Sean’s Sports

Since I’m paying out the nose for the NFL Network (which is simultaneously more and less palatable here in Chicago, since Comcast thought it’d be a good idea to put ESPN 2, ESPN Classic, and FSN/CSN on the same “special” — read: “more expensive” — Sports Tier, I figure I’d spend some time watching it. After just a couple of days of watching game film while trying desperately to ignore Brian Baldinger, What’s-His-Name, and some metrosexual host with the kind of beard not even Eli Manning would envy, I’ve learned something that I think is vitally important.

How to beat an eight man defensive front.

This season, Adrian Peterson burst onto the scene and dominated for his first eight games. Then teams decided to try to stop him, forcing the Vikings to beat them through the air (which didn’t happen). At first, I figured that the main thing the team needed to improve was the passing game; after all, if the defense puts eight guys in the box, all you have to do is pass over the top and punish them until they stop, at which point AD can run again.

I continued to get worried when one of the Vikings’ defensive lineman, whose team had played against Peterson’s Oklahoma in college, spoke up late in the season. He said that Peterson had ripped them for 200 yards the first time they played, but every subsequent time they just put 8 guys in the box and it successfully stopped the running game. Was it possible that Peterson simply can’t beat an eight man front?

Well, now I’ve watched some tape. And I’ve seen how to beat such a defensive scheme without requiring a decent quarterback. (Although that would be preferable in the long run, of course.)

First, install a zone blocking scheme. The Vikings have already done this. Second, run off-tackle towards the left. At this point, the defense has two options: Crash down onto the offensive line as it moves left, or stay parallel to the line and attack.

If they crash, it creates an open cutback lane on the right side for the running back. He gets about 3-5 yards upfield before meeting one defender, either an outside linebacker or a defensive back, and if he beats that guy (either by running over or around him), he gets to run wild in the defensive secondary. Ladainian Tomlinson gets most of his 40 yard gains this way.

If they don’t crash, the fact that the offensive line is moving to the left overloads the defense and blocks half of the defensive front away from the play. The running back continues to the left, breaking it outside once he gets to the line. A single downfield block by a wide receiver — on a cornerback — will spring a long run. Tomlinson does this too.

(My example has the offense running to the left. It works equally well if the play starts to the right.)

This scheme makes some assumptions. It assumes you have a good, athletic offensive line — the Vikings’ line is good, but unbalanced. McKinnie probably isn’t athletic enough to pull to the right, while at the same time the right side of the line probably isn’t good enough to run behind consistently. So the Vikings would have to run mostly to the left until and unless they upgrade the right side of the line. Secondly, it assumes you have a talented, smart running back, which the Vikings appear to have.

Finally, it assumes that the defense is in a somewhat base eight man front, rather than stacking the outside to prevent any off-tackle runs. However, I think it’s pretty safe to make that assumption, because if they did that it’d be obvious immediately, and the quarterback should have the presence of mind to audible to a run up the middle, allowing the running back to run it right down the defense’s throat, where they’re weakest (in case they line up this way).

I’m stunned that a solution to the Vikings’ problem is this simple — I can’t imagine that Childress and the offense don’t watch enough tape to be able to come up with something like this. But I haven’t seen the Vikings attempt very many off-tackle runs, and I’m well aware of Childress’ inability (or unwillingness) to learn anything new or change the way he does things. So hopefully he gets an offensive coordinator who’s not an idiot (and allows him to call the plays) so Peterson can take his rightful place in The 2000 Yard Club.

After finishing the season 9-4, my Destroyers ended up in second place in Division 2 and qualified for the playoffs. Round 1 is against the BraveGators, who were also 9-4, and finished the season in first place in Division 2. As the fourth seed (out of four), I would assume I’d be the underdog in our matchup.

The Matchup
Unsurprisingly, I was the underdog this week, with a projected loss of 116-107. In the regular season, I had held the scoring crown until the last two weeks of the season, and finished in second place behind the BraveGators, scoring just 8 fewer points. So, over the course of the entire season, we were pretty evenly matched. But in an individual game, it’s hard to come up with very much confidence. My top performers are Peyton Manning, Randy Moss, LenDale White, and the Vikings Defense. His are Brett Favre, Brian Westbrook, TJ Houshmandzadeh, Terrell Owens, Frank Gore, Chester Taylor, and Fred Taylor. He’s got a completely stacked team, and the only reason he’s not favored by more than 9 points is because he can’t play them all.

Bad Decisions

1. Starting Jesse Chatman (0 points)
1. I didn’t realize he was inactivated for this game
2. Still, this is inexcusable in an important game
2. Starting Justin Fargas (5 points)
1. I figured he’d be able to do something against the Packers
3. Benching LenDale White (19 points)
1. He just kept on disappointing me, and he hadn’t had more than 13 carries in a game in the last 5 weeks, but in this game he had 30 carries and dominated the game

Good Decisions

1. Starting the Vikings Defense (22 points) instead of the Giants Defense (9 points)
2. Starting Ryan Grant (21 points)
1. Grant just keeps racking up points: in his last 5 games, he’s scored 19 twice and 21 twice
3. Starting Peyton Manning (25 points) over Derek Anderson (13 points)
4. Starting Marques Colston (21 points) over Dwayne Bowe (3 points)
5. Benching Brandon Jacobs (4 points)
1. I’ve been pretty disappointed in Jacobs; he seemed to have so much potential, and has had a few decent games (17, 14, 13, 13 points), but has struggled with injury and platoons far too much to be a reliable option

Bad Things That Happened

1. Favre (16 points) had an incredible second half after starting slow
2. Westbrook (18 points) is pretty good
3. The Carolina Panthers are awful and allowed the Jaguars Defense to score 18 points against me

Good Things That Happened

1. Kolby Smith (1 point) was completely stopped by an allegedly anemic Denver rush defense
2. Terrell Owens (2 points) was silent as the Cowboys almost lost to the Lions
3. My opponent made some Sean-like bench decisions, leaving the following players out of the game:
1. Brandon Marshall (24 points)
2. Fred Taylor (19 points)
3. Chester Taylor (18 points)
4. Randy Moss (25 points) continues to make the case that he’s one of the best wide receivers of all time

Interesting Notes

1. I didn’t get to watch the Vikings game (because Fox figured it’d be better to broadcast a King of the Hill marathon instead), but I knew the game was over after the first play of the game when Kevin Williams returned an interception for a TD

The Result
Well, despite the fact that I was the underdog in this game, I ended up taking the victory, 133-76. It’s only the first half of the game, which only means that the margin of victory is actually important (for once). I have to play the BraveGators again next week, and all I have to do is lose to them by less than 57 points and I’ll still advance to the championship game. But you know me … I’m going to do my best to outscore him next week too. After all, I’m now the highest scoring team in the league. (Thank you Randy Moss!)

Go Destroyers!!!

This week I played the Carolina Crushers (5-6-1) in a must win game. It’s the last game before the playoffs, and I’m not exactly confident that I can lose and still get in.

The Matchup
    I’m 8-4 and in second place in my division (0.5 GB). The Crushers are 3 GB, and are essentially out of playoff contention. My stars are Peyton Manning, Ryan Grant, Randy Moss, and Marques Colston. His are Tony Romo, Adrian Peterson (the good one), Steve Smith, Chad Johnson, and Antonio Gates. At first glance, I might be in trouble in this one.
    The computer projections seem to agree, as the Crushers are favored 110-108. I haven’t seen the projections be particularly accurate, but it does show that our teams are fairly evenly matched, and I’m in the position of hoping that my players have better games than his players.

The Bad Decisions

1. Not starting Adrian Peterson (the bad one) (14 points)
1. LenDale White (12 points) had a reasonable game, so I don’t feel so bad about this decision
2. Starting Marques Colston (3 points)
1. I don’t feel so bad about this one either, since Dwayne Bowe (5 points) didn’t do much better

The Good Decisions

1. Starting Ryan Grant (21 points)
1. I was debating whether I should do this … but he turned in another excellent Thursday performance (perhaps the Packers should play on Thursday more often!)
2. Starting Justin Fargas (21 points)
1. Wow … I didn’t see this one coming. But I’ll take it!
3. Starting the Vikings Defense (15 points)
1. This was a gametime decision for me … I switched them in for the Giants Defense 30 seconds before the deadline
4. Starting Peyton Manning (25 points)
1. It was really nice that Manning held his ground against Romo, keeping me in the game
2. I’m putting him on here because it’s often been a bad decision to play him over Derek Anderson (17 points)

Bad Things That Happened

1. Tony Romo (26 points) continues to excel
2. Adrian Peterson (the good one) (24 points) is back
1. I can’t really complain about this one, as he’s the best player on my favorite team, and I really want him firing on all cylinders for our playoff push

Good Things That Happened

1. Antonio Gates (0 points) had an abysmal game (most likely a casualty of The Ladainian Tomlinson Show)
2. Ahman Green (0 points) started against me … I don’t know what my opponent was thinking here, he left DeShaun Foster (14 points) on the bench
3. The Texans Defense (1 point) gave up plenty of points to the Titans and didn’t do much else … they sure aren’t the Vikings!
4. The weather in Pittsburgh held Chad Johnson (8 points) to a low score. He definitely could have caught a couple more touchdowns if the field and wind weren’t so rough

Interesting Notes

• My line of -2 was by far the smallest in the league. Beyond that, there was a line of -16, -19, -57, and -57.9
• In the 3rd quarter of the Vikings-Lions game, there was a challenge on a potential fumble. The referee took an inordinately long time to emerge from under the hood, during which time all the players stayed on the field, with their helmets off, talking to each other (even laughing with members of the opposing team) … it was both entertaining and disconcerting to see the players acting like they would after the game had ended

The Result
This game was basically clinched before the Monday Night game, and I ended up winning 117-78. That’s a much larger spread than the 2 points that was projected (as I said, those projections aren’t often accurate, especially when they project a close one). My 117 was the highest score of the week, narrowly edging out the Woodies, who had 115. The Woodies are the only team ahead of me in my division, and their victory maintains that lead. The BraveGators scored only 82 points this week (they passed me for the overall points lead last week), which narrows the gap quite a bit … I still lost the points battle by 8 points over the course of a 13 week season.

I believe the playoff system allows 4 teams into the playoffs, either 2 from each division or the 4 with the best record. In either case, I should be in the playoffs, starting next week. I’m looking forward to it, and hoping I can get big games from my big players. I’ve been counting on it all year, and these guys can’t let me down now.

Go Destroyers!!

For several years, I’ve been wondering about the nebulous concept of “salary arbitration,” wherein players and teams negotiate a salary and an arbitrator decides what the team must pay the player. Arbitration happens after a player’s first three seasons and before his first six seasons.

My issues with arbitration have been:

• Why is it necessary?
• How do they choose the price?
• Why does everyone deserve a raise regardless of performance or injury?
• Does being on the 60 day DL for an entire year count toward your service time?

Why is it necessary?
I actually don’t have much of a problem with it. After those first three years in the majors, good players deserve to finally get paid. The arbitration process guarantees that. Without the arbitration process, the contract situation would probably be even more confusing and the teams would figure out ways to gain more control over the players.

How do they choose the price?
Well, it turns out that the team and the player each submit a salary offer for a new one year contract. The arbitrator then decides which of these numbers is “fair,” based on what other players with “similar ability and service time” are getting paid.

I have a huge problem with this. The system seems to be clearly designed to pump up the dollar value of every player. The comparable clause is vague enough to put a below average player in the same class as a superstar. It doesn’t take into account the team paying him; note that players on the Yankees and Red Sox probably have higher salaries than players on the Marlins and Rays. This does not mean the players are better, it means the team is willing to pay more money. The salary arbitration process ensures that every team must pay the price the richest teams would be willing to pay.

Why does everyone deserve a raise regardless of performance or injury?
Obviously, they don’t. But they very often get it. The Twins are only allowed to offer Craig Monroe 20% less than last year’s salary in arbitration, despite the fact that he had by far the worst season of his career. The only reason he’ll make $3.5 million next season (at least) is because of the salary arbitration process, which defines a minimum that a player is allowed to be paid, based on what he used to be paid. When it’s illegal for you to get a pay cut or be demoted — regardless of performance or any other issue — you know you’ve got a good union.

Does being on the 60 day DL for an entire year count toward your service time?
The reason I care is this: if you have a good, young (cheap) player who can contribute to the team significantly before he reaches arbitration, you have a significant competitive advantage. What if that player sits out a year during his pre-arbitration days? Does the team get an extra year of performance from that player to replace what was lost, or does the player get one year closer to the big paycheck without having to do anything? (Specifically, I care because of Francisco Liriano, who is in exactly this situation.)

Well, it turns out that sitting out a year on the 60 day DL does count toward your service time. So, in effect, the Twins will have to pay Liriano as if he’d never been injured, despite the fact that the team did not receive 3 years of actual service during his service time.

Ultimately, I think salary arbitration is a good idea and is probably a necessary evil, especially after the way players were treated by the owners before free agency. But the players’ union is far too powerful, and the process has become corrupted in such a way that players are guaranteed too much money (more than what they’ve earned) and all teams in all markets are forced to pay their players the same as the rich teams in the huge markets would; this is simply impossible and foolish.

A quick way to fix the arbitration process would be to make a couple small changes for the better. The first thing that needs to be changed is the DL clause; if you’re on the DL for an entire year, it doesn’t count towards your service time. The second is the actual arbitration process, and the fact that the arbitrator simply chooses one salary over another (usually the player’s submission); the arbitrator should be able to choose a salary somewhere in between the two submissions, based on a number of factors considering both the player and the team. It should at least be possible for the Marlins to hang onto Miguel Cabrera until he actually reaches free agency. Just because New York and Boston would pay him $13 million does not mean the Marlins should be forced to do the same.

I think that would make baseball a better game and would reign in some of the more absurd player salaries, along with restoring some semblance of parity to the game. However, given the power wielded by the players’ union, if the system undergoes any changes they would undoubtedly lean toward benefiting the players over the teams, making player salaries higher and ensuring that only major market teams with hobbyist owners have any chance of competing for players or championships.

It really is too bad.

After reading a report by Ken Rosenthal that quotes a couple of AL scouts regarding Jacoby Ellsbury, I have to wonder why we’re setting a hard line on him.

“A lot of hype,” one scout says of Ellsbury.

“A polished
college player who played at a high level in a hurry,” says another.
“He already is ‘tool-ed’ out. He only will be an 8-to-10 homer guy.”

He seemed really good in the World Series, and in the brief time he played for the Red Sox in 2007. Everyone seems to be assuming that means that performance is his floor, and he’ll continue to get better and better ad infinitum. I’d been making the same mistake.

First, let’s ignore his MLB stats this year. The sample size is far too small for it to be worthwhile. This year, as a 23 year old at AAA, he batted .298/.360/.380 with 14 2B, 2 HR, 28 RBI, and 33 SB in 87 games. That’s about enough games to be able to say it’s accurate, but let’s look to 2006. He batted .303/.382/.425 with 17 2B, 7 HR, 51 RBI, and 41 SB in 111 games split between A+ and AA ball as a 22 year old. (Note that Jason Tyner consistently batted .300/.370/.360 throughout his time at AAA, starting at age 22.)

Sure, those numbers aren’t bad. But they’re nowhere close to incredible. Having Ellsbury roaming CF is fine, if you already have a strong offense. He’s not going to improve your offense. His on-base skills don’t seem very good, and his patience seems to be regressing; he went from a 53-49 K-BB ratio in 2006 (A+ and AA) to a 54-38 K-BB ratio in 2007 (AA and AAA).

Basically, Jacoby Ellsbury is a fast player with a good glove, reasonable contact ability, and no power. There’s not that much indication he’ll improve significantly as a hitter. Imagine perfecting Jason Tyner, and you end up with Jacoby Ellsbury. I guess I just realized why the Twins want him so much.

But I don’t think they should. He’s incredibly over-valued, over-rated, and over-hyped. I doubt he’ll ever end up being a star in this league, and at best will be a slightly above average top-of-the-order guy. We have plenty of slightly below average top-of-the-order guys already; Santana should net us a real improvement. (Like SS Jed Lowrie, who batted .298/.393/.503 between AA and AAA this year as a 23 year old.) Ultimately, Ellsbury may not be much better than Coco Crisp, who at the very least has demonstrated that he can hit at the major league level — just not in Boston. Before he left Cleveland, he was a .300/.350/.450 type of hitter … which we could definitely use on this team.

I guess I just don’t care about Ellsbury.

Over the past few months, our marquee players have come out against the organization and the way it’s run. Instead of Kyle Lohse and AJ Pierzynski, it’s now Torii Hunter, Johan Santana, and Joe Nathan (who also took it upon himself to put words into Morneau’s mouth).

Something that’s been very consistent in the current crop of complaints is that they all want the Twins to start spending money on themselves and other top level free agents to show some sort of “commitment to winning” that would vault the Twins into the top five spenders in the majors. The fans — and, to a lesser extent, the media and bloggers — jumped on that bandwagon, demanding greatly increased spending along with the elder stars of the team.

The problem is that it’s foolhardy to demand that sort of commitment when you know the team will never be more than a mid-market team. When Santana claimed that if the Twins failed to sign Hunter to a megadeal, then it would therefore mean they had no intention of signing him, he was either being disingenuous or blind. In reality, signing Hunter to the type of at-or-above-market deal he was demanding would have ensured that the Twins have absolutely no chance to sign Santana. Not that they were then committed to spending even more money on Santana.

And now, Nathan is saying that if the Twins don’t extend both himself and Santana, then it’s clear that they have no intension of extending Morneau, he’s being either disingenuous or blind. This organization cannot afford to sign the most expensive pitcher in the history of the game, especially since he — like Hunter before him — has become adamant that the Twins must pay at least market rate for his services. If we sign expensive, long term deals for Santana and Nathan, it would become impossible to keep Morneau, Cuddyer, or anyone else.

It’s one thing for the players to demand a commitment to winning from the organization. It’s another thing for them to completely miss the fact that the organization has a very strict budget, and simply can’t — or won’t — break that budget to sign high priced free agents. (Note, of course, that the team has offered these players huge amounts of money, just not enough years to take them well beyond their usefulness or value, which is of course what the players want.)

Thought nobody seems to be saying it, this appears to be much more a case that the players themselves have decided not to commit themselves to winning, or at least not to commit themselves to the organization that raised them, believed in them, and gave them the value they currently have. When you not only refuse to give a discount to keep your current team together, but demand more money than other teams would have to pay, you completely waive your right to complain about the organization.

Look at it this way: if the Twins had signed Hunter for $18 million per season and Santana for $25 million per season, it would not have demonstrated a willingness to commit to winning. It would have demonstrated a willingness to give into the demands of peaking players who’ve learned to pull the heart strings of the fans. And it would have demonstrated a willingness to tie $43 million out of a $71 million payroll (over 60%) in two aging players, eschewing the possibility of signing or extending the younger players that would actually form a winning team around them.

The Twins organization understands this. The players do not. The question is, as a fan, do you understand the limits this budget put on the team?

After Wild Bill Smith dealt Garza, Bartlett, and Morlan to the Rays for Delmon Young, Brendan Harris, and Jason Pridie, our offense just got a lot better. Here’s a fun little post about what our offense could look like next year. We could field some reasonably solid lineups.

Possible 2008 Opening Day Lineup (if no more trades are made):

SS Casilla
C Mauer
LF Young
1B Morneau
RF Cuddyer
DH Kubel/Monroe
2B Harris
3B Buscher/Macri
CF Pridie/Tyner

Not bad … definitely an improvement over last season. However, a Santana trade could acquire Coco Crisp or Jacoby Ellsbury, Melky Cabrera, Brandon Wood, or even the coveted Andy LaRoche and Matt Kemp.

Option 1, LaRoche + Kemp:

SS Casilla
C Mauer
LF Young
1B Morneau
RF Cuddyer
CF Kemp
DH Kubel/Monroe
3B LaRoche
2B Harris

Option 2, Ellsbury:

CF Ellsbury
C Mauer
LF Young
1B Morneau
RF Cuddyer
DH Kubel/Monroe
2B Harris
3B Buscher/Macri
SS Casilla

Option 3, Wood:

SS Casilla
C Mauer
LF Young
1B Morneau
RF Cuddyer
DH Kubel/Monroe
3B Wood
2B Harris
CF Tyner/Pridie

Option 4, Cabrera:

SS Casilla
C Mauer
LF Young
1B Morneau
RF Cuddyer
DH Kubel/Monroe
CF Cabrera
2B Harris
3B Buscher/Macri

Option 5, Crisp:

SS Casilla
C Mauer
LF Young
1B Morneau
RF Cuddyer
DH Kubel/Monroe
2B Harris
3B Buscher/Macri
CF Crisp

The point here isn’t to set a lineup in stone, and we’re obviously jumping the gun a little bit (since there is no Santana deal at this time). But look down these lineups and say you don’t feel at least pretty good about our offense in 2008.

Another thing to note here: We need to acquire both a CF and a 3B. But if we can only get one, we’d be better off acquiring a CF than a 3B, since we at least have someone who might be MLB-ready at 3B.

Another thing #2: We have to hope Kubel can play DH. Previously, all the news has been that Kubel can only hit when he plays in the field. However, that’s been from Gardenhire’s mouth, which he also said about Rondell White, Justin Morneau, and Joe Mauer. And White can’t hit no matter what, Morneau hit a HR every time he DH’d last year, and Mauer bats .500 when he’s the DH. And Kubel’s OPS as a DH was .885 vs just .745 as a LF in 2007. So it’s likely that Gardy was just spewing the company line, which is that the DH spot isn’t a real position. Now that we have enough hitters where our DH has more than one career home run, Kubel might be allowed to hit from the DH spot. And I continue to believe he’s about to turn a corner in his career (think Cuddyer in 2006).

If nothing else, Wild Bill is making this an exciting winter.

According to LEN3, the Twins are close to acquiring Delmon Young. Having heard earlier this morning that Boof Bonser’s name had been dangled to the Devil Rays, I excitedly jumped to the conclusion we were about to get another mega-steal. Alas, that’s not the case; Boof’s name is not on the list here. Instead, we’ll be giving up Garza.

Apparently it’s a big deal, sending Garza, Bartlett, and Rincon to Tampa Bay for Delmon Young, Brendan Harris, and Jason Pridie.

Let’s look at some 2007 stats.

Garza (SP, 23): 5-7 W-L, 96 H, 32 BB, 67 K in 83 IP, 3.69 ERA
Bartlett (SS, 27): .265/.339/.361, 5 HR, 20 2B, 43 RBI, 23 SB in 510 AB
Rincon (RP, 28): 3-3 W-L, 65 H 28 BB 49 K in 59.2 IP, 5.13 ERA

Young (OF, 21): .288/.316/.408, 13 HR, 38 2B, 93 RBI, 10 SB in 645 AB
Harris (SS, 26): .286/.343/.434, 12 HR, 35 2B, 59 RBI, 4 SB in 521 AB
Pridie (OF, 23, minors): .303/.352/.487, 14 HR, 32 2B, 66 RBI, 26 SB in 524 AB

Garza’s stats are pretty good, and at his age he should just keep getting better. For a pitching-starved team like the Rays, he’d be an excellent addition. As a straight up trade, Garza for Young seems to be pretty close to even; I say that because I don’t want to give up Garza and I know the Rays don’t want to give up Young. The only reason it would happen is because we’re full of young pitchers and they’re full of young outfielders.

The problem is that Young plays most of his games in RF. I think the last thing we need is a power struggle in right and a vacuum in center. Young has played a few games in CF, but I don’t think it’s safe to just pencil him in as the new starter.

The second part of this trade I really like. Bartlett & Rincon for Harris & Pridie seems to lean pretty heavily in the Twins’ favor. Harris is a shortstop who hits better than Bartlett and is a year younger. Pridie is a good CF prospect who may (or may not) be ready to step in as our new starter, but will definitely be able to provide depth either on the bench or at AAA. Meanwhile, Rincon is awful and we get to get him off our roster and save some money on his salary.

Delmon Young has had numerous personal problems, which makes it slightly less likely that the Twins will go for him. Frankly, I was surprised to see his name. But I don’t think there’s very much to worry about. It’s a bit harder to be a bad apple like that in a foreign environment away from your trouble-making friends, where the established players are all straight laced, in a city where this little activity of that nature. It’s pretty likely Young’s problems won’t come with him, but we may be getting a better deal in this trade because of his checkered past.

What does this do to the team?

We lose one of our top pitchers, someone who everyone penciled into the rotation for years to come. In return, we get a top-flight hitter who may be able to play CF, along with a good CF prospect for AAA or the bench. We also upgrade SS and drop Rincon.

If there’s any team in the league who could absorb the loss of a guy like Garza, it’s the Twins. Thus, this looks like a clear win for the Twins. And while the fact that we lose a top pitcher seems to make it less likely that we deal Santana, I think it actually makes it more likely. After all, what better way to absorb the loss of Garza and Santana than by adding Hughes or Bucholz/Lester? However, this deal totally changes the trade landscape for us. In the Santana deal, do we still go after Melky or Crisp/Ellsbury, or do we start to focus on getting a third baseman?

Things are getting exciting. Bill Smith could be setting himself up for the start of a good legacy.

It’s time to look back at the weekend’s game and see how I did.

The Matchup
This week I (8-3) play the gboro nckranestylers (6-5), and I’m the projected favorite, 125-108. I think it’s very unlikely that I can score that many points this week (my breadth over depth strategy allows me to be consistent, but not to occasionally explode for big points … that’s what you get when you value a high floor over a high ceiling). Also, any time your opponent is projected to score around 100 points, they have the opportunity to blow up and beat you when you weren’t expecting it.

I’m second in my division, and my opponent is third. I’m 0.5 GB, so if I win and the Woodstock Woodies (8-2-1) lose, I’m back on top. I need to be back on top, I really do. The Woodies are the underdogs in their game this week, so I’ve been eagerly watching that game all weekend.

The Bad Decisions

1. Starting the Giants Defense (-3 points) instead of the Vikings Defense (30 points)
1. On the other hand, should the 21 points scored against the Giants’ offense count against their defense? I think that’s bogus
2. I don’t mind this decision very much … considering the fact that the Vikings won a huge game against a good team on the road; and I’m pretty sure that if I’d started the Vikes, we would have gotten crushed
2. Starting LenDale White (2 points) and Cedric Benson (4 points) instead of Justin Fargas (20 points) and Kenton Keith (7 points)
1. Mistakes were made. No further questions
3. Starting Randy Moss (4 points)
1. How was I supposed to know the Eagles would suddenly Cleveland it up and hold Moss to his second 4 point outing of the season? I really needed those points

The Cost
These bad decisions cost me a total of 56 points which sat safely on my bench. Man, do I hate leaving points on the bench.

The Good Decisions

1. Starting Peyton Manning (20 points) over Derek Anderson
1. I usually plan to put this in the Bad Decisions list, but Manning made the Falcons look like the Falcons
2. Starting Ryan Grant (19 points)
1. During this game, I’d forgotten that I’d started Grant, and was really mad at myself for leaving points on the bench; it turns out I did start him after all

Bad Things That Happened

1. As usual, Jason Witten (11 points) scored a touchdown and screwed me; if I didn’t think Witten was so awesome, I’d have to hate his guts
2. Jamal Lewis (20 points) and Plaxico Burress (15 points) both had great weeks for my opponent
3. Hines Ward (8 points) was able to overcome the bad weather in Pittsburgh and beat me at the end of Monday Night Football … this was quite infuriating

Good Things That Happened

1. The Lions scored late and made the Thanksgiving game interesting; this is a Good Thing because my opponent had the Packers Defense (5 points), and that late touchdown meant he lost several points in an instant
2. Marques Colston (15 points) continues to be a valuable asset to my team after a slow start to the year
3. Chris Cooley (15 points) is an excellent tight end. He produces consistent points, and occasionally blows up with a huge game.
1. He’s had 4 games over 10 points and 4 games under 5 points

Interesting Note
I was favored by 17 points this week, which was both the median and the mean of the projected lines. Two games had larger lines, and two games had smaller lines. The smaller lines were -6 and -5, the larger were -28.4 and -35. I guess that’s not that interesting, but I haven’t noticed it happening to me before.

TMR’s Love/Hate
I always read TMR’s Love/Hate column for the week, mostly because he’s a pretty funny guy and seems to know what he’s about, fantasy-wise. Additionally, he realizes that he’s going to be wrong a lot and doesn’t try to hide it or make excuses. I appreciate that. Here are his Week 12 Love/Hate picks that apply to me.

TMR Loves:

• Peyton Manning
• Derek Anderson
• Marques Colston (he actually doesn’t put Colston’s name in bold, but alludes to the expectation that he’ll have a good game and should be played twice)
• Justin Fargas

TMR Hates:

• Cedric Benson
• Any Giants Running Back (that includes Brandon Jacobs)
• LenDale White
• Jesse Chatman

That doesn’t really help me out much, as usual. And also as usual, I didn’t listen to him very closely. I started White (consistent) and Benson (facing the Broncos after 2 straight good weeks), and left Fargas on the bench. I started Grant because he’s Green Bay’s only RB and I don’t think the Lions are good, and I’d read reports that Jacobs and Chatman are hurt anyway. And I started Manning over Anderson because I haven’t brought myself to the point where I’m willing to bench Peyton.

Well … I probably should have listened to the Talented Mr Roto just a little. He was right on every single call. Infuriating, really.

The Result
I lost 84-82 … and it was a simply terrible loss. My opponent could very well have done a better job, having left Kevin Jones, Andre Hall, and the Seahawks Defense on the bench, but if we’d both made the correct decisions I would have dominated him. The point is that I didn’t. And I lost. Believe me, I hated every second of it. I need to seriously step it up next week in order to make the playoffs. (Fortunately for me, the Woodies lost their game, 101-98. So I remain 0.5 games back in my division.)

As Bill Belichick taught us earlier this season, nothing says “We’re guilty, shut up!” more clearly than “We’ve moved on, so you should too.” Mike McCarthy of the Packers has learned this lesson, saying the following with regards to the “bounty rule” violations:

“We’ve already addressed it as a football team,” McCarthy
said. “It’s a dead issue, in my view. There’s been no fines. It’s
been resolved with the league, and we have moved on.”

That’s good to know, Mike. It really instills confidence that everybody involved has learned their lesson and won’t break rules like this in the future.

I hope more coaches don’t start copying Belichick’s off-field demeanor and behavior. One intolerably irritating coach is more than enough.