Great Injustice

This week on 105.3 The FAN, Ben and Skin will be discussing the "Top 5 Injustices" that have occurred within our lifetime. Well, it may not be that extensive, but the week will revolve around injustices that have taken place within the world of sports, pop culture, the media, etc...

In preparation, my "Fab 5" are as follows:

5. Paul Blart - Mall Cop
• Ranked as the #1, box-office movie for more than 2 weeks in a row
• Seriously – I don’t care if it was January in a “slow” movie time or not, Paul F’n Blart making $147+ million has convinced me that the apocalypse is near!

4. Nebraska playing in the BCS Championship in 2001…Nebraska:
• didn’t win its conference…
• was ranked 4th in the nation
• somehow jumped Colorado - a team that they were beaten by during the season – only to get destroyed by Miami

3. Paris Hilton
• Nothing specific – just the fact that we all know who she is
• Paris is famous…because she is famous? She has now joined forces with Paul Blart in nearly forcing me to take my own life

2. Arrested Development getting canceled while:
• My Name is Earl and Survivor continue to dull America with mundane ideas

1. Puck being kicked off Real World San Francisco
• Puck was probably the best reality character in the history of reality tv. The guy was funny, entertaining and simply had no filter. The peanut-butter scene will live in infamy. Yes, he was stupid, but this was before it was “cool” to be stupid. He was original.

1a. Larry the Cable Guy making $30+ million in 2008
• Seriously – the “Cable Guy” is a character – but his audience is too ignorant to realize it
• He tried legit stand-up as himself (Dan Whitney) – and it failed. Instead, he created a stupid, unoriginal simpleton character to appeal to idiocy...and it freakin worked!
• Larry the Cable Guy is making millions and guys like Bill Hicks were forced to be “cult icons,” because the “majority” can’t handle anything that actually has substance.
• "Get-R-Done" is Latin for "The End is Near."

Just Hear Me Out

For the Texas Rangers, the Josh Hamilton contract-extension talks commenced this week. According to the Texas Rangers website, Hamilton was not on-board:

"My agent and I were disappointed with their offer," Hamilton said.

The Ranger blogging world has seen increased action regarding the quote. At Lonestar Ball, Newberg Report, Inside Corner and BBTIA, Rangers fans continue to voice their displeasure.

From what I can tell, most Ranger fans fall into three categories: 1) they think that a deal will get done before the season; 2)they think that a deal will get done during the season; 3)they believe that Hicks is simply too cheap to meet Hamilton's demands.

I have seen no one suggest what initially went through my head:

Is extending Hamilton necessarily a good idea?

Yes - I realize that premise sounds ridiculous. Hamilton is a natural, one-of-a-kind talent that appears to enjoy being a Ranger. He has provided Texas with some amazingly positive media coverage and was probably the story of the 2008 baseball season.

But before setting me on fire, think about it: because of Hamilton's off-the-field problems, his career got a late start. He made a splash during his rookie season at the age of 26, as opposed to 22 or 23.

Hamilton is about to turn 28. He is locked up this year for $550,000 and is under Ranger control for three additional arbitration years (2010-2012). By the time he can declare for free-agency, Hamilton will be 32 years old. To spell it out:

He has played more than 100 games in a season once in his career (2008).
He has obviously had some serious off-the-field problems.
He will be approaching his mid-30's before he can become a free-agent.

This is difficult to write - because Hamilton is such an amazing talent - but re-signing Hamilton just seems like a risk that Texas doesn't need to take. What if concerns about Hamilton's durability are realized over the next two seasons? What if...off-the-field situations crop back up? What if, at age 32, Hamilton just can't move like he can now?

Also think about the Mark Teixeira situation. Teixeira produced 4.5 high-quality seasons for the Rangers during his tenure in Texas and was not re-signed.

In 2007 - when it became obvious that Teixeira was going to test the free-agent market - Jon Daniels traded him for an amazing haul of high-end prospects. The Rangers' current future largely depends on four prospects acquired in the Tex deal: Elvis Andrus, Matt Harrison, Jarrod Saltalamacchia and Neftali Feliz. Could JD do the same thing with Hamilton?

I know that it's a reach - the Atlanta trade was probably a once-in-a-lifetime type deal. And I know that it could be a poor PR move. I just cannot overlook the importance of having a strong farm-system. In today's game, prospects are currency. The Angels' farm-system has provided them with the ability to consistently contend throughout this decade. The Dodgers farm-system will allow them to consistently contend throughout the next decade. The Rays will be a contender for the foreseeable future - because of their farm-system.

The Texas system is great right now - but will it be three years from now?

Something else to consider: Texas has never had any problems drafting/developing/signing high-end offensive producers. Since moving into Rangers Ballpark in Arlington, the Ranger offense has never been a problem. Look at the players that have been drafted/acquired just within the last three years: Hamilton, Davis, Smoak, Ramirez, Saltalamacchia, Cruz, Murphy...the list goes on and on. Finding high-caliber offensive players simply is not a problem for this franchise.

And what if Hamilton - after four really good years in Texas - can be flipped for a Teixeira-like haul? And if Hamilton continues to produce as he did in 2008 - there is a chance that he has more value than Teixeira.

Hamilton is great - but I think that it's at least worth a discussion.

Absolutely Disgusting

Ryan Moats, a Houston Texans' running back and former Bishop Lynch student, was involved in a police altercation last week. The Dallas Morning News reports that Moats, while taking his family to see a dying relative in a Plano hospital, rolled through a red light and was besieged by a police officer. Here is an excerpt from the story (full story here):

Moats turned on his hazard lights. He stopped at a red light, where, he said, the only nearby motorist signaled for him to go ahead. He went through.

[Officer] Powell, watching traffic from a hidden spot, flipped on his lights and sirens. In less than a minute, he caught up to the SUV and followed for about 20 more seconds as Moats found a parking spot outside the emergency room.

Moats' wife, 27-year-old Tamishia, was the first out. Powell yelled at her to get back in.

"Get in there!" he yelled. "Let me see your hands!"

"My mom is dying," she explained.

Powell was undeterred.

Tamishia Moats and her great-aunt ignored the officer and headed into the hospital. Ryan Moats stayed behind with the father of the dying woman.

It gets even worse:

Powell demanded his license and proof of insurance. Moats produced his license but said he didn't know where the insurance paperwork was.

"Just give me a ticket or whatever," he said, beginning to sound exasperated and a little argumentative.

"Shut your mouth," Powell told him. "You can cooperate and settle down, or I can just take you to jail for running a red light."

"All I'm asking you is just to hurry up." ...

"Understand what I can do," Powell concluded. "I can tow your truck. I can charge you with fleeing. I can make your night very difficult."

Even another officer's plea would not stop Powell:

"Hey, that's the nurse," the Plano officer told Powell. "She said that the mom's dying right now, and she's wanting to know if they can get him up there before she dies."

"All right," Powell replied. "I'm almost done."

As Moats signed the ticket, Powell continued his lecture.

"Attitude's everything," he said. "All you had to do is stop, tell me what was going on. More than likely, I would have let you go."

It had been about 13 minutes.

And the most tragic finale:

Moats and Collinsworth's father went into the hospital, where they found Collinsworth had died, with her daughter at her side.

Absolutely disgusting. What else can be said?

Is Jim Reeves a Unicorn?

Jim Reeves wrote a column yesterday suggesting that Tom Hicks would slash the Ranger payroll after the 2009 season (you can read it here).

I'm sorry - but Reeves is bordering on insanity. Like Galloway, Reeves has transformed into nothing more than a shock-value mouthpiece.

Here is a specific excerpt from the story:

"If we have a chance to get a great Ben Sheets type player at the right price, we’d do it," Hicks said..."

The message Hicks is sending here is twofold.

One, it’s obvious that the Rangers won’t be adding any salary, or likely be in a position to even eat the $6 million they’d owe outfielder-DH Frank Catalanotto if they decided they wanted to cut him to make room for outfielder Andruw Jones on the roster.

Two is that Hicks, like the rest of us, has obviously been hit hard by the bottoming-out economy in many of his businesses and he’s looking to stabilize future expenses wherever he can.

Here are several other Hicks' quotes that litter the story:

"I like the energy of the young guys," Hicks said. "I like [Justin] Smoak. I like Max Ramirez. Next year, I think you’ll see Feliz and Holland in the rotation. It would be nice to see [Brandon] McCarthy step up this year."

"We’re in the mind-set that we’re going to be in the race this year and not in the mind-set of dumping salaries, because we feel like if we’re successful on the field, what we haven’t been able to accomplish this off-season in renewals we can make up with walk-up attendance if we’re in a pennant race," Ryan said.

So, based on those quotes, Reeves ascertained that Hicks is committed to slashing payroll? Really? Some have suggested that Reeves is grasping at straws, but that might be giving Reeves too much credit. This is more like grasping at...unicorns or leprechauns...because they don't exist!

Nothing that Reeves quotes indicates that Hicks is intent on slashing payroll. On the other hand, several comments were made suggesting that Texas would not do so, like:

"There’s no direction for [Ryan and Daniels] to cut payroll," Hicks insisted Monday.

I know that newspapers are crumbling, but how does a piece like this get through the editing process? I have to imagine the editorial meeting sounded something like:

Reeves: I've got a story about the Rangers slashing payroll.
Editor: Really? What support can you provide?
Reeves: Uh...well, Hicks did say that "there’s no direction to cut payroll," does that work?
Editor: Revo, you normally need two sources for a story.
Reeves: Nolan said that they "are not in the mindset of dumping salaries," will that do?
Editor: Hell yeah it will! I was just testing you - the story was printed an hour ago. You know that we don't "edit" around here!

It may not be word for word, but it can't be far off. Grandpa urine - welcome Unicorn Revo to the asylum!

Andruw Jones - Please Go Away

As noted by Evan Grant on his D-Magazine blog, the Texas Rangers recently pulled a 180 and have now indicated that they may keep Andruw Jones on the 25-man roster as a right-handed designated-hitter.

The ramifications of this move:

Jones will DH against left-handed pitchers...
Byrd will get at-bats only as a 4th OFer against LH starters...
Blalock will log more time at 1st base against left-handed starters...
Chris Davis will sit on the bench against certain LH starters...
Catalanotto will either be traded or cut.

(The loss of Catalanotto obviously means very little)

In other words, this move will mean less at-bats for Byrd, a guy that has simply posted an .828 OPS since arriving in Texas. This move will mean less at-bats for Chris Davis, a guy that only produced an .880 OPS during his first 80 ML games...as a 22-year-old last year.

Texas is willing to make these changes for a guy (Jones) that has posted an OPS of .724 and .505 over the last two years?

I just don't get it. Every time I believe that the Rangers' front-office has finally figured it out, they do something like this. In their defense, the domino effect has not officially began - so I should probably give it time to develop - but right now, I don't see much value in keeping Jones around.

College Basketball: Rambling Thoughts

I have spent the last four days absorbing as much college basketball as possible. Just a few random thoughts on the tourney so far:

Rick Barnes is still a really poor in-game coach.

Evidence: Late in their second-round game, Texas trailed Duke 69-72. With 11 seconds left to play, the Longhorns fouled Duke's Elliot Williams, a 46% free-throw shooter. He missed the first - meaning that one more miss would give Texas an opportunity to tie.

Texas had two timeouts left. Rick Barnes could have easily subbed-in his best rebounding squad to ensure that Texas would collect a missed free-throw. As soon as the ball was in Longhorn possession, Barnes could call timeout and litter his lineup with three-point bombers.

Williams did his part - Barnes did not.

Williams bricked the second free-throw off the back of the rim, but to my dismay, Barnes had inexplicably left Dexter Pittman - the 6-10, 300lb center - on the bench. Needless to say, Duke came down with the offensive-rebound, made a couple of free-throws and ended the game.

Genius. Absolutely genius.

(Sidebar: Rick Barnes is looking more and more like Burns from the Simpsons. It's getting a little creepy!)










Over-Officiating

Over the weekend, I watched a really good Pittsburgh-Oklahoma State matchup. The downside? Both teams were in the bonus at the 10-minute mark of the first half. This situation continued a trend that has been apparent to me throughout the tournament.

Duke-Texas: Dexter Pittman was in foul trouble throughout the game. He had averaged 29 minutes/game over the last four - but foul trouble limited him to 22 against the Blue Devils. Texas lost by five.

Arizona State-Syracuse: The Sun Devils' big man, Jeff Pendergraph, fouled out with 10-minutes remaining. Pendergraph logged 24 minutes during the game - 9 minutes below his season average. ASU lost by 11 points.

Villanova-UCLA: both teams were in the bonus with 10 minutes left in the first half.

Maybe I am just trying to justify why my bracket has failed so miserably - but I don't want to watch every team's backups for 20 minutes/game. I want to see the best against the best. I am with Dick Vitale - the college game needs to join the NBA and allow six fouls per contest. It's just too difficult for big men in the college game to avoid getting in foul trouble. Fans want to see the big guys on the floor - not cheerleading from the bench.

Solid Goldy Gold

Jim Nance is a solid announcer. He does a good job on everything that he covers. He makes it interesting, entertaining...he is well-researched, he isn't cheesy. He is just solid.

Dirk is a Stud.

Enough Said.

Newman Strikes Back

Terrance Newman is mad. Newman did not appreciate the criticism that he received for his recent comments made here, and on Tuesday, he called Ben and Skin on 105.3 The FAN to voice his displeasure.

To summarize, Newman basically said that the media "twisted his words" and continue to make "something out of nothing."

During the conversation, bloggers were labeled as "haters," and not that I disagree, but I did take offense. I consider myself a "non-lover," rather than a "hater!" I just try to call things like I see them.

For instance, Newman indicated that bloggers were simply "taking his comments out of context." Here is a quote from Newman's original conversation:

"Being a first-year starter, then you have the limelight with his girlfriend and situations of that nature. It's going to take away from him being a quarterback, being a successful quarterback."

I am not that bright, I admit that, but I cannot understand how that could be taken out of context. Newman specifically said that having a public relationship with Jessica Simpson "took away from him being a successful quarterback."

Is that what he meant? I don't know...but that is what he said. I don't think that Newman intentionally called out Romo. I do not believe that he had any malicious intent.

But to me - that's not the issue. The issue remains how Newman - and the entire Cowboys team - handles criticism. Newman made a few questionable statements during his original interview. Apparently, many misinterpreted his comments because he did not clearly convey his message.

But as usual - he refuses to take responsibility.

"It's not a lack of judgment and it's nothing that I can apologize about...People took it out of context and don't understand what I was talking about."

Yes it is! You can easily apologize for it. It's really simple...you just do it.

Not to pile on the often-used quote, but: "Adversity doesn't build character - it reveals character."

Every time a Cowboy faces adversity, he immediately puts on the "it's not my fault" mask. Rarely, if ever, does one of the guys come out and say, "You know what? I messed up. I should have done this or done that." It's always, "That wasn't my fault. You don't know the coverages we were in, you don't know the routes we were supposed to run, you don't know the scheme that we were working with, etc..."

It just becomes a beating after a while. Realistically, most "haters" in the media would simply like to see the Cowboys to adopt the Keith Brooking philosophy:

"Take the blame and give all the credit. That's the key."

Like I said here, I'm not sure that he is going to fit in well around here.

Terrance Newman...Please Shut Up!

Terrance Newman, a suddenly prominent voice in the Cowboys' locker room, is at it again. This time, he talked with Joe Trahan at WFAA about Jessica Simpson's impact on Tony Romo:

"I think that with the situation Tony was in, I think that kind of maybe hurt him a little bit - being a first-year starter, then you have the limelight with his girlfriend and situations of that nature. It's going to take away from him being a quarterback, being a successful quarterback.

I think that once he inherited the starting quarterback job and his relationship got into the national media attention, I think that that was something that definitely hurt and took away from Tony Romo being a great quarterback."

I'm glad to see that someone is here to pick up the slack after T.O.'s departure. But seriously, shouldn't Newman follow the whole "don't throw stones in a glass house" rule? Doesn't he understand that stupid comments like these prop him up as a target moving forward?

If I had been conducting this interview - I would have enjoyed following his statements with these questions:

Terrance, do you believe that you should be the team spokesperson, given that you have essentially missed 11 games during the last two years?

Terrance, can you justify being one of the highest-paid cornerbacks in the NFL despite only making one Pro-Bowl during your career?

Terrance, can you justify being one of the highest-paid cornerbacks in the NFL despite never amassing more than 4 interceptions in a year?

Terrance, how would you address the accusation that, since receiving your new contract, you no longer are willing to play through pain?

To me, it appears that Newman has been affected by a little "Josh Howard-itis." For clarification - Josh Howard-itis occurs when a decent player is selected for their first All-Star (Pro-Bowl) game. At that point, said player begins to believe that he is much better than he really is.

Look, Newman is a good cornerback...but he is paid like a great cornerback. Terrance Newman is not great. He is also a player that has been unable to stay on the field over the last two seasons.

This team has a very difficult time with personal accountability. If Newman wants to discuss the team, I wish that he would begin with: "I need to get better. I was drafted as a playmaking cornerback - I need to actually start making plays. I need to focus on how I can improve to help the team."

Instead, during a 10-minute interview, Newman talked about:

Romo needing to focus on being the quarterback
Clicks in the locker room
Players bickering at one another
Coaches being accountable
Other guys not complaining in public
Coaches not holding players accountable
Romo needing to be a more vocal leader

Never, during the entire discussion, did Newman suggest that he needed to improve. Really - that's all that needed to be said.

Van Gundy is a Genius

The Mavericks lost another tough road game, this time against the Lakers. Despite a valiant Maverick' comeback, Kobe led the Lakers to a 107-100 victory, sending the Mavericks home after going 2-2 on their 4-game road trip.

Luckily for us, we had the opportunity to listen to the best NBA commentators in the business. Mark Jackson, Jeff Van Gundy and Mike Breen could make a Kings-Clippers game interesting. During this broadcast, after being asked about the Mavericks' "inconsistency," Jeff Van Gundy had a very interesting and accurate take:

"Everyone always wants to label a team as 'inconsistent.' Guess what? There are very few teams that are consistent: the Lakers, Celtics, Cavaliers, Magic, Grizzlies and Wizards. Those teams are all consistent: either consistently good - or consistently bad. Everyone else is in the middle."

Man that makes sense. Think about it: The Jazz have a losing record on the road...are they "consistent?" Portland has lost to the Clippers, Bobcats and the Thunder...are they "consistent?" The Spurs have lost to Milwaukee twice and the Knicks...are they "consistent?"

In the NBA, you are one of three things: 1) an elite team (Lakers, Celtics, Cavaliers, Magic); 2) a hideous team (Wizards, Clippers, Grizzlies, Kings, Thunder, Raptors)...or: 3) in the middle. The Mavericks are clearly "in the middle."

Van Gundy went on to say [paraphrased]:

"Of course Dallas has experienced more bad losses this year than in years past. They aren't nearly as talented today as they have been in recent years. Just look at the floor right now - look who is playing: Bass, Singleton, Barea, Wright and Terry. The Mavericks just don't have the talent that they used to have. It's easy to say that 'this team underperformed' or 'that team underperformed,' but it generally comes down to talent. I think that it's a gross misstatement to claim that this Dallas team has underperformed."

Again - right on the money. Mavericks' fans have been spoiled by having the opportunity to watch the second most winning franchise this decade (behind San Antonio). Fans now expect Dallas to win 55 games and earn a top spot in the playoffs. It's just not that easy.

As Van Gundy stated, the NBA is about talent. Right now, Dallas just doesn't matchup with the elite teams in the league. We all need to understand that every non-elite team in the league has inconsistent stretches during the season. Every team has a few really bad losses, a few surprising wins and a lot of games decided in the last five minutes. We all need to lower the expectations. Dallas is in the same boat as Utah, Portland, Houston, Denver and New Orleans. Or as Van Gundy said:

"The Mavericks are right where they should be."

Mavericks: Better Off Without Howard?

I will complete a more detailed writeup on this subject - but for now - just peruse the "Josh Howard Effect" on the Mavericks:

Record

Dallas’ Record with Howard (45 games):
• 27-18 = .600 winning %

Dallas without Howard (20 games):
• 13-7 = .650 winning %

Points

Points scored with Howard:
• 4516 points/45 games = 100.36
• 100.36 points/game

Points scored without Howard:
• 2069 points/20 games = 103.45
• 103.45 points/game

Point allowed with Howard:
• 4470 points allowed/45 = 99.33
• 99.33 points allowed/game

Points allowed without Howard:
• 2006 points allowed/20 = 100.30
• 100.30 points allowed/game

Point Differential with Howard:
• +1.03

Point Differential without Howard:
• +3.15


Summary

• Dallas has a better winning % without Josh Howard (.650 vs .600).
• Factored out Record (for an entire season):
.650 winning %: 53-29
.600 winning %: 49-33
• Josh Howard has a -2.12 points/game effect on the Mavericks.
• Dallas allows about 1 more point/game without Howard.
• Dallas scored about 3 more points/game without Howard.

Michael Young vs ARod - Who is the Real "Choke-Artist?"

Michael Jordan. Tiger Woods. David Ortiz. John Elway.

What do those guys have in common? They are all considered “clutch” performers. When the shot-clock is running down, on the 18th green, in the bottom of the ninth, at the two-minute warning…these guys come through. They have ice running through their veins. They are instinctual killers. In crunch-time, these guys get it done.

Michael Young is that guy for the Texas Rangers. In other words, if Texas finds itself in a tight game – Ranger fans want Michael Young at the plate. He works hard, he is committed, he has a smart approach and he finds a way to get the job done, or at least so fans think.

On the flipside - former Ranger Alex Rodriquez has been widely labeled as a "choke-artist" and a guy that produces "hollow" numbers. Sure – he hits 50 homeruns every year – but most of those happen during blowouts and lost-causes, right?

Over at Newberg, we decided to delve further into the discussion on "clutch" hitting. First, we needed to define the parameters surrounding a "clutch" situation. For logistical purposes, we decided to consult baseball-reference and use their "late and close" statistics.

"Late and Close" situations include: "plate-appearances in the 7th or later with the batting team tied, ahead by one, or the tying run at least on deck."

In other words - we have defined "clutch" as a time when the game is on the line - after the 6th inning. While any at-bat with runners-in-scoring-position could qualify as "clutch," I just don't believe that a situation in the 1st inning compares to the same situation in the 9th.

I have listed career statistics and "clutch" statistic to determine whether said player actually "rises to the challenge" or "crumbles" during late-game, pressure situations.

Let’s compare the American Hero, Michael Young, to the Dark Villain, Alex Rodriguez:

Clutch: plate-appearances during the 7th inning or later with the batting team tied, ahead by one, or the tying run at least on deck.

Alex Rodriguez
Career: .306/.389/.578/.967
Clutch: .279/.375/.530/.905
Change in OPS: -.062

Michael Young
Career: .300/.346/.442/.788
Clutch: .262/.301/.358/.659
Change in OPS: -.129

While ARod does see his production drop during the late-stages of a close game, his slip in production is nowhere near that of Young.

Young’s production drops by 16%.
ARod’s production drops by 6%.

That’s a pretty significant difference, and aside from that, ARod still produces an OPS north of .900 in “clutch” situations while Michael Young produces a very Brad Ausmus-like .659, nearly .250 points below ARod.

People want Young to be a clutch performer because he is a "good guy" and has been the face of the franchise for a long time. People remember Young's triple in the All-Star game and they quickly forget his rally-killing double-plays. People will believe what they want to believe, and people want to believe that Young is clutch.

On the flip side, people want ARod to "choke" in big situations because he is an easy guy to root against. People always root against the best. People want to create a chink in ARod's armor by labeling him as a "choke-artist." Unfortunately, the numbers just do not support these beliefs.

For comparison purposes, I have also added statistics for several of Young's teammates and former teammates including: Josh Hamilton, Ian Kinsler, Hank Blalock, David Murphy, Marlon Byrd, Nelson Cruz, Milton Bradley and Mark Teixeira..

Josh Hamilton
Career: .300/.370/.538/.908
Clutch: .252/.355/.457/.812
Change in OPS: - .096

Hank Blalock
Career: .274/.337/.465/.802
Clutch: .278/.336/.452/.788
Change in OPS: -.014

Ian Kinsler
Career: .290/.360/.473/.832
Clutch: .254/.350/.354/.704
Change in OPS: -.128

Milton Bradley
Career: .280/.370/.457/.827
Clutch: .278/.376/.474/.850
Change in OPS: +.023

David Murphy
Career: .286/.334/.480/.814
Clutch: .293/.340/.457/.797
Change in OPS: -.017

Marlon Byrd
Career: .278/.343/.407/.750
Clutch: .232/.318/.368/.686 (though he has about an .880 OPS since joining Texas)
Change in OPS: -.064

Mark Teixeira
Career: .290/.378/.541/.919
Clutch: .282/.379/.555/.933
Change in OPS: +.014

Michael Young
Career: .300/.346/.442/.788
Clutch: .262/.301/.358/.659
Change in OPS: -.129

Jarrod Saltalamacchia
Career: .261/.328/.400/.728
Clutch: .256/.350/.356/.705
Change in OPS: -.023

Nelson Cruz
Career: .251/.312/.431/.743
Clutch: .231/.302/.359/.661
Change in OPS: -.082

Alex Rodriguez
Career: .306/.389/.578/.967
Clutch: .279/.375/.530/.905
Change in OPS: -.062

Breakdown - Change in OPS during "clutch" situations:

Current Rangers
Blalock: -.014
Murphy: -.017
Salty: -.023
Byrd: -.064
Cruz: -.082
Hamilton: -.096
Kinsler: -.128
Young: - .129

Former Teammates
Bradley: +.023
Teixeira: +.014
ARod: -.062

As you can see, most players experience a drop in production during the later innings. This probably happens because - late in games - teams make pitching decisions based on matchups (ie...left-handed pitcher vs. left-handed batter, etc...). That would help explain why the three switch-hitters (Bradley, Teixeira and Salty) do not experience a large variance in production. If the opponent brings in a lefty, the switch-hitters just flip around to the right-side. Advantage mitigated.

Though most hitters do see a slight dip in production, Young has the biggest Ranger discrepancy between his career statistics and his production during "late and close" situations. Again - no one stat can tell you everything. But after reviewing these numbers, it's difficult to argue that Michael Young "rises to the challenge" in "clutch" situations. If anything, the numbers indicate that he folds during "late and close" situations. In fact – in “late and close situations” – Young is less productive than anyone projected to be in the Rangers’ opening-day lineup.

Sometimes the truth hurts.

Is T.O. David Copperfield?

Have you ever watched a magician like David Copperfield perform? The first time you see the act - it's pretty cool. He stands in an empty auditorium - when suddenly, with a flash of light, an elephant appears! After seeing if for the first time, you couldn't fully understand how he pulled it off, but you knew that he wasn't being completely truthful.

The next time you saw the same trick, you knew where to look and you saw the elephant standing behind the fake paneling. The decoy flash happened on the left side of the stage - the paneling was removed on the right side - revealing the elephant. Mystery solved.

That brings us to T.O.

"I was the fall guy for some of the things that happened during that season but those guys in that locker room, they know that whatever is being reported out there right now is very, very inaccurate."
- Mr. Accountability

Like a magician, Owens is up to his same old tricks:

He was treated unfairly while in Dallas.
He wasn't the problem - he did his job (and he will tell you all about it).
He is being wrongly labeled as a "cancer" within the locker room.
He was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Amazingly, since he was cut, I have heard numerous fans actually support Owens:

"T.O. worked harder than anyone on the team. He is just so competitive that sometimes he gets frustrated. I'm glad - I want my players to get frustrated when things aren't going well."

(Side Note: This guy has to be David Copperfield in disguise, right? I mean - he has to be. How else could he convince thousands of fans to ignore what they have seen? How else could he force fans to focus on his contributions while completely ignoring the sideshow? Who else could get others to agree that he has been the victim three different times with three different organizations?)

Do you understand the problem with the “he is just highly competitive” theory? T.O. complains after wins. After Dallas beat Washington in Week 11, Owens had this to say:

“When I get my hands on the ball, things happen. I can’t throw it and catch it. It’s not that I can’t play. It’s the system of which I’m in.”

Yes – Owens is competitive – but that competitiveness remains focused on himself and his numbers. Competitors focus on winning. T.O. focuses on T.O. – and then winning.

I don't deny that T.O. wears his emotions on his sleeve. I agree that he expresses his frustration when things go bad. My issue lies within Owens' definition of "bad." T.O. considers individual numbers as priority number one - and winning as number two. That's why he has no problem complaining after victories...because in his mind - if he didn't get his numbers - it wasn't a victory. Owens is not the only athlete that focuses exclusively on his numbers, but he is one of the few athletes that isn't smart enough to realize when to complain about individual statistics.

(Note to Terrell: after a win isn't a good time.)

Here is another popular argument for the beleaguered wide-receiver:

"Owens on-field talent outweighs any type of distraction that he may or may not create."

Well - I guess 30 other teams didn't agree.

Why didn't some of the contenders snatch Owens up? Did the Giants make a run at him? Did Carolina have any interest? What about Indianapolis? New England? Jacksonville? Pittsburgh? The Jets?

This amazingly talented receiver was "wrongly" blamed by the Cowboys' organization and Dallas media but Buffalo was the only team willing to take a flier on the guy? A "number one" receiver that "hasn't lost a step" who constantly "commands double-teams" couldn't even muster a multi-year deal? His only option was to play for a non-contender in a non-media market for a team that gets absolutely no national exposure on a one-year deal?

Just like with David Copperfield: if you can't see the elephant in the room - you aren't looking hard enough.

Senility Will Have to Wait...

Jerry Jones did the unthinkable. Yep - he cut Terrell Owens. For most teams and General Managers, cutting T.O. seems like a logical step in the right direction. Jerry Jones is not like "most" General Managers.

He might as well have created the "any publicity is good publicity" belief system. Publicity is like a bug-zapper...and Jerry is like a bug. He sees the light - and despite the fact that his buddies are all laying lifeless near the zapper's base - Jerry just can't help himself. Throughout his career, Jerry has refused to give in...until recently.

That's right, folks. Put up your Al Davis jumpsuits because senility will have to wait another day. Jerry surprisingly went against his risk-taker intuition and sacrificed the spotlight in an effort to improve on-the-field performance. Crazy idea.

Was T.O. the only Dallas problem? Of course not. But isn't one broken leg better than two (unless...oh never mind, let's just keep this simple).

Jerry listened to the smart people that he has surrounded himself with and made the right call. It couldn't have been easy - but Jerry - I'm proud of you.

BASADSKMVDAA Awards - Part Two

My buddies Ben and Skin recently asked, "who is the most valuable athlete in the DFW Metroplex?" They didn't ask "who is the best player/athlete," they asked about the "most valuable player."

Webster's Definition of Value:
n: a fair return or equivalent in goods, services, or money for something exchanged

In other words, value directly relates to price. Dirk is a great player - but he is paid like a great player. As a result, he is not the most valuable player in the metroplex - at least not for this exercise.

Dallas Sports Keg will be taking on a 3-part series over the next few days titled: Ben-and-Skin's-and-Dallas-Sports-Keg's-Most-Valuable-DFW-Athlete-Award...also known as BASADSKMVDAA. Not the catchiest moniker - but we're not a freakin' advertising agency! We will examine the Mavericks, Cowboys and Rangers (since Bob Sturm is the only guy in town that watches hockey - we chose not to include the Stars in this exercise).

Part Two: Texas Rangers (yes...we still have a baseball team)
I know it comes as a surprise to most Ranger fans, but no pitchers qualified for this year's award.

Challenger #1: Chris Davis - $390k (2009)
80 Games
17 HRs
55 RBI
OPS - .880

162 game pace:
34 HRs
111 RBI
OPS - .880
$4,875/game (in 2008 and 2009)

Josh Hamilton - $397k (2008 and 2009)
156 Games
32 HRs
130 RBI
.901 OPS
$2,545/game (in 2008 – potentially in 2009 depending on whether he gets a new contract)

-Comparison-

Michael Young - $16 mm (in 2009)
155 Games
12 HRs
82 RBI
OPS - .741
$102,000/game (in 2009)

* During the coming season, Young will make more in a 4-game series than Davis or Hamilton made in all of 2008. Despite being the 2nd highest-paid shortstop in all of baseball, MY had the 11th highest OPS for all ML shortstops in 2008.

Davis exploded onto the scene in June of 2008. As a 22-year-old, he launched 10 homeruns during his first 25 games and cemented his spot in the Rangers’ everyday lineup. His OPS never dropped below .800 during any point in the season. He won the American League Rookie of the Month Award during July by hitting .303 with eight homeruns and 16 RBIs.

The Rangers acquired Josh Hamilton from the Cincinnati Reds for Edinson Volquez prior to the 2008 season. Hamilton won the American League Player of the Month Award in both April and May, becoming the first player in American League history to be awarded Player of the Month for the first two months of the season. Hamilton’s most impressive moment of the season happened after he was elected to the All-Star Team. In Yankee Stadium – during the Homerun Derby – Hamilton wowed the packed house by blasting monstrous homerun after monstrous homerun. Though he finished second overall, his performance led to the now infamous statement produced by Sports Illustrated write, Joe Sheehan:

“The House That Ruth Built, 85 years old, goes out as The House That Hamilton Knocked Down.”


Chris Davis has been a good, solid prospect since signing. As far as we know, he has been a straight-arrow kid throughout his career.
Hamilton, on the other hand, was a 1st-round pick who was derailed by extensive drug-abuse and has returned to form.

Like the rest of society, we enjoy rooting for a guy that made wrong decisions - ie...smoking crack - and then overcame that addiction, rather than a guy who has made sound decisions throughout his life. Sorry Chris - your story just is not interesting enough.

Congratulations Josh Hamilton. By winning the Rangers' most valuable player award, you have been entered into the BASADSKMVDAA Finals where you will face off against the most valuable players selected from the Dallas Cowboys and the Dallas Mavericks.

Stay tuned for Part Three featuring the Dallas Cowboys.

Keith Brooking Needs to Learn the Rules

Over the weekend - in addition to Jon Kitna - the Dallas Cowboys signed Linebacker Keith Brooking. Brooking is - by all accounts - a really good guy and a great teammate. During a recent interview, Brooking encapsulated his playing philosophy by stating:

"Take the blame and give all the credit. That's the key...That's the great thing about football. If it's not for the other 10 guys you're not going to have success."

My first thought: this guy simply will not fit in with the Cowboys organization. Think I'm wrong? Compare Brooking's comments to those made by Dallas players over the last twelve months:

Terrell Owens

"Everybody recognized that I wasn't really getting the ball in the first half," Owens said. "I'm pretty sure everybody watching the game recognized it, people in the stands recognized it. I think my team recognized it."

“There were opportunities throughout the whole game. You just can’t pinpoint that last drive. I ran my routes according to what was called and just came up short.”

"I'm doing what's asked of me - I'm running my routes - it's not like I'm not open."

"If Garrett is smart enough to know what types of plays made me successful in the past, he will go back to those plays and those types of formations."

"For me to have had the numbers that I have had - and not getting the ball - it is discouraging."

"I can't throw it and catch it."

"When you look at the film there were plays when the receivers were open and these were things that needed to be addressed amongst us on the offense."

“There needs to be some changes in regard to getting some guys involved, putting guys in position to win. It all starts with the guys calling the plays.”

Roy Williams (the Safety):

"I'm not playing the position I played in my first three years when Mike Zimmer was here and we ran a 4-3. OK?"

Roy Williams (Wide Receiver):

"If the coordinator wanted to get the ball to me, he could. And the same thing with the quarterback."

"As Ray Lewis said after he got done playing us, we had the easiest offense to figure out."

"But, like I said, I'm a coachable wide receiver. I'll run what I'm supposed to run. And I'll continue to have the cornerbacks ask me, 'Why do they got you running this same thing over and over again?'"

Tony Romo:

“They exposed something we do fundamentally offensively.”

“Scheme is a major part of it that the normal fan or writer doesn't understand...That's why I think some games, it's easy to say, ‘Well, he didn't play good.' A lot of it is scheme.”

Terrance Newman:

"When coaches make mistakes around here, there's nothing said about it. They just go and try to diffuse it, and try to put that blame on somebody else, rather than owning up to it."


Sorry Keith, but there are more "monogamous" Playboy girls than there are "accountable" Dallas Cowboys.

If you want to be part of the Cowboys organization, you need to learn the ground rules:

1. Nothing is ever your fault. Ever.
2. Blame the scheme - no one can prove you wrong (see both Roy Williams, T.O., Romo).
3. Try to "recruit" others to join you in your complaining.
4. "Team guys" don't create winning teams - winning teams create "team guys."
5. Do not EVER handle an issue in-house. Use the media.
6. If you aren't playing well, know that the coaches must be using you improperly.
7. Understand that talent, and talent alone, wins championships.
8. Any publicity is good publicity.
9. Make sure that everyone knows that you did "your job."
10. Take all the credit - give all the blame.