Showing posts with label lit and theory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lit and theory. Show all posts

Thursday, December 16, 2010

National Friday League, Week 15

Outdoor Winter Football in Minnesota
Seeing a Viking home game played in cold December, snow plowed to the sidelines, will make me nostalgic for a time I never even saw. Purple jerseys in the cold!

On not giving a shit (or, Vikings v. Bears)

The 2010 Vikings are either going to finish 5-11, 6-10, 7-9, or 8-8 (assuming no ties, I guess). I can't find myself caring where they actually end up on that spectrum: it just doesn't really matter. If this were a young team, we could hope for a strong finish to build for something next year. But this is an old team that is going to have to make some big changes next year regardless of the next three weeks (the dread rebuilding, but with a solid core of elite-level players to rebuild with so it could turn quickly, with savvy and luck).

Yet on the other side, the Bears are one game in front of the Packers for the division. I have no animosity for the Bears outside of Viking-Bear matchups, and intense animosity for the Packers. And that can, ultimately, matter: seeing the Packers in the Super Bowl would crush my spirit.

Am I saying I'm rooting for the Bears to beat the Vikings? I would never say that. And I would never feel that.

Randall Cunningham and Brett Favre
Randall Cunningham and Brett Favre each quarterbacked the Vikings to a spectacular, memorable season that ended with an overtime defeat in the NFC Championship Game. Here were their comparable numbers during those seasons:

Cunningham '98
3,704 yards, 34 TDs, 10 INTs, 60.9%, 106.0 rating, 13-1 record
(playoffs: 46/75, 502 yards, 5 TDs, 1 INT)

Favre '09
4,202 yards, 33 TDs, 7 INTs, 68.4%, 107.2 rating, 12-4 record
(playoffs: 43/70, 544 yards, 5 TDs, 2 INTs)

Outside of those magical years, neither QB shined. In 2010, the Vikes started 5-7 with Favre as starter, and he threw 18 interceptions and added six fumbles. In 1999, the Vikings started 2-4 with Cunningham as starter, as his rating fell down to 79.1. Cunningham also finished the 1997 season, when he was the starter in a week 17 win to make the playoffs, as well as their first playoff win of the '90s.

Who did more for the Vikings? When I see Randall Cunningham Viking jerseys, I just feel empty. I don't know how I'll feel when I see Favre Viking jerseys in ten years. That depends, I suppose, on whether the Vikings win a Super Bowl before then...and whether the "Minnesota Vikings" exist at all.

Penelope waits
There are different ways to create stories and meaning from sports. Some may view through a Hero Myth, where the story is the heroism of the great individual player or the great team, whose on-field successes and failures are all part of the story of the hero's greatness (and tragedy). Or you can see sports as a Quest Myth, where the team or individual strives and struggles and takes forward and backward steps on the mission to achieve an idealized end, to cross into the Promised Land, to find that Holy Grail, to return home from Troy.

Readers know how I watch the Vikings. And during the latter parts of a season during which the Vikings will not make the playoffs, I feel like I'm stuck on some crazy half-god's island just waiting for a boat to come by so maybe, maybe I can get back on that journey home. At least then, no matter how far I am from Ithaca, I'd at least be on the water moving, quite possibly even in the right direction.

Other Games

A nice slate of games matching up teams with winning records.

Eagles-Giants. How I got my wife to give me a disgusted look Monday night: "You know how I've said if the Vikings relocate I'll become a Bears fan? Well, when Peyton Manning retires I'll need a new favorite non-Viking player. Football is way more fun for me when I have a favorite non-Viking to root for. So I was thinking, when Peyton retires, how about little brother?"

Saints-Ravens.

Jets-Steelers.

Packers-Patriots.

Jaguars-Colts. If the Jaguars win, they win the division and the Colts miss the playoffs for the first time since 2001. If the Colts win, they haven't clinched anything, but they're in very good shape to do so. The Vikings make me shake my head sadly; any football nerves I have now are reserved for Packer games and Colt games.

Remember Spurgeon Wynn?
Horrors. Just remembering.

Fantasy Box
Readers know my antipathy to head-to-head fantasy standings, and the absurd unfairness of fantasy playoffs (why not just pick a week at random and say the highest score from that week wins the championship?).

But I do now see the excitement of a playoff. When you're on the bubble just to get into the playoffs, it's exciting because you still have a shot at winning a fantasy football champion. And then if you get into the playoffs, even as the lowest seed, you need one good week against the top seed and you can still claim that champion. I get it.

Of course the week-to-week, every-game excitement of Cross Country standings overcomes the focused excitement of a playoff matchup. Still, this is fun.

Friday, December 03, 2010

Brett Favre as King Lear

Numerous pundits have compared Brett Favre to Hamlet, because of Favre's indecision over retirement and Hamlet's apparent indecision over what to do about his father's murder. But I think that comparison is too easy, not quite accurate, and not terribly insightful. But a comparison to another Shakespeare hero, King Lear, actually offers some real insight, or at least a consistent, developed interpretation, of Brett Favre the man and football player.

It's not indecision: it's a full embrace of the current emotion.
In Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human, Harold Bloom argues that Lear the man "is all feeling," suggesting, I think, that whatever emotion Lear currently feels, he embraces with the totality of his person.

Might this explain Favre's frequent candor with the media, his long-time musings on possible retirements, and especially his displays of sincere, authentic tears? When Favre announced his retirement from the Packers and cried, that was real emotion: he seemed to fully feel it. But the emotion changed, and when it did, Favre fully embraced that new emotion.

And after all, King Lear begins with Lear announcing his retirement, a decision he will very quickly regret.

Love me, love me, say that you love me!
Lear is a man who, in old age, gathers all the important people of the country together, tells his daughters that he is handing them the kingdom...and then insists that they make public displays telling him how much they love him.

Does Brett Favre manipulate the media to stay in constant public attention? Maybe, maybe not. But some have suggested that when Brett Favre made his first retirement announcement, he hoped that the Green Bay Packers would express a deep desire for him to come back, and was irked at the way he perceived they pushed him out when he did want to come back (as Lear was irked when Cordelia wouldn't make a showy display like her sisters: is going to play for the Packers' rival the emotional equivalent of banishing Cordelia?). And it does seem in 2010 that he sent text messages to teammates pointing to retirement, perhaps in an effort to get them to express their love and longing for him. And he did only come back for 2010 when teammates showed up at his home to beg him to come back. He felt loved and needed, in the way Lear badly needed to feel loved and needed.

Aye, every inch a king.
Lear has a king's conviction that he can do whatever he wants, his way. That might give us some insight into Brett Favre, whether he is throwing a terrible pass into coverage and forcing an awful turnover, avoiding training camp, or calling Jenn Sterger.

Monumental Greatness, and Monumental Stupidity.
There is no question that King Lear has the capacity for greatness, that he has been a great and respected king. But as Kent warns him and as the Fool never tires of reminding him, Lear also has the capacity for utterly stupid foolishness.

With all the all-time cumulative records, with a plethora of 30+ TD pass seasons, with two and a half MVPs, there's no question Brett Favre is one of the greatest QBs that ever played. But with the all-time interception record, with a plethora of 20+ INT seasons, with a number of playoff games with multiple interceptions or game-altering end-of-the game interceptions, Favre too has the capacity for failure.

Hamlet? Nah.
In Hamlet, Hamlet is in an awful situation: his dad has died and his mother quickly marries his uncle who takes the throne, he discovers that his uncle probably murdered his father (he's not quite sure), but he doesn't know the extent of other peoples' (including his own mother's!) involvement in the crime or coverup, he has all sorts of conflicting desires, is surrounded by untrustworthy people that he has every reason to distrust, seems to be getting betrayed by everybody he knows, he's constantly being spied on, and the one thing he wanted to do (leave!) he was explicitly forbidden to do. If Hamlet is indecisive, he can hardly be blamed for that. What is the right decision? What is he supposed to do? And how is he supposed to pull it off when his enemy is the guy in charge of the whole damn country, with all sorts of power, and perhaps all sorts of allies who are aiding him? What advice would you give to Hamlet given his situation?

Hamlet's indecision is overrated, and I don't think it offers us much insight into Brett Favre. King Lear, the emotional king, longing to be loved, with his capacity for both brilliance and foolishness? There, I think, is an insightful comparison.

Thursday, November 18, 2010

National Friday League, Week 11

Viking-Packer Preview

Thunderdome! Sure the Metrodome is the biggest reason to have hope that the Vikes can beat the Packers Sunday, but there are others. Namely:
  • The Packers are 21st in the league with 1,028 rush yards allowed and 26th in the league with 4.5 rush yards per attempt allowed. The Vikings should be able to run the ball, and while they need to commit to it, it would be good to see them run the ball in creative spots, too (not primarily on 1st and 10 and 3rd and 1).
  • Aaron Rodgers wilts like a tree weighed down with slushy snow whenever he plays in the Metrodome, faces the Vikings, gets in a close game, or realizes he's a tool (OK, not a "reason" exactly, but c'mon! Aaron Rodgers is a tool!).
  • I just decided to start using the bullet point feature, and I probably shouldn't stop after two. So....THUNDERDOME! In 2001, the 5-11 Vikings beat the 12-4 Packers at home (badly). In 2002, the 6-10 Vikings beat the 12-4 Packers at home. The Metrodome isn't nearly to the Packers what Soldier Field is to the Vikings, I know, but it's still Thunderdome! What do games played in '01 and '02 have to do with a game played in '10 featuring new players and coaches? I don't know. What does any Viking game at Soldier Field have to do with any other Viking game at Soldier Field? Not much, maybe, but they always end up the same way.
Once again, I think we know what we'll get. Each team will have some scoring runs. The game will come down to a few fourth quarter possessions. Probably the home team will win (if, anyway, this time around the refs don't take away an actual touchdown. That would help the Vikes win too. You know, it's easier to win when the touchdowns you actually score get counted as touchdowns).

Other Intriguing Games

Bears-Dolphins. How I root in this game (aside from rooting for Ronnie Brown to have a million yards and a thousand touchdowns, but that's a fantasy problem) will reveal to me what I really expect from the Viking season in the depths of my heart. If I feel I'm rooting against the Bears, it means I'm clinging to some tiny hope that the Vikes can catch some breaks, improve their play, and either win the division or a Wild Card. If I find myself rooting for the Bears, it means I've given up on the Vikings and am rooting for a non-Packer team to win the division. I'm afraid I'll be rooting for Chicago.

Raiders-Steelers. I've moved right past Mad Men's '60s nostalgia and to Oakland-Pittsburgh '70s nostalgia. OK, Mad Men is about a quiet desperation that is hard to be nostalgic for (but in fedoras!), but the Raiders and Steelers really did meet in the playoffs for five straight years in the '70s (72, 73, 74, 75, 76).

Colts-Patriots. Still interesting after all these years.

Eagles-Giants.

Rebuilding
The 2007 Atlanta Falcons were as big a mess as I can imagine a football team being. Their star quarterback, whom the franchise had been built around for the '00s, was no longer with the team because of a felony. Their big name coach, hired away from college just that season, left the team suddenly and surprisingly. They ranked terribly offensively and defensively. That was a mess.

What did they do? They hired a good coach (Mike Smith). They signed a good free agent (Michael Turner). And they drafted a good quarterback (Matt Ryan, and if I were a Falcon fan I'd be thrilled to get to root for Matt Ryan's team for the next 10+ years). Since then, 11-6, 9-7, 7-2.

Rebuilding a team doesn't have to be a long project. It's important to get a good head coach and a good quarterback.

It's important to draft well so that you can quickly fill starting positions and fill out a quality roster. It takes both smarts and luck, but it can be done quickly.

What do the Vikings do next? They need to get somebody in charge to have a plan. Then they need to look at the roster to find their young core to build around (Adrian Peterson, Percy Harvin...) and figure out what aging, expensive, diminishing players they should let go.

Brad Childress v. the Packers
If the Vikings lose this week, Brad Childress will be 3-7 against the Packers, including three home losses.

From '06-'10, the Vikings have been 37-30 against all the non-Packer teams, and the Packers have been 39-28 against all the non-Viking teams (including playoffs). Playing mostly the same schedule, these teams have been very comparable over the course of four and a half years against the rest of the league (a 2 game difference). Yet against each other, Mike McCarthy's team has defeated Brad Childress's team in two out of every three games.

You know who I like? Bears fans.
All of my interactions in life with Bears fans have been enjoyable. The Bears fans I've met have been good-natured, friendly, and good-humored about their team. Everything I know about Bears fans makes me like them.

Good luck, Bears fans. If the Vikings aren't taking the division this year, may you win it by six games over the Packers.

You know who else I like? Mike Mularkey
A lot of Super Bowl winning coaches had head coaching experience with a previous franchise. Some of those coaches had mixed or poor success in their first stints as head coaches. Mularkey has had success as an offensive coordinator, and has experience working with young QBs. And he's a coach that's willing to study and learn offensive ideas with which he's unfamiliar (the converse argument that for all his studying of innovative offenses, his actual offenses haven't been nearly as creative).

I'd like the Vikings to interview Mularkey for the head coaching job this offseason.

Tarvaris Jackson
What happens to Jackson this offseason will be, I think, interesting. If Brad Childress isn't the Vikings' coach (and if he is, heaven help us through the blackouts), does the new coach want to keep Jackson around, if nothing else as an experienced #2 QB (or to compete as a starter in a rebuilding year)? If Jackson leaves, how will other teams view Jackson? Is he one of the better #2 QBs, or would a lot of teams not even want him for that? Or would a team with a really shaky QB situation sign him to compete as a starter?

Hope?
If you want to talk yourself into something, look at the Vikings' remaining schedule: home, game against a team that just gave up 59, three straight at home, game against the team that just scored 59, then the Lions. A competent football team might be able to finish 6-1 with that schedule. The problem is, the Vikings haven't been a competent football team, and it takes an act of faith to believe they will improve to the level of competence. Is there a logical argument to be had that they could actually improve their on-the-field performance to do so? Have they shown anything to indicate an improvement is possible? Even if they do manage to win all their remaining home games (the Vikes are a good home team: they might), are they really capable of winning two of their remaining three road games? They haven't won a road game all year, and actually lost their last four road games in 2009. The pass rush is noticeably nonexistent on grass. I'm not sure the Vikings can win one road game (at Detroit, maybe), and I'm pretty sure they'll blow at least one home game.

The Commercial Life
Miller Lite ads have often featured gender policing; these ads promote a proper and acceptable way for a man to act, and ridicule some of the unacceptable ways for a man to act. This year's crop features a man doing something in some way different or eccentric, then getting mocked and lectured for it by an attractive female bartender. The lesson is obvious: conform to the norm and act like a "real" man, or you will be humiliated and rejected...and Miller Lite is for "real men."

NFC North Box
Both the Packers and Bears finish the year with pretty brutal schedules. For the Packers, I only see one gimme (49ers at home), and every remaining Bears game is losable. But we're also talking about the #1 and #2 scoring defenses in the whole friggin' league, so I'm not assuming they'll tumble either.

Basketball Box
Kevin Love's 31 point, 31 rebound game in a rare T-Wolves win is kind of a big deal. This Michael Beasley/Kevin Love core looks like it can be something, but the Wolves will have to actually put a quality backcourt together to get near the playoffs.

Weekend
Blessings on everybody. Even Packer fans, just not from noon to three on Sunday.

Friday, October 08, 2010

Weird Misogyny in Sports Commentary

If you are talking about a man, and your point is that he’s irrational yet appealing, does it really provide much insight to say “he’s like an irrational yet appealing woman!”

I wouldn’t think so. Of course, some people think otherwise.

Addendum
I decided on a brief note with commentary implicit, but now I feel like expanding just a bit.

A male athlete behaves erratically. In order to provide perspective on the situation, a sportswriter appeals to a negative stereotype of women behaving erratically. What is the compulsion to do so? Why is it necessary to go to a stereotype of the "crazy hot chick" in order to explain a situation involving a crazy/erratic male athlete? For one thing, I think it provides pretty banal commentary. But it also seems to fit into a pattern of creepy sexism.

I'll add that claiming a crazy but talented man is like a crazy but hot woman illustrates a very basic insight of feminism: men are valued for their actions/abilities, women are valued for their sexual attractiveness.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

National Friday League, Week Three

Viking Preview
If the Vikes lose this one, Brett Favre should retire immediately.

The 2010 Vikings are more like the ’08 Vikes than the ’09 Vikes (and that’s OK, if they realize it)
The ’09 Vikings were an offensive juggernaut, scoring loads of points primarily through the passing game. If the first couple of games of ’10 are any indication, this Viking team is not like that Viking team. But this team bears remarkable similarities to the ’08 Viking team that started the season 0-2 and rallied to win the division.

The ’08 Vikings leaned heavily on Adrian Peterson (1,760 yards), and played frequently dominant defense (in nine games after the bye, they allowed opposing offenses to score 13 touchdowns, going 7-2 in the process). And if the ’10 Vikings’ first two games are indicative, this Viking team can still win games like the ’08 Vikings did. The Viking defense has done a superb job, in my opinion. They went on the road and held the Saints to 14 points. At home against the Dolphins, they allowed zero points after the first drive, and in the fourth quarter repeatedly did exactly what they needed to do to stop the Dolphins and get the ball back for the offense as quickly as possible.

The ’10 Vikes have more potential than that team, because Brett Favre has more potential for success than ’08 Gus Frerotte or ’08 Tarvaris Jackson had. But they can win games if they lean on Adrian Peterson and dominate defensively. They just have to realize that’s the sort of team they are. That means sometimes taking early field goals because you know the game will be close.* That means sometimes playing for field position because you can trust the defense to get the ball back for you quickly. It means not taking too many risks in the passing game (but picking their spots, sure).

The Vikes can rally: the defense will keep them in games, they have talented offensive players including a workhorse running back, and Brett Favre will not suck that bad in every game this year.

*I'd almost always go for it on fourth down from inside the three: if you don't get it, you're probably getting the ball back soon, and it good field position. Outside the 20, when you'd still have to gain more yards to get a TD rather than FG? With a reliable offense, yes. Without? Take the points. That's why this year the Vikings are a take the points team.

Irrational Viking Fan
Don Draper and Pete Campbell
I’ve only seen season one of Mad Men, so don’t spoil anything for me. But ever since RK madethe comparison of Aaron Rodgers to Howard from Death of a Salesman, I keep seeing Aaron Rodgers as Pete Campbell from Mad Men. And I hate Pete Campbell. When I see the look on Aaron Rodgers’ face, I associate him with all the worst qualities of Pete Campbell.

(And so I bought a fedora hat today. What, do you really think I did that in a misbegotten attempt to look like Don Draper? What do you take me for? You don't know my motivations. You can't prove anything. And anyway, isn't Draper kind of a major douche, tormented nihilistic soul or not? I suppose you think I'm silly for buying a tie for the first time in my memory, too. Well, screw you for judging me).

The Wheel of Fortune
The wheel of fortune spins: whomever it brings to the top, it will swing back down to the bottom.

From the ’04 playoffs through 2005, the Vikings won three straight games against the Packers. From ’06 through the first game of ’08, the Packers won five straight over the Vikings. And from ’08 through ’09, the Vikings defeated the Packers three straight times and claimed two division titles.

As far as the Viking-Packer rivaly goes, 2009 was Minnesota’s year. But I think I can say honestly that I did not try to rub anything in to Packer fans. I’ve been through enough Viking seasons to live in terror anytime things seem to be going well—and living in terror means little time for gloating. And I know how the wheel of fortune spins: somebody gets brought to the top, sure, but that somebody gets crashed back to the bottom again. For sure. The wheel keeps spinning.

And now, with the Vikes 0-2 and the Packers 2-0, it appears that 2010 may, broadly speaking, be the Packers’ year. Packer fans may be riding high all of 2010, and they’ll have their chance to rub it in. Maybe the wheel has spun, and it is the Packers’ turn at the top.* Maybe this is your chance to roll, Packer fans. But the wheel of fortune spins.

*Let’s stick with “maybe.” The Vikes still have a chance to salvage the season, will play the Packers strong in their head-to-head matchups, and if nothing else, Go Bears!

Season Preferences
Here are my preferences for the season, in order:

#1: The Vikings right the proverbial ship, make their way to the playoffs, and make a deep playoff run.
#2: A complete, total, disastrous collapse of the season.
#3: Stumbling toward a .500 season and missing the playoffs.

The reasons I prefer 2. to 3. are plenty. For one thing, epic failures are more entertaining to watch than muddling mediocrity (though stumbling to .500 with a shot at the playoffs makes each game more exciting and engaging. I am such a wishy washy thinker that I need to undercut my own thoughts in the parentheses). But there are other reasons. I think, eventually, Brad Childress will discover for certain that Tarvaris Jackson can’t really be a consistent starting QB—if that were to somehow happen in 2010 rather than 2011, we take a healthy step toward the future a year early. The Vikes also have some young players that have shown sparks of stardom, some who haven’t had an opportunity to do so yet, and several that the Vikings need to decide about for long-term contracts. A collapse might mean leaning more on those players. If the Vikes aren’t going to win the Super Bowl this season, then I’d rather see them move toward a future where they can win the Super Bowl—whatever that takes, even if it means a brutal nadir to get there. In Nathaniel Hawthorne's "My Kinsman, Major Molineux," Robin goes through one miserable, confusing, awful night--but he comes out of it with a new, important insight into the world. If he never saw his tarred and feathered kinsman paraded down the streets, if he never joined into the mocking laughter, he might never have learned what he needed to learn.

But preferably, the future is now. The Vikes have a fairly high number of star veterans that might not have much left (Pat Williams, Antoine Winfield, Steve Hutchinson, Brett Favre). The Vikes also have a handful of Hall-of-Fame quality starters in their primes (Jared Allen, Kevin Williams, Adrian Peterson). This is no time to waste. It’s just if it’s going to be wasted, I’d prefer disaster to mediocrity.

Other Intriguing Matchups
Week Three Schedule

Falcons-Saints. If you watched the 49ers-Saints Monday, you saw another game where the Saints did not outplay an opponent, but benefitted from that opponent making one disastrous mistake after another. That was an incredible display by San Francisco: they moved the ball, and they successfully stopped the Saints, but they repeatedly acted as if it might be more fun to lose the game than win. Snapping the ball over the QB’s head out of the back of the end zone for a safety on the first drive? Sure. Drive down the field before halftime but fumble inside the 15. Why not? Muff a punt late in the game? Of course. Start a drive with a delay of game penalty? Why would you be ready at the start of a drive? Just incredible. Anyway, I don’t think the Saints are that good, and the Falcons might be.

49ers-Chiefs. One of these teams will reveal itself. I don’t know which one.

Cowboys-Texans. One of these teams will reveal itself. I don’t know which one.

Colts-Broncos. Indianapolis sliced up the Giants last Sunday in ways I haven’t seen anybody sliced up in a long, long time.

Packers-Bears. When I was a kid, I had this Chicago Bears hooded sweatshirt that somehow got passed down to me—I don’t know how or from where. I would wear it outside to play basketball or shovel snow. I don’t know what happened to that hoodie (though we didn’t call them hoodies in the bad old days of the mid-90s, did we?). If I still had it, I’d be donning it Monday night. Go Bears.

The Quarterback Position
Matthew Yglesias argues that the Eagles keeping two starter-quality QBs is a bad idea:

“it’s also mighty inefficient. Whether or not Kevin Kolb is a better quarterback than Vick, I think it’s pretty clear that Vick is one of the top 30 QBs in the league. That means he’s worth more to someone else as a starter than he is to Philadelphia as a backup and the Eagles should trade him. It never really makes sense for a team to be carrying two different starter-quality quarterbacks.”

But here’s the problem with that argument: what if the Eagles accepted this argument before the season started? Then when their starter, Kevin Kolb, got injured, they would have been left with a low-quality starter to replace him. Instead of Michael Vick leading them to a three-point win, it’s quite likely a poor quarterback would have led them to a loss.

Quarterback is a critically important position. It may seem inefficient to keep two good quarterbacks, but I’m not entirely sure it’s a good idea to go into a season saying “Oh well, if our starting QB gets hurt, we’re just screwed anyway.” I’m also not sure it’s a good idea to go into a season saying “Oh well, our starting QB only has two career starts, but if we learn he sucks the whole team can just go down with him.”

Now, why am I bothering with the sports argument of a political blogger here (especially as the situation has changed, and Vick will start)? Because I’ve largely stopped reading most sportswriters’ commentary. Most sportswriters’ commentary provides little insight, and I no longer have the inclination (or time) to read bad sportswriters just to criticize them on this blog. So I’ve quit reading them. There are some sportswriters who do offer quality analysis—but I can’t bring myself to read much about football following a Viking loss (I also can’t bring myself to write much after a Viking loss—sorry. If you’d like me to write a lot after a Viking loss, find a way to get me paid to do this. Actually, don’t: I don’t need the added responsibility. I’m writing this after mental exhaustion from grading papers). I do, however, still occasionally read political blogs, and occasionally come across sports arguments, and occasionally find them flawed. So here we are.

Things to look forward to now the Vikes are 0-2
This might finally be the season that Ted meets his kids’ mother.

Fantasy Box
No, I did not try hard to trade away Frank Gore last week. That would be crazy. If anybody tries to tell you I tried to do that, they are lying. Don't be a liar. Frank Gore is awesome, and I've always known it--I wouldn't trade him for anybody. And fantasy football is not about luck.

Weekend
Have a good weekend everybody. Except Lion fans. The Packers don’t play until Monday, so Packer fans, I don’t care about your weekend. Bears fans: I hope you enjoy Monday.

Thursday, September 16, 2010

National Friday League, week two

I’m still on the Viking bandwagon. It’s just that now I’ve ambled my way to the back to sit with the older fans in the back drinking hard liquor and saying things like “Kids, I’ve seen some things. I know that hope is a mirage.” That’s how a lot of Viking fans are, I think: never able to bring themselves to actually jump off that bandwagon, but always expecting it to hit a pothole, so that all the people standing on the bandwagon get flung to the floor, and they bang into each other and there's a heap of bodies just lying on the wood as the wagon keeps on getting pulled by a horse that keeps stopping to poop or throw up. If we're going to use a cliche like bandwagon, shouldn't we flesh it out a bit?

Vikings-Dolphins Preview
There’s one big thing to like about this matchup: Chad Henne facing the Viking pass rush in Thunderdome. I think he’ll wilt. In the last two seasons, the Viking defensive line has been all over quarterbacks at home.

There’s one big thing to dislike about this matchup: Miami’s running game. The Vikings have the great run defense, sure, but they’ve frequently been vulnerable against runs off the edges. When the Dolphins get up to those misdirection shenanigoats, I worry our linebackers are going to be chasing around Dolphin running backs. When running backs get to the edges, teams can get this Viking defense.

Combine the big thing to like and the big thing to dislike, and an early lead becomes rather important. But when isn’t an early lead preferable? What, the team should try to play it close all game, or maybe try get down big in order to come back? No great insight and no great strategy there: of course the Vikings should try to score points and prevent the Dolphins from scoring points whenever possible, including the bloody first quarter. I guess I’m really just saying in this game, I don’t see the Dolphins coming back if they get down by a lot, but I could see the Dolphins picking up frustrating Wildcat first downs if they’re milking a close fourth quarter lead.

In the end, I always trust Thunderdome.

Other Intriguing Matchups
Week Two Schedule

Bills-Packers. Sure, the Bills probably suck. But they sort of have a good defense. A Buffalo win here would please me. I dislike Aaron Rodgers.

Bears-Cowboys. No freaking idea whether one of these teams can go to the playoffs or whether one of these teams really sucks.

Steelers-Titans. Last week, the Steelers scored a tight win against a quality opponent thanks to great defense; meanwhile, the Titans scored a blowout win thanks to seeing the Raiders on their schedule. These two teams can bring out the best in each other: competitive, hard-hitting, well-played football.

Giants-Colts. I don’t care about Peyton and Eli facing each other; I care about Peyton and Eli being entertaining quarterbacks who often make football games fun to watch. The game will be entertaining not because announcers keep talking about quarterbacking brothers, but because those quarterbacking brothers, and their teams, are fun to watch.

49ers-Saints. I'm still curious about both teams--I'm not sure what they showed week one.

Irrational Viking Fan
The conversations that occur at the PV household are probably a lot like you’d expect. I lament to my wife, how did the same fanbase that endured the end of ’98 have to endure the end of ’09? She says it doesn’t seem fair. And then I mumble something about ’87 and ’75.

It’s like Stephen King’s It: at consistent intervals, a horrible monster comes to terrify the town. Every 11-12 years, Viking fans can expect to get their hopes up and then have our hearts shit-stomped in a desperately confusing close playoff loss.

But with all the predictions for the Packers in the Super Bowl this year,* it is worth
repeating: if the Packers win their 13th championship before the Vikings win their first, I will have a sports nervous breakdown that makes my reaction to last year’s NFC championship game look like a hiccup. You won’t hear me talk about football again for a long, long time. I will know the universe has no balance, and that karma is a happy story for losers to tell ourselves to make us feel a little warmer at night. I won’t be able to take it, and before long I’ll change this blog to “Pacifist Timberwolf” or something. I’ve got issues.

Of course I know there is actual injustice in the world, that leads to actual suffering, and that in the lives of the cosmos and the lives of families, what I’m talking about on this blog doesn’t really matter. Which is why this has been Irrational Viking Fan.

*I get it, I do. But when virtually EVERYBODY predicts the Packers are going to the Super Bowl, it makes me ask just what they’ve done to make them the consensus preseason NFC champion? Is the whole NFC just down?

Percy Harvin
Clearly, Harvin has what it takes to be a playmaking #1 WR. He’s fast and quick. He can go deep or he can catch passes at the sticks on third down. He’s agile to get away from defenders to run after the catch, and he’s strong, difficult to bring down. He’s got great football smarts (my favorite move: when he catches the ball facing the QB, he and the defender are moving in one direction, and immediately when catching it, Harvin cuts the opposite way as quick as can be, as the defender’s momentum takes him the other direction and Harvin can get extra yards).

Last season, Harvin shined as the Vikings used him as needed. They had so many viable targets last season, that they didn’t need Harvin to be a #1 WR. Well, maybe this season they do need that. They need Harvin to be a do-it-all receiving option that they can rely on for every down. And Harvin has the talent and the toughness to do it.

Of course, he sucked against the Saints. And maybe he only works as a slot receiver.

It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad world
When you think about your life and how it changes over time, you might find yourself dumbstruck by how different your life is now than what it was then. Professional sports offers a clear reflection of the transitory nature of life. Think back to 2002 or 2003. Then tell yourself that one day, Mike Shanahan would be coaching in Washington, where he’d call a play and Donovan McNabb would hand off to Clinton Portis. Then tell yourself that the Ravens and Jets would play, and Anquan Boldin is on one team and Ladanian Tomlinson is on the other. It's like doing Franchise mode on Madden, where without really noticing a few years later a bunch of superstars are on different teams and you think "This is just weird." That’s how it goes: star players switching teams is commonplace, yet when I actually think about the changes, it’s jarring. So too with the changes of life.

Unsolicited Recommendation
I really enjoyed season one of The League, FX’s comedy about a fantasy football league. I laughed out loud a lot, and I found a lot of the show to ring true. Season two is starting up; I highly recommend it.

The Kansas City Chiefs
For a few minutes, my wife and I were watching the Chiefs and all the big, exciting plays they were making. At some point I immediately fell in love with Jamaal Charles, and asserted my wild desire to make a crazy fantasy trade offer involving giving up Frank Gore to get Charles. “Don’t go pissing away your whole team on magic beans,” she advised me. She should probably always stick around me, advising me before I do stupid things.

Low scoring? I don’t care.
On KFAN Tuesday morning, I heard Mike Florio complain to Paul Allen a bit about a low scoring week one. I don’t mind low-scoring games, actually. I like watching well-played games, and I like watching competitive games. A 13-10 game is usually more enjoyable to watch than a 35-0 game, and a 13-10 game that clearly features great defense simply outplaying competent offense is enjoyable.

Incompetent offense is, yes, terrible to watch, and there was some inept quarterbacking in week one. But a well-played, competitive low-scoring game is usually fine with me. And I like that there are some great defenses out there capable of shutting teams down and competing against some of the great offenses out there.

Greg Camarillo
Throw the ball to Camarillo: he’ll catch it! Get the man on the field!

A miniature sports book review
Over the summer I read Bill Simmons' The Basketball Book, and never got around to writing about it here.

The book might be the most entertaining sports book I've read: it's funny and insightful. If you're interested in basketball history, interested in arguments about the greatest players and the greatest teams, interested in looking at sports history for what matters most, and also interested in the fan experience of sports, the book is almost perfect.

If you don't know much about NBA history, you'll learn a lot (though perhaps in a chaotic, disorganized way), and if you do know a lot about NBA history, I think you'll find the perspectives fresh and still informative. Simmons' heavy focus on his favorite team, the Boston Celtics, is even justifiable because of the Celtics' prominent place in NBA history--it doesn't feel too heavy to me.

My one critique (it is a major or minor one depending on your perspective) is the sexism/misogyny that runs through it. When I read Simmons' columns, I wince at nearly every mention of women, because what he says is usually quite ugly (as some commenters here have pointed out). If you went through The Book of Basketball and highlighted every reference Simmons makes to women, I think you'd come up with a rather ugly picture of stereotypes and objectification.

Fantasy Box
I am a homer, and lord of the idiots.
If you use Yahoo! for your fantasy football, you may have noticed that 1% of all fantasy teams were starting Greg Camarillo week one (actually you probably didn't, because why would you be looking that up?). I was one of them. It didn’t go well.

The closer and then the deeper we get into the football season, the more ridiculous my fantasy homerism becomes. In the summer I usually convince myself “No no, not this time,” and draft a team by that standard. Then I start doing things like picking up Greg Camarillo. My fellow Hazelweirders know this and try exploit it, so I get the chance to turn down trade offers like Brett Favre for Peyton Manning straight up or Sidney Rice and Percy Harvin for Reggie Wayne.

The Indianapolis Colts lose
As my friend Kiah told me Sunday, the Colts losing is probably the best thing for fantasy owners of Peyton Manning, Reggie Wayne, etc. Let them lose some early season games (especially if Indy offensive players can put up big numbers in defeat), and then maybe they’ll actually be playing to win in Week 16 and Week 17. Suddenly, I smiled.

Weekend
Enjoy your weekend, everybody. Except Packer, Bear, and Dolphin fans.

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Overtime and the Saints

Some Saints, including Jonathan Vilma and Sean Payton, are complaining that the NFL changed its playoff overtime rule. Vilma in particular thinks it is a show of disrespect to the Saints.

For Minnesota Viking fans still not over the NFC Championship game (would that be all of us?), there is a lot to be annoyed with in some of those comments (especially those fans still upset by some of the officiating shenanigoats of overtime). I'd rather not do a line by line deconstruction, but I will make two points.

1. NFL overtime rules are unfair. Don Banks of Sports Illustrated notes: "59.8 percent of the games since 1994 -- when kickoffs were moved back to the 30-yard line -- were won by the team winning the overtime coin toss." Rules of a competitive game are supposed to be fair to each team. If you have a rule that gives one team a 59.8% chance of beating the other team based on a random event, that's not a fair rule in a competitive game. Within the rules of the game and the lines of the field, each team in a competition is supposed to have a fair chance at winning. A sudden death overtime with a coin toss does not do that. Is there any other such rule that fundamentally sways the competitive fairness of a game? Homefield advantage might (especially when loud fans affect playcalling), but there are rules attempting to make that advantage fair (everybody gets the same number of home and away games in the season--with rare exceptions--and teams earn homefield advantage in playoff games by achieving certain standards), and the rules of the game itself don't distinguish between home and away teams (except to determine who gets to guess at the random coin toss--in that sense it's the Vikings' fault because they guessed the random occurrence wrong). Let's be clear here: a team that loses the coin toss only wins the game 40.2% of the time. If two teams have played even for 60 minutes, does it make competitive sense that a particular rule would reduce one team's chance of winning the game down to 40.2%?

2. After the Trojan War, do you think the Greeks said things like "This is a real slap in the face. It's like people think we never would have won that war if we hadn't snuck in with that big wooden horse"? The New Orleans Saints won the Super Bowl! They vanquished everybody! Everybody is acknowledging that! Everybody is praising them for that! If they feel that they need reminding, they can go look at their Lombardi Trophy. If they feel people disrespecting them, they'll have Super Bowl rings to flash at them. Has the "Nobody believed in us" trope reached its absurd conclusion when less that two months after the Super Bowl the Super Bowl champ can make claims that they are being disrespected? They won the Super Bowl: nobody can deny that and nobody can take that away from them. Isn't winning the championship the point? Isn't that what makes you immune to those that hate, disrespect, or diminish you? When you win a championship, should you even care about those that would hate, disrespect, or diminish you? Do you really want to complain that people aren't acknowledging you as the legitimate champion enough? Isn't celebrating your victory, celebrating your championship, celebrating your defeat of everybody else, enough?

Wednesday, March 03, 2010

Future Tense

part four in an erratic offseason of blogging

Perhaps my recent dream is pulling me back.

Today in my literature class, we continued discussion of Jhumpa Lahiri's The Namesake, a novel told (mostly) in the present tense.  I asked students to consider the effect of the present tense on the novel, and then offered my own idea.

Putting something in the past tense turns it into "history;" it crystallizes it, makes it firm.  When something is in the past, one can start to make meaning about it.  And when something is past (especially in a novel that starts in 1968 and continues to locate itself at various points until 2000), and it gets hardened into history, it can begin to feel inevitable (even if it is not).  It is similar to what John Fowles writes in The French Lieutenant's Woman:

"You do not even think of your own past as quite real; you dress it up, you gild it or blacken it, censor it, tinker with it... fictionalize it, in a word, and put it away on a shelf--your book, your romanced autobiography."

Locating a novel in a "now" has the effect pushing away immediate interpretations of meaning (for the characters, anyway, if not the readers).  It also leaves open possibility that past tense does not.  You might not think adding "ed" to your verbs could do that, but it can.

To illustrate this point, of course, I brought myself back to the NFC Championship Game.  During the game I was a mess, a nervous wreck, physically and mentally.  While the game was in a "now," the tension and possibility of the moment quite overwhelmed me.  But very shortly after it was over, and yes despair set in, but that tension was gone.  Once the game was over, it became the past, a history, another heartbreaking moment in the team's history, another gut-wrenching disappointment in a long line of them.  Then, I could start to make meaning of it.  Then it was fixed, and if not quite inevitable, it made sense (the fumbles, the 12 men in the huddle, the interception, the coin toss, the bad officiating).  It's not like those things weren't apparent as they were happening; it was that, while happening, we didn't know what they meant.  Now we do.  The book is on the shelf.

For now.  It finally needs to be said.

Maybe next year.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

NATIONAL FRIDAY LEAGUE (week 7)

It has already been a thrilling season. Goodness, think about it. The Vikings won a game on a 32 yard touchdown pass and catch with seconds remaining on the clock. They beat the Ravens 33-31 on a game of runs that ended with an opponent's missed field goal. And the Vikings have already beaten the Green Bay Packers once, meaning there's at least that satisfaction from 2009. There are 10 more games left, plus playoffs? The Vikings have already given me loads of visceral thrills.

Vikings-Steelers Preview
The Pittsburgh Steelers
The Minnesota Vikings

I think this is the toughest game on the Vikings’ schedule. A team with serious Super Bowl aspirations shouldn’t consider any game unwinnable, but this is the game that even in the offseason I could most easily see the Vikings struggling in (am I so damaged I’ll never trust the Vikes in an outdoor road game?), and Antoine Winfield’s injury only makes it more difficult. But let’s think positive. What things can the Vikings do to defeat the Steelers?

Tackle Ben Roethlisberger
Roethlisberger has a career 9% sack rate, a very high rate. The Vikes have been rushing the passer well, so they could disrupt Steelers’ drives by sacking Roethlisberger. But just as Roethlisberger takes too many sacks because he holds onto the ball a long time, so to does he often hold the ball long enough for receivers to get open downfield. I’m fairly confident the Vikings’ defensive linemen will pressure Roethlisberger; however, it’s also highly possible that Roethlisberger will evade the rush and complete devastating passes downfield. They’ll need to make sure when they rush him, they’re able to corner him and tackle him. It would also help if they could strip the ball from him.

Protect Brett Favre
For three weeks, the Viking pass protection looked like a mess. For the last three weeks, it looked superb. I don’t know if that is the strength of the opponents, improving play of new OL starters John Sullivan and Phil Loadholt, or Favre’s comfort with the team making his reads better. The Steelers have some ferocious pass rushers and an aggressive defensive coordinator, so it won’t be easy. However, the Vikings have faced several 3-4ish defenses this season, so they should at least be in practice for how to face the Steelers' 3-4.

Make big plays on offense
I think it will be hard to sustain very many long, dink-and-dunk drives against the Steeler defense this week. However, the Vikings have playmakers in the passing game and running game to make 20+ yard plays, and those are the types of plays that can lead the Vikes to points against Pittsburgh.

It needs to be said: I love Brett Favre
When I think of my life as a sports fan, I now realize Favre has been the dominating presence. Always. I started watching football regularly around ’92 or ’93, when Favre first really emerged. I was watching football heavily when the Packers rose to the top of the league. When I went to college in Wisconsin, my Viking fandom got bolstered by hatred of the Packers. I think this all peaked around ’03 and ’04, when the Vikings and Packers were tightly competitive for a division title, and each year the Vikes lost the division in unmatchably dramatic fashion.

It seems this is the only way this could all end: watching Favre quarterback the Vikings, rooting for him, starting to love him. I really now see him as a Viking. The game winning drive against the 49ers made that happen; the excellent game against the Packers confirmed it. This is how reconciliation happens. And in my wildest fantasies, I hope this is how the Vikings will finally win a Super Bowl.

Favre gives me the faith that the Vikings won’t underachieve on the road against bad opponents. I watch the games slightly more relaxed than I used to: I feel the Vikes now have a little bigger margin of error.

For her birthday, I bought my wife a pink Brett Favre Vikings jersey. When my toddler plays with a toy telephone, I ask whom he is calling; “Brett Favre,” he says, and I do nothing to discourage this. I can now enjoy Favre highlights, can appreciate his statistics, and I even like Brett Favre football cards again.

I now bristle at the criticism against Favre, dismissing the critics, believing they don't quite get what he's doing or what makes him great or why he's going to make it all season long.

It's happened. Brett Favre is a Viking, and I embrace him as a Viking. I don't only root for him to do well, but I love watching him play.

And on the rational level
Most of my doubts about Favre have now been proven wrong. There were a lot of things I underestimated when considering how he’d perform as the Vikes’ QB—the main one being how fast he gets rid of the ball. He reads the defense extremely quickly, making a fast decision and throwing the ball with a very sharp release. The speed with which he acts after the snap sets him apart. He's been very good on third down, he's shown a lot of arm strength, he offers the Vikings a legitimate passing threat in the red zone to make sure they finish drives, and he's very effective in a two-minute offense when the team needs to move the ball quickly. He's been taking aggressive shots downfield, and in particular he's helped Sidney Rice elevate his game.

My bigger doubts, however, were about how his body would hold up in December, and whether he’d treat us to a disappointing performance in the playoffs. While those doubts haven’t been proven wrong yet, after seeing him play, I’m much less worried about those things than I was before.

My Viking Dreams
Me: Last night I dreamed that the Vikings won the NFC Championship game and I was jumping around like crazy celebrating.
My Wife: So even in your dreams, the Vikings don’t win the Super Bowl.
Me: Well, there was that dream when I was carried away to another plane of existence where time didn’t pass for me but it passed for everybody else, and I found out that while I was gone the Vikings won the Super Bowl.

Thinking End Game
Are you already following the NFC thinking playoffs? I’m looking at NFC teams to see who could be a threat in January (there are a handful of teams the Vikings are capable of defeating or losing to at that point), and I follow the standings hoping the Vikes can secure a first-round bye and get as many games as they can in Thunderdome.

And I feel a bit of desperation for this year's playoffs, since it certainly feels like if the Vikes are going to win the Super Bowl, it's this season they need to do it.

On Talking About Favre
As the all-time leader in both touchdown passes and interceptions, one could argue that Favre has made more positive plays than any quarterback in NFL history, and that Favre has made more negative plays than any quarterback in NFL history. His defenders, I think, often go too far to downplay, excuse, or ignore the negative plays. His detractors, I think, sometimes exaggerate the negative plays. And this occurs in a media environment where for years many in the (especially television) media heaped irrational gushing on Favre, so that a large and loud backlash against Favre and the media coverage of him developed (especially on the internet), with critics feeling justified in exaggerating the criticism because of all the irrational gushing, to the extent that today the criticism might be more overblown that the praise.

It’s extremely difficult to have a reasonable, objective discussion about Favre. There are statistical metrics that can try place Favre in his proper place, of course, but we also must decide how to interpret and use statistical facts. With Favre, it’s always going to be subjective, with the debaters focusing on (and finding) the available data they need to prove (mostly to themselves) the point they already believed before starting the debate. Discussions on Favre become subjective talk-past sessions, with the debaters using different standards and language and even worldviews to prove their points.

Players I’ve been enjoying
Sidney Rice
How thrilling is it to see Sidney Rice develop into a starting WR? He showed promise as a rookie and was slowed by injury in his second year. Now he’s versatile in the routes he can run, very athletic, a reliable playmaker. Whatever happens at quarterback in the future, it looks like we'll have a trio of Rice, Percy Harvin, and Bernard Berrian for a while, so that should be fun.

Jared Allen
How lucky are we? Allen is one of the most dominant pass rushers in the league, just a terror when he gets on. He uses quickness, speed, strength, and technique to constantly harass quarterbacks. His burst off the line is so quick, and his ability to disrupt an offense requires offenses to scheme around him (with a lot of screen passes, with a lot of double teams). It’s interesting to watch how an offense game plans to avoid a dominant, disruptive player.

Antoine Winfield
Winfield has been making giant defensive plays for the Vikes since 2004, and it becomes easy to take his brilliance for granted. Watching Karl Paymah against the Ravens reminds us not to do so.

Kevin Williams
Dominant force, and has been for years.

Brett Favre
Just keep it up. Just keep everything up, right on through February.

Fantasy Box
I spent all summer excited about Steven Jackson, and he was my most expensive pick in the Hazelweird auction. However, it took me all of one week to realize it would be wise to accept a trade offer of Peyton Manning for Jackson (with a few other particulars). The Rams looked so bad that I thought even if I’m right about Jackson’s yards, he won’t have many TD opportunities; Drew Brees’ six touchdown day made me suspect that it will take an elite QB to contend for a fantasy title this season. Obviously I'm happy with this trade.

In the summer we are all privy to the same information and analysis, but your fantasy success can depend largely on in-season roster moves. Flexibility, insight, timing, luck, and a little bit of guts during the season might matter as much as your draft preparation.

By the way, in both my leagues I'm now starting the Indianapolis Colts Defense. If I'm going to be in leagues with other Viking fans, I won't be able to construct an all-Viking lineup; I'm compensating by saturating my rosters with as many Colts as is reasonable.

Packer fans
Michael Rosenberg of SI and Bill Simmons of ESPN offer sympathy for Packer fans for being forced to see their one-time icon lighting them up for the hated rival.

As somebody who has entirely changed his attitude toward Favre because of my own team loyalty, I do understand Packer fans that turn on Favre. However, Favre gave Packer fans a massive amount of pleasure over the years. He gave them so many big moments and so many wins, including two NFC championships and one Super Bowl victory. Do they really want to abandon all that because Favre is playing for the Vikings for one year? They got to see their favorite team win a championship in large part due to Favre. If you root for a sports team, what else can you possibly want other than to see that team win a championship? Isn't that the most wonderful thing you can experience? And wouldn't that, along with 16 years of effort and success, be enough credit to make up for the debit of going over to the rival?

I can assure you, if a quarterback ever leads the Vikings to a Super Bowl win, he'll have to do a lot more to the Vikings and Viking fans than Favre has done to the Packers and Packer fans to make me turn on him.

Viking fans
Is it just me, or do network cameras (particularly ESPN and CBS, who don't cover too many Viking games) show more camera shots of Viking fans than they do for most teams? I always enjoy seeing fans decked out in purple paint and all varieties of Viking horns. I always smirk. "We're an odd bunch," I think. And then I feel guilty for not donning horns and face paint when I'm sitting in my living room watching the game.

“Luck” and Competition
In reaction to the Vikings’ victory over the Ravens, some reaction has suggested the Vikings were “lucky.” After all, they won because the opponent missed a game winning field goal. But let’s explore this concept of luck.

The outcome of any competition features the positive plays made by the winner, and the negative plays made by the loser. The Vikings-Ravens game featured many positive plays from both teams, and many negative plays from both teams. When you assess the game from beginning to end, the result is a very close contest that could go either way. The Ravens made a mistake of execution at the end, which gave the victory to the Vikings. But any close game could go either way dependent on a few plays at any given time. Do the negative plays made by the losing team make any closely contested game a “lucky” win for the winner? I don’t think so.

One problem is that many football fans, I think, view the kicking game as peripheral, if not external, to actual football. We spend most of our time talking about offenses and defenses, and sure we acknowledge the importance of special teams. But we tend to think of the kickers as something else, not quite a part of our assessment of the team’s quality. But of course that’s ridiculous: kicking is an important part of the game. In the Vikings-Ravens game, the Viking kicking game was good. Ryan Longwell made four out of four field goal attempts; in other words, the Vikings made positive plays in the kicking game. Steven Hauschka missed a 44 yard field goal as time expired; in other words, the Ravens made a negative play in the kicking game. I’d compare it to basketball: we understand that free throws, while uncontested, are a natural, essential part of the game of basketball. Well aren’t field goal attempts (which actually are contested) a natural, essential part of the game of football?

If the Ravens miss a field goal in the first quarter, it doesn’t make the Vikings’ win appear lucky. If another Raven player—a running back, a quarterback, a linebacker, an offensive lineman, anyone—makes an error at the end, it might not make the Vikings’ win appear lucky. I mean, really, have you ever heard anybody say something like “The team was lucky to win because the opponent’s linebacker missed that tackle at the end”? The Raven kicker failed to execute an important kick at the end of the game. That is a reasonable event of a competition.

But did the Ravens make such an egregious, unlikely error that it taints the Vikings’ victory? Not necessarily. Thus far in 2009, NFL kickers are 68 for 97 on field goal attempts from 40-49 yards (scroll down), roughly 70%. That’s a high percentage, but it’s not a gimme. Certainly an NFL kicker should make that field goal, but it’s not an outlandish outcome for him to miss it.

And let’s spin it the other way. Do you consider the Ravens “unlucky” to have lost? When a team loses because its field goal kicker misses the game winner, I don’t usually consider that team unlucky. They had a weakness on their team, and it cost them the game. It’s a close loss, one that has to hurt, but it’s a loss based on their own failure of execution. I think we generally understand that the Raven defense struggled most of the game, and the Raven offense struggled until the fourth quarter (just as the Viking offense played well most of the game, and the defense played pretty well until the fourth quarter—and furthermore, if anything we could consider the Ravens lucky because Antoine Winfield and Benny Sapp were injured and they got to throw a bunch of passes Karl Paymah’s way).

So were the Vikings “lucky”? That depends on what you mean by luck. Certainly at the very end of the game, the outcome was determined not primarily by the Vikings, but by the opponent: if you rely on something outside yourself for your own success, you are lucky if you win. And if you consider beating the odds of probability “luck,” then the final field goal made the Vikings lucky: the probability of an NFL kicker missing that kick is approximately 30%. But if by “lucky” you mean “fluky,” or “undeserved,” or “unearned,” or “tainted,” I think you’d be wrong.

Luck is a part of competition, but so too is execution and failure of execution a part of competition.

Links
During the last month, I whittled down my consistent football reading to a few key sites: Football Outsiders (the most extensive and detailed football analysis source, with a combination of detailed analysis and close observation of the games), Sports Illustrated NFL page (great football coverage, though some mediocre writers that continue to annoy me), Pro Football Talk Rumor Mill (I don't care for the commentary, but it's a quick place to check for any big news), pro-football-reference.com blog (good statistical analysis that offers historical perspective), the Star Tribune Viking page (the new format annoys me, but I still check it), and Bill Simmons' Friday picks column (guaranteed to irritate me at least once per column--is it just me or is he openly sexist?--but still an entertaining article I look forward to reading). There are other good sites that I would check periodically (being away from blogging about the team, I actually avoided reading Viking blogs, fearing getting sucked into spirited debates that I couldn't spare the energy for), but these are now the sites I consider my essential football reading.

I know where the wild things are: they live in the shadow of the end zone (PFT).

One thing academics do is what I call the hippo in the doorway. If you really need to get a hippo through the doorway but it doesn't quite fit, you can just jam it on in, even if things get distorted. Academics sometimes take the theories and methods of their particular field of expertise, attempt to apply those theories and methods to some aspect of society outside their field, and claim to have found insight through the process. Sometimes this process works and provides insights into both the subject of inquiry and the theories and methods applied. And sometimes, the process feels like jamming a hippo through a doorway. Kenny Smith's religious interpretation of football at Religion Dispatches sometimes feels like the hippo in the door--yet his analysis is based on specific, concrete fan behavior at games, and thus I think his interpretation offers insight. Certainly I feel something like emotional transcendence at various points throughout the football season.

Weekend
My toddler has been housebound for a month in a cast that went from belly to toe. On his first weekend of liberation, we'll do our best to spend most of the weekend out and about. We'll make it back to the house by noon on Sunday, of course.

Have a good weekend, everybody. Except Steeler, Packer, Bear, and Saint fans. Yep, I've added Saint fans: they're not the only NFC competition, but they're the strongest.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

NATIONAL FRIDAY LEAGUE (week two)

Welcome to week two of the "I can't believe Brett freaking Favre is the Viking quarterback" season. What if my present self got into a DeLorean and spoke to my past self, telling him that Brett Favre at age 39 is the Vikings' starting quarterback? If you go back in time and say something that makes your past self jump off a bridge, do you create a paradox in the space-time continuum?

Week Two Games

Vikings-Lions Preview
Last year the Lions gave up 32.3 points per game and 404 yards per game (both ranked last in the league). Last week, the Lions gave up 45 points and 515 yards. Will Adrian Peterson top his 180 yard, three TD week one performance? Will Sidney Rice, Percy Harvin, and Bernard Berrian be so wide open it will look like Favre has developed rapport with those guys?

Before we get too excited, the ’08 Lions lost to the Vikings by two and four points. Those suckers tend to play the Vikings tough. Happily, they tend to lose after playing the Vikings tough (one win against the Vikes from 2002-2008).

I’m more enthused about the Viking defense facing a terrible Lion offense featuring a rookie QB in his second start. I won’t be shocked if the offense underachieves against the Lions: I’ve seen that show. I will be surprised if Kevin Smith is able to pick up first downs via the run. I will be surprised if Matthew Stafford gets time to throw. If he does, I will be surprised if he’s able to pick apart the Viking defense.

I won’t be surprised if the Vikings struggle, and I’m staring off in despair around halftime. But I will be surprised if they actually lose the game.

“Clutch”
Like Fox Mulder, I want to believe. I want to believe there is such a thing as “clutch.” But the way we talk about it makes very little sense.

1.
You will sometimes hear people cite the 2008 Green Bay Packers’ record in games decided by four or fewer points: they were 0-7. But they beat the Vikings by five points. What’s the real difference between a four point game or a five point game? Little, but 0-7 sounds like a cleaner narrative than 1-7.

When I consider close games, I look at games decided by seven points or fewer. It’s not perfect (sometimes a late score distorts the competitiveness of a game), but it at least has logic: it’s a game close enough to be determined by one touchdown. You might rather consider games decided by a field goal or less. You could also make an argument for eight being the magic number. But separating four point wins from five points wins is just silly.

2.
Quarterbacks get a lot of credit for clutch performances, but this week provided illustrations for the deeper context. The QB is typically dependent on the success of his teammates or failures of his opponent for his clutch performance. Aaron Rodgers threw a game-winning touchdown against the Bears, so he had a clutch performance; however, if instead of throwing his fourth interception, Jay Cutler followed Rodgers’ TD pass with a game-winning TD of his own, then he’s clutch, and Rodgers’ performance is lost in a loss. Tom Brady threw a game-winning touchdown against the Bills, but the Patriots may not have even got the ball back had Leodis McKelvin not fumbled on the previous kick return. I'm not saying we can't admire the play of these quarterbacks in the fourth quarter. I am saying we shouldn't be daft and pretend these quarterbacks will their team to victory. It's a team game.

3.
I do believe in something like “clutch.” Some human beings handle pressure situations better than other human beings. And even when an opponent makes the mistake, a player or team still needs to make the plays to take advantage of that mistake (in an ’07 game between the Packers and Vikings, the Packers led by seven and just needed to run the clock out. A Packer RB fumbled, giving the Vikes an opportunity to win because of an opponent error. Do you think that Kelly Holcomb led the Vikings to a win with a “clutch” performance? No. No he did not). But I'm not sure. I have a feeling that Fyodor Dostoevsky couldn't quite believe in God, but also couldn't quite give up his belief in God (I may be projecting), and that internal tension is responsible for the incredible energy of his great novels (and for the polyphony that Bakhtin finds in his novels). That may reflect my feelings on clutch: there's no evidence for it, there's no statistical meaning in it, the way most people talk about it is stupid, and it is probably based more on random luck than anything. But I still sort of think it exists.

Fantasy Box (or, there are other worlds than this)
Peyton Manning is now my mystical adventure QB in both my fantasy leagues instead of just one. Before this trade, I felt like Jake in Stephen King’s The Wasteland, alive in one plane of existence while sensing that I was supposed to be dead in another plane of existence.

Mike Wallace
I hope the Pittsburgh WR lasts, because every time he catches the ball I can start shouting “Where’s Wallace?” like D’Angelo in The Wire.

Other Week Two Games
There are a lot of teams that struggled last week that really need a win this week, but a lot of them are facing tough week two matchups. There are a lot of interesting matchups: here are the ones I’ll be following most closely.

Bengals-Packers. In week one, the Packer defense looked great and the Packer offense did not (obviously every QB will be better with time to throw, but this isn’t the first time we’ve seen an early pass rush shake up and throw off Aaron Rodgers). I’m still curious (and frightened of) this Packer team, and want to see how they handle Cincinnati.

Saints-Eagles. I want to see what the Saints offense will do against a strong, talented defense, and I want to see what the Eagles defense will do against a dynamic, talented offense.

Seahawks-49ers. I think this game will be telling about the NFC West this year. I want to see if Matt Hasselbeck continues to be productive, and if Frank Gore will follow up last week's 22 carry, 30 yard performance with an actual game (but he still had two TDs, so fantasy owners--like me--are happy).

Baltimore-San Diego. There’s a trend here: like everybody else, I don’t know whether week one performances were fluky or indicative, and I want to see what the Charger offense is up to against the Ravens.

Colts-Dolphins. I’m in fantasy leagues with Viking fans, so it’s hard to get all the Vikings I like. I can, however, get Colts like mad: Peyton Manning, Reggie Wayne, and Joseph Addai will be in my Hazelweird lineup Monday night (Anthony Gonzalez and Donald Brown are on the bench). My Colts fascination makes much less sense since they won the Super Bowl in 2006. I used to feel an eerie connection to the Colts for their playoff struggles. Whether it was the George Costanza or the Viking fan in me, I was drawn to their failures and rooting for them to finally succeed. But I still root for them after they did.

Links
Bernard Berrian: healthy (Vikings Now). I miss you, Bernard. I miss your scent. I miss your musk.

At Shutdown Corner, MJD discusses Roger Goodell’s autonomy on discipline issues.

Favre's Viking jersey is the top seller (Sports Illustrated).

Kevin Williams: kind of a good football player (Access Vikings).

At Sports Illustrated, Don Banks writes about the teams that passed on Peterson.

Weekend
Oh, Friday: the day I treat myself to a pastry at the Grateful Bread. It's a sort of recognition that with the weekend, a sort of decadence has begun. While I generally eat pretty healthy (loads of fruits and vegetables), as a football spectator, I can only eat junk food.

Have a good weekend suckers. Except Lion, Bear, and Packer fans.

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Big Blizzard

My most recent Viking dream
I won't provide all the details, but basically, I was carried away to another plane of existence where time did not pass for me, but it passed for everybody else. So when I returned after an extended absence, life had moved forward for everybody I knew, and the world was a slightly different place. One of the first things I asked my wife was "Have the Vikings won a Super Bowl yet?" I expected the answer to be no. When she said yes, I started jumping around and hugging her: I was legitimately ecstatic to find out the Vikes had won the Super Bowl. I then asked who the Viking QB was for the Super Bowl winning team. The answer: Sage Rosenfels.

On the Amorality of Games (2)
I earlier argued that since a game is an amoral activity, a pro sports franchise like the Philadelphia Eagles should do pretty much whatever it can (within the rules of the league and game) to win games. In other words, morality is not a pro sports franchise’s concern.

However, I do not mean to say that fans cannot or should not let morality play a role in whom they root for. Some fans might take pleasure in rooting for somebody who shares their values. Some fans might take pleasure in rooting against players that don’t share their politics. That’s all fine. Because I also don’t think there are rules for whom fans are allowed to root for or against (and resent those who claim otherwise), and so you can root for players according to whatever standards you like. The perceived values, morals, politics, and lifestyles of players may make us as fans root for or against individual players.

So if you can’t bring yourself to root for Michael Vick because of his dogfighting activities, that’s fine. Enjoy rooting against him.

Wins and Quarterbacks
First, I find Norman Chad an entertaining, funny writer. Second, I hope Jay Cutler sucks: I'm already slightly terrified of seeing Aaron Rodgers in the division for another decade, and if Cutler is good too, it could be an unpleasant stretch of time for Viking fans.

But Chad uses an incredibly shaky argument to tell us he doesn't think Cutler is really that good:

"No, the Jay Cutler I know had a 17-20 record in three years with the Broncos and an 11-34 record in four years at Vanderbilt. [...] we're looking at a 28-54 record since 2001 and a fella who always talks a good game but always walks into the losers' locker room."

To exclusively cite Cutler's teams' records without providing any context tells us very little about Cutler. Let's pretend a QB has a 100% impact on his team's offensive successes and failures, that any blocking, catching, or running offensively is still credited to the QB. That still leaves defense and special teams, which the QB cannot impact at all. It is so obvious that I wonder I have to write it, but commentators like Chad sometimes write as if they don't know it: quarterbacks don't play defense.

The context? I don't know enough about college football, but I think playing at Vanderbilt, a non-powerhouse in a powerhouse conference, had a big role on Cutler's record. And I won't pretend I know enough about pro football, but I will claim I'm smart enough to look things up. The 2007 Broncos ranked 28th in points allowed and 19th in yards allowed. The 2008 Broncos were even worse defensively, ranking 30th in points allowed and 29th in yards allowed. In the last two years, Cutler played with terrible defenses. In 2007 only four NFL teams gave up more points than the Broncos; in 2008, only two teams allowed more points. The Broncos went 15-17 over those two years. Is it Cutler who deserves the blame for that mediocrity, or the terrible, awful defense? According to Chad, it's Cutler.

I am foolish enough to think that a quarterback's record as starter means something. But not in isolation from any context, and not in isolation from any individual statistics and assessment.

Viking Links
Supposedly Brett Favre's presence opens up the full playbook (Pioneer Press).

"Vikings say they're united behind Favre" (Pioneer Press). My view is that this stuff really doesn't matter much right now. It might in the future, if Favre struggles and/or the Vikings are losing. But right now, it doesn't.

Matt Bowen talks about how the NFL locker room works when a new guy comes in (National Football Post).

Peter King calls Percy Harvin "Impact player beginning opening day" (Sports Illustrated). My expectations are always low for rookie wide receivers, and so I've been pretty moderate in my hopes for Harvin. But a lot of people are talking him up as an immediate playmaker.

"Vikings Tyrell Johnson eager to prove he can replace Darren Sharper" (Pioneer Press). I hope he replaces the '05-'07 version of Sharper; I didn't think Sharper was very good at all in 2008. But neither, really, was Johnson.

As a blogger, I sometimes think out in my head what I'll write if certain sports situations occur (and in life I tend to plan out, in specific detail, what I would say if particular situations occur, but that's another issue entirely: I'm neurotic). At Defensive Indifference, Jason goes ahead and writes out his reactions to Favre's performance on Monday.

Other Football Links
Steven Jackson (Yahoo!). I'm very excited about Jackson as a fantasy player this year. Everything I ever see about Jackson increases that excitement, and nothing has yet decreased it.

Don Banks writes about the amazing success of the top three quarterbacks of the 2004 class (Sports Illustrated). But if the measurement is team success (that's Banks' primary focus), one thing should be kept in mind about the top three QBs of the 1983 class. Dan Marino, John Elway, and Jim Kelly spent their careers in the same conference, and from '84-'98, the three started in 10 Super Bowls. That's crazy. Only one of them could go to the Super Bowl each year, and one of them did two out of every three years.

Edgerrin James (Yahoo!, via PFT).

At Rotoworld, an interesting interview with Football Outsiders' Aaron Schatz (via Football Outsiders. Do I really need to give a hat tip to FO for a FO interview elsewhere? Probably not, but I'm neurotic).

At ESPN, Matthew Berry provides useful fantasy facts. I like Berry's fantasy football writing, and find this sort of column particularly interesting.

Saturday, August 29, 2009

Fantasy Football Trading

In "Status Quo Anxiety" in The New Yorker, James Surowiecki discusses a concept familiar to economists and frustrated garage sale shoppers:

"the so-called 'endowment effect': the mere fact that you own something leads you to overvalue it."

Surowiecki summarizes two experiments demonstrating the endowment effect. In one experiment, students who were given a cup were asked how much they'd be willing to sell it for, and students without the cup were asked how much they'd be willing to pay for it. According to Surowiecki, "the new owners of the mugs demanded more than twice as much as the buyers were willing to pay." In another study, people who won tickets were asked how much they'd be willing to sell them for, and people who didn't win tickets were asked how much they'd be willing to pay for them; "those who had, by pure luck, won the tickets thought the ducats were fourteen times as valuable as those that didn't."

What does this mean for us fantasy football junkies? It means you probably value the players on your roster more than other managers in your league value the players on your roster. It's one reason I avoid making trades before the NFL season starts. After week one, player value starts fluctuating, backups on your bench emerge as valuable commodities, and you discover your team's position needs. But between the end of the draft and the beginning of the season, I usually just sit on my drafted roster.

Sunday, August 16, 2009

On the Amorality of Games

A response to George Dohrmann regarding Michael Vick, after reading this and this column.

A “game” is a fairly amoral activity. A game operates according to its own internal rules, and it may even have its own internal values. However, “ethics” as they exist in the world outside the game have no bearing on the game itself.

My wife almost always beats me at Bananagrams; she’s very good at it. Now let’s imagine my wife’s favorite hobby is to walk down the street kicking strangers in the shins. It’s an immoral and illegal activity, but she does it anyway. In this hypothetical world where my wife is a monster, let’s say she still beats me at Bananagrams. Does her shin-kicking hobby have any relevance during the game? Of course not. Her only goal is to win the game. When she beats me, should I shout “Ah, you may have beat me at this game, but it’s tainted, because you go around kicking strangers in the shins!” I could, but that would be silly: I just got beat at a game with its own internal rules that have nothing at all to do with shin-kicking. She may be a bad person because of her predilection for shin-kicking, but that in no way would taint her dominance at Bananagrams. Perhaps my wife’s imaginary shin-kicking behavior would make me decide I don’t want to play this game with her anymore. I suppose I could allow external ethics into my decision-making about whom I’m willing to play a game with. But if she’s an outstanding Bananagrams player, then within the arbitrary rules of the game itself, she's going to win.

And I think the same thing about the Eagles signing Michael Vick. The Philadelphia Eagles football team has as its primary goal winning as many football games as it can, including the Super Bowl (this is slightly different from the primary goal of the Philadelphia Eagles organization, which has as its primary goal making money). To achieve that goal, the Eagles should do whatever they can to win games. One major part of winning games is to acquire the best players you possibly can. External ethics have little or nothing to do with winning football games.

Frankly, I’d be upset if my favorite team said “We think signing Player X would help us in our goal of winning the Super Bowl, but we’re not going to sign Player X because his off-the-field behavior over two years ago is just too appalling. He doesn’t deserve the opportunity to play football.” A football team’s job isn’t to be a moral arbiter; a football team’s job is to win football games. I don't cheer for a sports team for it to reinforce my values. I cheer for a sports team to see it win games, and if it isn't doing everything it can within the internal rules of the game and league to win games, I should be angry. It is not that as a “celebrity” Vick is being given “preferential treatment;” it is that as an athlete with special talents, Vick has an ability that a team wants to use, regardless of his off-the-field behavior of two years ago.

(Though I can admit there is a limit; I can imagine behaviors that, if players on a team engaged in them, I would find it impossible to root for that team. Perhaps as a vegetarian animal rights advocate, I'm just a little too cynical on this issue: because in our society countless animals are killed for all sorts of human pleasure and entertainment, I'm less appalled by this particular abuse of animals than some are. Perhaps my argument that players' morality shouldn't matter to a team or its fans is flawed; perhaps I'm really continuing to question whether the degree of outrage over Vick's dog fighting activities is disproportionate in a society where killing animals for the pleasure of eating them is taken for granted as morally acceptable. But that's just the sort of neurotic, self-doubting metawriter I am, willing to insert a paragraph long parenthetical that undermines the thrust of my argument with an entirely different line of thought. C'est la blog).

Let’s spin it around. If a team has an obligation not to sign a player because of his bad external ethics, does it have an obligation to sign a player because of his good external ethics? Let’s look at a player by the name of Jim-Bob Suckass. Jim-Bob Suckass is practically a saint. He gets up early in the morning to work at a soup kitchen. He leaves the soup kitchen and on his way to his job working for a non-profit environmental protection organization, he stops to donate blood. He donates 10% of his annual salary to cancer research, and uses his two weeks of vacation a year to visit developing nations for missionary work. But as a football player, Jim-Bob Suckass, well, sucks ass. He is terrible at every possible position; the team would actually be better off playing 10 against 11 than having Jim-Bob on the field. He’s no good at all. As the Eagles attempt to build their best roster possible to win football games, how much consideration should they give to Jim-Bob’s sterling behavior and pristine ethical existence? I would say absolutely zero.

Now, if you want to say that ethics external to a game are far more important than winning the game itself, I would agree with you. Of course how people behave toward their fellow creatures is far, far more important than whether they can succeed at an amoral game with its own internal rules. But a football team is neither a philosopher or, frankly, a moral agent. A football team is one competitor within a game, playing according to its defined rules, using its physical and mental abilities to beat an opponent.

I do not take cruelty to animals lightly. In fact, I am a vegetarian and a member of PETA; I even have a cruelty-free bug catcher because I wish to avoid killing even insects. I would say that my ethical values of pacifism and vegetarianism play a strong daily role in my life and behavior (perhaps Mr. Dohrmann is a fellow animal rights activist? He writes that he owns dogs, but all that tells me is that he has an emotional attachment to dogs in particular, not that he believes it is wrong for human beings to kill animals for our own pleasure). But when I watch a football game, I’m not overly concerned about whether the players on the field share my ethical values. It doesn’t even matter terribly to me whether the players on the field are good people or not. I’m watching a spectacle to see great athletes compete hard in a game. I’m rooting for my favorite team to outperform an opponent on the field to win the game.

The desire for a human being’s redemption may be secondary, but it does not mean it is insincere. Certainly the Eagles care more about whether Michael Vick can help them on the football field than whether he redeems himself (as I’ve suggested throughout this post, they should). But that doesn’t mean the chance of redemption isn’t real, or that any desire to see Vick make his life positive is phony (alas, perhaps my religious and literary sensibilities draw me too strongly to the hope of an individual’s redemptive transformation. I’d recommend Dostoevsky and Hugo on the subject). While the Eagles signed Vick to win football games, I don’t suspect them of being insincere in hoping for the best for Vick personally. But Dohrmann, who writes of Vick “I wish him all the best in life”? After everything else in Dohrmann’s columns, that certainly sounds insincere to me.