Brady 07: Best Ever?

Around the time Jimmy Carter was giving way to Ronald Reagan, the NFL was rapidly evolving from a Run First to a Pass First League. In retrospect, three pivotal events in a 5 year period made this clear:

1979: Dan Fouts, in San Diego's Air Coryell offense, became the first quarterback to throw for 4000 yards

1981: Joe Montana, running Bill Walsh's version of the pass-oriented West Coast offense, won the first of many 49er Super Bowls.

1983: Six quarterbacks were taken in the NFL draft; 4 of them would play in Super Bowls (with 10 starts and 2 Wins) and 3 of them would be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

It was now a quarterback's league. But which quarterback had the greatest single season since that series of events? Tom Brady's record-breaking 50 TDs, combined with the Patriots record-breaking scoring season, have people wondering if his 2007 campaign fits the bill.


There are three contenders: Dan Marino in 1984, Peyton Manning in 2004, and now Tom Brady in 2007. Let's look first at the main statistics people associate with the quarterback:







Based on this, you'd have to give the edge to Brady. More yards than Manning, fewer picks than Marino, and more TDs and higher pass % than either.


But...the TD differential is statistically insignificant. And while Brady easily beats Marino in % and picks, it's really too close to call with Manning. Still, he threw for 250 more yards. Time to expand the categories a bit:





Hmm...now it's getting interesting. Brady threw 34 more passes than Marino, and 81 more passes than Manning. In Manning's case, the Colts wrapped up their division early and Manning rested significantly down the stretch in 04. Jim Sorgi played parts of 4 games, even threw 2 TDs. It's likely Manning would have thrown more TD passes and more yards than Brady if he had played those quarters.

But more important is that YPA - Yards Per Attempt. YPA is considered the most meaningful quarterback statistic, and for good reason. It measures, obviously, how much production you are getting out of each pass. Brady's 8.3 is very good - it led the league in 2007.

But it's not great. In fact, it's a very low total for a league leader - in the Super Bowl era 36 league leaders have had a higher YPA. Romo led the league last year with 8.6. Big Ben had 8.9 the year before that. Guys like Eric Hipple and Jay Schroeder and Chris Chandler have led the league with higher YPAs. Leading the league with an 8.3 YPA is like winning a batting title with a .324 average.

Brady had a great season in 2007. But every category is either incredibly close (%, TDs, QB rating, INTs), or Brady's totals were inflated by throwing more passes (yardage). Manning has a clear statistical edge over Brady in a hugely important statistic. This, coupled with Marino's 17 INTs, gives the nod to Manning 04 as the most productive season a QB has ever had.


Note to Stat Haters
Please don't tell me stats are meaningless. You're the same guy who will be sitting in a bar using stats to proclaim Brady was the best in 07 ("He had 50 TD passes, man! Manning only had 49!"). You'll just be using the wrong stats, or not enough stats.

Note to Stat Lovers

For a discussion of how Yards Per Attempt and QB Rating correlate to Winning, go here. QB Rating is often knocked, but it does seem to correlate to Winning. Manning's QB Rating in 04 was an NFL record.

Bonus Fun Fact
While passing yardage and TD passes have increased through the years, YPA has remained fairly constant since WWII. In fact, the only QBs with a single-season YPA higher than 10 were Norm Van Brocklin ('54), Otto Graham ('55 and '47), and Sid Luckman ('43).

Reasons to Believe

I don’t do predictions. I’m far more interested in making arguments based on the past than predictions for the future.

This is partly because I’m a history buff, and believe that all kinds of stupid things are said by people who are ignorant of the past. To believe that today’s political operatives are rougher than those of the past could only mean you know nothing about the blood-sport that was American politics from 1800 to the Civil War. To believe Derek Jeter is the greatest shortstop ever can only mean you’ve never seen the back of Honus Wagner’s baseball card.

But it’s also because making predictions is a fool’s game. Even people who dedicate their lives to a particular topic are regularly embarrassed in their predictions. Monkeys throwing darts beat stock market experts. Economists can’t agree on whether a recession is coming. As for meteorologists…let’s just say I don’t cancel my tee time if the forecast is for rain.

Then there is the NFL. You can make a case that Dr. Z from Sports Illustrated is the most knowledgeable football writer in the world. Like him or not, nobody else combines his encyclopedic knowledge of football history with copious viewing of current game film. So how did Dr. Z do in his picks for the NFL season?

He thought the Bears, Panthers, Saints, Eagles, Bengals, Ravens, and Broncos would make the playoffs. He thought the Saints, would defeat the Chargers in the Super Bowl. He thought the Giants would go 6-10. And it’s not just Z. Vegas oddsmakers, who are better than anyone else at making sports predictions, predicted a Bears-Saints NFC Championship game. Neither team made the playoffs.

All this is my way of saying that I am not going to predict that the New York Football Giants are going to upset the undefeated New England Patriots on Sunday. I am, however, going to give you 5 reasons they have a chance:

1. Momentum
As stated previously, the Patriots are not the dominating team they were through the first 10 weeks of the season when they had 9 blowouts, and victories over the Colts and Cowboys. Since then they have dodged many bullets, including last week when only the timidity of Norv Turner prevented an injury-riddled Chargers team from knocking them off. The Giants, meanwhile, are playing their best football of the year.

2. 38-35.

3. Faith
For a big upset to happen, especially in a sport that rewards intensity, it is critical for the underdog to believe it can win. The Giants aren’t cocky – they understand the enormity of the task ahead of them. But 38-35, plus victories over the two best teams in the NFC, make them believe they can win.

4. Rest
On ESPN Radio this morning, Mike Greenberg said, “The 2 weeks off is favorable to the Patriots in every conceivable way.” And went on to talk about Belichick’s preparation, the Giants momentum slowing down, etc.

I completely disagree. The Giants have been playing must-win football games since the Redskins loss. They have been on the road for weeks. Big Blue desperately needed to rest, and desperately needed to get off a plane for a few days. The break enables them to do it without in any way slowing their momentum. Do you think they are going to forget what they’ve done in the last month?

5. Luck
Sports fans are reluctant to admit what a huge role luck plays in sports. Over time, naturally, the better teams prove themselves and the lesser teams lose. But in a single game, a single series, a single moment, anything can happen. Just ask these guys. Or these guys. Or these guys.


So, no predictions, but some reasons to believe. Unfortunately, Dr. Z just picked the Giants to win. So they may be doomed…

Will Ledger Be Legend?

It is often said by insensitive hacks like me that death can be an outstanding career move. With the death of Heath Ledger - handsome, talented, young, promising - one can't help but speculate whether he will be bathed in immortal glory like so many others who died young.

My guess is no. Before I explain why, let's look at the King and Queen of actors who died young, and whose legend far outpaced their actual accomplishments.

James Dean
Dean is the King. He is a true Hollywood immortal, despite making only 3 movies (he was posthumously nominated for an Oscar in 2 of them). One was a classic (Rebel without a Cause), and the other two were greatly admired in their day but rarely watched today (East of Eden and Giant).

We'll never know if Dean would have had the kind of career that, say, Paul Newman had (10 Oscar nominations, 1 Oscar win, and some ofthe movies' most indelible moments). But in some ways Dean is more revered, since he didn't live so damn long. He didn't have the opportunity to make any bad movies, to hit any rough patches in his career, to grow old. He died perfect.

How is this for an unscientific (but still useful) comparison: I googled "James Dean" and got 7.1 million hits. "Paul Newman" - who made 80 more movies and has lived (so far) 60 more years - only turned up 4.6 million.

Marilyn Monroe

If Dean is the King, Marilyn's the Queen. 15 million google hits on "Marilyn Monroe", who was the Pamela Lee Anderson of her time (but with better taste in men). She made a handful of well-known movies, but was never nominated for an Oscar. While moments like this are known to all, few people under 70 can tell you what movie it actually came from.

Despite this rather thin resume, she is probably the most famous actress who ever lived - an unlikely scenario, if she still walked among us.

What About Heath?
Heath seems like a contender for a halo. He was ridiculously handsome. Admired by critics. Like Dean, he starred in a culturally important film. He seemed to make choices based more on art than commerce. He had a set of stones, as evidenced by his decision to play the Joker after Jack's iconic performance. And let's face it: Australians are cool.

But my guess is that, in time, Ledger will be as forgotten as River Phoenix (1.2m on Google). Phoenix had a similar resume: a short but impressive film career (including an Oscar nomination), Byronic good looks, and a far more "romantic" death (Johnny Depp's Viper Room vs. Mary Kate Olson's bedroom, without Mary Kate?* No contest). But he's rarely spoken of today, and I doubt the average college student even knows who he is ("Um, is he like Joaquin Phoenix's brother?")

The problem is Celebrity Inflation. In Dean's and Monroe's day, there were far fewer celebrities, and we knew far less about them. Today, with so many "stars" and so much information about them, who can keep track? US Weekly's home page has a list of 30 top celebrities, and I haven't even heard of some of them. Heidi Montag? Lauren Conrad? Spencer Pratt? Who are these people? I've heard of Nick Lachey, but I'm not really sure why he's famous. I think he dates other famous people.

There are so many "hot" celebrities - some created by reality shows, some who make sex tapes, some who do genuinely good work (the entire cast of Sopranos, anyone?). We are constantly told of the next new thing who is taking the world by storm (Keira Knightley! Daniel Radcliffe! Shia LaBeouf! Zac Efron!*) In Dean's day, there was, what, maybe 2 talks shows that interviewed actors? Today there are a dozen or more. And every guest on every one of these shows is a "celebrity".

Plus, we know far too much about them. See pictures of them getting their coffee, on vacation, pushing strollers. We see before and after plastic surgery shots. There is no sense of mystery anymore.

With such Celebrity Inflation, even the giant celebrities of today (George Clooney, Julia Roberts, Tom Hanks) have trouble competing with the legends of yesteryear (John Wayne, Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant). So I can't see Heath Ledger hanging with James Dean on the Boulevard of Broken Dreams.

Then again, he looks really good in The Dark Knight. That could change everything...

* my wife tells me that early reports about the apartment belonging to an Olson twin were false. But I just couldn't let go of the Viper Room line...

Sidebar: Ledger's 2000 film, The Patriot, was the biggest cinematic disappointment of my life. For reasons I can't explain, there has never been a truly great movie about the American Revolution. Countless great films about Vietnam and WWII and a handful about the Civil War, but not a single one about the American Revolution. When it was announced that Mel Gibson, in his first historical movie since Braveheart, was joining with Robert Rodat, the screenwriter of Saving Private Ryan, on a Revolutionary War flick, expectations soared. But alas, the world still awaits a great film about the Revolution.

Also, we've had hundreds of great films about cops, but none about firefighters. I do have a theory about that, though: fires have no plot.

Losers & Nobodies

If you were the GM of an NFL team with a head coaching vacancy, which of the following should you hire:

a) A proven winner, like Super Bowl Champ Bill Cowher
b) A proven loser, like Cam Cameron
c) A complete nobody, like Jim Harbaugh’s brother

If history is any guide, hire the nobody. If he’s not available, hire the loser.

There have been 41 Super Bowl champions. Every single one of them has been won by a Head Coach who came to that team with exactly zero Super Bowl titles on their resume. ¾ of them have been won by losers and nobodies.

Here’s the breakdown:

Complete Nobodys (25 titles)
These 14 guys won 26 titles. The day they were hired by the team they won the Bowls for, their fan base said, “Who?”

Chuck Noll (4 titles)
Joe Gibbs (3)
Bill Walsh (3)
Vince Lombardi (2 - plus a bunch of NFL titles)
Tom Landry (2)
Bill Parcells (2)
Tom Flores (2)
George Siefert (2)
Don McCafferty
John Madden
Mike Holmgren
Brian Billick
Bill Cowher

(Yes, I'm aware that many of these guys had distinguished careers as assistants before getting their head coaching job, as illustrated by the picture above)

Proven Losers (5 titles)These two had experience – of the losing kind.

Bill Belichick (3 titles…losing record in 4 of his 5 Cleveland seasons)
Mike Shanahan (2 titles in Denver…8-12 with the Raiders)

College Degrees (3 titles)These guys won college titles, but had never been in an NFL locker room:

Jimmy Johnson (2)
Barry Switzer

Celebrity Coach (1 title)
Ditka deserves his own category. The Bears were his first head coaching gig, but he was neither a complete nobody nor a proven loser. At least I won’t call him one…

Ring-less Success (3 titles)These 3 guys each had some success as a Head Coach before switching teams and winning a Super Bowl.

Jon Gruden
Dick Vermeil
Tony Dungy

Quasi-Exceptions to the Rule - But Somebody Had to Win (3 titles)
In Super Bowl III Weeb Ewbank, who had won 2 titles with the Colts in the late 50’s (pre-Super Bowl Era) faced off against Don Shula, who would go on to win 2 Super Bowls with the Dolphins. Shula, had he won, would have been the exception to the rule.

Ewbank’s Jets won, giving Weeb his only Super Bowl title. Coupled with his Colts' titles, he is the only head coach to have won an NFL title with two different teams (good trivia question, huh?)

Won Super Bowl...Switched Teams and Won Another Super Bowl (0 titles)

Well, nobody has done that. Won't happen this year, either. If the Pats win, the Losers get another title. If the Giants win, Coughlin joins Gruden, Dungy, and Vermeil.

What happened to the Champs?On 13 different occasions an NFL team hired a head coach who had already won a Super Bowl. None of them won again.

Gibbs - round 2 with Redskins
Flores - Seahawks
Johnson - Dolphins
Lombardi - Redskins
Parcells - Jets/Pats*/Boys
Siefert - Panthers
Stram - Saints
McCafferty - Lions
Ditka - Saints
Holmgren - Seahawks*
Vermeil - Chiefs

* won Conference championship

Update: Fassel, a Qualified Loser, lost the Skins job to a Nobody, but makes a convincing argument that Losers Beat Nobodies. I address it here...

FreeTime: NFL January

There is so much going on in the world. A gripping nomination battle in both parties that will determine our nation's future. A spreading economic fear (driven more by fear than facts). War in the Middle East*. Climate change that threatens our very existence.

But who cares? The Giants are in the Super Bowl!

I'd like to apologize in advance to my legions of readers who come here to read captivating articles about the evils of gerrymandering+, or who have been eagerly awaiting my multi-part series comparing Thomas Jefferson and John Adams.

For the next couple of weeks (longer, if the G-Men win), expect a lot of NFL coverage here at FreeTime...


* as Dave Barry once wrote, "...there will never be peace in the Middle East. Billions of years from now, when Earth is hurtling toward the Sun and there is nothing left alive on the planet except a few microorganisms, the microorganisms living in the Middle East will be bitter enemies."
+ Note to the irony-challenged: Yes, I do realize my piece about the evils of gerrymandering was not, in fact, captivating.

Akeem's Play by Play

All Hail The New York Giants

It's past midnight and I can't sleep. This will probably be the least coherent post you'll see on FreeTime, but what the hell. I'm still revved up from one of the Top 5 sports fans moments of my life. It's not Mookie-Buckner or Norwood wide right for a single powerful moment. But for sheer up and down drama it's right there with Niners-Giants NFC Championship in 90, and for unexpected pleasure, it's easily #1.

A few observations:

• When the Giants played their starters in Week 17 against the Pats, everyone had little pros and cons in their heads about the decision. But I don't think anybody said, "You know, one of the pros is that if they play well, and then meet the Patriots in the Super Bowl, they'll have confidence they can win." But that's what has happened. It's hard to imagine a team that will be as big an underdog as the G-men will be, but still have justified confidence they can win.


• 12 quarterbacks have played in the postseason (not counting guys like Billy Volek). Eleven of them have thrown at least one interception. I think you know who has zero.
• Also, only one guy has 3 Wins (hint: it's the same guy)


• Let's put it a different way: those 12 quarterbacks have 20 starts between them. In those 20 starts only 5 have been INT-less. Eli has 3 of them (Hasselback and Brady the others)


• Good call by my buddy Gombo...in the first quarter, Al Harris is shoving and jawing at Plaxico Burress. Gombo says, "You know, this could work out for the Giants. Plax is a guy who can take a play off here and there, but Harris may fire him up." Burress finished with 11 catches for 154 yards.


• You know how a lot of sports fans think every call goes against their team? Well, I'm not that guy. But I couldn't help shake the feeling during this game that Roger Goodell stopped by the official's locker room before the game and dropped hints about how a Favre-Brady matchup would be good for the NFL. The hold on Snee during Bradshaw's TD run and the 3rd and 5 call that extended the Packer's first FG were head-scratchers.


• Oh...and if the Packers had won, we would have had one of the great missed camera shots of all time. In the 3rd quarter, the Giants stopped the Pack on a crucial 3rd and 5...but Sam Madison got called for a 15 yard personal foul that extended the drive. Favre threw a TD pass moments later. Cameras never did catch what Madison did.


• Good observation by Windex...the Giants didn't put much pressure on Favre, but they tackled extremely well. It was as if the G's game plan was to let Favre complete little dinks all day, but tackle 'em for 2 yard gains. On one series, Favre completed 3 straight passes for lost yardage.


• You know how everyone killed Eli for his sideline demeanor mid-season? Being calm through good times and bad is one of those qualities that everybody thinks is wonderful when you win (see Brady, Tom; and Torre, Joe), but terrible when you lose (see Manning, Eli and Torre, Joe). Being wildly emotional is the same thing (see Coughlin, Tom).

• I understand that Brett Favre is a greater American than Lincoln, a greater humanitarian than Mother Theresa, a greater artist than Michelangelo, and a greater philosopher than Plato. But wasn't there room for anyone, in all the pre-game blathering, to say, "You know, Brett Favre has thrown more stupid intereceptions in his life than most of the guys who've ever played the game combined. Maybe he'll throw some today." Favre, even more than most of us, has the vices of his virtues. But none of the professional commentators were allowed to say it, because it didn't fit the script.

• To the 47 non-believers (you know who you are): Norwood missed from 47; Tynes makes it from 47. (And, of course, there was this 47). For 47 Believers it was further proof we are on the righteous path. All heretics, go here, and learn to believe.

Can the Giants go all the way? As I wrote a while ago, the Patriots are not the dominant, soul-crushing team they were through the first 2 and a half months of the season. At 10-0, the Patriots had 9 blowouts (17 points or more); their only close win was a road victory against the defending champs. Back then we were actually talking about whether or not the Patriots were arseholes for running up the score (they were; and they are).

Since then, the Pats have played 8 games. Yes, they've won all 8. But they barely slipped by mediocre teams like the Ravens and Eagles. They allowed genuinely awful teams like the Jets and Dolphins to play them close late. A Charger team whose 3 best offensive players were hobbled hung around today. And, of course, on the last day of the regular season they just eked out a shootout win against the New York Football Giants.

The Patriots are the best team in football. But they can be had.

The Prodigal Boss

If Elvis is Jesus (as I blasphemously argued last month), then Bruce Springsteen is the Prodigal Son.

It is indisputable that The Boss is more beloved in his home region than any other American rock star. If you live in or near New Jersey, you know many people who are as passionate about Bruce as Green Bayers are about the Packers. They have seen 15 rock concerts in the last decade – and 14 were Bruce shows (the 15th was Southside Johnny at the Stone Pony). The only CDs they have purchased in the last 10 years are The Rising and Magic. They have Bruce coffee table books. They scan Bruce web sites like Backstreets and Greasy Lake for set lists. They bring newborns to the concert like it was a church revival. The announcement of a Bruce tour is greeted with the ecstasy of a papal visit, and elaborate ticket-grabbing schemes are devised.

This sort of passionate intensity for a musician is unusual, at least for 40- and 50-something suburbanites. It is usually seen only in teenagers and Deadheads. How does one explain this?

Mainly, of course, it's the music. None of this is possible if the music didn't deeply touch the core of a large number of music fans. And when I say "the music", I also refer to its live form. Bruce has been one of the most consistently entertaining live acts for decades. He connects with his audience, he's funny, he seems to be having a blast, and he plays for hours. On stage and in the studio, Bruce Springsteen embodies both the Rock Star and the Regular Guy more than any other musician in rock history.

And as my buddy Windex points out, Bruce is one of the rare rockers who is still making good music late in life. The Rising and Magic may not be as good as Born to Run or Darkness, but they're a helluva lot better than Face the Promise or The Naked Ride Home.

But frankly, that's not enough of an explanation for me. I believe that the passion that exists today is far greater than it would have been if Bruce hadn't, like the Prodigal Son, left New Jersey...and then returned.

The Parable of the Boss
Let's pick up our story in the mid-80's. Bruce is at the height of his popularity. He originally made it big in '75 with Born to Run and a historic 10-night run at The Bottom Line in New York City. He even appeared on the covers of Time and Newsweek in the same week.

But Born in the USA, released in 1984, put him in the stratosphere. Some stats (yes, you can always count on stats at FreeTime!): From 1973 to 1983, Bruce had exactly one Top Ten hit (Hungry Heart topped out at #5). Born in the USA alone had seven Top Ten hits. His previous six albums sold a combined 19 million records;. USA sold 15 million on its own. His live album, released in '86, sold another 13 million copies. (These are all U.S. figures).

Bruce Springsteen was on top of the world, and he was New Jersey's favorite son.


"the younger son gathered all he had and traveled to a distant country"
And then, it seemed, he started to change. True Bruce fans, of course, were already uncomfortable with his new popularity, the way any group of early fans is ambivalent when their favorite artist finds a huge mainstream audience. But now Bruce was big time.

He married (and promptly divorced) a beautiful young actress. Then he left New Jersey. And he didn't just go anywhere...he went to the anti-Jersey...Hollywood. He started spending quality time with movie stars, contributing songs to movie sound tracks.

And worst of all, he...he...he... he broke up the E Street Band.

He hooked up with some L.A. session musicians and made a couple of mediocre albums (Lucky Town and Human Touch). He then went on tour with these imposters, doing a set heavy on new music. Instead of Thunder Road or Jungleland, he closed each show with Light of Day, a song he wrote for a Michael J. Fox movie. When he did his old stuff, it was either radically re-worked or featured someone who was clearly NOT Clarence Clemons doing the sax solo. His new wife, Patty Scialfa, was a Jersey girl, which was a good thing, but her prominence in the concerts was Yoko-esque. He did a poorly received MTV Unplugged appearance (and album), with "E Street ringers focusing on Bruce's 'solo' material ... well, we won't go there." (Entertainment Weekly)

His Jersey fans weren't happy. In fact, his Meadowlands shows weren't even sold out until show time. Can you imagine that today?

He followed that, in 1995, with the Ghost of Tom Joad tour, in support of the folk album of the same name. This tour, in small arenas, again featured lots of new stuff and dramatically re-worked versions of old songs.
As my buddy Gombo, a lifelong fan, put it, "I just assumed that the old Bruce, the 3-hour concert with the E Street Band, with Backstreets and Rosalita and Night, was gone forever."


"so he got up and went to his father"
But he wasn't gone forever. After that tour, he moved back to New Jersey. In 1998, he released Tracks, featuring dozens of old songs, mostly with the E Stret Band. And in 1999, he he brought the band back together, and went on the Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band Reunion tour.

This was the old Bruce. He played Born to Run and Thunder Road and Tenth Avenue Freezout. He shared a mike with Little Steven and Clarence roared on his sax.

In 2002 he released The Rising, the first studio album with the E Street Band in 18 years. The Rising may be the most powerful work of art inspired by September 11, an event that hit hardest at the place he was from (more New Jerseyans died on 9/11 than New Yorkers).

The Boss was back.

"get the fatted calf and kill it"

My point - and I do have one - is this: the passion of the modern Bruce fan, at least in New Jersey and its environs, would never have reached its heightened pitch, if he hadn't abandoned them for so long. If Bruce hadn't broken up the band and moved to Hollywood, they would not have killed the fatted calf for him.

As the father of the Prodigal Son said to his other son, "But we had to celebrate and rejoice, because this brother of yours was dead and has come to life; he was lost and has been found."


Extra

1. It was only in researching this that I discovered Bruce recorded an album called "The Prodigal Son" in 1972, but never released it. Details are here.
2. My bet is that the single lowest point for passionate Bruce fans during the bad time was this calamity... (turn down your speakers if you're at work)

It's Good to Be the King

There is so much to say about this NFL weekend, I may have to resort to a Peter King-style ramble...

My Crystal Ball
First, a review of my (sort of) predictions:

As one of a tiny group of Eli defenders, I can take some satisfaction in his performance the past two weeks: 4 TDs, 0 INTs, QB ratings of 117.1 and 132.4. He didn't throw for a ton of yards, but consider this: smart football people think the most important QB statistic is YPA, or yards per pass attempt. Eli's playoff YPA is 7.73 yards. How good is that? The league leader in 2007 was, of course, Tom Brady, at 8.3. Romo was 2nd at 7.7.

So, on the road, in the playoffs, against the #1 pass and #13 pass defenses, Eli put up huge numbers in the stats that matter. Oh, and he won.

My other prediction, however, that the Patriots would fall, is looking shaky. My prediction rested in part, on bad weather, and it didn't come in the first round. Brady and Co. got a dry, fast track for Saturday's game. And in the 2nd round, they get to play a Chargers team that saw most of their best players injured. It's hard to see the Pats going down now.

Never Say Never (or Always)
Many prognosticators, be they barstool blowhards, radio ranters, or media mouths, often make the mistake of saying the word "never" when attacking various coaches and players, and "always" when praising them. Here's an index of reasons to avoid absolutes when making predictions:

• Coughlin, Tom (playoff games, ability to win)
• Turner, Norv (ibid)
• Manning, Eli (demeanor on sidelines, importance of)
• Romo, Tony (legend, growth of)
• Vinatieri, Adam (clutch kicks, maker of)

Saint Brett

This morning, I was sipping a decaff pumpkin spice double latte and pondering the greatness of Brett Favre. Not his greatness as a football player - that is undeniable - but his greatness as a father, a husband, a healer, a bringer of peace, an avatar of all that is good in this worl, ...whoa, sorry, guess I began taking this Peter King thing a little too seriously...

Best Moment

Eli's drive to end the first half was great, but not as joyous as Romo's pick to end the game. Those were both topped, however, by the shot of Jerry Jones' dumbfounded expression on the sidelines. Surely, it can't get any better than that, I thought. But then TO broke down in his post-game news conference. Terrell Owens, arguably the worst teammate in modern American sports, voice cracking about the media picking on "my teammate...my quarterback" was a transcendent moment.

(In case you've stumbled upon this blog, you've probably figured out I'm a Cowgirls-hating Giants fan).

Update: since writing this this morning, I've had an opportunity to see the TO crying clip 3 more times. Like a great movie, it rewards multiple viewings, and gets funnier every time. Also, if you're familiar with the "Leave Britney Alone" YouTube clip, you might appreciate this "Leave Tony Alone" parody. And not to get too far off the reservation, but if you think the Britney clip is funny, here is a Seth Green parody of that...

TO Was Right (Wait...He Was Wrong)

I may doubt TO's sincerity, but he was right in defending Romo. There were 4 QBs with a bye.

• Brady went to NY with his latest supermodel girlfriend for a vacation
• Favre went to Mississipi to be with his family
• Romo went to Mexico with his girlfriend and some teammates

I don't know about Peyton. Wouldn't be surprised if Peyton abstains from marital relations from training camp to the end of the season...

Point is, players on byes take time off and spend them with loved ones - or at least, incredibly beautiful women. One can make a case that Romo, unlike the sainted Favre and Brady, at least spent it with teammates, too.

Update: After reading Dr. Z's take on this (written before the game), I've changed my mind. He starts by outlining how poorly Romo played down the stretch and then says:

If I were Wade Phillips and I had an open weekend ahead, I wouldn't make Romo strap on the pads and get to work, but I'd damn well make sure to tell him to get his ass into Jason Garrett's office and work this thing out. Instead it's off to Cancun on the Airhead Express with his tootsie. I don't buy it. If I were betting, I'd jump on the Giants, getting 7½.

Kick 'Em When They're Up

I pride myself on knocking athletes when they're up (Jeter back in '99-'01) and defending them when they're down (Eli & Coughlin the past two years). Just a natural tendency to go against the grain, I guess. So I'd like to be one of the only people to say a word against the tide of praise for Tom Brady.

It's nothing against Brady, per se, who is a great quarterback. But like most NFL fans, I've watched a fair amount of Brady this year, and I'm not sure if any quarterback has ever had an easier season than the Sage of Foxboro. A typical 2007 Patriots' pass play goes something like this:

1. Brady takes snap
2. Brady drops back 3 steps
3. Brady scans the field. He has time. Lots of time. Enough time to read Moby Dick, learn Farsi, broker peace in the Middle East, fantasize about super-models, and scan the Fall fashion line for new suits.
4. Brady throws to a wide open Wes Welker. Or to a completely covered Randy Moss, who catches it anyway.

Of course, this isn't entirely true. Brady doesn't have to fantasize about super-models.

Brady is good enough to be good on any team. He's deservedly punched his ticket to Canton. But I'm reasonably sure that most starting quarterbacks in the NFL would have had put up superlative numbers guiding this offense. And Peyton might have thrown for 60 TDs.

Prevent O

Football fans are familiar with the Prevent D, when a team with the lead allows their opponent to march upfield, trading yardage for time. I'd like to coin a new term - the Prevent O.

We saw it in both games yesterday as the Chargers and Giants, with small leads, went super-conservative on their final drives. They tried to run time off rather than get first downs (and risk turnovers). In both cases, they had fast 3-and-outs, and the Colts and Boys got the ball back.

It's easy to criticize such a strategy - especially if, as in these cases, you're giving the ball back to great offenses.

But...Dr. Z tells a story about Tom Landry that has always stuck with me.

It happens to all of them, the near great and the very great, such as Tom Landry, one of history's finest game strategists. Nov. 9, 1980, Giants vs. Cowboys in the Meadowlands. Dallas was on its way to the NFC Championship game.
The Giants had just lost eight straight. Somehow the score was tied at 35 all -- late in the fourth quarter. The Cowboys had a fourth and one on their own 47.
They went for it and Brad Van Pelt stopped Robert Newhouse for no gain. The Giants took over, kicked a field goal and won. I talked to Landry very late, after the Cowboy locker room had practically cleared out.
"I violated one of my own most important principles," he said. "At the end of a close game, you always have to ask the question: 'What's the easiest way for us to lose?' And then you have to make sure to avoid it.

For the Giants and the Chargers, the easiest way to lose the game late in the 4th quarter was to turn it over in their own end. Turner and Coughlin both made the right call to go Prevent O.

Mad Dog

I'll close with a quick story from this NFL season. At the height of the Michael Vick stuff this year, Mike & Mad Dog had the following exchange on WFAN radio in New York (this is only funny if you know M& the MD):

Mike: Vick made his court appearance yesterday, and PETA was there protesting.

Mad Dog: Peter? Peter King?!? Peter King was there?!?

Mike: No, PETA. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

Mike went on to patiently explain to Mad Dog what PETA is...

Wish I Wrote This #1

I don't know if this will become a regular feature or not. Probably depends on how lazy I am, or how much good stuff I read. But every once in a while I may pass something along that I wish I wrote.

Here's a piece in today's New York Times by film critic A.O. Scott about taking children to movies that may be outside their comfort zone. Enjoy.

Rattus Gluteus: Hall of Fame Thoughts

Roger Clemens may not give a rat's ass if he gets into the Hall of Fame, but most players do.

Yesterday was one of those rare Cooperstown elections in which the issue was in doubt, as two on-the-bubble guys - Goose Gossage and Jim Rice - tried again for the 75% of votes required for entry. Goose got in easily (85%), mainly thanks to a weak class, and Rice just missed again (72%). (And no, that is not a dish of Rat's Ass; it is Roast Goose and Rice over Tofu...yum!)\ Normally I have very strong feelings, based on comparative statistical analysis, about a player's Hall credentials. But I don't have strong feelings about these guys. One is very hard to judge, and one is really sitting right on top of that bubble. But I'm going to give it a shot.

Before I do, let me tell you my parameters. I believe that in order to win election to the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown NY, the highest honor conferred on an American athlete, a player must do at least one of the following:

• Be an elite, dominant, Top 5 guy for a period of about 10 years 
• Be a consistently very good player for a very long time, placing high on all-time career lists

Those players that do both of these things should be accorded the officially meaningless, but somehow important honor of a first-ballot election.

The Goose
Gossage is hard to judge with statistics because he played in an era when relievers were used in a way they had never been used before, and would never be used again, making comparative analysis impossible. For the 7 decades before Gossage's career, relievers came into games, if at all, after the starters had decided the issue. For the 2 decades since his prime, relievers are 9th inning specialists who rarely come into pressure situations, and rarely pitch more than one inning.

Here's a statistic that shows how different closers are used today: Gossage got 7 or more outs in 52 of his 310 career saves. Mariano Rivera and Trevor Hoffman, combined, have saved nearly a thousand games, but only 3 required 7 outs or more. Most people see that stat and say, hey, Goose deserves the Hall, or man, these guys today are wimps. I see it and say, shoot, how the heck do I compare these guys? The answer is, you can't.

So I have to go more on feel. And I gotta tell ya - I'm not feeling it for Goose.

There's no question that from 1977 through 1985 - about 10 years - Goose Gossage was a helluva pitcher. His ERA was under 3.00 all 9 years, well under in 6 of them. There's no surer way to a stats geek's heart (and mind) than ERA, and he had a nice run there.
But here are some other things about Goose that - comparative analysis aside - don't quite feel Cooperstownish:

• He had 8 seasons with a losing record


• He had 10 seasons with an ERA over 3.50


• He may not have been a one-inning specialist, but he wasn't quite the warhorse people are making him out to be: except for his one season as a starter (9-17, 3.94 ERA), he pitched over 100 innings only 4 times in 21 seasons. 

•  No Cy Youngs and no 2nd place finishes. He placed 3rd once, and 5th three times. 

• And how's this for a comparative: Dan Quisenberry, pitching in roughly the same era, had a lower reliever ERA (2.76 to 2.77), fewer Inherited Runners Scored Per Innings Pitched (.77 to .86), a higher save % (75 to 64), and a higher Outs per Save (5.19 to 4.72). Quiz's best Hall of Fame result was 3.8%. He had a much shorter career, but Gossage wasn't very good outside his 9 year run. 

That 64% save percentage is interesting. You can't compare it to the 85% that the 9th inning guys regularly get today, and it's competitive with the other good relievers of his era. But anytime you hear someone say Goose was "automatic", consider that more than 1/3 of the time he entered the game with a lead, he coughed it up.

Rich "Goose" Gossage was elected to the Hall of Fame on his 9th try. He had a wonderful career that he should be very proud of, but I'm inclined to say the voters had it right the first 8 times.

(Oh, and one last thing, I have no use for people who say hitters feared Gossage. I'm less interested in what hitters felt than what they did. I fear large bugs - doesn't mean they can hurt me.)

As for Rice... 

 How many times do you think the following conversation happened from 1975 - 1985:

Baseball Fan 1: Who's the best pitcher in baseball? 

Baseball Fan 2: Hmmm....Rich Gossage. 

I'd say, outside the Gossage household, never. How many times, though, do you think this conversation happened during that exact same time frame:

Baseball Fan 1: Who's the best hitter in baseball? 

Baseball Fan 2: Hmmm...Jim Rice. 

 I bet, a lot. (Yes, that's the kind of hard-hitting statistical analysis you can expect on FreeTime).

From 1975 to 1986 (remember my 10 year rule above), Jim Rice was a dominant hitter.

• He received MVP votes in 8 seasons with one 1st, one 2nd, two 3rds, two 4ths, and a 5th. 

• He made 8 All Star teams, starting 4 times. 

• He consistently placed in the Top 5 in every key power hitting category (homers, ribbies, slugging, OPS), and has a trophy case full of home run titles (3), RBI titles (2), Total Bases titles (4) and OPS titles (1). 

And how's this for a fun fact: he even led the league in triples one year.

 My one gripe about Rice...and it's a silly one, because we shouldn't put too much weight on arbitrary milestones...but I wish he'd gotten to 400 homers (he finished with 382). That would've given him, in my mind, the right combination of a 10 year great stretch, plus very good overall career numbers, to make it a sure thing.

But for me, there is just enough there to pull the lever or tick the box or punch the chad or whatever Hall of Fame voters do. I hope he gets in next year, his last on the ballot, but it won't be an outrage if he doesn't.

(Hat tip to Lucky for suggesting today's topic.)

Barack Obama & The Activist’s Dilemma

For a long time I’ve been interested in what I call “The Activist’s Dilemma”. I’ll illustrate the Activist’s Dilemma with a fictional activist movement – the LUNATICS (League of United Natives Against The Invading Creatures from Space).

The LUNATICS fervently believe that the earth is ill-prepared to defend itself from an attack by aliens. Like any cause, they need money and supporters. So, at every opportunity, they explain to potential donors and supporters that the threat is grave, that action must soon be taken, and that we are totally and completely unprepared for an alien invasion.

The movement is well run and gains some traction. Support grows and huge strides are made. Donations increase. The LUNATICS become important political players, giving money and endorsements to candidates who support their issue. One by one, goals they have set for themselves are achieved, and defenses against alien invasion are considerably strengthened. A LUNATIC is even appointed Secretary of Defense. The movement is a success!

But…here’s the dilemma. In order for the movement to remain successful, the LUNATICS must say they have failed. In other words, if they tout their achievements, then the world will begin to believe that we are sufficiently prepared for alien invasion, and time and money can be turned to other causes. To keep vigilance alive, they must make the case that there has been little progress – which runs the risk of making the LUNATICS look like failures. (The go-to activist phrase here is: there is much work to be done.)

That is the Activist’s Dilemma. And you can apply it to any cause you can think of (except those with specific endgames, like electing a specific electoral candidate).

What does this have to do with Barack Obama?
There has been no greater activist cause in American history than civil rights for African-Americans. It has featured specific noble causes like Abolition and voting rights and heroic enterprises like the Underground Railroad and the Selma marches. It has counted among its champions people from Abraham Lincoln to Martin Luther King – each of whom gave the greatest speeches in American history on the topic. It has inspired great works of art. It has made consistent and measurable progress over a long period of time.

And it is quite possible that in November of this year that the movement will have torn down so many walls and crashed through so many ceilings that Barack Obama (who, with his Kenyan father and Kansan mother, is truly an African-American), will be elected President of the United States. One can’t help but think that Frederick Douglass and Reverend King are enjoying this moment somewhere.

But…here’s the dilemma. As a political movement, civil rights for African-Americans must compete with other causes for time, money, passion, media attention, and legislative focus. And some of those competitors (the environment, the war) are on a roll. The modern civil rights movement largely rests on the contention that the United States is a society that denies equal political, educational, social and economic equality to African-Americans. If Barack Obama – born without privilege, Harvard-educated, financially successful – becomes the 44th President of the United States, that contention becomes harder to make.

So in a strange and screwy way, the elevation of an African American to the Oval Office could have a potentially negative effect on the movement (if not the actual cause) for civil rights for African-Americans. But not that strange, really - it is the dilemma faced by all successful activist causes.

Update (1/14/08): Interesting piece in the Washington Post titled "As Obama Rises, Old Guard Civil Rights Leaders Scowl".

Note: the Activist’s Dilemma is something I’ve spoken about for years, but the Obama part is influenced by James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal (see here, 2nd item). I disagree with Taranto’s conclusions about the impact of an Obama election on party politics, but the way he got there made me tie it into my own thoughts about activism.

Broken Windows, Roe, & Economic Fatherhood

I just finished a new post, but since I started it back in early December, it was published in the archives. If you're interested in reading it (it's about the various competing theories for the 1990's crime rate decline - sounds interesting, doesn't it?) click here.

If that sounds too heavy, try the Line Rider game...