The Marginalizing Humanity Debate Verdict

February 24, 2011

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Sports Geek.

The advancement of “baseball science” has brought us tremendous development in the sport.

Thanks to a greater understanding of the human body, training and dietary regimens have evolved, radically shifting the makeup of the “modern” baseball player. You need only compare photos of Babe Ruth and Albert Pujols to see the evidence of that reality.

Likewise, technological advances have given us access to the instant replay.

With each of these new developments, the quality of the baseball product is enhanced. The game itself is improved, as is the fan experience.

But for every new development that advances the game of baseball, there is also a baseball fad that makes an appearance. Unlike the great advances in baseball science, though, these fads over time either fail to add any real value to the game, or in some cases, actually detract from the great experience of America’s Pastime.

The use of performance enhancing drugs falls under this classification, as does the decision to use the All-Star Game as the determinant for which team in the World Series will get home field advantage (in my opinion). These are changes that were adopted by the game in an attempt to maintain relevance, but over the long-term failed to add any real value to the product of baseball.

Which brings us to the issue at hand today.

One of the hot trends in baseball over the past decade has been the growing emphasis that many baseball franchises are placing on highly complex, advanced statistical analysis. Sabermetrics, for example, is no longer referred to anecdotally. Instead, it is perceived as a viable tool in analyzing past results to project future performance.

Franchises are not just casually using these advanced analytical tools, either. The Boston Red Sox hired Bill James, the father of Sabermetrics, as a Senior Advisor for their organization nearly ten years ago. And more recently 17 different MLB franchises purchased Bloomberg’s Scouting Tools, which they tend to employ in a similar manner.

The statistical analysis of baseball performance has developed into a very real aspect of the game, and is now heavily ingrained as a viable practice in the front offices of more than half of Major League Baseball.

But are these advanced analytical tools the next great advancement in baseball science, or are they just the latest baseball fad?

Sports Geek is of the opinion that Sabermetrics and the like are the next step in the evolution of baseball. According to Sports Geek, these new analytical processes and tools are a tremendous advancement in the game, because they provide franchises with an opportunity to validate decisions that were previously based almost entirely on hunches.

There is a great deal of truth behind that assessment.

Like instant replay, these analytical tools seek to eliminate the subjectivity of human interpretation, and the fallibility that comes with that judgment. It seeks instead to replace that subjectivity with the objectivity of measurable or quantifiable facts. Rather than rely on a human being to process information through the filters of their own perception, which leaves room for error, these tools provide franchises with unbiased data which can be used to govern decision making.

The negative side of that, though, is the fact that there are certain aspects of the game which cannot be measured.

As Loyal Homer discusses, there are times when objectivity is not possible, because the circumstances within each game-time scenario are unique. There is no number to quantify the health of a player, or the personal stress he might be under, thanks to a problem at home, when he steps up to the plate.

Furthermore, it can be difficult (if not impossible) to substitute real experience that can only be gained over a lifetime of direct observation and analysis. A computer has not spent months or years developing relationships with players, and a math formula cannot tell you the attitude of your left fielder.

But despite those objections from Loyal Homer, I tend to agree with Sports Geek in his assessment that there is real value behind these measurements, and that they are the next step in the natural progression of baseball.

These tools are not intended to eventually replace the decision-making process for a manager or the front office. Baseball is a situational game, and the chess match that plays out on the field can never be directed by a set of hard and fast rules. Loyal Homer is correct in that assessment. But that fact does not automatically negate the value of Sabermetrics. To the contrary, it actually validates the need for it.

Managers will always be required to make spur-of-the-moment decisions, based on the context of each unique situation. Sabermetrics will not replace the decision-making process for those managers, but it is a greater set of tools that can help guide the manager to a decision they can feel confident will provide them with the best opportunity for success.

Sabermetrics and Bloomberg’s Scouting Tools are not a series of if-then statements. They do not provide managers with a crib-sheet on standard operating procedures. They help to arm that manager with the best possible information, thus equipping them to make the best possible decision.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share


The Marginalizing Humanity Debate

February 22, 2011

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Sports Geek.

The hiring of famed baseball historian and statistician, Bill James, as a senior baseball advisor for the Boston Red Sox in 2002 marked the start of a philosophical shift throughout baseball.

Prior to James’ hiring, baseball teams relied almost exclusively on talent scouts in order to determine the best possible players available to them at each position on the field. The scouts would provide a subjective analysis of how each observed player performed, and that analysis would be used to project the player’s likely future success within their organization.

James saw things a little differently.

In the 1980s, James gained notoriety in the baseball world as one of its most respected historians and statisticians. He began an annual publication titled “The Bill James Baseball Abstract,” which sought to analyze baseball performance through objective, statistical data, rather than through the subjective assessments of talent scouts.

And while he never intended for his statistical analysis, which he coined ‘Sabermetrics’, to actually replace scouting, his appointment by the Boston Red Sox indicated that the baseball world might be ready to do just that.

Since then, the emphasis on advanced statistical analysis has skyrocketed.

Today, there isn’t a single discussion about Cy Young contenders, MVP Candidates, or Minor League prospects that doesn’t include at least a mention of Sabermetrics. In the great Albert Pujols free-agency saga, the WAR (Wins Above Replacement) statistic is one that has been used to discuss just how valuable he has been to the St. Louis Cardinals organization. And now, 17 different Major League teams have bought Bloomberg Scouting Tools, a new sports analytics service that will surely be put to use in at least supplementing the scouting programs of these 17 franchises.

With so many different franchises now tying their organization’s future viability directly into the new science of sports analytics, what does this mean for scouting?

Has too much value been placed on stats, at the expense of the good old fashioned gut feel of scouting a player?

According to Loyal Homer, statistics cannot match human instinct, and there are some things that just cannot be quantified. On the other hand, Sports Geek argues that the validity of these new statistics cannot be denied, and they are proven more meaningful every day.

Until now, scouting was always perceived as an inexact science. Have the number-crunchers found a way to change that?

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The Marginalizing Humanity Debate… Stats Are Smarter and Fair

February 22, 2011

Read the opposing argument from Loyal Homer.

Nobody likes to lose. It sucks. Just image any losing scenario. Maybe your team gets robbed by a bad call. Or your team is poorly prepared because it lacks scouting tools. Or maybe management doesn’t understand how to assemble a winner because the front office people in the organization are constantly looking at the wrong data.

Each of those losing scenarios is historically accurate. Historically, front office people had no way of controlling that reality. Fortunately society and technology have evolved effectively and enables games to be played on an even playing field with replay, and front offices have to become smarter and more effective with the help of statistics and analysis.

My Dad – a self-made man who has an impressive resume and no college degree – always said, “They teach you one thing at Harvard Business school: If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage.”

Ah, dad’s and their seminal wisdom.

This is a quote from my Dad that I was never reluctant to admit truth in or steal and use. As it applies to business, so too does the meaning apply in sports.

So many times in sports the outcome of a game can be changed simply by better, more thorough preparation. Statistics provide that necessary data to fuel more prepared teams and better outcomes to games.

My suspicion is that Loyal Homer is going to bring up the famed “gut feeling” manager of the last era in baseball, Bobby Cox. I really like Bobby Cox and believe is an amazing manager, one of the best baseball has ever had. Hid gut was impressive in many of the calls he made, for sure. But it was no perfect. And as many calls as he would get right, sometimes he would get it wrong by making the wrong gut choice. Though he did win on World Series in 1995, that was prior to the now dominant emphasis on statistics. In fact, when stats and sabermetrics became a bigger part of baseball, Bobby Cox’s teams started to be less effective, and a seemingly dominant manager and team began to slip in the division, and then disappear from the national stage entirely.

During that time – from the late 1990s to the 2000s – sabermetrics took off in popularity and usefulness. For those unfamiliar with the concept, sabermetrics is the scientific use of statistical data to make baseball decisions. Bill James is the father of sabermetrics. He has written over 20 books on the use of statistics in managing baseball and has become an integral part of one of the most successful baseball franchises in the past eight years, the Boston Red Sox.

We all know the history of the fledgling Red Sox. At one time the franchise was considered perpetually snake bitten and impossible to take to a World Series. Then he was hired as a Senior Advisor in Baseball Operations because of his impressive resume in statistics and analysis. What happened next? The Red Sox won a pair of World Series championships, first in 2004 then again in 2007.

Those victories were no gut feel, lucky wins, either. They were a collection of seasons, games, and moments that were carefully analyzed and accurately diagnosed with the help of statistics that helped forecast the right managerial and front office moves.

Boston went from virtual irrelevance to a now traditional power in a division that was dominated by the New York Yankees. Since the Red Sox adopted the philosophy, many other teams have as well, including the San Francisco Giants, The Tampa Rays, the Philadelphia Phillies, and many more. It does not get more obvious – statistics and analysis help a team win, and good decision making from analysis makes good teams great. It is the modern approach for getting the most out of the collection of talent on a team.

As enchanting as they are, hunches and gut feels are a thing of the past. As much as we all may want the charming approach of yesteryear to remain the standard – especially in a sport like baseball – it simply isn’t reality if the goal is to win, and win consistently.

A gut feeling is not business like. It is uncontrolled and a not a repeatable process. It is not something that can be replicated and enhanced for improvement. It is very risky. In an era where teams are less willing to make bold and risky moves, statistics help govern winning actions. And, that’s okay. Like it or not, it is progress.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The Cardinals-Pujols Negotiation Debate

February 17, 2011

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Babe Ruthless.

These types of issues in sports always perplex me. Albert Pujols is clearly the best baseball player the St. Louis Cardinals have, and likely the best player in all of Major League Baseball. But, with his contact up after the 2011 season, it is time to work on a new deal. If no deal happens by the end of today, talks will continue after the season – when Pujols is a free agent with a maximum amount of leverage

Ten years and $275M is the first baseman’s starting point. That is big time A-Rod type money that many would agree Pujols likely deserves. But, the St. Louis Cardinals are in a tough spot. The franchise is not among the richest in the league (unless the conversation turns to tradition). It seems if Pujols really wanted to play for the Cardinals he would move off of his high price tag and get a deal done.

So, here we are at yet another annual, typical sports standoff between star player and franchise. But, in this case with Pujols and
the Cardinals, which side is right and justified?

Loyal Homer will argue that Pujols is being outrageous in his demands while Babe Ruthless will argue it is the franchise that is failing to see value

It all comes down to today. A deal must be agreed upon, or the deadline passes and Pujols reports to camp, where anything can happen with contract negotiations… from a calmly negotiated deal (unlikely since Pujols said he does not wish for talks to continue into the season) to a standoff that will continue indefinitely and begin to impact how effective the player can be (far more likely). Which is it? But, more importantly, which side is right?

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The College Basketball Top 25 Purpose Debate… Watch Me Pull A Ranking Out of My Hat!

February 15, 2011

Read the opposing argument from Optimist Prime.

When I was eight years old I thought the greatest illusion ever performed happened on my television when I watched David Copperfield walk through the Great Wall of China.

Then I discovered college basketball.

The NCAA Division I basketball, each year, pulls off a feat that would make Blackstone ask, “How’d they do that?!” What is the illusion, you ask? It is the illusion that there is any value at all to the top 25 ranking.

In college football, the top 25 rankings serve a very important function. They help to determine which teams get to participate in the series of the biggest bowl games, and ultimately which two teams will compete for the National Championship.

What purpose does the top 25 poll serve in basketball?

Last year, do you know what the respective national rankings were for Duke and Butler as they entered March Madness? Duke was ranked fourth in the nation, while Butler was ranked number 12. Despite those rankings (which in College Football earned #12 Missouri an invitation to the Insight Bowl… Ooooohhhh!!!!), those were the two teams that faced off for the crown last April.

Unlike the Football Bowl Subdivision of the NCAA, every single one of the more than 300 teams in Division I basketball kick the season off with an opportunity to compete for the National Championship. They don’t have to impress any voters, or beat the “right” teams. They don’t even have to have a good regular season.

All they have to do is win the conference tournament.

Sure, the worse a team does in the regular season, the tougher their road to, and through, the national tournament is, but that doesn’t change the simple fact that a team needs only to win in the post-season, and it is through to the Tournament.

If the top 25 rankings are irrelevant and unnecessary when populating the 64 teams for the national championship tournament, they must SURELY impact the seeding in the tournament, don’t they? I mean it only makes sense to do it that way. Teams ranked one through four would be given one-seeds, then the teams ranked five through eight get two-seeds, and so on.

WRONG!

Last year, for example, the teams ranked one through four did each earn a top seed in the national tournament (Kansas, Duke, Syracuse, and Kentucky).

So what about the two-seeds?

After the top four in the rankings came Ohio State (fifth in the nation), Purdue (sixth), West Virginia (seventh), and New Mexico (eighth). But neither Purdue nor New Mexico were rewarded with the second spot in their respective brackets. Instead, it was Ohio State, West Virginia, Kansas State (ranked ninth in the country) and Villanova (ranked tenth).

New Mexico actually received a three-seed, and Purdue (the sixth best team in the country, according to the national rankings) was bumped all the way down to a four-seed, while Baylor (the 21st ranked team in the country) was seeded third, ahead of them in the same region.

What led to the disparity between the national rankings and the seedings for the national tournament? Once again, it was the selection committee.

Rather than overload a region with too many teams from the same conference, or with a prospective high-powered regular season rematch too early in the dance, they try to distribute the Major Conference representatives evenly across the bracket, regardless of their projected worth on the national stage.

Now, as this year draws towards another March full of basketball Madness, fans of the San Diego State Aztecs (currently ranked sixth in the nation by the AP) can expect the same head-scratching logic as an answer to the questions of why they were seeded third or fourth – behind some big-named program from a big-named conference like the 20-team Big East – that will simply ride the merits of their name and neighborhood into an easier road to Houston.

The top 25 rankings are completely worthless in college basketball. They provide water cooler conversation at the workplace, and give sportswriters something to do each week in the football off-season. But when it comes to what really matters (a chance at the national championship), they hold as much value as a Mel Kiper, Jr. mock draft.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The Spurs Leading the Pack Debate Verdict

February 10, 2011

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Babe Ruthless.

The San Antonio Spurs are off to one of the best starts in NBA history. And when you consider that their historical company has each gone on to win the championship in the respective seasons they started so strongly, it makes you wonder if the Spurs are destined for the same fate.

But we are not trying to gaze into a crystal ball, today.

This debate is not about whether the Spurs will win the NBA Finals, it is about whether they are the best team in the league. And based on what I have read from Babe Ruthless and Loyal Homer, it seems clear to me that the answer is – Yes, they are (congratulations to Loyal Homer)!

Babe Ruthless does raise some key questions about the Spurs performance to this point in the season. Specifically, he calls into doubt the Spurs record by pointing out that they have what many would consider an easy schedule. And while it is true that they have won the vast majority of those cupcake games, they have faltered when stepping onto the hardwood against steeper competition.

Although I can agree with that assessment, the exact same statement can be made about those other top tier teams that Babe Ruthless points to as challengers to the Spurs. The Boston Celtics have losses to the Dallas Mavericks, Orlando Magic, New Orleans Hornets, and Chicago Bulls, as well as the Cleveland Cavaliers and Toronto Raptors. Likewise, the Heat have lost to the Celtics twice, the Mavs twice, and have also lost to the Magic, as well as Memphis and Indiana.

The same can be illustrated by dissecting the records of the Maverics, Magic, and every other team in the league. Each organization has played more than 50 games, and none are undefeated. And so the fact that the Spurs lost a couple of their 52 games played thus far to other good teams is just not enough evidence to refute their claim as the best in the NBA.

On the flip side, though, Loyal Homer points to some statistics that CANNOT be matched by any other teams in the league.

Only once so far this season have the Spurs lost consecutive games, and that was simply a two-game skid on the road against the Knicks, then in Boston against the Celtics (a very understandable couple of losses). And while those consecutive losses have not been repeated by the Spurs, one feat they have duplicated is following their losses up with a LONG series of consecutive wins.

It should also be noted that their schedule may on the surface appear to be one of the weaker in the league, but the actual average winning percentage of their opponents (.506) has statistically posed a tougher strength of schedule than what the Heat (.477), Celtics (.485), Magic (.493), Lakers (.479), and the Bulls (.482) have each faced.

In all reality, there are still plenty of games left in the season, and the fact that the Spurs have the best record in the NBA right now is no guarantee that they will win the Finals. But teams like the 2007 New England Patriots will tell you that the best team doesn’t always win the championship.

No one can look into a crystal ball and predict which team will win the championship, but you can look at the records and see who has been most dominant – the San Antonio Spurs.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg!
Bookmark and Share


The Spurs Leading the Pack Debate

February 9, 2011

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Babe Ruthless.

Well, another NFL season is officially in the books. For those of you now shifting your focus to basketball, let me get you up to speed on how the season has gone thus far…

The Denver Nuggets decided to trade, then not trade, then trade, then not trade Carmelo Anthony.

Cleveland Cavaliers fans were shocked when Zydrunas Ilgauskas and some other guys decided to play ball in Miami with the Heat.

Speaking of the Cavs, that team is plunging the depths of failure to find out just how deep rock-bottom really is. The Cavs are well on the way to becoming the worst team not only in NBA history, but in the entire history of American professional sports with a historic 25-game losing streak.

Finally, with the All-Star break looming on the horizon, the team leading the standings with the best record in the league is… (pause for dramatic effect)… the San Antonio Spurs.

Through the first half of the season, the Spurs have rocketed to an impressive record of 42-8, a full 4.5 games ahead of any other teams in the league. But with the experienced and team-oriented Boston Celtics, the superstar-laden Miami Heat, or the two-time reigning champion Los Angeles Lakers out there – Are the San Antonio Spurs REALLY the best team in basketball at the season midpoint?

According to Loyal Homer, the Spurs record is an indication of the fact that they are the best team in the league while Babe Ruthless feels the Spurs are not the best team, despite their current spot in the standings.

How do you measure the worth of a team? Let the arguments begin!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The Firing Jeff Fisher Debate… Hire Slow and Fire Fast

February 7, 2011

Read the opposing argument from Optimist Prime.

Getting fired sucks. There is just no way around that. But, getting fired after 16 years on the job? That sting has to feel worse, like when you bang a knee playing football outside in 20-degree weather. That is the kind of sting that stays with a person for a while. That is what Jeff Fisher is likely still experience after he was fired by Tennessee Titans owner Bud Adams.

Granted, the timing was terrible. But as the old, tried and true business axiom goes – hire slow and fire fast. Once a team realizes a coach is not the right coach for the team – regardless of the reasons – leadership should act quickly and fire the head coach. The Tennessee Titans acted prudently in their firing of Jeff Fisher, setting the team, and the entire organization, on a much better path for success. Even though it may be difficult to see that right now.

It is unfortunate that the seeming majority of upper echelon coaching candidates were off the market by the time Fisher was let go. But if Fisher wasn’t the right coach for the long term, his firing was unavoidable – no matter what other potential coaching candidates were available.

There are some organizations in sports where owners have far too much influence. In fact, they meddle. Fisher was willing to put up with Titans’ owner Bud Adams and his opinions about personnel. But Fisher erred early in his relationship with Adams by allowing the owner too wield much influence. That early mistake opened the door for the beginning of the end for Fisher, and drafting Vince Young sped up the inevitable.

Vince Young’s bad attitude and ability to receive and miraculously maintain an advocate in Bud Adams prevented Fisher achieving the success he enjoyed early in his head coaching career. But that situation was Fisher’s fault.

Fisher failed because he was unable to oust Young after Young churned through three of his offensive coordinators – including the very well respected Norm Chow. Regardless of how much affection Bud Adams has – or had – for Vince Young, Fisher should have not given into Adams. Adams is not a head football coach, and Fisher should have played the coaching card. It was clear to Fisher early on that Young was not the right quarterback for his style of team. Instead of just standing up for his beliefs and style, he relented to keep his job. It’s hard for a coward to lead a football team.

Without an advocate for a head coach, the team began to take on the persona of its supposed star player, Vince Young. Young’s flighty, unreliable approach to the game infected the rest of the players. The players – it was clear- were given far more power and influence than they should have received. Fisher failed to maintain his hold on authority for his team. They were desperate for a leader able to unite the team, and Fisher could not longer do that. When a leader fails to lead in a business, that leader must be replaced. And Fisher has now rightly been replaced.

Fisher was a good coach at one point. He led a team to within the nose of the football of defeating the vaunted Best Show on Turf in the 2000 Super Bowl. But over time Jeff Fisher allowed his influence and respect to be undermined. He failed to live by his core values, and it is very hard to lead when that is the case. He had to be replaced, though he was once considered one of the game’s best coaches – and probably will be again.

Bud Adams should have fired Jeff Fisher. But in doing so he must also take time and address other issues that are plaguing his organization. The Titans needs a leader who is able to unify the locker room. If the Titans expect to have a fighting chance when they return to the gridiron (whenever that will be), Bud Adams needs to reflect seriously on the management style of his next coach. Hire slow, and fire fast. The timing stinks, but Adams must now take his time and architect a winning organization from the ground up.

But, one thing is clear – Jeff Fisher was not the coach to lead the team anymore. Once that decision is made, it’s best to cut ties. Fisher’s firing was justified.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The Greatest NFL Franchise Debate… Yinz Got a Long Way To Go

February 3, 2011

Read the opposing argument from Babe Ruthless.

We have heard all the numbers.

The Pittsburgh Steelers have won six Super Bowls, and could win their seventh on Sunday. The franchise has also tied the Dallas Cowboys for the most Super Bowl appearances (eight) and playoff victories (33) in NFL history.

If the award for being the greatest franchise in league history was given for Super Bowl success, then the Steelers would win the title hands down.

That, however, is not the case.

Perhaps an argument can be made that the Pittsburgh Steelers are the greatest franchise of the Super Bowl era (and even that is based only on the quantity of Super Bowls won). But for a league like the NFL, whose rich history and tradition extends FAR beyond just the league’s current championship game, the assumption that the Super Bowl is the only standard by which franchise greatness can be determined is completely absurd.

Furthermore, making the statement that the Pittsburgh Steelers are the greatest franchise in NFL history, because they have the most Super Bowl success is like saying that Florida is the greatest college football program because it has won the most BCS national championships.

Break down and assess the qualities of the Pittsburgh Steelers that are lauded as justification for the title of “Greatest Franchise in NFL History.” Analysis shows that the Steelers are actually lacking in both quality AND quantity.

We Got Six. How Many Yinz Got?
Ask anyone in Pittsburgh why they think the Steelers are the greatest franchise in NFL history, and that is the response that you will get. Of course, they are referring to their unprecedented six Super Bowl championships (with a possible seventh on the way).

When you consider the fact that there are still five franchises that have never won a single Super Bowl – let alone six Super Bowls – I cannot deny the impressive stature of that claim.

But let’s add the perspective of history to that claim, and see where it REALLY stacks up.

Professional Football in America began in 1920, with the official formation of the NFL coming two years later in 1922. Since then, there have been 88 different NFL championships awarded, only 44 of which were titled Super Bowls.

That means the Super Bowl era only accounts for HALF of the league’s ACTUAL history. So what about the OTHER half?

During that 44 year stretch, the Pittsburgh Steelers won exactly ZERO championships, while teams like the Chicago Bears, Green Bay Packers, and Cleveland Browns owned the gridiron.

In fact, when you look at the total number of professional football championships won, the Steelers six titles ranks them as FIFTH on the list, behind the Green Bay Packers (12), Chicago Bears (nine), Cleveland Browns (eight), and New York Giants (seven). That means that, with a win on Sunday against the Green Bay Packers, the “alleged” greatest Franchise in NFL history will climb to the lofty peak of being tied with the New York Giants for only the FOURTH most championships in history.

Conveniently Ignoring History
While the Pittsburgh Steelers have been among the most dominant franchises of the second half of the league’s 88 year history, the team’s first-half performance was ABYSMAL. But the “Yinzers” seem to have forgotten about THOSE years.

For the first 37 years of the franchise’s history the Pittsburgh Steelers played to a combined record of 168-270-18. That’s a HORRIBLE winning percentage of just .368. During that same period the Steelers recorded only five seasons with a winning record (that means 32 losing seasons), and only one post-season appearance, a 1947 blowout at the hands of the Philadelphia Eagles.

Then came Chuck Noll and the Steelers’ Dynasty of the 1970s, when the franchise earned four Super Bowl Championships between 1974 and 1979.

Again, the 1970s marked a very impressive run, and the accomplishment cannot be ignored. But when you consider that five year stretch in the context that the league had already crowned 52 OTHER NFL champions before it happened, the accomplishment loses some if its significance historically.

Similarly, the present-day Steelers organization has essentially dominated the league for a period of five years, from 2005–2010.

Therefore, in the 88 year history of the NFL, the Steelers have been dominant for two five-year stretches. THAT’S IT!

The VAST MAJORITY of the Steelers’ 77 year history was spent in pathetic futility.

Other Historical Comparisons
The Pittsburgh Steelers may be tied with the Dallas Cowboys for the most post-season victories in NFL history, but again, many of those victories came at a time in the league when more post-season games were played each season. Using the 2005 Super Bowl championship as an example, that year alone accounted for FOUR different post-season victories.

In terms of historical context, getting four post-season victories in one year is not nearly as impressive as getting a playoff victory in four consecutive years. The team that can consistently sustain post-season success over an extended period of time is by far the greater franchise.

  • The Pittsburgh Steelers, in a 77 year history, have reached the post-season 26 times. By comparison, the Dallas Cowboys have reached the post-season 30 times in a history that spans only 50 years. That’s more appearances by the Cowboys in fewer seasons, and simple math will tell you that the Steelers reach the playoffs only 34 percent of the time, while the Cowboys have done it 60 percent of the time.
  • As for total franchise victories, the Steelers are once again fifth on the list with 541 total victories, behind the Washington Redskins (547), the New York Giants (636), the Green Bay Packers (664), and the Chicago Bears (704).
  • The Pittsburgh Steelers boast a franchise win percentage of .520, ranking them 14th out of 32 active franchises.
  • The Pittsburgh Steelers have had a total of 19 Hall of Famers. Compare that to the Chicago Bears (26), or the Green Bay Packers (21).

Keeping Things in Perspective
No matter which way you slice it, the Pittsburgh Steelers fall WELL SHORT of historical superiority. The franchise does not have the most championships, the most Hall of Famers, the most wins, or the best win percentage. And, for the first FOUR DECADES of existence, the Steelers were the bottom-feeders of professional football.

They are a team that was founded before World War II, but not until the mid-1970s did they have ANY success. The only REAL success came in two very different five-year periods that have book-ended the last 40 years.

Yes, the Steelers may have won the most championships in the NFL over the last 44 years, but do they deserve the title of Greatest Franchise in NFL History?

Not by a Cleveland Mile!

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


The Shorten NASCAR Races Debate Verdict

February 2, 2011

Read the opposing arguments from Loyal Homer and Optimist Prime.

It is very easy to dismiss the notion that a sport should be able to exist outside of any third party influences. If this were an ideal world where were played inside a vacuum, where the playing field is always equal, and where life doesn’t constantly interrupt with the its relentless imperfections, then this debate would be an open and shut case.

But, life is complicated. And, as a reflection of life, sports are complicated as well. Thank goodness! That is what keeps us all so entertained, so tuned in for all 365 days on the calendar.

This debate was, in theory, simple. Prove or disprove that NASCAR – and by extension all major sports – should not change format or rules at the behest of influences outside of a sport’s governing body or representative participants.

Interestingly, Optimist Prime is dead wrong about the core of this debate. It is about whether NASCAR should bow to outside interests to change its sport. I think it’s clear that races should be shorter.

Both arguments made it clear that NASCAR needs to shorten races. No argument from me – that is not even debatable. Look at the most popular racing in the world, Formula One. Races are 2-2.5 hours. They NEVER extend beyond 2.5 hours. It’s easy for TV, for sponsors, for fans – for everyone involved.

With NASCAR, rain, and weather in general, are no small influence on the races. If it rains late in the second hour of a race, the race – and its coverage – will be extended indefinitely until the race is over. OR, the conclusion of the race will be postponed a day or two and rescheduled. That’s good for fans. The fact is, FOX (or any network, for that matter) doesn’t want that to extend its entire schedule into its primetime lineup, so it behooves the network to pressure for shorter races.

Okay, shorter races it is. But should NASCAR bow to outside influences?

Starting with Optimist Prime, I must admit that I am rightly skeptical of the notion that FOX is choosing to listen to fans more than sponsors. That simply is only half the story. Fans do dictate ratings, but FOX is likely full up with diminishing ratings as races go longer and longer. Fans speak, and sponsors react. Optimist Prime IS correct, however, in implying that any counter reaction from NASCAR is inherently a reaction to both fan and sponsor.

Optimist Prime makes a good point about the nature of NASCAR races, and how tuning cars in-race does not appeal to the vast majority of the audience. There is SO much broadcast time to fill in a race, however, that car tuning gets a healthy dose of coverage. Frankly, FOX doesn’t even do a good enough job of covering tweaks in race with their sideline crew. The strategy of NASCAR probably isn’t as appealing as it would be to, say, Formula One fans. Therefore it makes sense to shorten races to force the cars into more of a REAL sprint mode – a style that would have broad appeal.

Fans speak through TV ratings and attendance, which inherently impact sponsorship and advertising revenue. It makes sense for that to influence the sport, then.

But, fans are an outside interest. The sponsors and businesses the fans’ action influence is also outside interests. Both have earned a voice in shaping the sport.

Ironically, after misdiagnosing the true meaning of this debate, Optimist Prime still does an excellent job of proving that fans and sponsors should be allowed to change a sports, which is enough to win my vote for debate winner.

My Zimbio Blog Directory Sport Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Add us to your technorati favorites Digg! Bookmark and Share


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.