Thursday, November 13, 2008

Hair of the Dog, 11/13/08

Sorry for my absence as of late. I spent the last few days working in the Bay area (San Francisco, not Green). But I did make it back in time to catch the Bucks' dramatic win against the San Antonio Spurs last night. The Bucks were down by 12 at half time but went on a 14-0 run early in the fourth quarter to take the lead, and even extend it to a 10 point lead. The Spurs got themselves back in it a few times thanks to Tim Duncan drawing fouls and making shots. In the end, the Bucks triumphed 82-78.

The Spurs were playing without Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili, but it's these games that the Bucks have to take this year. So far they have been. For the most part, they've lost reasonably close games to better teams, and beaten the weaker teams. That's about all you could ask for. The Bucks are still without Michael Redd, but I'm not sure it's hurting them that much. Last night's starting five included Charlie Bell and Luc Richard Mbah ah Moute, along with regular starters Bogut, Ridnour, and Jefferson. Sessions added 24 minutes of the bench and Charlie V and Joe Alexander each added 10 minutes or so. Everyone scored. Everyone contributed. They're playing with a fairly balanced team right now. They could use a star, but I'm pretty sure Michael Redd isn't the guy.

In Brewers news, The CC Sabathia sweepstakes begins tomorrow, when other teams are allowed to throw money at him. I imagine we'll know if CC will remain a Brewer within a week. On a related note, Tom H. is reporting that Doug Melvin & Co. have not closed the door on Ben Sheets. If Sabathia leaved, the Brewers may make an effort to Sheets. Despite his baggage, I'd love to see him around another couple years. Jeff Passan at Yahoo sports is ranking free agents and has Sabathia at #1 and Sheets at #8. The other Brewers on the list include #40 Brian Shouse, #48 Ray Durham, #90 Gabe Kapler, # 91 Russell Branyan, #105 Guillermo Mota, #107 Mike Lamb, #109 Craig Counsell and #113 Eric Gagne.

Who's the better QB? Paul's post from Sunday has turned into an interesting Favre vs. Rodgers debate. Commenter Horrace makes a good case for Favre. I'm still not convinced. I think the Packers' play calling was way better the first 9 games of last season than it has been this year. What do you think?

9 comments:

E.S.K. said...

I think we'll know by Friday afternoon if Sabathia will remain a Brewer. We'll be able to gauge that the moment the Yankee offer goes public.

E.S.K. said...

Oh, and Rodgers is playing better football, Favre plays for the better football team.

Horace said...

I agree that the play calling was better last year. The question I would ask is ... why? Is it because they had more confidence in Favre's ability to execute the offense they ran last year? Is it a product of worse play along the front line? Are they trying to fold things into the offense that they expected to work but aren't? Have they been forced to change thier offensive calls because they face significantly different starting field position, or field conditions or game/score situations? Have they faced better opposition this year? I think its probably a combination of all of those things, although I don't know that I could really prove it. How much would the presence of Favre change any of that this year? Not much, I don't think. The reason this team has lost 5 games has a lot more to do with thier inability to stop the run than anything else, I think. However, I do they they probably would won one more than they have to date with Favre, based on his experience alone, since I'm not convinced his skills have dropped off from last year. That one game could be the difference between post season and not ... but this team, with or without Favre, doesn't look like a team that could win more than maybe a Wild Card round game, if they got a favorable draw. Given that, I think the experience that Rogers is gaining, the draft picks we'll get, and the extra cap room that comes from having pulled the trigger on the trade probably outweighs, in my mind, possibly missing the play-offs by a game one season.

E ... I'm not sure I agree with you. Rogers and Favre are playing in completely different systems. While Rogers is starting for the first time this year, he has been around this offense, coaching staff and many of these players for 3+ years. Favre is playing in a completely different offense, with completely different coaches, and completely different recievers. I would expect his numbers to fall off as a result. I know you have referenced QB rating as proof that Rogers is playing better. I admit, I don't know the formula for computing it, but I'm not sure it serves as a particularly compelling way to compare performance, unless it can filter out the differences in the offensive scheme, personel, coaching and opponent differences between the two. Do you think Favre's QB rating would be similar to what he has with the Jets had he taken all of Roger's snaps this year? I don't ...

E.S.K. said...

http://footballoutsiders.com/walkthrough/walkthrough-return-king

I'm not using QB rating to compare the two, really, just saying that using the teams respective records to judge QB performance seems even more foolish.

The article above is all about Favre, for the most part. Interesting if nothing else.

E.S.K. said...

The article does make one point about the Packers that many are overlooking: losing Corey Williams hurt this team about as much as losing Favre.

PaulNoonan said...

Horace, good commenting.

I think strength of schedule is probably the biggest factor.

I would add that even if Favre would have played better than Rogers with the Packers this year, Rodgers has been good enough where Favre could not have played THAT much better, no matter what, and picking on Thompson for this alleged mistake is silly. (You basically made this point too, I'm just restating).

Eric said...

Comparing win loss record might be weak. I know what my eyes see but i didn't think an unsupported argument that Favre looks better held any merit. I picked a metric which seeemed to fit the data.

E.S.K. said...

now, you picked a metric which supported your hypothesis because you had no data.

eric said...

yes. i believe i said that.