Billy Paultz Reconsidered

I was listening to a Detroit-area sports-talk show while driving from airport to hotel today when the hosts went into a commercial with the tease, “Guess which sports broadcaster and rapper got in a fight?”

After the break they took humorous guesses from callers (Keith Jackson-Little Bow Wow… Vin Scully-Snoop Dogg….) for a while before revealing that it was Marv Albert and Fitty Cent (how pissed, by the way, must Vince McMahon and Jerry Springer be about having had nothing to do with this?).

Caller: “Oh, man, I was hopin’ and prayin’ the Woo Tang Clan whupped up on MATT MILLEN’S ASS!!”

As always, I’m proud to be an American.

… and I bet I can convince you.

It was fourth and a bit less than two from the Pats 28-29 yard line. They led by six. The Colts had a time-out plus the two-minute warning left.

Statistically, the league-average conversion rate on fourth-and-two is about 60 percent. Obviously, the Pats’ rate is higher, somewhere around 70 percent.  If you think they should have punted, you’re saying the Pats had a better than 70 percent chance of stopping Manning from driving the Colts to the Pats’ 28-29 yard line with enough time left to win the game.

Read that last sentence again.

One more time, this is the choice Belichick faced: the probability of converting fourth-and-less-than-two, vs. the probability of stopping Manning from getting to the Pats’ 28-29 with enough time left to win the game.

The Colts had struggled some offensively through much of the game, I think because the Pats confused them with some coverages. But by this point, it appeared to me that Manning and Co. has adjusted. They had four fourth-quarter possessions, and three of them resulted in touchdowns.

It’s obvious, isn’t it?  

Think of it another way. People are of course saying Belichick’s “mistake,” cost his team the game. But if they’d punted, and the Colts got back to where they punted from with enough time left to score a TD, then by the same logic punting would have been a “mistake.”

If they had punted, of course no one would have thought of it like that, but that’s only because punting was the obvious, conventional move, not because of its merit.

Every deep-stat analysis I’ve seen (Here’s one. Here’s another. And another.) says Belichick was right, even though they make assumptions that in my view are skewed against him. They use league-average fourth-down conversion rates, for example, when the Pats’ rate is obviously higher. They use league-average TD-drive rates even though Manning and the Colts’ rates are obviously higher. And, again, everything I’ve read misses the point that what matters to the wisdom of this decision is not the probability of the Colts scoring a TD, but the probability of them getting to the Pats’ 29-yard line with enough time left to score a TD.

As for the idea that the move was a slap in the face to the Pats’ defense: Belichick was trying to win a football game. He’s supposed to factor into in-game tactical decisions how some of his players might feel about them? Please.

(On ESPN, Tedy Bruschi said that this decision would have “made my blood boil for weeks.” And Tedy Bruschi’s blood boiling for weeks would be a bad thing…. why, exactly?)

I’m not a fan of Belichick as a personality. He seems like a humorless grump, and humorlessness is, to me, among the least defensible human traits. He’s probably a cheater. But the dude is smart, and he’s a thinker, and he cares nothing at all about the conventional “wisdom.”

I like that a lot.

I was pulling for the Colts. I like Manning and dislike the Patriots. But part of me wishes this had worked.

This is assuming Penn State beats Michigan State Saturday (which I’m not confident they’re going to do), and also assuming the BCS standings stay pretty much as they are at the moment.

OK….

The BCS games are the national championship game (No. 1 and 2 in the BCS standings), the Rose (Big-10 and Pac-10 tie-ins), Orange (ACC), Sugar (SEC), and Fiesta (Big 12).

That’s 10 available spots.

The BCS automatics are Florida (SEC champ), Texas (Big 12), Cincinnati (Big East), Georgia Tech (ACC), Ohio State (Big 10), Oregon (Pac-10) and TCU (highest-ranked BCS-eligible team from the non-BCS leagues).

That’s seven of the 10 available spots.

The other three will come from among the seven other teams in the BCS top 14, which at the moment are Alabama, Boise State, LSU, Oklahoma State, Iowa, Penn State and Pitt.

Florida and Texas (BCS 1-2) play for the national title, freeing the Sugar and Fiesta from their tie-ins, although they customarily would lean toward picking a team from their tie-in conference, perhaps Alabama or LSU for the Sugar and Okie State for the Fiesta.

The Rose Bowl would be Ohio State-Oregon. The Orange would be Ga. Tech vs. an at-large. The Sugar would be Alabama/LSU vs an at-large. The Fiesta would be Okie State vs. an at-large.

One more thing: No more than two teams per conference can get BCS berths. That means PSU would have to be picked over Iowa (and possibly Wisconsin, which could still sneak into the top 14.

BPR’s best guess:

Fiesta: Okie State-TCU

Orange: Georgia Tech-Cincinnati

Sugar: Alabama-Penn State

(This makes as much sense as anything else, but is admittedly wishful thinking on my part. Never been to New Orleans)

I would like to suggest two changes to the BCS formula:

1. The current formula is one-third Harris poll, one-third coaches’ poll, and one-third the average of six computer rankings. Change it to one-third an average of the two polls and two-thirds the computer average.

2. Allow the computers to include margin of victory in their formulas. Don’t require it, but allow it.

The reasons are all exemplified, this year, by Iowa. For much of this season the Hawkeyes sneaked by with mirrors, often against mediocre-or-worse competition. The wins mattered to the computers, the sneaking-by part not at all. Which is how by the second published BCS standings of the year, Oct. 25, Iowa was No. 1 in the country according to the computers. Too high. Obviously.

Then Iowa lost to Northwestern, which isn’t bad, and to Ohio State in overtime with their backup QB in an heroic effort on the road. Again, the details (overtime, heroic, backup QB, on the road) didn’t register with the computers. A loss is a loss is a loss.

So now the Hawkeyes have fallen to 13th in the BCS, 12th in the computers, 14th in the Harris and 15th in the coaches. Too low. Yes, both polls have Penn State, which Iowa beat handily at the Beav, ranked ahead of Iowa.

The Nittany Lions are 14th in the BCS, 12th in both polls, 22nd - because of their ludicrous schedule - according to the computers

The suggested changes would of course decrease the influence of each poll individually. That’s a good thing. The coaches’ poll in particular has become an embarrassment.

(Just for the record, the AP, or sportswriters’, poll, which is generally more sensible than the other two, has Iowa ahead of Penn State.)

I’m writing this from the Beav, 25 minutes from kickoff, and the atmosphere is as bland as its been all year. Including the Blue-White game. Senior Day? A complete non-factor.

The Nits figure to be a little sluggish.

Indiana can score, and has an offensive scheme - the “pistol” - that could cause Penn State some problems. The Hoosiers are due to have some things go right late in a close game.

I don’t think it’s gonna be that close, though. Like much of the Big Ten, Indiana is bad defensively, especially pass-defensively. Against bad defenses, Penn State is a good team. On the field, it’s a pretty good matchup for the Lions.

Penn State 41, Indiana 24

The results of the voting for the annual Internet Baseball Awards are in. This is essentially a survey of Sabermetric nation. Yes, BPR is a voter.

Random observations:

The MVPs are so obvious - Joe Mauer got 1,153 of 1,290 possible first-place votes, Albert Pujols 1,045 of 1,105 - that the BBWAA can’t screw them up in the “real” MVP voting. I don’t think.

The Cy Youngs, Tim Lincecum and Zack Greinke, ought to be almost as obvious, but I have a feeling the writers are going to screw up one or both of those.  

Rundown of the Phillies: Chase Utley finished fourth for MVP, Ryan Howard 10th, Jayson Werth 20th, Raul Ibanez 24th, Jimmy Rollins 43rd, and Shane Victorino 45th. Utley and Ibanez seem about right IMHO, Howard and Werth a spot or two too low, Rollins too high. No real opinion on Victorino. When you get down to 45th the lines are blurry. Ninety players got votes.

Cliff Lee finished ninth in the NL Cy Young, with seven first-place votes. He also finished 17th in the AL, zero first-place votes. Cole Hamels was 19th. No other Phils were among the 45 pitchers who got votes, which seems a bit harsh.

J.A. Happ finished second for NL Rookie of the Year behind Tommy Hanson. I’ve got no problem with that. Charlie Manuel was fourth for manager of the year. Jim Tracy, who was tactically awful in the Rockies-Phils series, won it.

Here’s an interesting piece claiming that Cole Hamels was essentially the same pitcher in 2008 and 09, but lucky in the first year and unlucky in the second.

I know, that sounds ridiculous, but there is considerable research out there that suggests that while pitchers have some control of their strikeout, walk and home-run rates, they have virtually no control of what happens once the ball’s put in play.

In Hamels’ case, his strikeout, walk and home-run rates were virtually identical in each season, but there was a huge difference in batting average on balls in play (BABIP). The only explanation of such a difference that anyone has yet come up with is that it’s simply luck.

This piece also belittles the opinion, which I share, that Hamels needs to develop a third pitch, ideally (according to me) a cutter or sinker or slider.

Unlike most people, who developed that opinion as a result of Hamels struggles this year, I’ve thought he needed the third pitch all along, in 08 and before. Watching Hamels pitch, it seems to me his entire way of getting people out is fooling people with the difference between the fastball and changeup. That’s not enough. He needs something he can throw once in a while and just get a ground ball.

There is now a local sports-talk radio show in Lancaster. I bring this up because I’ll be on it Monday night. It’s on 1490 WLPA, which has Fox sports programming most of the day. The show will be coming live from the 915 Cafe on Plum Street in Lancaster city from 6:30-8 p.m. You can show up and talk to us live, or call.

It’ll be fun. You’ll see.

It’s less than an hour until kickoff at the Beav. I wanted to wait until I got here to make a prediction, so I could get the lay of the land, a sense of the atmosphere, the look in the players’ eyes….

No, that’s crap. I just forgot.

I’m torn on this one. I’m pretty sure Ohio State has an excellent defense, but I’m mostly basing that on the USC game, and now you have to wonder how big a deal USC is.

That’s the problem with this sport, the huge talent disparity, even at the highest level. I think Penn State can make big plays in the passing game, but have they done so against a big-league defense?

Two edges for the Nits, as I see it: 1. They’re at home, and 2. The only even arguable weakness of Penn State’s D is the secondary, and Terrelle Pryor isn’t equipped to take advantage of it.

Penn State 23, Ohio State 17.

We are live from Harrisburg International Airport, where the atmosphere is electric…..

The trap game concern is a real one. A quarterback named Kafka (not Franz, but still) has to give one pause. Kafka runs a pretty good passing game that should test Penn State’s mostly untested secondary.

But I’m not bullish on Northwestern’s intangibles, either. The Wildcats are coming off an unlikely homecoming win (they trailed 28-3, and won 29-28) which must’ve had a considerable emotional and psychic price. Coming up with a great effort to beat a superior opponent one week later seems a long shot. Also they’re beat up, especially in the secondary, and the Nittany Lions can throw the rock.

Penn State 33, Northwestern 24.