I am Jack's blog

Why does the passer rating exist?

I am Jack's Colon — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:05:13 GMT

If you've ever read an article about football, which you likely have if you're reading this, you know what the passer rating is - the NFL's version of a credit rating, which very few of us fully understand but most of us accept as a measure of worth. Unlike a credit rating though, passer rating has no bearing on reality, so why do we keep track of it at all?

A basic explanation of the passer rating is that it combines every major statistic a quarterback could accumulate, puts them in a formula and spits out a value from 0.0 to 158.3. Of course, my first reaction, inspired by my 5th grade math class, was that maybe a better thought would be to go from 1 to 100. This would hopefully make it more like a ranking and less like a nuclear launch code. So, using only one finger and the calculator on my computer, here are the best rated Quarterbacks in NFL history, listed in a way I at least can begin to understand them.

Steve Young - 61.1

Peyton Manning - 60.2

Tony Romo - 60.0

Now I'm beginning to get it. The best quarterback in history, Steve Young, was 61% of the way to having a perfect career in the pocket, with Manning and Romo next in line. Wait a sec, Steve Young? Tony Romo? Outside of Utah and the Young and Romo households, I don't think any rational person could see merit in that list. Peyton? Definitely. Brady (#4)? Probably. But pretty much any random statistic I make up will see those guys near the top. The trick is to make one that actually lists them properly.

It seems we have three choices to fix this mess -

1. Maybe just watch the games or at read the full box score. Having one number is easier though...

2. Adopt my new "quarterback awesomeness ratings." They go from 7.26 to 124.73, but only I know the formula. Don't worry, Jamarcus Russell still gets a 0.0.

3. Ignore me completely and build a new wing on the Hall of Fame for Steve Young. Hopefully the mormons will pay for it.

What is wrong with the NHL?

I am Jack's Colon — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:32:03 GMT

Obviously, the main thing that's wrong with the NHL is relatability. Unless you grew up playing a sport, you're not going to be very inclined to play it. Of course, even though most kids play soccer no one watches that but that's a story for another time.

More relevantly though, the NHL is in a pretty terrible bind. Who thought that expanding a league way beyond the talent pool then enforcing a salary cap which limits each team to one or two star players would make the league worse? Well, as much fun as watching 28 interchangeable, mediocre teams play eachother night after night is, I would like to propose a change -

get rid of the salary cap!

Obviously, parity would be hurt. Nashville and Phoenix might not have a chance to ever make the playoffs, but do they anyway? Plus, imagine seeing Toronto, Montreal, Boston and New York back at the top. I'm sure Carolina's 2 fans would be upset at how hard it is to compete, but...

More importantly, if Bettman wants to make the NHL more relatable in US cities, how bout providing us with good hockey for a change! The reason the NHL doesn't get good ratings isn't because every fan doesn't have his own personal team like Bettman thinks, its because when they tune into NBC (or Versus if they can find it) they see midlevel grinders playing with dumbed down commentary.

Think about the NFL. I along with most of the USA used to watch the Colts and Patriots play every year even though I hate Boston and live nowhere near the midwest. Its just high quality sport!

Getting rid of the salary cap would not only produce a higher level of competition but also a better transaction market. But the NFL and the NBA both have salary caps and fair player movement you might say, and you would be right. The problem with the NHL is that they've combined the tricky aspects of both those systems into a complicated, impossible to navigate disaster. The NFL, like the NHL, has a hard cap which teams cannot exceed. However, no contracts in the NFL are entirely guarenteed. Not happy with Jerry Porter's 3 year deal? Cut him and take a cap hit relative to his smallish bonus. NHL contracts, like NBA contracts, are entirely guarenteed. However, the NBA has a soft cap, which means that teams can be over the cap and only be limited in their ability to sign free agents. The NHL has developed a system where players are only worth as much as their contracts. Look at how hard it has been to move Heatley from Ottawa. Even worse, the size of NHL teams combined with the relatively low salary cap makes it impossible to field a cost-effective contender. Go ahead, try and find an NHL team safely below the cap with Cup hopes. There are none.

By ensuring a mediocre league with a diluted talent base and no player continuity or exciting movement, Gary Bettman has doomed the NHL to obscurity.

If I had one wish...

I am Jack's Colon — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:26:17 GMT

If a genie came to me and offered me one wish, it wouldn't be a tough choice at all. Sure, world peace would be fun, and getting rid of poverty go over well with the ladies. But as a good sports watching American man, there's really only one option -

I wish that 2/3 of Boston's sports fans would ****!

I know that Yankees fans can be abrasive, and Phillies fans can be mean (they booed Santa!). But some Boston fans combine both of these things with just a touch - okay a lot - of arrogance that makes watching sports with them all but impossible. Patriots and Red Sox fans flat out ruin sports. I leave the Bruins out, because Boston fans are actually only really annoying when their teams win, and the Celts cause they really are the best franchise in the NBA.

All the fat guys and annoying girls with #12 jerseys on need to take off the blue tinted glasses and try, every once in a while, to take an objective view of SOMETHING. First there was the Tuck Rule game, which clearly was correctly called right? But then there was the TERRIBLE non-call of Eli Manning in the grasp of Adalius Thomas right before the miracle catch. That, combined with Spygate (everyone was doing it!) and their perceived infallible drafting (Lawrence Maroney? Chad Jackson?) makes it impossible to even mention football with a Patriots fan within earshot. By contrast, most Steelers fans I've encountered in person and on this and other websites don't make me want to go buy a Bernard Pollard jersey. Why did you think the Patriots were the most hated team in the NFL?

But nothing compares with Red Sox fans, who somehow manage to compare the sense of entitlement of Yankees fans with a refusal to accept that anyone doesn't like the Sox or accept they're the best. At least most Yankees fans know they're the evil empire. Many of them revel in it, which actually makes them more endearing. Maybe the Sox fans just didn't realize that they were pretty secure in having the second highest payroll in baseball, or didn't notice that a pretty high percentage of their roster is bought rather than developed. The worst part is, lots of you still think you're the Cubs, the perennial underdogs everyone loves. News flash, when you can buy 2 World Series you start looking more and more like the Yanks. If you'll all just admit that the rest of the world can probably start tolerating you.

Of course, the more likely outcome is that nothing and noone will change, at least not until Belicheck eats Brady and Fenway burns down. So how bout we just build a giant soundproof bubble around Boston for a couple years... I know the Yankees could afford it.

Sit down and shut up

I am Jack's Colon — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:35:52 GMT

Why is it that all I ever read on internet and print publications about baseball has one of two themes. Usually, its some sportswriter amazed at how the Yankees, Red Sox, Mets or Phillies somehow manage to remain near the top year after year (it might have something to do with $?). More rarely, but also more irritatingly, its someone like Joe Posnanski whining about how hard it is to be a baseball fan in Cleveland, Kansas City, etc. He's not the only one. When CC was putting on his XXXXL pinstripe pants, we got to hear about how hard it is for teams like the Brewers to compete in today's MLB with teams like the Yankees. At the start of this season, teams like the Rangers were getting headlines for even trying to compete without a high payroll. There's no shortage of midmarket writers and fans eager to write about how tough it is.

Well, they should all shut up.

I don't care how long its been since Cleveland won a WS. The fact is that they're one good draft, one nice trade, one clever signing from becoming a division powerhouse and a contender for years to come. The same can be said of KC, Texas, Milwaukee and most others. Really, only three teams' fans have earned the right to complain, and of course they're the ones you never get any chance to read about in the media.

1. Florida Marlins

There's nothing harder than being a Marlin's fan, which probably explains why there's almost none left. Think being outbid on CC Sabathia is tough, Brewers fans? How bout never being able to keep a player past his rookie contract? Hate seeing mediocre players year after year in KC? Try looking at your team every spring and knowing that half of those guys will be All Stars... in another city. The only saving grace for Marlin's fans is the occasional promise that the stars will align and the team will win a WS every 7 years before the talent is traded away.

T2. Blue Jays & Orioles

These teams are together because they're in the same boat. Remember when the Blue Jays contended for the division crown in the early 90s, or the Orioles in the middle of the decade? Well, say goodbye to that dream. Times have changed, and the Sox and Yankees won't let anyone threaten them. Back in 1995, the Jays signed Roger Clemens to a 40 million dollar deal. In 2009, the Yankees would've offered him 120 just out of spite. Why don't I include the Rays on this list? The Rays have been a team since 1998. Neither the Blue Jays nor the Orioles have made the playoffs in that long.

So hopefully Joe Posnanski and all you other Clevelanders (Clevelandites?) will remember this the next time you think about how hard everything is on you. Because when you hope for good trades and signings, other teams have to hope for a change in division.

Someone drop an anchor on Bryan Colangelo

I am Jack's Colon — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 18:26:28 GMT

I just don't understand what Colangelo thinks. He takes over the team in 2005. At the time, he really only had 4 blue chip commodities - Chris Bosh, Jose Calderon, the first overall pick and lots of cap space. Somehow he managed to take that and create a random collection of players. The 3 best raptors are all PFs.

Even if you excuse drafting Bargnani when you already had Bosh, someone needs to explain to me how he used ALL of that cap space to pick up a collection of backcourt players who might not even make the rotations of a playoff team (with the possible exception of Kapono, who would be useful as a spot up shooter on any team). The Raptors under Colangelo is an amazing example of a GM who has enough goodwill that mistake after mistake will be justified by the fans and media. Anthony Parker for 5 million per year? Jason Kapono for 5.5? Andrea Bargnani first overall?

All in all, Colangelo doesn't seem to have any idea for the Raptors, and chooses to use them for some kind of NBA experimentation. First there was the Euroleague marshmellow team. Don't know who thought that would succeed. Now, it looks like he's going for the all PF team. Hopefully the Raptors can get the first overall pick so that Colangelo has a chance to draft Blake Griffen. At the same time, make sure you don't actually hire a coach. It only adds to the experiment to see how many games these players can win by just winning it. Not many apparently is the answer.

Time to retire the mad scientist. Colangelo played his little game up in the north country. Now its time for someone with some actual ideas to take over.

Spygate... revisited

I am Jack's Colon — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:19:54 GMT

Reading the comments on the article discussing whether the Steelers are the team of the decade, I was struck by a few things. The first is the amazingly obnoxious nature of Patriots fans. If you can find one group of people that makes their team harder to like, please point them out to me. That, of course is a beef for another time. The more pressing issue is their opinion of Spygate.

The first issue is the refusal of basically all Patriots fans to discuss how wideranging the issue was. I don't think anyone could argue that it was limited to the one Jets game. Lots of Patriots fans maintain that it was limited to regular season games, that they never did it in the playoffs. Here is the first paradox of Spygate. If, as Belicheck and NE fans have claimed, the NFL rules seemed to imply that taping was okay, why would they not try and use their competitive edge when it mattered most? I find it hard to believe that Bill Belicheck, a man who seems to be all about results, would do anything it takes to win in the regular season, but hold back for the playoffs. This, of course, raises the issue of where those tapes went, which in turn evokes conspiracy theories centering on Goodell's destruction of Belicheck's cache without releasing the contents to the media. Was he trying to protect the honour and integrity of the NFL by destroying evidence? Was he trying to avoid having to deal with restitution for NE's superbowl competitors? Or was he simply cold one night and could only find the Belicheck tapes for kindling? These are questions which will never be answered, so speculation is pointless.

The second, and more pressing issue, is one of the funnier logical conflicts presented by both Patriot fans and 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Meet someone who completely takes Loose Change as the truth, and they'll maintain that George Bush engineered the most elaborate plot in the history of America (the World?) without any concrete goals. However, these same people will almost always be the same folks who think that he's so stupid he probably had trouble reading that book on 9/11. You can't have it both ways folks. This logical paradox also afflicts most Patriots fans, at least the ones who defend Belicheck. If I had a nickel for every Patriots fan who says "every NFL team does some form of this" I would be writing this post from my private island in the Caribean. Let me get this straight then Patriots fans - Bill Belicheck, allegedly the smartest, and certainly the most secretive man in football, gets caught doing something commonplace in the NFL? He gets caught before Norv Turner, who might actually be clinically retarded? Come on folks, doesn't something about this not ring true?

I'm not trying to allege that the Patriots didn't earn any of their Superbowl titles, but I would like to claim that we'll never know if they did. Unless one of Belicheck or Goodell ever discloses the truth to us, which they won't, Patriots fans should shut up and take the criticism they receive. At least they get to keep their rings.

Most underrated player?

I am Jack's Colon — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:40:13 GMT

This is one of the monikers that annoy me the most. Inevitably the player deemed 'most underrated' is actually the most overrated, in any league.

Look, for starters, to the NBA, where this is most severe. My first example is Brian Cardinal, who was mildly productive for 3 months with the Grizzlies, making countless writers call him a 'glue guy' who was one of the most 'underrated' players in the league. Lo and behold, he is now a 5 million dollar benchwarmer for the league basement Timberwolves, glued only to his seat.

Nowadays, we have Anthony Parker, who apparently brings defense and intensity to the game. That would explain how the Raptors have no backcourt scoring or defense, and why they are going to barely make the playoffs. I have an additional problem with calling a guy earning 4 million per year 'underrated' but that's beyond the point.

In the NFL this is done with equal severity. Wes Welker is now SO 'underrated' that I get the feeling that he's the best player in the NFL. He's good, people admit he's good. End of story. The only reason teams don't gameplan against him isn't because they don't appreciate how good he is, its cause they DO appreciate how amazing the 6 foot 8 monster standing across the field from him is.

So, here is my plea to the media... Please stop calling players underrated because you get the impression that fans don't know them. The only 'underrated ones' are the trainers, assistant coaches and other non-multimillionaires who make pro-sports what they are. Athelete's are 'good' or even 'great,' but please, not underrated.

Why I hate Anthony Parker

I am Jack's Colon — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:31:15 GMT

Anthony Parker is the worst possible player to have on your team.

When the guys like Keyon Dooling start for your team, everyone accepts that they're insufficient and the GM looks to make a move. The problem with Anthony Parker is that he's just not quite bad enough to justify benching or cutting. He's the kindof guy who plays the most overrated defense in the league, building up a strong reputation while bending over to all opposing shooting guards. His offense is not only inexistant, but counterproductive - since he was the MVP of the Euroleague twice, he feels justified in hoisting fadeaway baseling airballs with no chance of success and which kill the team's momentum.

However, Parker always earns accolades from writers and ignorant fans who see his pathetic statline and decide that he must be one of the most underrated players in the game. This perpetuates the Raptors' problem. With Anthony Parker making the Raptors' backcourt more than useless, they are neither interesting nor successful, just a waste of everyone's time. I hope Parker goes back to Israel and is never heard from again.

Tom Brady... tarnished?

I am Jack's Colon — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 04:41:10 GMT

Could Matt Cassell's performance taint Tom Brady's legacy? Should it?

These are the questions I have faced this season, watching Matt Cassell throw for 400 yards in two straight games. Obviously, Cassell's relative excellence shows that Brady's 50 TD year was due more to Welker, Moss and McDaniels than to number twelve's excellence.

In the end, Brady is obviously one of the best ever, just because of the intangibles. Also obviously, he is worth at least 5 extra wins per season considering the Pats record this year. However, I think that his status as top 5 all time, which seemed locked down after 200, should be questioned.

I know this isn't a popular stance to take, especially with so many blind and obnoxious Patriots fans out there. Also, if Cassell leaves the Patriots and plays at the same level, I'll eat my words. I'm just saying that, for now, Brady is looking like his stats may have been greatly inflated, at least last year.

MVP?

I am Jack's Colon — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:11:08 GMT

I am Jack's growing disbelief

Reading sports articles from both print and web over the last few weeks, I've noticed a growing consensus that Peyton Manning deserves MVP consideration. The only way I can justify this is if I expand the definition of MVP to be based exclusively on career performance and excluding bad games. In no way has Peyton Manning given his team the best chance to win every game, or even most games, or even SOME games. In fact, with the notable exception of one drive against each of the Vikings and the Chargers, Manning has almost consistently been a detriment to his team's chances.

Lets go through the games shall we?

Week one - Colts were laughed off the field, and gave the ball up on downs TWICE in the fourth.
Week two - Peyton helps the Colts win in the fourth, making everyone forget the two interceptions and the fact that the defense held minesotta to FGs the entire game
Week three - Hard fought battle. Can't blame Peyton for this, but the 2 INTs to 1 TD can't have helped
Week five - Colts won on Peyton's toss to Wayne, but everyone forgets that this would've been a blowout if not for the defense forcing 2 fumbles both returned into the redzone.
Week six - Can't fault Peyton for this one, since he blew up the Ravens. Score one game where he led his team to victory.
Week seven - Two INTs returned for TDs. He almost singl-handedly LOST this one.
Week eight - Mediocre night (2TD 2INT) in a loss
Week nine - Can't fault him for this win, though the defense also played a large part. This is another one where he led the charge.
Week ten - Another one for Peyton
Week eleven - One more
Week twelve - Sure, give him a fifth
Week thirteen - Can we subtract one from him for this performance?

So, as of today, Peyton has five games where he led his team to victory, and two games where he was detrimental. That's okay for Jeff Garcia, but for an MVP candidate?

I appreciate the dearth of MVP candidates this year, but is Manning really deserving? His stats are middle of the pack, he hasn't consistently led his team to victory. A case could be made that Manning has contributed to no more of his teams victories than Brett Favre, Matt Cassell, Drew Brees or Kurt Warner. Adrian Peterson is also having a more impressive year than Manning, and for a winning team.

Who do I think should be the leading MVP candidate? Tony Romo, not only for how he leads the Cowboys when he's on the field, but for how bad they are when he's away. Usually missing a few games would disqualify you from consideration, but with this weak field, you could say he's led his team to victory more than any other player.