Joba Mania

I'm not talking about the Yanks fans' intense adoration for the prized flamethrower. Every Yankee fan has it to a varying degree. I remember watching clips of his relief appearances at AAA on YouTube before he made his MLB debut and everyone still thought his name was pronounced "Joe-Bah". He's the type of talent a team brings up once every 5 or 10 years, and he receives love and loyalty from the fans that it will take the two double-initialed free agents a long time to attain. The kid has a near 100mph fastball and pinpoint control, with a slider that hitters can't identify until their hands are passing their belt buckle. He strikes out about 11 guys per every 9 innings and he probably hates Youkilis more than we do! He's got it all. And the adulation is well deserved.

Rather, I'm talking about the amazing effect the "starter vs. reliever" debate has on people, and the crazy things it makes them say. Exhibit A, Justin Sablich of the NYTimes Bats Blog:

Chamberlain in the bullpen would most likely make each starting pitcher better by shortening his starts. Fans concerned about Sabathia burning out in September or Burnett breaking down over the long haul could rest a little easier.

Over the course of an entire season, how many innings is Joba going to save Sabathia or Burnett from throwing? Joba's not available every day, and every time a starter takes the mound, he's not handing over a close game to the bullpen in the 7th inning. Looking through Burnett's game logs from last year on B-R, I counted 16 out of 31 starts where he pitched 6 or more innings in a game decided by 3 or fewer runs. It's obviously a rough calculation, and I'm being generous to his argument by including both wins (10) and losses (6).

Even if you assume Joba is available for every one of those starts, is Joe Girardi really going to leave a starter on the mound for an extra inning each of those starts because Jose Veras or Damaso Marte is coming in, instead of Joba Chamberlain? I would say the length of a starting pitcher's outing has a lot more to do with the performance of that starting pitcher than the options the manager has in the bullpen.

Anyway, lets just say that in those 16 starts, Joba saves Burnett 1/3 of an inning half of the time and 2/3 of an inning half of the time. That amounts to a grand total of 8 innings. Does anyone think that 8 or even 10-12 innings are going to make the difference between Burnett "breaking down" or not?

As I'm sure you can tell by now, I think Joba should be a starter. I was on the fence when they originally made the shift last year, but after seeing him be more efficient with his pitches and still look downright dominant as a starter, most of the questions I had were answered. I think boils down to the concept of VORP (value over replacement player).

When you take Joba out of the rotation, he gets replaced by (Hughes/Kennedy/Aceves). When you take him out of the bullpen, his innings are replaced by Veras, Marte, Brain Bruney, Edwar Ramirez, Phil Coke and possibly some AAA call ups like Mark Melancon all of whom are competent relievers. Looking at it that way, I think you have to conclude that the Yanks have a lot more to lose by filling that empty rotation spot with a (or a series of) giant question mark(s) than shifting their bullpen back an inning.

The great thing about this debate is that there is no wrong way to use Joba. There might be a "less right" way, but there is certainly no horribly, obviously wrong decision. In all likelihood, you are getting valuable innings from an awesome pitcher. Health, like with all pitchers, is the main issue. Maybe he would have gotten injured even if they left him in the bullpen last year. Or perhaps his body type and pitching style are more suited to the "fewer innings but more outings" demands relief pitching. There's only one way to find out, and in choosing between two uncertainties, I'll take the one with higher potential value.

Mark Schlereth Sizes Up The Giants Potential Opponents

Every so often we are lucky enough to have "Mark Schlereth" write an NFL column for us, jam-packed with meaningless cliches and the word "FOOTBALL".

Today's topic: Who the Giants most want to play out of the 4 NFC teams active this weekend. Take it away "Mark"...

I'll tell you what fellas, there's nothing I look forward to more than the Wild Card Round of the Playoffs in The National FOOTBALL League. This is when teams put all their chips on the table and all of a sudden its DO or DIE. You get players puttin' their hard hats on and goin' to work, because that's what it means to be a professional FOOTBALL player in the National FOOTBALL League. You get guys stepping up in the big moment, putting their team on their back and leaving it all out there on the FOOTBALL field. You figure out who the guys who know how to win are, and who doesn't have what it takes to get the job done.

In my opinion the New York FOOTBALL Giants are the best FOOTBALL team in the National FOOTBALL League right now. They can run the FOOTBALL down your throat or Eli Manning can pick you apart. Here's how I think the other teams match up with the New York FOOTBALL Giants, with the threat they pose to the Giants, on a scale of one to four FOOTBALLS "(l)".

The Falcons: (l)(l)(l)(l)

Here's a great story. You got Matty Ryan, throwin' the pigskin around out there like he's still playing FOOTBALL at Boston College, you got Michael Turner runnin' the FOOTBALL, and you've got a good, solid defense out on the FOOTBALL field. See what happens when a team gets rid of a QB with a low FOOTBALL IQ, and replaces with someone who can make good decisions with the FOOTBALL? These guys are dangerous.

Cardinals: (l)(l)(l)

The Cardinals have got a great veteran leader that knows how to galvanize the clubhouse in Kurt Warner. They've got two of the best wide recievers in the National FOOTBALL League. I'm tellin' ya, these guys can really catch the FOOTBALL and make some plays downfield. The problem I've got with the Cardinals is that they werre 5-1 against the National FOOTBALL Conference West, but only 3-7 versus the rest of the National FOOTBALL League including a loss to the Giants. But with a proven leader like Kurt Warner, you can never count them out of a FOOTBALL game.

The Eagles: (l)(l)

Here's a FOOTBALL team, that when I look at them, I say "If they could get over their issues at QB and get a guy in there like Brett Favre, they could really be a dangerous FOOTBALL team". Donvan McNabb just doesn't have the awareness or ability to read defenses to play quarterback in the National FOOTBALL League.

The Vikings: (l)

When I look at the Vikings, I see a FOOTBALL team that the New York FOOTBALL Giants nearly beat with DAVID CARR leading the troops in the second half of that FOOTBALL game. Like the Eagles, Vikings clearly have a QB problem because the FOOTBALL is being snapped to a guy like Tavaris Jackson. He's not my idea of a lunch-pail, hard hat sort of a guy, and he obviously lacks the awareness and intelligence to lead a FOOTBALL team in the National FOOTBALL League.

So If I'm the New York FOOTBALL Giants, I'm looking at the Minnesota Vikings and saying "Here's a FOOTBALL team that I can punch in the mouth and really move the FOOTBALL on".

Thanks "Mark", I'm sure we'll hear from you again soon.

Eagles v. Vikings Preview

This late game on Sunday has plenty of storylines: Reid v. Childress, Westbrook v. Peterson, McNabb as a future Viking?, Reid’s last game? Are the Eagles this year's Giants?

The Eagles defense ranked 3rd overall in the regular season whereas the Vikings ranked 2nd. Versus the run, the Vikings were 1st while the Eagles were 4th. Therefore, expect this game to be won in the air. This benefits the Eagles, as the Vikings D ranked 18th against the pass compared to 3rd for the Eagles. McNabb is more experienced and despite having a tendency for throwing at the feet of his receivers, is less prone to turning the ball over than Tarvaris Jackson is. Expect 3 or more turnovers from the Vikings as a result of Jim Johnson stacking the box to stop APIII and complex blitzing schemes. The Eagles should have a fumble return for a TD or Pick 6.

Pick:

Eagles: 24
Vikings: 10

Wow, I picked all 4 road teams to win.

Ravens v. Dolphins Preview

Baltimore’s Joe “Skinny” Flacco and John Harbaugh join Matt Ryan and Mike Smith as the second rookie quarterback/rookie head coach combination in the Playoffs this year.
Tony Sparano, prohibitive favorite for NFL Coach of the Year, and Chad Pennington, the NFL’s Comeback Player of the Year, lead last year’s 1-15 Dolphins team while their respective former teams, the Dallas Cowboys and New York Jets, who bailed on them are sitting home and whining about what went wrong.

This should be a low-scoring game thanks in part to Baltimore’s 2nd ranked defense. Miami needs to be opportunistic to win and score on a couple of Wildcat plays or a Ted Ginn Jr. kickoff return. I think Baltimore grinds it out and wins the most boring game of the Playoffs. Hey, at least the Pats aren’t playing.

Pick:

Ravens: 17
Dolphins: 14

Analyzing The Giants Regular Season Stats

The NFL regular season has come and gone, and the Giants have locked up homefield advantage throughout. This week has been rather quiet in Giantsland, and until they find out who thier opponent is, it will remain quiet. So I'm going to take this opportunity to go over some of the G-Men's regular season results. I already mentioned the fact that they tied the record for fewest turnovers in a season, but here are some more interesting tidbits:

• Domenik Hixon was actually their leading reciever, with 596 yards, followed closely by Toomer (580) and Plax (574). There were six guys with more than 30 catches and 384+ yards. That's what you call "spreading it around" folks.
• Eli Manning had far an away his best season, throwing only 10 INTs and boasting a passer rating (86.4) 10 points higher than his next closest season. He was much more similar to the QB he was last year in the playoffs than he was during last year's regular season.
• Much has already been said about Jacobs and Ward both going for over 1,000 yards on the season, but Ward also caught 41 passes for 384 yards, at 9.4 yards a pop. That wouldn't be a great average for a wide receiver, but remember that almost all of those passes are either screens or dump offs and he's getting a ton of yards after the catch.
• Ahmad Bradshaw carried the ball for 355 yards on 67 attempts, the third RB averaging over 5 yards a carry, although this was certainly helped by his 77 yard near TD run against Baltimore (note: I'll have a post about this sort of thing in the next few days). He's excellent for a second year player and should be ready to take on a bigger role the next year when all signs point to the Giants losing at least one of their top two guys to free agency.
• Tuck (12) and Kiwanuka (8) combined for 20 of the team's 42 sacks, down from 53 last year. The team really did miss Osi and Strahan, but still did an admirable job of getting to the QB.
• After a slow start, the Giants came away with 17 interceptions, 3 more than 2007.

Should be a great weekend for Football... 4 games over two days and Joe's got the previews to prove it. Go Vikings.

Colts v. Chargers Preview

At the midpoint of the season one would think that it would be nearly impossible for one of these teams, let alone both, to get into the playoffs. Following off-season knee surgery, Peyton Manning was stinking up the joint early. The Colts broke out of the gate losing their first two games. After reaching 3-4, they won 9 straight to finish at 12-4, breaking their own record by winning 12 or more games 6 years in a row. Despite not putting up his normal numbers, 2008 MVP Manning provided invaluable leadership while key cogs such as RB Joseph Addai and SS Bob Sanders were hurt. Manning enters Saturday night’s game with a 70+% completion percentage in each of his last 4 games and without throwing an interception in December. The Colts finally appear to be healthy.

After referee Ed Hochuli screwed them on a call against the Broncos in Week 2, the Chargers appeared listless. Up and down all season, they lost 3 straight games in November to leave them at 4-8. Thanks in part due to the fire was lit in Phillip River’s ass after finding out that NFL Girly Man #1 Brett Favre beat him out for a Pro Bowl spot and the healing of LaDainian Tomlinson’s toe, the Chargers won 4 straight in December. They currently rival the Colts as the NFL’s hottest team. However, LDT now has a strained hamstring. Despite probably being available for Saturday night’s game, this is not exactly what the Chargers need. Expect Fake LT to be limited and for Darren Sproles to receive plenty of action.

The Colts and the Chargers are very familiar with each other; Saturday night’s affair represents the sixth time that they have met since 2004, with the Bolts winning four of those contests. In last year’s Divisional Round match up at the RCA Dome, the Chargers defeated the Colts before losing to the Patriots, who finished the season at 18-1. Earlier this season at Qualcomm Stadium, the Colts defeated the Chargers 23-20.

I expect this game to be won in the air by the Colts. San Diego’s passing defense is second-worst in the NFL. Give me 3 TDs by Manning—one each to Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark and Anthony Gonzalez—and one to Joseph Addai. Despite big games by Fake LT and Sproles, River’s brilliant stretch comes to end against the Colts, who have let up only six passing touchdowns all season.

Pick:

Colts: 28
Chargers: 24

Falcons v. Cardinals Preview

Very comprehensive article about Matty Ice by Yahoo Sports' Charles Robinson on the young career of the future perennial All-Pro.

Expect the AP Offensive Rookie of the year to have about 3 TDs and 250 yards in his playoff debut versus the Arizona Cardinals (who have given up 36 Passing TDs this year). However, the key to the game will be the Falcons ground attack. When Ryan has fewer than 30 passing attempts, the Falcons are 11-0. Another factor will be stopping the talented receiving duo of Anquan Boldin and Larry Fitzgerald, which can be accomplished by John Abraham getting pressure on Warner early and often.

Lucky draw for the Falcons considering that Arizona is last in the league in rushing and Atlanta's weakness is its Run D.

Pick:

Atlanta: 31
Arizona: 24

Frank Deford: Old

Frank actually lives around the block from me on the Upper West Side. I know this because I see him walking a small, fluffy, white dog from time to time. He's surprisingly tall, in a rickety, stilt-ish sort of way and moves slowly and creakily over the sidewalks. That's how I know he's old.

For anyone else who would like evidence, I present this article he wrote for NPR.com.

So, yes, thank the Lord for the Yankees. With their seats selling for as much as $2,500 a game while they ask a struggling New York City for an additional $259 million in tax-free bonds to help finance their new stadium and while they sign free agents for well over $400 million — far more than the other 29 major league teams have spent cumulatively — the Yankees present themselves as the very model of arrogance and let-'em-eat-cakeness. Henceforth, I will be calling the Yankees the Antoinettes. You may wish to, as well.

Yes, friends, you may wish to refer to a modern sports team by the name of an 18th century Queen of France, but the person you are talking to will think you are insane. Here's the funny part: Her full name was Maria Antonia Josepha Johanna von Habsburg-Lothringen (thanks Wikipedia). Marie Antoinette was a Habsburg and since she was a female, her offspring wouldn't have been referred to as "Antoinettes" either. Unless there is an even more obscure family/person he is referring to, I'm pretty sure he just made this up.

If you want to make a hokey analogy comparing a European dynasty to the Yankees, how about the Medicis? The Medicis were probably the richest family in Europe during the 15th century, and used wealth attained by the Medici Bank to commission works of art by the greatest artists of that era including Michaelango, Donatello, Rafael and Leonardo. Actually, I just listed the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, but they really did commission Michaelangelo.

I get the point of comparing the Yankees to a European dynasty. The money, the excess, the history... sure. But all the teams and their owners are ridiculously rich too and some are ever richer than the Steinbrenners. The Yankees exploit their advantages of history/tradition and market size and and use them to be consistently competitive on the field. What would happen if the Yankees had a payroll that blended in with the top 5 or 10 teams, something like $110-115 million? They would probably attract fewer fans. I highly doubt that these fans would want to root for a different team, they most likely just wouldn't be baseball fans.

Will said it with more vulgarity and anger than I possibly could, but the Yankees aren't ruining baseball. They generate money for others directly (revenue sharing, road attendance) and indirectly (luxury tax and TV Ratings). They might not be good for your team, but they are good for baseball.

Fack Youk [Year In Review]

Gentlemen, we should be proud of ourselves (semi-dramatic pause) because it's been a great year (week). We increased our readership 1000% (from 1 to 10), although I don't have Google Analytics set up yet, so I might be overstating that. Over that same time period, we were acknowledged by some, ignored by others, and went unnoticed by basically the rest of the world. Fear not, friends, at the rate we're going, this time next year we will have attracted approximately 100 readers, roughly 107 pageviews and possibly one member of the opposite sex.

A special thanks to our reader(s). This blog wouldn't be the same without you. (Actually, it would).

In any event, before we actually develop a readership, I thought I would post a letter from my company, sent out just before Christmas, with my FJM-style comments in blue. Happy New Years.

To All Employees:

The partners would like to thank you for helping [Company Name Withheld Just In Case] achieve one of its best years ever in 2008.

[Great! So this means we are going to get some of our best bonuses ever, right?]

We recognize that this achievement has required a strong commitment throughout the company as well as many long days (and we know some long nights).

[You bet. Well, it's a good thing we are going to be handsomely rewarded with some of our BEST BONUSES EVER!]

Recent economic news has given us a clear signal that we will face much tougher times in the coming year.

[Well that's nice, but we've been in a recession for quite a while and we just had one of our best years EVAR!!!!1!!!!]

I'm sure all of you know or have heard of someone who has been laid off or of companies making other drastic spending cuts.

[Yes, they work for financial companies who had their WORST years ever. Sucks for them.]

Due to this reality, we have decided to cut and in some cases eliminate bonuses for the end of this year.

[Oh. Let me see if I follow here... Due to the reality facing other companies who had their worst years ever, we (a company who had one of their best years ever) are going to cut bonuses. Yes?]

This decision was very difficult because of the contribution you have made to the success of the company.

[Doesn't sound like it was that difficult. Words I would have chosen before "difficult", in no particular order: inexplicable, profitable, greedy, inconsiderate...]

We feel, however, that it is extremely important during these uncertain times to maintain flexibility in the business so we are not forced to make much worse cuts in 2009.

[So, not only was this a great year for the company, we are moving to Jersey and thereby cutting costs, but we still need to cut down on bonuses? How about we wait until we actually have a bad year you cut the bonuses? So if we have a good 2009, do we get the money that you took out of our bonuses back?]

We are doing everything we can to make the company more competitive, more efficient, and more enjoyable to work at.

[Except giving you guys bonuses.]

With your help and commitment we expect to be one of the companies that make it through these difficult times.

[DIFFICULT TIMES FOR WHO? Surely not a company who just had "one of its [fucking] best [fucking] years [fucking] ever in [fucking] 2008"]

Thank you for your understanding.

[I don't understand]

We truly appreciate your efforts.

[Just not enough to give you bonuses]

The Partners

[You probably shouldn't have started the email where you tell everyone that their bonuses are being cut with the sentence "The partners would like to thank you for helping [Our Company] achieve one of its best years ever in 2008."]

Collusion or Delusion? [Follow Up]

In doing some more research on the topic of my previous post, I came across this article by Tim Marchman published in the National Review, back in December of 2003. He (not surprisingly) goes into more depth about the history of collusion in MLB than I did, and adds that joint holdouts were another big reason for the inclusion of the anti-collusion language in the CBA. He also says:

It was for violating this deal in the 1980s that owners agreed in the early 1990s to pay the players $280 million, a payment which drove expansion as owners sought to recoup the money by charging huge fees for the rights to new teams. Sandy Koufax decides he'd like to get paid something like what he's worth, and 40 years later you get to watch the Florida Marlins cavorting around in teal uniforms; what better illustration of the law of unintended consequences?

See what you can learn on these here Internets? The impetus of his post were "the ominous shadows of collusion falling across this weekend's winter meetings in New Orleans [in 2003]". These "shadows" stemmed from the exploitation of a seeming loophole the owners found in the CBA. At the time, the MLBPA was considering filing a grievance alleging that the owners were flooding the markets with free agents, according to Marc Edleman.

In his 2005 paper "Has Collusion Returned To Baseball?" Edleman details how, following the 2002 World Series, many teams began to talk about shedding payroll. Then, on Dec 20th, clubs simultaneously non-tendered 46 arbitration eligible players including Pudge Rodirguez and other top level talent, thereby devaluing the price of all free agents (Edleman gives specific examples if you have time to read the essay). This also redefined that year's "fair-market value" and adversely affected outcomes of the hearings of the players who accepted arbitration.

Edleman says, "Federal antitrust law finds that an agreement to effect price exists even when there is a tacit or inferred agreement", and cites two cases involving American Tobacco and Monsanto (Sidenote: watch The Corporation) as indicators that the arbitrator may rule against the owners. He concludes:

When considering both the documented series of events that occurred during baseball’s 2002–03 off-season and their economic effects, it seems plausible that a baseball grievance arbitrator may find that Major League Baseball clubs once again violated baseball’s “collusion clause”.

This was of course written before the decision was handed down, and he was right to take an somewhat ambiguous stance.

Marchman's take was different, essentially dismissing the charges of collusion (also before any ruling had been handed down). He proposes a hypothetical situation in which two GMs are talking about each others arbitration cases and who they will or will not non-tender that year. He deduces that similar scenarios were probably unfolding at the time in team offices throughout the league, one at a time, but was likely not in violation of the CBA.

The owners did have to pay, but only $12M, and with no admission of guilt.

In light of this, the circumstances I laid out yesterday seem pretty frivolous and almost certainly won't result in any judgment against the owners, considering they non-tendered 46 players on the same fucking day, and didn't have to admit any guilt.

I just really don't like the thinly veiled, tacit encouragement to scale back spending that Selig endorsed when he asked Volcker to address the owners and executives. Like I said in the previous post, maybe the owners would have come to that conclusion anyway. So why allow the appearance of impropriety? Perhaps Bud could have presented Volcker as a resource for the owners to contact individually if they had specific questions.

It just gives a lot of credence to the sentiment that since Selig was an owner, he is now a stooge for the owners. Baseball will be better off if their next commissioner has the betterment of the game in mind, instead of the interests of the owners alone.

THE YANKEES ARE RUINING BASEBALL!!!!

(This story would have fit better about a week ago, but with the holidays and all, I am just getting to it now.)

This is all I have been hearing since the Yankees had their big 3 signings this year: "All that money for one player?", "Highest payroll in the league?" BLAH BLAH BLAH...go fuck yourself.

First, I would like to address to the two biggest groups of haters (Red Sox and Mets fans), then I will address the general haters.

Red Sox Fans: You are a bitter bunch of fucks. Your team has the second highest payroll and just because your fucktard owner wouldn't dish out a few extra million dollars for Tex you can't handle it. Then most of you do the obvious thing and try and say how much Tex is gonna blow this year. Which is quite logical because who would expect him to do well with the security of a long term contract, his proven record of offensive and defensive ability throughout his career, and the small fact that he will have the luxury of batting in front of ALEX-FUCKING-RODRIGUEZ. You will be lucky if Tex doesn't hit 135 HRs this year.

Mets Fans: You are just pathetic. You all get pissed because when you signed K-Rod, and everyone was on your team's dick for about 20 minutes until the Yanks signed CC and AJ. You are a second class team. DEAL WITH IT. Also, don't give me that shit about payroll, because you have the 3rd highest payroll in the league and the highest payroll in the NL. I think deep down you all know that no matter who you sign your team is still going to suck and not do shit when it matters.

General Haters: First of all, the people that say the Yankees are bad for baseball are retarded. I will bring you back to the mid to late 1990s. For those of you who remember, the 1994 World Series was canceled because of a players' strike. All that BS aside, the Yankees emerging from that, spending a shit load of cash and creating this dynasty that carried baseball out of that. I will also knowledge the McGuire/Sosa HRfest helped too, but the Yankees started that shit and carry it on to this day.

Look at teams like the Marlins, Pirates, etc. These teams have cheap owners who are only in this to make money; I won't get into all that but that is why their payroll is a fraction of the Yankees. This is also the reason why teams like this sell-out 4 games per year: Opening Day, and when the Yankees are in town. That is bad for them, how?

Now for the main point that inspired this whole piece. For all of you out there that hate how much the Yankees spend, I don't care. And guess what, neither do any other Yankee fans. We pay money to go see our team play and we expect management to do what it takes to put together the best team available for our fucking entertainment. If your owners/management are just too fucking cheap to do that, then that's your fucking problem.

And another thing, you don't hear us bitching when some Boston fag (Matt Damon/Ben Affleck) makes $25 Million to make some piece of shit movie that you assholes flock to like its the next coming of Christ. FUCK YOU ALL.

How Long Is Too Long?: The Cases of Mike Shanahan & Joe Torre

Sure, they don’t remind you of one another. Mike Shanahan, a gruff, standoffish, football coach and self-proclaimed offensive genius. Somebody I would hate to have in my family. Joe Torre a/k/a St. Joe, player’s manager, calm, green-tea drinking, all-around great guy—somebody you would be proud to have in your family.

Both finished the 1990s with championships in their respective leagues and were at the top. From there, both went downhill.

For Torre, who last won a World Series in 2000 against the Mets, his decline came with the aging/retirement of the ‘90s core—Bernie Williams, Paul O’Neill, Scott Brosius, Tino Martinez, David Cone, El Duque to name a few. Most importantly, key cogs in the bullpen, such as Mike Stanton, Jeff Nelson, Ramiro Mendoza, who in my opinion are why the Yankees won 4 out of 5 from 1996-2000, either left the team or became injured. As these important relievers left the Bronx, Torre’s bullpen management skills were exposed and overworked relievers kept the Yankees from winning #27. This despite having the highest payroll in MLB for the whole decade. Following the loss of their third straight ALDS in 2007, Torre, after 12 full seasons in the Bronx, was arguably forced out of the organization.

With his contract up, The Yankees offered Torre a one-year deal with a $5,000,000 base pay and $1,000,000 bonuses to be paid for each of three benchmarks the team reached: winning the ALDS; winning the ALCS; and winning the World Series. Also, if the Yankees made it to the World Series, Joe Torre would pick up an option for a new contract for the following year. The contract, despite the pay cut, would still have kept Torre as the highest paid manager in the game. Understandably, the Yankees saw these incentives necessary to instill a fire in Torre. They thought he was complacent, too much of a player’s manager and that he failed to push their talented stars to attain their optimal performance levels. Torre’s strong sense of pride saw this offer as a personal affront and he rejected the Yanks’ offer, leaving for sunny La La Land Dodgers.

Mike Shanahan was hired by the Broncos in 1995 to replace Puppet Extraordinaire Wade Phillips. Shanahan, who led the vaunted 49ers offense consisting of Steve Young, Jerry Rice, John Taylor and Ricky “I Won’t Bore You With a Hackneyed Chris Berman Nickname” Watters took over a pretty talented team in Denver led by NFL QB legend John Elway. Shanahan led Elway and the Broncos to back-to-back Super Bowl championships in the 1997 and 1998 seasons, during which time the Broncos set a then-record for victories in two seasons. He was the last coach to win two consecutive titles until New England's Bill Belichick did it during the 2003 and 2004 NFL seasons. Between 1996-1998, the Broncos set the NFL record for victories by going 46–10 over a three-year span.

After their Super Bowl victory in 1998, Mike Shanahan only won 1 other playoff game again, due in part to the retirement of Elway and career-ending injury of Terrell Davis. Despite being able to make any running back a 1,000 yard rusher, including the aforementioned Davis, Mike Anderson, Olandis Gary, Reuben Droughns and Tatum Bell, Shanahan, director of player personnel, could never assemble a quality defense.

The past 3 seasons, defensive coordinators were fired due to their ineptitude. In these 3 seasons, the Broncos went 24-24 and failed to make the playoffs. In somewhat of a surprise, Shanahan was canned. He had only 2 losing seasons and finished his career as the Broncos all-time winning head coach with a record of 138-86 (.615). Presumably, Denver owner Pat Bowlen wanted Shanahan to give up control of player personnel so that somebody could come in and revamp the defense. Shanahan, a prideful man, probably refused and the two got into an argument resulting in his ouster.

12 and 14 years are way too long for a manager/coach to remain with the same team. After a while, things get stagnant and that drive to win it all disappears with past success, a fat contract and control over the roster. Sort of like that tenured professor who does not keep up with current management practices or current law, these coaches do not keep up with the evolution of the game.

In my opinion, 10 years should be the cutoff point, especially if there are no championships won in the past 5 years. John Wooden and Joe McCarthy are exceptions to this because they continuously won championships and the time of their last championship served as a "tolling period."

Below are examples of coaches who I believe should be relieved of their duties based on tenure and championship droughts. While the idea of firing some of these coaches may be preposterous, you need to remember that organizations are more than 1 individual.

Jeff Fisher, Head Coach Tennessee Titans—His career achievement is that he came within 1 yard of winning a Super Bowl. Will not be fired because of the current economy and Titans are a small market team.

Andy Reid, Head Coach Philadelphia Eagles—Lost 3 consecutive NFC championships and a Super Bowl. Too conservative and his sons legal troubles have distracted him. He may be relieved of his duties if Philly loses.

Bobby Bowden, Head Coach Florida State—Last national championship in 1999. 79 years old. No motivation for players, no discipline. Anybody could recruit for FSU and be a better game coach. Let Jimbo Fisher have his chance.

Joe Paterno, Head Coach Penn State Nittany Lions--Last national championship in 1986. Age 82. We love ya Joe Pa, but don’t you have grandchildren?

Recently Forced Out: Phillip Fulmer--Head Coach University of Tennessee Football. Last championship in 1998; Tom O'Brien--no championships in 10 years at Boston College (ousted in 2006.)

A Few More Years: Ron Gardenhire--Manager Minnesota Twins, Tom Izzo--BBall Coach Michigan State, Mike Krzyzewski--BBall Coach Duke, Charlie Weis--FB Coach Notre Dame, Al Skinner--BBall Coach Boston College

WBA Reviews Holyfield vs. Valuev Decision

I first saw this on the crawl during SportsCenter last night:

FightNews has learned that the WBA Championship Committee has ordered a panel of judges to review the contest between WBA heavyweight champion Nicolay Valuev and Evander Holyfield, for the WBA Heavyweight title, held December 20th in Switzerland. The source stated that the WBA is taking this action “Due to the respect for the opinion of the fans and the media.”

Since the fight was in Switzerland, it aired live in the afternoon two Saturdays ago. Partially out of boredom and partially out of morbid curiosity, I went on channelsurfing.net and watched the fight from the third round on and read along with Brain Armen Graham's SI.com live blog.

The fight was wildly boring, with Valuev basically sitting in the middle of the ring, not throwing any punches and Evander not doing a whole lot more, but significantly out-landing the giant. Graham (118-110) and every single other account of the fight I read agreed it was an obvious win for Holyfield, who came out of retirement because "God told him to unify the heavyweight belts". (Sidenote: watch Religulous)

Shockingly, the judges awarded the fight to the 7 foot ogre from Russia 114-114, 116-112, 115-114. Holyfield took the "defeat" graciously, probably more so than I would have. I don't know how often these things get reversed, but it would be nice to see Holyfield rewarded for getting into great shape at age 46 and getting the job done. And hopefully he never fights again.