Letters to the Editor
-
I'll second the B-Team
I ended up watching at least a full quarter more of the late game simply for the insight the B-Team was providing. Jaws was awesome and while I was skeptical of Vermeil at first I thought he provided some great insight throughout the game.
The A-Team was horrendous.
-
wrong baseline used
Oy...
uncorrected ERA? no park effects? ever hear of ERA+, or better yet DERA?
Use a stat like DERA (Prospectus), and do the same with the batting stats, then you'll have something that will be interesting AND accurate.
Keep trying, your failures are more fun then the success of most other writers!
W
-
Backups, YES!
I have no comment on the PRV, other than to say I'm happy that Kaufman has a new toy to play with. I'm not much of a baseball fan, though, so I don't actually care.
As for the MNF booth, I have this to say: I, er, DISLIKE Theismann with the heat of a thousand suns. I will watch no MNF game in which he participates. If my team is playing on Monday night, I'll turn the sound down in favor of the radio -- unless they show his face more than once in the first quarter. In which case I'll just change the channel altogether and read about the game later. I can think of no more annoying or pointless "analyst" (with the exception of Matt Millen, who's gone on to be an annoying an pointless GM).
-
I'm with you on MNF!
I agree wholeheartedly about the MNF announcers. When the "B" team came on, it was an instant difference. To me they were better announcers, better analysts, and most importantly, they talked less but said more. With the regular MNF team, it seems like a lot of extra noise, chatter that is just distracting.
Obviously it's difficult to replace Michaels and Madden, who I really enjoy listening to, but seeing the second game showed just how much better it could be done, and how easy it would be. Nothing personal against the new MNF guys, but it just doesn't sound anywhere near as professional as it should to me. It doesn't feel like MNF, heck, it doesn't even feel like ESPN's old Sunday Night Football. And it affects the quality of the experience of watching the game.
Tirico seems like a good guy, but he needs to calm his voice down--he seems to be pushing, with too much variation for the guy playing the Michaels role. He doesn't convey the necessary gravity for me. Theismann's okay, but he needs a good cast around him--he doesn't carry the whole thing so well. And Kornheiser--who is he and why is he there? Again, nothing personal, but he doesn't seem to add anything except wisecracks, and I'd hoped that lesson was learned with Dennis Miller.
So, if anyone's listening, count the vote of this fan as well--bring in the "B" team.
-
B team
I couldn't agree more on the MNF announcers. I watched only the 2nd qtr of the Vikes/Skins game, and heard more about Jamie Foxx and the crew whining about Tom Cruise not coming over to talk to them than I did the actual game. Disgusting. Turned it off at halftime. Nessler is one of the best, by far, and Jaws can analyze the game better than anyone else employed by a major network. Looks like I'll be watching a lot of silent football on Mondays this year.
-
Add me to the MNF chorus
Give me the b-team any day. They're still not on par with Joe/Troy or Al/John in my little opinion, but they're miles above Turico, Theismann, and Cornholio.
Of course, I guess we should thank our lucky stars that the ESPN Sunday Night Football team from last year didn't return. If there is more of a beating than Mike Patrick, Joe Theismann, and Paul Maguire, I don't ever want to hear it.
BTW King, did you enjoy the "Rock Star" of the week, or whatever the hell that was on Sunday night? Just when you thought we were rid of the horse trailer. ;)
And BTW2, how'd the coin flippin' boy of yours do this week?
-
PRV is good
Thanks for PRV. The facts may prove me wrong, but I'd guess PRV's more relevant than you're giving it credit for.
Forget about the top ten. How does it change the look of the NL #3 starters? If we look at pitchers ranked 33rd to 48th by ERA and compare to the same range ranked by PRV, I bet we see a lot of changes.
My other comment is that it'd be nice if PRV was made comparable to ERA -- an adjustment to ERA instead of an apples oranges new stat. For that you'd want a replacement level RC/9IP as a point of reference, so that you adjust ERA up for the sure outs at the plate and adjust down for the "sluggers".
I think ERA - RC/9IP + replRC/9IP is the idea. Where's that math professor?
-
kaufman sycophants silent (mostly)
kaufman!
thank you for finally returning from vacation; the PERV, while useless as a stat does have water cooler value and will undoubtedly become as widely used as the VORP.
on another front, i am increasingly concerned with the crappy writing you are turning out. (ignore the winsome manure your 'fans' post on this forum about how great you are). whats with missing those scores yesterday? and lets never mention both manning brothers again in the same day, ok?
vintage, A-game kaufman would have taken us on a tour of how delightfully crappy the favoured teams played on sunday and somehow tied that in to abc's rogue 9/11 miniseries. dont ask me how, but it would have made for some good reading!
heres my suggestion: try writing decent prose about baseball. its essential in september, given your chosen line of work.
yours truly,
pear.
-
Not quite PERVect
Is there a reason to use ERA - RC/9IP rather than looking at the runs created by batters against the pitcher?
So, it would look like:
RC(Against)/9IP - RC(For)/9IP
Admittedly, it is more work (unless somewhere in cyberspace someone has calculated RC(Against) for every pitcher). But it seems odd to squeeze together two stats calculated by different means.