob Ryan quipped that he'd be unemployed for five minutes. Well, someone probably should have snatched him up in four. While the Cowboys watched their defense go from held-together-by-threads to completely in pieces, Ryan simply went to the Big Easy and turned an historically bad defense - granted, one with some talent (but with no motivation or direction) - into one of the best units in the game. The Saints were 4th-best in terms of both total yards and scoring defense. Against the Eagles' rushing attack, though, it's worth noting that the Saints were 2nd against the pass and 19th against the run.
A big part of their success against the pass was their pass rush, led by the breakout seasons of Cameron Jordan (12.5 sacks) and Junior Galette (12.0). Interestingly, the Saints' defensive success has not translated into takeaways, as their 19 is dead last in the NFC.
The Saints defense has been very good this year. Not flashy, not exciting, but good. Very Ryan-like.
PREDICTION:
The Eagles won't be able to keep up with NO if this turns into a pure QB battle. New Orleans's defense is too good, Jimmy Graham's too good, and Drew Brees is too good. But there are a lot of reasons why this shouldn't turn into a passing battle: it's in Philly, it's gonna be COLD, and the Eagles would be content with feeding LeSean McCoy the ball over and over. The Eagles aren't built to try to keep the other offense off the field, but they should be better at it than the Saints. If it was in New Orleans, I'd say Saints 35, Eagles 34. But it's in Philadelphia. PHILADELPHIA 28, NEW ORLEANS 20.
So, that's what we have for today's action. I'll hit you with another monster opus before tomorrow's games!
Seriously, comment. Tell me how much of an idiot I am, or why you agree with everything I've said, or something in between.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)