Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Packers Robbed of Precious Seconds

The Refs apparently screwed up:

"In the fourth quarter of the Cincinnati-Green Bay game, Cedric Benson was tackled on third down, in Green Bay territory and one yard short of the first down marker, with about 5:10 left on the clock. Cincinnati took their time deciding what to do and finally sent out the punt team. The play clock was down to about five seconds, and Green Bay's defense was sprinting off the field as the punt return team took their place. At this point officials reset the play clock to 25 seconds, and the clock ran all the way down to about 4:10 before Cincinnati took a delay of game."

I did some digging and this appears to be entirely accurate. The Bengals ran a play with 5:20 left. It was a one-yard run that stayed in bounds. The play clock is supposed to start counting down from 40 seconds immediately when the play stops. The Bengals then took a delay of game at 4:09 (which was declined by the Packers).

The entire section on delay of game in the rulebook (4-5-6, pages 21-22) doesn't account for any time where the game clock would keep running while the play clock is stopped. If the play clock stops for some reason -- the game clock should stop -- then the play clock should be reset to the same number of seconds (article 3, option c in the rule). If there are less than 10 seconds and the play clock is stopped, it should be reset to 10 seconds. Not 25. There are seven examples given (in article 2) as to when the play clock should be set to 25, and they are all times when the game clock is completely stopped.

When sifting through these rules and the entire section on timing -- in addition to racking my brain for any reason to send the play clock back up to 25 -- it appears the Packers were legitimately shorted somewhere in the ballpark of 20 seconds.


That's from Matt Snyder at Fanhouse.

Aaron Rouse is no more

I'm pretty surprised that the Packers actually cut Aaron Rouse. I didn't think he was that bad.

Stat of the Day

From Ken Tremendous on Twitter:

The lowest OPS of any MLB regular who qualifies is Yuniesky Betancourt's .607. Zack Greinke's OPS-against, from the entire league, is .612.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

The Strange Case of Milton Bradley

Milton Bradley was recently sent home by the Chicago Cubs for complaining of excessive negativity around the organization, and for being a huge doofus.

Few will argue that the Cubs screwed up big time when they signed Bradley, and this isn't just a "hindsight is 20/20" kind of thing. They gave a guy a 2 year contract worth $10 million per year (with an option for a third, though I can't remember whose option it is) after a career year at the age of 30 while mostly playing DH in a tiny little ballpark. Oh, and there were better, cheaper options out there like Raul Ibanez and Adam Dunn and Bobby Abreu.

Anyway, my question is this. Do you want Milton Bradley? Because you can probably have him. Before you start throwing things at me and calling me an idiot, consider the following:

1. Milton Bradley gets on base.

His power may have dried up a bit, but he was never actually very powerful to begin with. What Milton does very well to this day is to not make outs. Even in a down year he still posted a .378 OBP. He was always miscast as an RBI guy for the Cubs. Milton should hit somewhere near the top of the lineup. Chicago radio guys love to harp on Milton's Paltry 40 RBIs, but even in his career year he only drove in 77. Milton walks. Frequently. If you bat him out of position, you have no one to blame but yourself.

2. Milton will be cheap.

The Cubs owe Milton at least another $10 million bucks, and by all accounts, no one wants him, which means to deal him and get him out of the clubhouse will require the Cubs to eat a bunch of that money. Probably close to all of that money.

3. The Brewers, as always, lack OBP.

There are 2 (debatably 3-4) Brewers who are skilled at getting on base. They are Prince Fielder and Ryan Braun (and perhaps Felipe Lopez and Casey McGehee). Otherwise you have this:

Kendall - .326
Hardy - .300
Cameron - .348
Hart - .325
Escobar - .315
Gamel - .331
Counsell - .354 (hey, not bad)
Weeks - .340

In the last 5 seasons, Milton Bradley has OBPs of .402, .373, .414, .436, .378.

But he's a screwup!

I still think the screwup thing is overrated. If he would have hit .300 with 27 HRs, the Cubs would not have cared. His perceived lack of production was the primary driving force behind Milton's off-the-field issues.

But the Cubs wouldn't trade in the division!

90% of the time I would agree, and that may still be the case here, but what if you have no other buyers? And they may view this as passing a cancer onto a division rival.

But he's terrible defensively!

Yeah, that's true. It would definitely be a tradeoff. But it's not like Corey Hart is a defensive All-Star to begin with, and it would be nice to have a guy who is always on base for Fielder and Braun. I can live with some lousy defense.

I don't think there's a chance in hell that this happens, but I actually do think it would be worth pursuing. And at the risk of engaging in bullshit sports cliches, I actually think Milton Bradley might play better against the Cubs (and in general) with revenge on his mind.

Finally, if you did get him and it did work out, it would make Cubs fans miserable. That's worth something, right?

Line Offensive

Tom Pelissero has a nice breakdown:

On 45 true dropbacks Sunday, the Packers utilized six-man protection 21 times (46.7 percent) and seven-man protection nine times (20 percent), not including plays on which tight ends and running backs chipped before going out in pattern. Only nine times was the offensive line left to fend for itself — yet Rodgers was sacked six times and hit four others by a Bengals defense that sent 17 blitzes (37.8 percent).

These are compounding issues that can’t be solved simply by keeping in extra blockers on every play. If anything, excessive help can become a crutch, allowing players to get away with lousy fundamentals that need to be fixed before this offense can get back on track.


Well worth a read.

Sunday, September 20, 2009

Nick Barnett Doesn't Want My Twitter Input


If you were watching the game today, you saw Nick Barnett whiff terribly on an important 3rd and short. You then saw him do his job and make a tackle on the ensuing play. Then he celebrated like a jack ass.

Since he is a prolific twitterer, I decided to give him some feedback:

[me]
@NickBarnett whiff a tackle on 3rd and still dance after the next play??Remove head from rear please.

[NickBarnett]
Oh yea for everyone that had something to say after I celebrated for making a takle for lost KISS MY ASS... I was trying to get the defense


I was trying to get defense fired up... And so what if I missed the takle before am I suppose to stay in a funk about it!?? Get a life

I chuckled, figuring tons of people probably sent him the same type of message. I don't use twitter a lot so I didn't think to check my private messages. I was putzing around on my phone and decided to check em...

[NickBarnett]
FUCK YOU


Thanks for your input Nick. Hopefully you'll have more time to twitter from your new found backup role.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Dead Spinendous

Just an FYI, the writers of FireJoeMorgan.com are editing Deadspin today.