With the Twins deciding to renew the contract of manager Ron Gardenhire for another two years through the 2015 season, many Twins fans have expressed a lot of negative feelings toward the decision. Based on the recent track record of the club, those negative feelings are more than justified.
In an era of "What Have You Done For Me Lately?", the Twins front office has decided to make Memory Lane their permanent home. After three consecutive 96-loss seasons, what fans receive as an explanation for why the current coaching regime remains in tact is nothing short of a campfire story about how good the team was between 2003-2010. Unfortunately, reputation alone doesn't win ball games.
Ron Gardenhire may be the nicest guy around. He may be the best "players' coach" in the game. In fact, he still may be one of the best managers in all of Major League Baseball. But not for this team. Not anymore. In order to succeed in the future, you can't rely on the successes of the past.
The role of the manager can be both undervalued and overhyped at the same time. The sad fact is, managers often take the heat for the failures of a ball club, even if it's not necessarily their fault. Many believed that the 2012 demise of the Boston Red Sox wasn't Terry Francona's doing, but rather that his players quit on him. The same could be said for countless other managers who lost their jobs over the years. But, regardless of the sport, there does come a time where, no matter how nice a guy, and no matter what the past has brought, that a manager or coach's message becomes stale and lost.
To many Twins fans, that time was after 2012. The Twins' front office, however, has a different opinion.
On Monday, while Gardenhire was being notified of his two-year extension, another manager was being given his walking papers. Dale Sveum, the first-time manager for the Chicago Cubs, was fired after two seasons, in which he went 61-101 in 2012, followed by a 66-96 campaign in 2013. Two seasons. That's all it took for the Cubs to pull the trigger. Now, it's understandable to say that Sveum doesn't have near the track record that Gardenhire has with the Twins. But that is really where the comparison should stop.
For the last three seasons, Twins fans have been force-fed the excuse that Gardenhire "hasn't had much to work with." That statement should be an indictment on both the General Manager as well as the Owner, but instead, by most accounts, the Pohlad Family and Terry Ryan are given a pass by most members of the media. Not all...but most. The players Gardenhire "has to work with" are players drafted and/or signed by Ryan and the ownership. These are young, "talented" players we were told a couple of years ago would be the future of this Twins franchise. Players like Aaron Hicks. Players like Chris Parmalee. Players like Kyle Gibson. Now, the sample size for the likes of Hicks and Gibson are only a small portion of the 2013 season, but these were guys we were told would help bring this team to prominence again.
One of the reasons given for the Cubs making the decision to fire Sveum as their manager was that they felt that he hadn't developed their young talent the way they'd expected. Couldn't that very same thing be said for Gardenhire? Now, I have not heard this suggested by anyone else, but I personally feel that Gardenhire is solely responsible for stunting the growth of Aaron Hicks.
How, you ask?
I have absolutely no problem with the Twins bringing Hicks up to start the season on the big-league club. I have no issues making him the starting center fielder, even though he skipped right over Triple-A. Where my issue lies is that an experienced manager, a manager who is touted as one of the best in baseball, should have realized that beginning the season with Hicks as your lead-off hitter, with no real experience against Major League pitching, was something that could mentally hamper the young man from Day 1. In his first 10 games, Hicks was 2 for 43 at the plate, striking out 20 times during that stretch. Something as subtle and simple as positioning someone in the lineup is not something that can be blamed on the player, nor can it be blamed on the GM or the Owner. That falls on the manager.
Had Gardenhire done the responsible managerial thing, he would have started the season with someone more equipped to possibly lead off. Someone like Brian Dozier, whom Gardenhire eventually put into the lead-off spot later on, and watched him flourish. But for 10 games, Hicks struggled, trying to impress out of the gates, when he may have been more comfortable hitting in the bottom third of the order. This seems like a logical thought, but one that seemed to have eluded the manager. There are no doubt other examples.
It could also be debated whether or not Sveum had even less with the Cubs to work with than Gardenhire had with the Twins. But, regardless of the tools in his toolbox, Sveum was let go, while the Twins front office continues to make excuses for their fledgling manager. But as I've said many times, it's important to note that, if you're going to place most, if not all, of the blame on the roster for three straight 96+ loss seasons, then the roster is what brought the Twins to the playoffs six times in nine seasons from 2002 through 2010. But, we don't hear that. We always hear what a great job Gardy has done with this team. We heard during his first few seasons as manager, what a terrific job he did given the payroll he was given. How are the last three seasons any different. One word: Reputation.
As I stated earlier, the manager's role isn't a glorious one most of the time. People continue to say that "Gardy isn't the problem," or that "manager's are overrated." If the latter is truly the case, then why not make a change? Even if he's not the problem, but the role itself is overrated, what harm would it do to bring a new voice into the clubhouse? It's worked for many other teams over the years. Why should the Twins be any different, or be the exception to this rule?
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Twins Miss Another Opportunity To Be Smart At The Trade Deadline
Simply put, the Minnesota Twins dropped the ball.
If you believe that statement refers the fact that the Twins pulled the trigger on only one deal at the Trade Deadline involving Drew Butera, you could possibly be right. If you believe that statement refers to the fact that Justin Morneau wasn't traded at the deadline, you could also possibly be right. However, if you believe that statement refers to the fact that Morneau began the 2013 season WITH the Twins, and wasn't traded during the offseason, you absolutely would be correct!
As the clock ticked down to the 4pm Eastern deadline for non-waiver trades, there was speculation the Twins would deal Morneau, but no trade was finalized. Many in the Twins' media brigade attributed this to the lack of a market for the first baseman. In fact, a few concluded that Morneau's rankings among all Major League first basemen were simply just too low to warrant any substantial value in return. The only thing they all seemed to miss was that, frankly, any deal for Morneau shouldn't have been made at the Trade Deadline, but rather during this past offseason.
Surely, if you look at the numbers, many "experts" were correct. Morneau's numbers simply don't justify much for trade value. There were plenty of teams looking for a bat at the deadline, but few looking to offer up what the Twins were more than likely asking for. But therein lies the problem. The Twins waited far too long to ask for the level of talent they were looking for should they decide to deal Morneau. And, as a result, with visions of Delmon Young in their heads, they missed yet another opportunity to trade a player at their peak value.
After suffering the concussion he did during the 2010 season, it was almost an absolute certainty that Morneau would never again be the same player. With concussions being as prominent in sports as they are today, it truly is difficult to gauge who has come back from them successfully and who has not. Sure, there may have been players in the '70s, '80s, and '90s that suffered concussions and found themselves playing again, probably because they didn't realize what actually happened. But in today's game, there is a much bigger spotlight on them.
If the Terry Ryan were as intelligent a general manager as many Minnesota sports writers believe him to be, he would've realized that we, no doubt, would never see Morneau regain the same form that led him to the 2006 American League MVP. Taking that into account, the moment Morneau began to even resemble a glimpse of his former self, he should've been shopped to potential suiters immediately! That point was after his first full injury-free season since the concussion, which was his 2012 campaign. Knowing a contract would be looming after the 2013 season, Ryan never should have entered this year holding out hope that Morneau would once again become an MVP threat. Instead, he should have attempted to bolster the Twins' already poor pitching staff by finding a taker for Morneau, who at the end of last season ranked 16th in Avg, 13th in OBP, 18th in SLG, 19th in HR, and 16th in RBI among all Major League first basemen. Instead...by not pulling the trigger during the offseason, Ryan went into the Trade Deadline fielding calls about Morneau, who entering the morning of July 31st ranked 13th in Avg, 19th in OBP, 24th in SLG, 29th in HR, and 14th in RBI among first basemen. And to make matters more difficult, he was no doubt trying to trade the 2006 MVP, and not the 2013 shadow of that MVP.
All told, the Twins stand pat at the deadline with their current Major League roster, not addressing any needs, and putting themselves in a position to now have to negotiate a deal with Morneau come the 2013 offseason. Given their current rebuilding mindset, Morneau should've been dealt, if for no other reason than to give his playing time to a younger, up-and-coming potential replacement at first base, whoever that may have been. Instead, Twins fans will have to watch their "power-hitting" first baseman struggle to reach 15 HRs during the final two months of the regular season.
If you believe that statement refers the fact that the Twins pulled the trigger on only one deal at the Trade Deadline involving Drew Butera, you could possibly be right. If you believe that statement refers to the fact that Justin Morneau wasn't traded at the deadline, you could also possibly be right. However, if you believe that statement refers to the fact that Morneau began the 2013 season WITH the Twins, and wasn't traded during the offseason, you absolutely would be correct!
As the clock ticked down to the 4pm Eastern deadline for non-waiver trades, there was speculation the Twins would deal Morneau, but no trade was finalized. Many in the Twins' media brigade attributed this to the lack of a market for the first baseman. In fact, a few concluded that Morneau's rankings among all Major League first basemen were simply just too low to warrant any substantial value in return. The only thing they all seemed to miss was that, frankly, any deal for Morneau shouldn't have been made at the Trade Deadline, but rather during this past offseason.
Surely, if you look at the numbers, many "experts" were correct. Morneau's numbers simply don't justify much for trade value. There were plenty of teams looking for a bat at the deadline, but few looking to offer up what the Twins were more than likely asking for. But therein lies the problem. The Twins waited far too long to ask for the level of talent they were looking for should they decide to deal Morneau. And, as a result, with visions of Delmon Young in their heads, they missed yet another opportunity to trade a player at their peak value.
After suffering the concussion he did during the 2010 season, it was almost an absolute certainty that Morneau would never again be the same player. With concussions being as prominent in sports as they are today, it truly is difficult to gauge who has come back from them successfully and who has not. Sure, there may have been players in the '70s, '80s, and '90s that suffered concussions and found themselves playing again, probably because they didn't realize what actually happened. But in today's game, there is a much bigger spotlight on them.
If the Terry Ryan were as intelligent a general manager as many Minnesota sports writers believe him to be, he would've realized that we, no doubt, would never see Morneau regain the same form that led him to the 2006 American League MVP. Taking that into account, the moment Morneau began to even resemble a glimpse of his former self, he should've been shopped to potential suiters immediately! That point was after his first full injury-free season since the concussion, which was his 2012 campaign. Knowing a contract would be looming after the 2013 season, Ryan never should have entered this year holding out hope that Morneau would once again become an MVP threat. Instead, he should have attempted to bolster the Twins' already poor pitching staff by finding a taker for Morneau, who at the end of last season ranked 16th in Avg, 13th in OBP, 18th in SLG, 19th in HR, and 16th in RBI among all Major League first basemen. Instead...by not pulling the trigger during the offseason, Ryan went into the Trade Deadline fielding calls about Morneau, who entering the morning of July 31st ranked 13th in Avg, 19th in OBP, 24th in SLG, 29th in HR, and 14th in RBI among first basemen. And to make matters more difficult, he was no doubt trying to trade the 2006 MVP, and not the 2013 shadow of that MVP.
All told, the Twins stand pat at the deadline with their current Major League roster, not addressing any needs, and putting themselves in a position to now have to negotiate a deal with Morneau come the 2013 offseason. Given their current rebuilding mindset, Morneau should've been dealt, if for no other reason than to give his playing time to a younger, up-and-coming potential replacement at first base, whoever that may have been. Instead, Twins fans will have to watch their "power-hitting" first baseman struggle to reach 15 HRs during the final two months of the regular season.
Monday, July 22, 2013
Should We Just Embrace PED's? Think Before You Answer.
What exactly does it mean to "gain an advantage?" How does that differ from "cheating?" Why is it that professional athletes who are doing something to gain an advantage are actually considered "cheaters?"
When you look long and hard at the world of professional sports, there has always been one constant through the years: Things change. Players change. Technology changes. Rules change. Expectations change. As fans, we cheer for our favorite teams, our favorite players, and our favorite games. So, why is it that we find ourselves with feelings of anger and betrayal when we see players get caught trying to improve themselves?
Ryan Braun's suspension for the remainder of the 2013 MLB season is just the latest in what has been a decade-long battle to "clean up" the game of baseball. Other sports have also "improved" their performance-enhancing substance testing in an effort to purify their games. But the microscope remains fixated on the game of baseball. But why?
It's not a popular opinion by any stretch of the imagination, but realistically, there's one question that continues to cross my mind as I see big names and All-Stars continue to find themselves on the wrong side of baseball law:
Should we really care?
Sports purists will argue that performance-enhancing substances "change" their respective games for the worse. Mostly, their angst is centered around the record books. Nowhere is this more evident than Major League Baseball, whose record book is considered almost biblical to some. But why keep record books if we're afraid to have the records within them broken? And, if we're being honest, a lot of the records being broken were aided by some sort of "change."
Babe Ruth used a bat that was 40 ounces in weight during the 1927 season when he hit 60 home runs, setting the record which would stand for 34 years before being broken by Roger Maris. Strangely, what people don't talk about is the advantages that Maris had. Sure, they bring up the additional eight games added to the schedule, which is one advantage. But no one brings up the fact that the Yankee Stadium dimensions changed from the time Ruth played to the time Maris played. In 1927, Babe Ruth was hitting balls to center and right field walls that were 520 and 425 feet from home plate, respectively. In 1961, those same walls were only 461 and 407 feet from home plate. Ruth used a bat that weighed 40 ounces and was 35 inches in length. In 1961, Maris's bat was one inch longer (36) and weighed 4-5 ounces less, allowing him to swing it faster. Needless to say, there were other factors to Roger Maris breaking Babe Ruth's home run record than just an additional eight games.
In today's game, similar changes have been made. Bats weight less than before and are made of different material. Many suggest they're actually weaker pieces of lumber than were used throughout 50's, 60's, and even 70's. The baseballs themselves are manufactured and woven differently than 50 or 60 years ago. Similar to the dimension changes made at Yankee Stadium throughout the years, many ballparks have brought their fences in to increase offense.
Couldn't performance-enhancing substances just be considered another "change" in the game? Why not embrace them and regulate them rather than fear them? If everyone is allowed to play the game the same way, is it possible that no true advantage would be had? And, is it possible the game may actually be better off?
Records were made to be broken. If sports continue to improve their games by altering equipment, changing rules, and expanding leagues, the records we've all grown accustomed to are truly not the same as they were. So, what is one more change? If it provides fans with a better product and a more exciting experience, who are we to judge?
I, for one, would prefer a game where I don't have to guess who is using a substance to gain an advantage, but rather a game where I don't have to concern myself with it and can just enjoy being a fan.
Should we really care otherwise?
When you look long and hard at the world of professional sports, there has always been one constant through the years: Things change. Players change. Technology changes. Rules change. Expectations change. As fans, we cheer for our favorite teams, our favorite players, and our favorite games. So, why is it that we find ourselves with feelings of anger and betrayal when we see players get caught trying to improve themselves?
Ryan Braun's suspension for the remainder of the 2013 MLB season is just the latest in what has been a decade-long battle to "clean up" the game of baseball. Other sports have also "improved" their performance-enhancing substance testing in an effort to purify their games. But the microscope remains fixated on the game of baseball. But why?
It's not a popular opinion by any stretch of the imagination, but realistically, there's one question that continues to cross my mind as I see big names and All-Stars continue to find themselves on the wrong side of baseball law:
Should we really care?
Sports purists will argue that performance-enhancing substances "change" their respective games for the worse. Mostly, their angst is centered around the record books. Nowhere is this more evident than Major League Baseball, whose record book is considered almost biblical to some. But why keep record books if we're afraid to have the records within them broken? And, if we're being honest, a lot of the records being broken were aided by some sort of "change."
Babe Ruth used a bat that was 40 ounces in weight during the 1927 season when he hit 60 home runs, setting the record which would stand for 34 years before being broken by Roger Maris. Strangely, what people don't talk about is the advantages that Maris had. Sure, they bring up the additional eight games added to the schedule, which is one advantage. But no one brings up the fact that the Yankee Stadium dimensions changed from the time Ruth played to the time Maris played. In 1927, Babe Ruth was hitting balls to center and right field walls that were 520 and 425 feet from home plate, respectively. In 1961, those same walls were only 461 and 407 feet from home plate. Ruth used a bat that weighed 40 ounces and was 35 inches in length. In 1961, Maris's bat was one inch longer (36) and weighed 4-5 ounces less, allowing him to swing it faster. Needless to say, there were other factors to Roger Maris breaking Babe Ruth's home run record than just an additional eight games.
In today's game, similar changes have been made. Bats weight less than before and are made of different material. Many suggest they're actually weaker pieces of lumber than were used throughout 50's, 60's, and even 70's. The baseballs themselves are manufactured and woven differently than 50 or 60 years ago. Similar to the dimension changes made at Yankee Stadium throughout the years, many ballparks have brought their fences in to increase offense.
Couldn't performance-enhancing substances just be considered another "change" in the game? Why not embrace them and regulate them rather than fear them? If everyone is allowed to play the game the same way, is it possible that no true advantage would be had? And, is it possible the game may actually be better off?
Records were made to be broken. If sports continue to improve their games by altering equipment, changing rules, and expanding leagues, the records we've all grown accustomed to are truly not the same as they were. So, what is one more change? If it provides fans with a better product and a more exciting experience, who are we to judge?
I, for one, would prefer a game where I don't have to guess who is using a substance to gain an advantage, but rather a game where I don't have to concern myself with it and can just enjoy being a fan.
Should we really care otherwise?
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Tiger & The 2013 Masters: Completely New Meaning To "Dropping The Ball"
For something that, at first glance, seemed pretty cut and dry early Saturday morning, now has grown many new tentacles that make the debate about Tiger Woods 2013 Masters experience even more interesting.
For starters, let's take a look at the actual "rules" in question, as they are written, from the USGA's Offical Rulebook:
Now that we have the rules in front of us, let's take a look at the facts. There is no debate: Tiger Woods took an illegal drop for his fifth shot on the 15th hole in the Second Round of the 2013 Masters. That is 100% fact. Based on that, many uneducated golf fans were calling for Tiger to be disqualified, or with that knowledge, were at least asking for Tiger to withdraw from The Masters for what they considered "cheating".
Let's get something straight before we move on. Unknowingly taking an illegal drop in golf is not "cheating." If that were the case, it would be safe to assume that probably 90% of casual golfers, league golfers, amateur golfers, and even professional golfers have "cheated." I know, myself, that I've inadvertently dropped incorrectly and illegally, playing from a drop zone when I should've actually re-teed from the tee box, or taking a drop at a water hazard on the line where I believed the ball crossed, even though it may have cross 15 yards further up. It's something that happens in just about every round. Yes, some people (mostly casual players) will take a drop where they shouldn't because they either don't care, or actually want an advantage. Because, in this instance, the perpetrator was Tiger Woods, the #1 ranked golfer in the world, the "Tiger haters" out there believe there is no way he was unaware of the rules, and that his drop was an intentional violation of the rules to "cheat" and gain an advantage.
Does anyone really think Tiger Woods would have openly admit to "cheating" in a post-round interview if he actually believed he had cheated? If you answer "Yes" to that question, then you clearly have an issue with Mr. Woods, and have already made your mind up that because of his off-the-course transgressions, he is the most evil human being on the planet.
What Tiger was guilty of was confusing the rule, not ignoring it. Had he gone to the point of entry into the water, he could have brought his ball back from that point as far as he wanted to. Instead, he chose to hit from the original spot, and dropped his ball "2 yards further back." Did he think he was violating the rule? Obviously not. If he had, he wouldn't have openly admit it after the round. Again, if you think that Tiger Woods intentionally tried to "cheat" to gain an advantage...on national TV...in front of millions of fans watching...at the biggest golf tournament of his season...with history in the balance...you probably ought to think again.
The debate about whether Tiger should've been disqualified, or at least should've withdrawn from The Masters, doesn't have to do with the illegal drop, but actually with the signing of an illegal scorecard at the end of his round. Taking an illegal drop does not warrant disqualification. Again, the uneducated golf fans out there, along with the "Tiger haters", were calling for his disqualification based on the drop. The only reason Tiger would've been disqualified was for signing his scorecard for a "6" on the 15th hole, rather than an "8." The "golf purists" believe he should have then withdrawn for signing an incorrect scorecard, since that is historically what has happened. But, if he didn't believe he did anything wrong, and was not informed that he had when he signed his card, how exactly can he be held accountable for signing for an incorrect score?
The Masters committee was notified of the infraction by a TV viewer. It was not brought to their attention by one of Tiger's playing partners that day. It was not brought to their attention by the rules official on that hole. It was brought to their attention by a viewer. That's a debate for another day. The committee reviewed the footage while Woods was playing the 18th hole, and it was determined at that point that no advantage had been gained, and therefore, they opted to not bring this potential infraction to Tiger's attention. Let me repeat that. It was determined by the Masters rules committee that no infraction had occurred, and therefore, they did not bring it to Woods' attention prior to his signing his scorecard. At that point, upon signing the scorecard, Tiger still had not done anything that warranted disqualification. He had, in fact, signed a correct scorecard.
It was only after his post-round interview, where Tiger volunteered information to the contrary, stating that he took his drop two yards further back so he could hit the same shot, but get the right distance, did the Masters committee realize that he did, in fact, gain an advantage from his drop. Based on that, the committee notified Woods on Saturday morning that they wanted to talk with him about his comments. After that discussion, it was determined that a 2-stroke penalty was the correct action to take.
Here's why, after thinking about this for a good majority of Saturday while watching the Masters, I completely, 100% agree with this decision:
The Masters committee had every opportunity to at least bring it to Woods' attention prior to his signing of the scorecard, that there may have been some question about the drop. If, in fact, they had done this, Tiger would have no doubt explained his thought process, realized it was against the rules, and would've been assessed a 2-stroke penalty at that time, then signed his card with an "8" on the 15th hole, rather than a "6." And, had that happened, Tiger would've been playing Saturday at -1 par, just as he ended up doing.
The Masters committee didn't disqualify Woods because they realized they were the ones that made the true mistake, not Tiger. They utilized a new rule (Rule 33-7) which was put into effect last year, to help them correct that mistake. Rules are changed or enacted for a variety of different reasons. If during a World Series game, a ball gets hit into the corner and is ruled a foul ball, the umpires utilize instant replay to determine if it actually crossed in front or behind the foul pole. If, after reviewing it, they determine that it did, in fact, cross behind the pole, and rule it a home run...should the team being awarded the home run decline the run, saying that had this been prior to instant replay, it would've been considered a foul ball? Of course not. In this case, the rule was changed to "protect the players" from situations just like this.
The "Tiger haters" out there believe that had this been any other player, this ruling would never have happened. I completely disagree. To me, what's funny about those that believe that this was done solely because it was Tiger, are failing to realize one other key factor. The only reason this was ever an issue in the first place was because it was Tiger, and when Tiger is in contention for a tournament, especially The Masters, 90-100% of his shots are televised, scrutinized, and analyzed. So, had this been "any other player", the odds of their drop actually being shown on TV for a viewer to call in and bring the attention of the Masters committee to it, are probably very slim.
The "Tiger haters" out there need to realize that "illegal", in this case, does not mean "cheated." The "golf purists" out there need to realize that rules change. And the Masters rules committee needs to realize that what occurred during the 2013 Masters is something that must never happen again.
For starters, let's take a look at the actual "rules" in question, as they are written, from the USGA's Offical Rulebook:
26-1. Relief For Ball In Water Hazard
a. Proceed under the stroke and distance provision of Rule 27-1 by playing a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule 20-5); or
b. Drop a ball behind the water hazard, keeping the point at which the original ball last crossed the margin of the water hazard directly between the hole and the spot on which the ball is dropped, with no limit to how far behind the water hazard the ball may be dropped;
27-1. Stroke And Distance; Ball Out Of Bounds; Ball Not Found Within Five Minutes
a. Proceeding Under Stroke and Distance
At any time, a player may, under penalty of one stroke, play a ball as nearly as possible at the spot from which the original ball was last played (see Rule20-5), i.e., proceed under penalty of stroke and distance.
Except as otherwise provided in the Rules, if a player makes a stroke at a ball from the spot at which the original ball was last played, he is deemed to have proceeded under penalty of stroke and distance.
33-7. Disqualification Penalty; Committee Discretion
A penalty of disqualification may in exceptional individual cases be waived, modified or imposed if the Committee considers such action warranted.
Any penalty less than disqualification must not be waived or modified.
If a Committee considers that a player is guilty of a serious breach of etiquette, it may impose a penalty of disqualification under this Rule.
Now that we have the rules in front of us, let's take a look at the facts. There is no debate: Tiger Woods took an illegal drop for his fifth shot on the 15th hole in the Second Round of the 2013 Masters. That is 100% fact. Based on that, many uneducated golf fans were calling for Tiger to be disqualified, or with that knowledge, were at least asking for Tiger to withdraw from The Masters for what they considered "cheating".
Let's get something straight before we move on. Unknowingly taking an illegal drop in golf is not "cheating." If that were the case, it would be safe to assume that probably 90% of casual golfers, league golfers, amateur golfers, and even professional golfers have "cheated." I know, myself, that I've inadvertently dropped incorrectly and illegally, playing from a drop zone when I should've actually re-teed from the tee box, or taking a drop at a water hazard on the line where I believed the ball crossed, even though it may have cross 15 yards further up. It's something that happens in just about every round. Yes, some people (mostly casual players) will take a drop where they shouldn't because they either don't care, or actually want an advantage. Because, in this instance, the perpetrator was Tiger Woods, the #1 ranked golfer in the world, the "Tiger haters" out there believe there is no way he was unaware of the rules, and that his drop was an intentional violation of the rules to "cheat" and gain an advantage.
Does anyone really think Tiger Woods would have openly admit to "cheating" in a post-round interview if he actually believed he had cheated? If you answer "Yes" to that question, then you clearly have an issue with Mr. Woods, and have already made your mind up that because of his off-the-course transgressions, he is the most evil human being on the planet.
What Tiger was guilty of was confusing the rule, not ignoring it. Had he gone to the point of entry into the water, he could have brought his ball back from that point as far as he wanted to. Instead, he chose to hit from the original spot, and dropped his ball "2 yards further back." Did he think he was violating the rule? Obviously not. If he had, he wouldn't have openly admit it after the round. Again, if you think that Tiger Woods intentionally tried to "cheat" to gain an advantage...on national TV...in front of millions of fans watching...at the biggest golf tournament of his season...with history in the balance...you probably ought to think again.
The debate about whether Tiger should've been disqualified, or at least should've withdrawn from The Masters, doesn't have to do with the illegal drop, but actually with the signing of an illegal scorecard at the end of his round. Taking an illegal drop does not warrant disqualification. Again, the uneducated golf fans out there, along with the "Tiger haters", were calling for his disqualification based on the drop. The only reason Tiger would've been disqualified was for signing his scorecard for a "6" on the 15th hole, rather than an "8." The "golf purists" believe he should have then withdrawn for signing an incorrect scorecard, since that is historically what has happened. But, if he didn't believe he did anything wrong, and was not informed that he had when he signed his card, how exactly can he be held accountable for signing for an incorrect score?
The Masters committee was notified of the infraction by a TV viewer. It was not brought to their attention by one of Tiger's playing partners that day. It was not brought to their attention by the rules official on that hole. It was brought to their attention by a viewer. That's a debate for another day. The committee reviewed the footage while Woods was playing the 18th hole, and it was determined at that point that no advantage had been gained, and therefore, they opted to not bring this potential infraction to Tiger's attention. Let me repeat that. It was determined by the Masters rules committee that no infraction had occurred, and therefore, they did not bring it to Woods' attention prior to his signing his scorecard. At that point, upon signing the scorecard, Tiger still had not done anything that warranted disqualification. He had, in fact, signed a correct scorecard.
It was only after his post-round interview, where Tiger volunteered information to the contrary, stating that he took his drop two yards further back so he could hit the same shot, but get the right distance, did the Masters committee realize that he did, in fact, gain an advantage from his drop. Based on that, the committee notified Woods on Saturday morning that they wanted to talk with him about his comments. After that discussion, it was determined that a 2-stroke penalty was the correct action to take.
Here's why, after thinking about this for a good majority of Saturday while watching the Masters, I completely, 100% agree with this decision:
The Masters committee had every opportunity to at least bring it to Woods' attention prior to his signing of the scorecard, that there may have been some question about the drop. If, in fact, they had done this, Tiger would have no doubt explained his thought process, realized it was against the rules, and would've been assessed a 2-stroke penalty at that time, then signed his card with an "8" on the 15th hole, rather than a "6." And, had that happened, Tiger would've been playing Saturday at -1 par, just as he ended up doing.
The Masters committee didn't disqualify Woods because they realized they were the ones that made the true mistake, not Tiger. They utilized a new rule (Rule 33-7) which was put into effect last year, to help them correct that mistake. Rules are changed or enacted for a variety of different reasons. If during a World Series game, a ball gets hit into the corner and is ruled a foul ball, the umpires utilize instant replay to determine if it actually crossed in front or behind the foul pole. If, after reviewing it, they determine that it did, in fact, cross behind the pole, and rule it a home run...should the team being awarded the home run decline the run, saying that had this been prior to instant replay, it would've been considered a foul ball? Of course not. In this case, the rule was changed to "protect the players" from situations just like this.
The "Tiger haters" out there believe that had this been any other player, this ruling would never have happened. I completely disagree. To me, what's funny about those that believe that this was done solely because it was Tiger, are failing to realize one other key factor. The only reason this was ever an issue in the first place was because it was Tiger, and when Tiger is in contention for a tournament, especially The Masters, 90-100% of his shots are televised, scrutinized, and analyzed. So, had this been "any other player", the odds of their drop actually being shown on TV for a viewer to call in and bring the attention of the Masters committee to it, are probably very slim.
The "Tiger haters" out there need to realize that "illegal", in this case, does not mean "cheated." The "golf purists" out there need to realize that rules change. And the Masters rules committee needs to realize that what occurred during the 2013 Masters is something that must never happen again.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
The Vikings Lost A Great Pass-Catching Running Back In Percy Harvin
It's been almost a year since my last post, but I've been itching to get back into it. And lately...there's been something bothering me that I felt I needed to address.
What is it?
Percy Harvin is not a wide receiver. There, I said it.
The Minnesota Vikings didn't lose one of the best WR's in the NFL when Harvin was traded to the Seattle Seahawks this week. They lost one of the best pass-catching RB's in the NFL.
In 8 games last season (before he got "hurt"), Harvin caught 33 of the 62 passes he received BEHIND the line of scrimmage. In ONLY 8 games...that DOUBLED the amount of passes caught behind the line of scrimmage than 46 of the top 50 WR's. The next closest receiver to Harvin's 33 receptions behind the line of scrimmage: Antonio Brown of Pittsburgh, who played in 13 games.
This, to me, says one of two things:
1.) Percy Harvin is not a true NFL Wide Receiver. He was placed in that position by the Vikings out of necessity due to a lack of options over the last 4 years. There's no denying his talent, speed, or elusiveness on the field. He has plenty of skills, without a doubt. But to call him a "wide receiver" when, in fact, he caught more balls behind the line of scrimmage than any running back in football, is somewhat ridiculous.
Of the 280 career receptions Harvin has, only 65 of them are on passes thrown OVER 10 yards. That's only 23%. Compare that to someone like Calvin Johnson, who has 488 career receptions, with 204 of them being over 10 yards. That's 42%. Now, on the flip side of that coin, is a player like Wes Welker, who is probably more of an apples-to-apples comparison for a receiver like Harvin. Welker's percentage of receptions over 10 yards in his career is only around 16%. Would we consider Welker to not be an NFL wide receiver? Of course not. However, given the weapons the New England offense has had during Welker's career, he had a particular role of being more of a "possession" receiver, so naturally, the bulk of his receptions were going to come within yards of the line of scrimmage.
But most Vikings fans wouldn't consider Harvin a "possession" receiver...at least not ON the field...(insert off-the-field pot-smoking joke here). Listening to local media, listening to fans, the consensus in Minnesota is that Harvin is this unbelievable, top-tier wide-out that deserved to be "paid" big-time dollars. Again, no denying the talent, but is he truly a Top 10 receiver? Really?
2.) With Harvin catching over 50% of his 2012 receptions behind the line of scrimmage, the second thing that tells me is that the Vikings have a MAJOR issue at the quarterback position that the team doesn't quite seem willing to admit...yet. The fact that they've now signed Matt Cassel to a one-year contract may show a bit of uncertainty with Christian Ponder. But with a quarterback like Ponder, whose arm strength many have questioned, were Harvin's numbers over the last two years perhaps inflated? Will Harvin be as "effective" with Seattle as he was in Minnesota?
In my opinion...no.
Harvin benefited greatly from a quarterback who was unable to attack downfield. Think about this: In just 8 games, Harvin finished the 2012 season 3rd in YAC (Yards After Catch), behind Welker and New Orleans' running back Darren Sproles. Welker's YAC (619) accounted for only 46% of his total yards (1,354). Harvin's YAC (531) was responsible for 78% of his 677 total receiving yards. What that tells me is that Harvin made more of the short dink-and-dunk type passes Ponder was throwing him than what many people realize, which should say a lot about both Harvin and Ponder, from different aspects.
So, the bottom line is this: Is Percy Harvin a talented NFL player? Absolutely! Is he a top-flight wide receiver? That's highly debatable. Will the Vikings struggle without him, even if they don't sign a top-tier free agent wide-out? I think they'll struggle a lot less than what people think. Will Seattle be a much better team with Harvin? Most definitely!
What is it?
Percy Harvin is not a wide receiver. There, I said it.
The Minnesota Vikings didn't lose one of the best WR's in the NFL when Harvin was traded to the Seattle Seahawks this week. They lost one of the best pass-catching RB's in the NFL.
In 8 games last season (before he got "hurt"), Harvin caught 33 of the 62 passes he received BEHIND the line of scrimmage. In ONLY 8 games...that DOUBLED the amount of passes caught behind the line of scrimmage than 46 of the top 50 WR's. The next closest receiver to Harvin's 33 receptions behind the line of scrimmage: Antonio Brown of Pittsburgh, who played in 13 games.
This, to me, says one of two things:
1.) Percy Harvin is not a true NFL Wide Receiver. He was placed in that position by the Vikings out of necessity due to a lack of options over the last 4 years. There's no denying his talent, speed, or elusiveness on the field. He has plenty of skills, without a doubt. But to call him a "wide receiver" when, in fact, he caught more balls behind the line of scrimmage than any running back in football, is somewhat ridiculous.
Of the 280 career receptions Harvin has, only 65 of them are on passes thrown OVER 10 yards. That's only 23%. Compare that to someone like Calvin Johnson, who has 488 career receptions, with 204 of them being over 10 yards. That's 42%. Now, on the flip side of that coin, is a player like Wes Welker, who is probably more of an apples-to-apples comparison for a receiver like Harvin. Welker's percentage of receptions over 10 yards in his career is only around 16%. Would we consider Welker to not be an NFL wide receiver? Of course not. However, given the weapons the New England offense has had during Welker's career, he had a particular role of being more of a "possession" receiver, so naturally, the bulk of his receptions were going to come within yards of the line of scrimmage.
But most Vikings fans wouldn't consider Harvin a "possession" receiver...at least not ON the field...(insert off-the-field pot-smoking joke here). Listening to local media, listening to fans, the consensus in Minnesota is that Harvin is this unbelievable, top-tier wide-out that deserved to be "paid" big-time dollars. Again, no denying the talent, but is he truly a Top 10 receiver? Really?
2.) With Harvin catching over 50% of his 2012 receptions behind the line of scrimmage, the second thing that tells me is that the Vikings have a MAJOR issue at the quarterback position that the team doesn't quite seem willing to admit...yet. The fact that they've now signed Matt Cassel to a one-year contract may show a bit of uncertainty with Christian Ponder. But with a quarterback like Ponder, whose arm strength many have questioned, were Harvin's numbers over the last two years perhaps inflated? Will Harvin be as "effective" with Seattle as he was in Minnesota?
In my opinion...no.
Harvin benefited greatly from a quarterback who was unable to attack downfield. Think about this: In just 8 games, Harvin finished the 2012 season 3rd in YAC (Yards After Catch), behind Welker and New Orleans' running back Darren Sproles. Welker's YAC (619) accounted for only 46% of his total yards (1,354). Harvin's YAC (531) was responsible for 78% of his 677 total receiving yards. What that tells me is that Harvin made more of the short dink-and-dunk type passes Ponder was throwing him than what many people realize, which should say a lot about both Harvin and Ponder, from different aspects.
So, the bottom line is this: Is Percy Harvin a talented NFL player? Absolutely! Is he a top-flight wide receiver? That's highly debatable. Will the Vikings struggle without him, even if they don't sign a top-tier free agent wide-out? I think they'll struggle a lot less than what people think. Will Seattle be a much better team with Harvin? Most definitely!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)