The Oddest Stat, Ever?

Issue: Judging by the title, this better be good.

Short Answer: It is unreal...

Reasoning: Sports are polarizing.  There are teams we all love (Buckeyes, Bengals, Reds, Yellow Jackets, etc.), and teams we all hate (Wolverines, Bulldogs (Georgia, just in case you may have forgotten), Bearcats, Fighting Irish, Hurricanes, Seminoles, Ravens, Steelers, Browns, Yankees, Red Sox, all of the NBA, etc.).  If you don't love or hate the teams I just listed, then, well, you're crazy.  Deal with it.  People usually hate teams because they're good.  Seriously, no one hates the Pittsburgh Pirates because why would you waste your time and effort hating a team that is basically irrelevant?  Alright, I do hate the Browns, who are obviously irrelevant, but they reside in the same state as my Bengals, so it's not a waste of time to hate them.  So, geography can play a part in the hating of teams.  It's the same reason I hate the irrelevant Indians too.

Some of the teams listed above are what I would consider "polarizing" teams.  Let's take the New York Yankees, for example.  You either love them or hate them.  There is no in-between.  If you love them, I don't like you.  If you hate them, you are an intelligent, rational person, who obviously has a vast knowledge of sports.  The Pittsburgh Steelers are the same way.  If you like them, you were probably born short a few (or millions) of brain cells, and the one's you were born with have been killed off by malted hops and bong resin.  If you hate them, you are a productive member of society and you should be rewarded for your level-headedness.  Perhaps one of the most polarizing teams in the history of college football is the Miami Hurricanes.  If you haven't seen the ESPN 30 for 30 entitled "The U" do yourself a favor and watch it.  It will either reaffirm your love for that crooked University or reaffirm your hate for it.  For me, it reaffirmed my hate.  Actually, it probably made me hate them more.  But, if there is one thing you have to admit, love or hate Miami, is they have produced more great football players than any University, anywhere.

Now comes the paragraph (probably the last of this post) where I tell you how good the University of Miami has been at putting players in the NFL:

• They hold the record for
• Most players drafted in the 1st round of a single NFL draft - 6 in 2004;
• Most players drafted in the 1st round of consecutive NFL drafts - 11 in 2003, 2004;
• Most players drafted in the 1st round of three consecutive drafts - 15 from 2002-2004;
• Most players drafted in the 1st round of four consecutive drafts - 19 from 2001-2004
• In a 14-year period (1994-2008), they had at least one player drafted in the 1st round;
• Since 1999, they have had 67 players drafted into the NFL, 2nd in the nation behind THE Ohio State University (What?  You know I wasn't going to leave that out.);
• Of those 67 players, 33 were drafted in the 1st round - the most of any school (yes, even more than the Buckeyes);
• The 2001 Hurricanes team had 17 players go on to play in the NFL.

So, basically, The U is a factory which produces NFL players.  Ex-Hurricanes are everywhere on NFL teams.  I say this only because the stat I am about to give you is RIDICULOUS and UNBELIEVABLE.  Here it is: Week 11 of the NFL (this past week) saw a streak end, that will never be matched again - a player from the University of Miami had scored a touchdown, in the NFL, every single week, since Week 15 of the 2002 season.  Seriously.  I'm not joking.  That is 149 consecutive weeks.  Almost 10 years.  You know what the longest current streak now is?  The University of Pittsburgh, at 13 (thanks LeSean McCoy!).  They only need 136 more weeks, and they will equal Miami.  I have no words for how impressive this streak is.  It truly is unbelievable.  Too bad I hate them so much, or I might actually care.

The Odd Stat(s) of the Week, Redlegs Edition

Issue: Does anyone really care about the Reds anymore?

Short Answer: Well, no.  But I live in Cincinnati and so do most of my readers...

Reasoning: The city of Cincinnati was a fun place to be last September.  Jay Bruce's walk-off homer to clinch the NL Central was an excitement the people of the Queen City hadn't experienced in years.  Alright, decades.  Even though the Redlegs laid an egg in the NLDS (remember the Halladay no-hitter?), it was fun to see the Reds back in the playoffs after a long lay-off.  Last season also laid the ground work for another run at the playoffs in 2011.  Or, so we thought.  The Reds had a walk-off win on Opening Day, and we fans thought that was a sign the cardiac Reds would once again find a way to win the NL Central and get swept by the Phillies.  Again.  As it turns out, 2011 was a different year.  I have collected a few stats (mostly emails from my brother, with stats taken from Lance McAlister's blog) that show what a crazy year it has been in Cincinnati.

1. People (especially in Cincinnati) expect too much from closers.  In Cincinnati, not many Reds catch as much grief as Francisco Cordero, our drastically overpaid closer (see?).  Many people want him traded, cut, or tarred and feathered.  Every time he blows a save, someone in Cincinnati inevitably puts together a "how about Drew Stubbs [player we would love to get rid of] for Mariano Rivera [player anyone would love to have]" type trade.  Yeah, keep dreaming.  I have always stood up for Cordero, strictly as a closer.  He is overpaid (as are most closers), but he isn't bad at his job.  As of September 6 (I told you I have been collecting these for awhile), Cordero had 30 saves.  Of those 30, 17 of them came in a perfect inning (i.e., 3 up, 3 down).  Where did that rank him in Major League Baseball (not just the NL)?  3rd.  Behind only the best closer of all time, Mariano Rivera (22) and obvious NL Rookie of the Year, the Braves Craig Kimbrell (18).  Lesson learned?  Cordero will blow saves, as all closers do.  But, when he doesn't blow a save, he is very efficient at his job.
2. Open your eyes Drew!  Drew Stubbs is a phenomenal athlete.  He plays a wonderful center field.  He steals bases.  And, boy, does he know how to strikeout.  Stubbs is a prototypical lead-off hitter, other than the fact that he has struck out more than Adam Dunn this year.  Unfortunately, that is not a joke.  Drew Stubbs has made himself a new friend this year though - Mark Reynolds.  For those that are confused, Mark Reynolds is the third baseman for the Baltimore Orioles.  Why is he Stubbs' new best friend?  Because Reynolds led Major League Baseball in strikeouts in 2008, 2009, and 2010.  Thanks to Stubbs, he won't lead in 2011.  Stubbs has struck out 200 times in in 586 at-bats this year.  For you non-math-majors out there, that is more than once every three times up (1 every 2.93 at-bats).  More than once a game (1.32/game).  More strikeouts than hits (by 57).  How about some comparison - it took Joe Dimaggio (I realize I'm comparing apples and green beans here (because Stubbs isn't even an orange to Dimaggio's apple) 7 years to strikeout 196 times (976 games; 4.417 plate appearances); and it took Tony Gwynn 11 years to strikeout 201 times (1,380 games; 5,705 plate appearances); in 1976 Pete Rose, Joe Morgan, and Dave Concepcion struck out 163 times COMBINED (1,934 plate appearances).  I love Drew Stubbs as a player, but with the number of strikeouts he has this year, he can't be in the future plans for the Reds.  Unless they fire Brook Jacoby (Reds' hitting coach), since he hasn't been able to help much either.
3. Gotta beat the teams you're supposed to.  The Reds basically have the same team they did last year, when the won the NL Central.  So, what changed?  Obviously, the Reds did not have nearly as many come-from-behind wins as they did a year ago.  It just can't happen all the time.  Maybe, if the Reds had beat the teams they were supposed to, the 2011 edition would have been one of "Repeat Champions."  The Reds' record right now is 76-80.  Not good.  However, upon closer examination, the Reds record is so unsexy (if it isn't a word, it should be - think...chicks picking their noses) because of what they did against teams under .500.  The Reds are 36-37 against teams at or above .500, which, in my opinion, is pretty darn good.  Against teams under .500...40-43, which, is nothing short of awful.  This record includes 11-7 against the hapless Cubs, 1-5 against their in-state rival Indians, 0-4 against the Mets, 4-8 against the Pirates (yeah, they were going to hang onto that first-half lead), and 1-2 versus both the Blue Jays and Orioles.  The Cardinals against teams .500 or worse?  59-46.  The Brewers?  68-33.  What a difference a year makes.
4. And then there's Joey Votto.  Votto has 118 career home runs.  I have often said that when it is all said and done, Joey Votto will be considered one of the greatest hitters ever (although, I have heard he won't be considered one of the greatest people ever, but that is neither here, nor there).  He knows how to hit, period.  I watch him hit home runs to left-center field that announcers marvel at ("Look at that opposite field power!!"), but, that is what Votto is trying to do.  He is trying to hit every ball into the opposite gap (just trust me on this one, alright?).  How good of a hitter is Joey Votto?  This good - of his 118 home runs, 29 have gone to right field (24.9%), 16 to right-center field (13.6%), 23 to center field (19.5%), 24 to left-center field (20.3%), and 26 to left field (22%).  One word: ridiculous.  No one hits to all fields like Joey Votto.  No one.  And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why he will be one of the best, when it's all said and done (too bad most of it won't be done in a Reds uniform - we just can't afford him).

Here is to 2012 being more like 2010 than 2011.  It may be Votto's last year in a Reds uniform (even though I think he may be playing his last now - we ought to trade him while his value is high, and he isn't owed $17 million the next year (he is only (ONLY) owed $9 million in 2012), so we better do it fast.  I still love ye Redlegs, for better or for worse.  Mostly worse.

The Odd Stat of the Week

Issue: You realize you don't do this column on a "weekly" basis, right?

Short Answer: Sue me.

Reasoning: I have been busy, damn!  Seriously though, "The Odd Stat of the Week" sounds better than "The Odd Stat of the Time Between Now and the Last Time I Did an Odd Stat Column," doesn't it?  Plus, in the days when I was writing more, I did write the column once a week.  Almost.  Now that we have that taken care of, let's move on to some crazy stats.  It is now the beginning of August, meaning there are only two sports going on that I care about (baseball and golf, for those of you that pay zero attention), and golf doesn't usually lend itself to "odd" stats, per se, so that leaves me with the greatest game of all, and one in which stats may very well have been invented for (man, that was a long sentence).  To prove how odd baseball is sometimes, I have two crazy stats for you, both of which happened in the last two days.

The first stat deals with the team that I (and almost everyone else) hates with a passion: the New York Yankees.  The Yankees, just yesterday, finished up a four-game sweep of the Chicago White Sox.  No, that is not the odd stat.  In fact, that is not odd at all, as the White Sox stink.  What is odd is the fact that the Yankees, in a four-game sweep, walked exactly ZERO hitters.  Sounds odd.  Sounds crazy.  I wish the Reds could win one game without walking a hitter, but I digress.  One may not understand how odd and crazy this stat actually is.  The feat the Yankees just accomplished had happened only twice in modern (since 1900) Major League history.  What makes this stat even more odd is that the Yankees are only the second team to accomplish the feat, as the Boston Red Sox are responsible for the only two prior occurrences.  The last time a four-game sweep occurred with zero walks by the winning team, was in 1968, when the Red Sox swept the Chicago White Sox (weird in and of itself).  Prior to that, the Red Sox swept the Washington Senators in a four-game set in June/July of 1905.  Wow.

Part II of the Odd Stat of the Week involves a player to whom I have a connection.  Dan Uggla was drafted in 2001 by the Arizona Diamondbacks, exactly four rounds before I was drafted by the Oakland A's.  In 2001 he played in the Northwest League with the Yakima Bears at the same time I was playing for the Vancouver Canadians of the Northwest League.  Uggla began the his 2002 season with South Bend of the Midwest League, but was eventually moved to Lancaster of the California League, at the same time I was playing for Visalia of, you guessed it, the California League.  My connection with Uggla doesn't end there, as after my playing career ended, I dated his ex-girlfriend for a couple of months.  And that is all I have to say about that.  Uggla has been a good, not great, Major Leaguer.  He has a career .257 average, so what, you may ask, does he do that earned him a 5-year, $62 million contract from the Atlanta Braves?  Well, he hits more home runs than any other second baseman in the league, hands down.  He has hit 177 home runs in almost 6 seasons, which means he AVERAGES 30 home runs a year, at a position where home runs are usually the exception, not the norm.  This year has been a struggle (other than the home run category - he has 23) for Uggla.  Through 86 games this year, he was hitting a paltry .173.  Not what you're looking for out of your $62 million man.  However, since that 86th game, Uggla really started to make history - he has gotten at least one hit in his last 25 games.  Now, a 25-game hit streak is not all that odd (30+ seems to be the benchmark).  But, a player having a 25-game hit streak in a season as bad as Uggla is having now, is as historical as it gets.  When Uggla went 2-for-4 on Wednesday (8/3), he raised his season average to .215 (that is not a typo).  That batting average is 50 POINTS LOWER than any other average, after the players 25th game of a hitting streak, in the history of baseball.  Let's let that one soak in for a second...or two...the previous low*?  Hobe Ferris of the St. Louis Browns was hitting .265 after his 25th game of his hitting streak...in 1908.  That's right, Uggla just broke a record that stood for 103 years, was set in the dead-ball era (before 1920), and he broke it by a landslide.  The moral to the story?  Bad hitters don't usually put together long hitting streaks.  However, I'm sure the $62 million Uggla will make over the next 5 years will take away some of the sting.  Call me crazy.

*The previous low in the live-ball era (beginning in 1920) was Willy Taveras in 2006.  He was hitting .278 after his 25th game of a hitting streak.

The Odd Stat of the Week, MLB All-Star Game Edition

Issue: Wasn't that game last week?  Where have you been?

Short Answer: Moving, which means I have been without cable or internet for a few days, which also means the All-Star Game is the last sporting event I have seen.

Reasoning: The MLB All-Star Game is nothing short of an enigma.  After numerous players pull out of the game because they are "hurt" or "exhausted", you end up with people in the game that you have never heard of.  In fact, if you don't make the All-Star Game anymore, than you stink.  Look, Scott Rolen started at 3rd base for the National League.  Enough said.  He may not even be the best 3rd baseman in the Reds organization.  But, after the tie years ago, good ol' Bud Selig wanted to make sure the All-Star Game count for something, which means players have to be replaced, even with players who aren't really All-Stars.  On a side note, I still can't understand why this is the case.  Were baseball fans really THAT upset an exhibition game in the middle of the season ended in a tie?  Why would anyone, anywhere care at all?  Now, that same exhibition game gives the winning side home field advantage in the World Series.  Huh?  I would love to watch a team go 162-0 one year, but their league lose the All-Star Game, and them not get home field advantage in the World Series.  That's how dumb the idea was, and still is.

Anyway, I am here to give you odd stats about this year's game, not tell you how stupid Bud Selig is.  Let the first odd stat be a video (this may be the most boring video ever posted here, but bear with me):

So what does a solo home run early in the All-Star Game have to do with anything?  Funny you (or I) should ask.  Adrian Gonzalez's home run in the 2011 All-Star Game was the first All-Star Game home run since this one:

That was 2008 ladies and gentlemen.  The 2009 and 2010 All-Star Games had exactly zero home runs hit in them.  Two other things make these videos odd: 1) J.D. Drew is long gone from baseball now...I think; and 2) Both calls were unfortunately made by Joe Buck and Tim McCarver, possibly the worst announcing crew of all time, which sucks for everyone.  Sorry you had to listen to that.

The second odd stat deals with actual baseball stats.  The winning pitcher in the 2011 All-Star Game was Tyler Clippard (I told you waaay too many players make the All-Star team...bonus points if you even know who he plays for...3...2...1...the Washington Nationals).  What makes this strange is Clippard faced exactly one hitter in the entire game, Adrian Beltre, who singled to left field.  I realize some of you are confused right now...how does a pitcher face one batter, a batter who reached safely, and that pitcher still get the win?  Here's how: at this point in the game, the American League was winning 1-0 on the above Adrian Gonzalez home run.  Tyler Clippard came into the game with runners on 1st and 2nd and 2 outs.  He gave up the hit to Beltre, but Jose Bautista was thrown out at the plate by Hunter Pence to end the inning.  In the very next half inning, Prince Fielder hit a 3-run homer for the National League, giving them a lead they would never relinquish.  And, who was the pitcher of record for the National League when Fielder hit that home run...Tyler Clippard (since no one else had thrown a pitch for the National League yet).  A guy you have never heard of gets the win in the All-Star Game and gives the National League home field advantage in the World Series.  Man, I love this game.

The Odd Stat(s) of the Week

Issue: Does that mean we are getting more than one crazy stat?

Short Answer: It sure does.

Reasoning: June can often be a boring time for some sports fans.  The NBA is over (thank goodness), as is the NHL (who plays hockey in June anyway?).  Also, the NFL is still a few months off (or, in 2011, maybe a few years off?).  Major League Baseball and the PGA Tour pretty much dominate the major sports landscape.  Just as it should be.  Shockingly enough, the second week in June is one of my favorite sports weeks of the year.  The U.S. Open is the second best golf tournament of the year (next to the Masters) and the College World Series (something I never got to play in) is in full swing.  Plus, the Cincinnati Reds are on my TV or radio (two words for you: Marty. Brennaman.) every single day.  So, I thought I would use this time of year to spurn on my "Odd Stat of the Week" post.  Here goes:

1. Here is an odd enough stat about the U.S. Open that Rory McIlroy just dominated: the last two Open Champions both hail from tiny Northern Ireland (2010 winner was Graeme McDowell).  The population of Northern Ireland, in 2009, was 1.789 million people - that's bigger than Philadelphia, but smaller than Houston.  It covers 5,459 square miles - just slightly bigger than Connecticut.  Yet, that country has produced two golfers who have been able to win the most difficult championship in the world, in back-to-back years.  Maybe there is something in the water - or the Guinness.
2. How about some more about Rory McIlroy?  U.S. Open records that he set or tied last week: 1) Fewest holes to reach double digits under par (26); 2) Lowest first 36 holes (131); 3) Most strokes under par through 36 holes (-11 - remember, he double-bogied his 18th hole on Friday); 4) Largest 36 hole lead (6 - tied record); 5) Lowest first 54 holes (199); 6) Most strokes under par through 54 holes (-14); 7) Lowest 72 hole total (268); 8) Most strokes under par through 72 holes (-16).  Anyone see all that coming?  I thought not.
3. Now, that all sounds impressive, but, let us take a step back and realize how easy Congressional was playing in terms of a U.S. Open.  Going into last week there had only been 4 players EVER to shoot four rounds under par in a U.S. Open: Lee Trevino (1968), Tony Jacklin (1970), Lee Janzen (1993), and Curtis Strange (1994 - he didn't even win).  So, in 111 years of U.S. Opens, only 4 competitors shot four rounds under par.  In 2011, two players managed to accomplish this feat - McIlroy (duh) and Robert Garrigus (-6).  On top of that, Y.E. Yang shot three rounds under par and an even par round of 71.  Sergio Garcia also shot three rounds under par and an even par 71.  So, it is obvious the course wasn't a typical U.S. Open course, but, what McIlroy did was exceptional anyway.
4. Enough golf, let's move to college baseball.  Sort of.  Alright, this stat has nothing to do with baseball, but, the only reason I know the stat is because I saw it when I was watching the College World Series, so I think it counts.  Almost unbelievably (or absolutely believable, I still haven't decided), out of the 120 schools in the Bowl Subdivision (or, Division I for people who like to make sense, unlike the NCAA), only 17 of them have never been found guilty of a major violation in any sport.  That is about 14%.  And, it gets worse.  Only 4 of those 17 schools are from Automatic Qualifying conferences (SEC, ACC, Big 12, Big 10, Big East, Pac 10).  The four schools are: Boston College, Northwestern, Stanford, and Penn State.  What makes it even worse is the fact that between these four schools they have exactly two National Championships in the three major sports (football, basketball, baseball) - Penn State football in 1982 and Penn State football in 1986.  Of course, most students choose to go to the other three school because of their academic prowess, but it seems if a school doesn't cheat today, a National Championship is out of reach.  Maybe we should just pay athletes so cheating can't happen.  Then there would be no need for the NCAA, so, I bet that won't happen any time soon.
5. Vanderbilt University is making its first appearance at the College World Series ever.  This is odd only because they have been so good over the past decade or so.  They are attempting to become the first team to reach the finals of the World Series, in their first trip there, since...the 1994 Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets led by Jason Varitek, Nomar Garciaparra, and Jay Payton.  This is only odd because I'm sure most readers are surprised that I played baseball at a school that produced quality major leaguers.  It still surprises me too.

That's all for this week's edition of the Odd Stat of the Week.  On a side note, I had mentioned here earlier that I was writing for examiner.com as the Cincinnati Reds Examiner.  Well, I quit.  Mostly because I put a lot of effort into writing my articles and I got paid about 8 cents.  Seriously.  I'd rather write for free on my blog than write for 8 cents.  At least this way I get to express my own opinion.  Farewell, Examiner (thank goodness).

The Odd Stat of the Week

Issue: What, no Jim Tressel?

Short Answer: It's coming, don't worry.  I just saw this stat....

Reasoning: It's obvious that Jim Tressel and the debacle at The Ohio State University has dominated, and will continue to dominate the news lately.  My opinion differs than most other's (shocking, I know), so I must plan carefully what I am going to say, lest I get called stupid, oblivious, naive, etc. by those who read this blog.  My opinion on Tressel is coming, just give me a bit more time.  Meanwhile, as I was doing a little light reading today I came across a stat that is certainly odd, yet, to me, it's more ridiculous than anything.

See, anytime something is done for only the 2nd time in Major League history, it must truly be an odd stat.  When one of the people who accomplished the feat (I realize you don't know what I'm talking about yet, but I will get there) is none other than George Herman "Babe" Ruth, it has to be something special.  Here is what I am talking about (finally): In MLB history, only 2 players have hit 17 or more home runs and 5 or more triples, before June 1.  First off, that is a ridiculous stat.  It makes sense that it hasn't happened much in history.  In order to pull it off, a player must have speed and power, two tools that usually don't go hand-in-hand.  You may be saying to yourself, "Babe Ruth didn't have speed."  But, the truth is, many of the ballparks he played in had center field fences that were a couple light years away from home plate.  Most other players of the time probably ended up with inside-the-park home runs if they burned the center fielder.  But, Babe only ended up on third base (by the way, I pretty much made that up, but it sounds real right?  And, I'm pretty sure there is some truth to it - I just don't know how else to explain Babe Ruth having 5 triples in his career, let alone before June 1 in a single season.  Although his legs are moving pretty fast in all those old clips I see of him.).

I guess by this point it should be revealed who the 2nd player ever to accomplish this feat is: Curtis Granderson.  This, I swear, I did not make up.  The Elias sports bureau tells us that "Curtis Granderson's first-inning homer (on May 31) was his 17th of the season to go along with his five triples. Granderson became only the second player in major-league history with 17 or more home runs and five or more triples in a season before June 1. The other was Babe Ruth, who did it for the Yankees in 1928 (five triples and 19 homers through May 31)."  One thing I can tell you is that I underestimated Granderson's power.  I looked up his stats, and, for a little guy, he has some pop.  In 2006, (his first full season in MLB) he hit 19 homers.  He hit 23 in 2007, 22 in 2008, 30 in 2009, and 24 in 2010.  Remember too, from 2006-2009 he played in Detroit's Comerica Park - where home runs go to die.  However, the other thing I noticed when looking up his stats, was his "all-time rank among batters."  Please don't take this as fact, but the two players Granderson is sandwiched between are named Dick Bartell and Roy Sievers.  Think the Babe is around there anywhere?

Look, Curtis Granderson is a heck of a player.  I'd love to see him in a Reds uniform (in left field maybe??).  But, what this stat tells me is how ridiculous the new Yankee Stadium is.  The Yankees have hit 82 home runs this year.  The next closest team is the Diamondbacks with 64.  The Seattle Mariners (who obviously stink) have hit only 29.  In Granderson's defense, only 8 of his 17 home runs have been at the new Yankee Stadium, so he is obviously having himself quite a year.  But, if we don't count those 8, his total of 9 home runs so far this year would be more on par with his career stats.  Since those 8 do count, Granderson's name will forever be etched in the record books next to the Babe.  What a joke.

P.S. - I looked up the Babe's stats too.  He hit more triples than one may think.  In 1918 he was 5th in the AL (11); in 1919 he was 6th in the AL (12); in 1921 he was 4th in the AL (16); and in 1923 he was 5th in the AL (13).  He had 136 triples in his career, good for 71st on the all-time list.  Maybe the "big ball park" theory I proposed above is absolutely true.  Maybe?

The Odd Stat of the Week

Issue: What is the biggest difference between major leaguers and minor leaguers?

Short Answer: I love being able to formulate my own issues.

Reasoning: This is a question I have been asked a few thousand times in my life.  And, my answer is always the same: consistency.  Players in the minor leagues are just as talented as those in the major leagues, for the most part.  In fact, I played with guys in the minors that didn't make the big leagues that were more talented than guys I played with that did make the big leagues.  However, if a player isn't consistent, that big league club has no use for them.  An 0-for-20 at the big league level can cost the team real dollars, and we all know how much teams like losing money (or not).  The big club needs guys that, day-in and day-out, give you a real chance at driving in runs, throwing strikes, and winning games.  Because winning games means more fans come out to watch, which means the team makes more money.  See what I am getting at?

With all that said, players in the big leagues do go through slumps.  It is a game where pitchers throw 95+ mph fastballs, ungodly sliders, wicked change ups, and splitters that fall off a table.  And the hitters are using a wooden, round bat to hit a round ball.  Good luck with that.  Yet, slumps in the big leagues are either figured out, or, that player is shipped out or benched.  Sometimes, though, a player who has had a great career and is in no danger of being benched or released, finds himself in an epic slump.  Allow me to introduce you to Raul Ibanez.  Ibanez has had a good career.  He is not a great player, but he can certainly hold his own.  He is a career .282 hitter (he has been a full-time player since 2001) with 233 HR, 350 2B, and 981 RBI.  Most teams would love to have him playing left field for them.  So far, 2011 has been a season to forget for Mr. Ibanez.

The game the Phillies (Ibanez's team) played against the Brewers on April 18 seemed like any other game.  To all others but Ibanez, it probably was.  Ibanez singled in his second at-bat of the game, then things started to go rapidly downhill.  He went 0-for-3 in his last three at-bats (with 2 K's), and one of the biggest skids I have ever seen had officially begun:

• April 19 - 0-for-3, K
• April 20 - 0-for-1, K
• April 21 - 0-for-3, K
• April 22 - 0-for-4, 2 K's
• April 23 - 0-for-4, K
• April 25 - 0-for-3, K
• April 26 - 0-for-4
• April 27 - 0-for-1, K
• April 29 - 0-for-4, 2 K's
• May 1 - 0-for-4, K
• May 3 - hitless in his first at-bat before hitting a ground-rule double

In all, Ibanez was 0-for-35 with 13 K's.  Ouch.  For some perspective, Robin Ventura (who once had a 58 game hit streak in college at Oklahoma State) has the longest hitless streak of any third baseman, ever.  From April 21, 1990 until May 9, 1990, Ventura pretty much played every day, and, for that stretch, didn't get a hit, every day.  He went 0-for-39 over that stretch.  At least one source says the longest hitless streak by a position player in MLB history was by Bill Bergen, who had an 0-for-46 back in the early 1900's.  Turns out, Ibanez was closing in on history before his double on May 3.  Just the wrong kind of history.

The Odd Stat of the Week

Issue: Can we get some more weird baseball stats?

Short Answer: I can make that happen.

Reasoning: Baseball, more than any other sport, is a game of stats.  If you would like to know how often Joey Votto got a base hit, on a 2-2 count, against right-handed pitchers, during night games, on Tuesdays in April, I pretty much guarantee you could find it.  Or, at least, that someone out there is keeping such a stat.  Most novice baseball fans may think the stat keeping is a bit out of hand.  It isn't.  Baseball (kind of like poker) is about the maximization of odds.  See, in a game where if a hitter succeeds 3 out of 10 times, he ends up in the Hall of Fame, stats matter (could you imagine an NBAer shooting 30% from the field, or an NFL QB completing 30% of his passes?).  Baseball is a game of failure, so, managers must put their teams in the best possible situation in order to succeed, and stats help them do that.

Not only are there a million stats out there, some of them are tough to decipher.  Most baseball fans have heard of the stats, but few can tell you what they actually mean.  Take for example:

• Batting average - This stat tells you what percentage of the time a player actually gets a hit.  However, when figuring out batting average, only "at-bats" are used, not "plate appearances."  Walks, hit by pitches, and sacrifices (bunts and flies) count as "plate appearances" but not "at-bats."  Therefore, if a player has 100 "plate appearances" with 25 walks and 25 hits, the player has a batting average of .333 (25 hits in 75 at-bats).
• On-base % - This stat tells you what percentage of the time a player actually reaches base.  Here, all "plate appearances" (not just "at-bats") are used.  Using the example above, the player has an on-base % of .500 (50 times on base in 100 "plate appearances").
• Slugging % - This stat tells you how many bases the player averages per "at-bat" (notice I didn't say "per plate appearance").  The highest slugging % a hitter can actually have is 4.000, if, in fact, he hit a home run every single time he came to the plate.  If a hitter managed a single every single time up, his slugging % would be 1.000 and his batting average would be 1.000 (oh, and he would be the greatest player of all time).  All one must do to figure this stat is add up a player's total bases (1 for a single, 2 for a double, 3 for a triple...do I need to continue?) and divide that number by the total number of "at-bats."  Right now, Troy Tulowitzki is leading the National League (I would have done the Major League leader, but it's Alex Rodriguez and I don't want to say anything good about him) with a .729 slugging % (10 singles, 5 doubles, 1 triple, 7 home runs = 51 total bases/70 at-bats = .729), which means, in essence, that every time Tulowitzki comes to the plate, he will get his team almost 3/4 of a base.  Yeah, baseball is weird.

I tell you all of the above for educational purposes (not real sure I managed that, but, oh well), and to set up the Odd Stat of the Week.  When I first heard the stat, I couldn't believe it.  On Monday, April 18, the Milwaukee Brewers and the Philadelphia Phillies went into extra innings.  After no score in the 10th or 11th innings, the Brewers came to bat in the top of the 12th.  This is what happened:

1. Rickie Weeks walks;
2. Carlos Gomez sacrifice bunts and a throwing error allowed him to reach and Weeks moves to third (official score says, even though there was an error, Gomez is still credited with a sacrifice);
3. Ryan Braun hits sacrifice fly to center, Weeks scores;
4. Prince Fielder hit by pitch, Gomez to second (wild pitch then moves Gomez to third and Fielder to second);
5. Casey McGehee intentionally walked;
6. Yuniesky Betancourt sacrifice fly to left, Gomez scores;
7. Mark Kotsay intentionally walked.

That's right, 7 hitters, 2 runs, 0 official at-bats.  Remember folks, walks, hit by pitches, and sacrifices do not count as official at-bats (plate appearances, yes, at-bats, no).  Those who know and love baseball, know how quirky 7 straight hitters coming to the plate without an official at-bat is.  For those that don't know and love baseball, take it from me, this is crazy.  For the record, the 8th hitter of the inning, Jonathan Lucroy, singled to right scoring Fielder but McGehee was gunned down at the plate to end the inning.  The stat line for the Brewers 12th: 1 hit, 1 at-bat, 3 runs.  I love baseball.

The Odd Stat of the Week

Issue: Can we get some baseball here?

Short Answer: Yes.

Reasoning: The Major League Baseball season is well under way, and ESPN already knows who is going to win the World Series.  It's crazy, but if you watch "The Worldwide Leader in Sports" (ha), you would begin to wonder why they even play the games.  ESPN has more analysts that tell me what is going to happen, before it actually happens, than my local fortune teller (and she tells me some zany stuff).  And, the experts in Bristol have already come up with doomsday prophecies for a few of the slow-starting teams.  The fact is this - the baseball season is 162 games long.  Any talk about teams in trouble of not making the post season is about as ludicrous as a preseason NCAA football or basketball poll.  Nothing can be ascertained by what has transpired to this point, period.  Baseball is a game of streaks (both individually and collectively) and the Red Sox are just as likely to win 12 games in a row starting today, as they are at any point during the season.  Let's not overanalyze a season that is not even 10% complete yet.  Please.

However, when a team loses historically, that is something we can talk about.  Even though, in the grand scheme of things, losing historically doesn't hinder a team's postseason chances (unless of course that historical losing consists of a losing streak of epic proportions - here, it does not).  The Tampa Bay Rays (I still have difficulty not calling them the "Devil Rays") have been a big factor in Major League Baseball over the last few years.  They have young players like Evan Longoria, Carlos Pena, B.J. Upton, David Price, and Dan Johnson (okay, he isn't young, but he was my spring training roommate when I was with the Oakland A's, and, I felt like name dropping - deal with it).  The (Devil) Rays made it to the World Series in 2008 before losing to the Philedelphia Phillies, and, in 2010 made the playoffs again, but lost to the Texas Rangers in the ALDS.  So, one would figure, with much of their roster returning, that the Rays would be poised to make another postseason run.  If the guys at ESPN were watching their first week of baseball, they are probably talking about moving the team to a new city, sending all the players down to AAA, or contracting the team altogether.

You see, the Tampa Bay Rays started off this season like no other team in history.  Take a look at their first 7 games:

1. vs. Baltimore, Loss, 4-1 (Tampa Bay never led in the game);
2. vs. Baltimore, Loss, 3-1 (Tampa Bay never led in the game);
3. vs. Baltimore, Loss, 5-1 (Tampa Bay never led in the game);
4. vs. L.A. Angels, Loss, 5-3 (Tampa Bay never led in the game);
5. vs. L.A. Angels, Loss, 5-1 (Tampa Bay never led in the game);
6. @ Chicago, Loss, 5-1 (Tampa Bay never led in the game)
7. @ Chicago, Win, 9-7 (Tampa Bay never led in the game, until, my boy Dan Johnson hit a 3-run homer to cap a 5-run 9th inning).

There you have your Odd Stat of the Week - Tampa Bay finally won its first game of the season after trailing for 62 straight innings!  And, to think, they were down 7-4 heading into the 9th, and were about to go 0-7.  You can't make this stuff up folks.  In the first 6 games the Rays scored a total of 8 runs; in their first win, they scored 9*.  In their first 6 games the Rays hit .145 as a team; in their first win, they hit .256 as a team.  In their first 6 games the Rays held the lead for exactly 0 innings; in their first win they held the lead for exactly 1 inning - but, that one inning was enough.  Just a few more reasons why baseball is the greatest game on earth.

P.S. The Rays dropped the next 2 games to the White Sox to fall to 1-8.  In those two games they held the lead for only 1 inning.  So, in the Rays' first 9 games, they held the lead for 2 out of 81 innings, but actually won one of those games.  Wow.

*Stats taken from here.

The Odd Stat of the Week

Issue: Did you watch that abomination of a national championship game?

Short Answer: Unfortunately, I did.

Reasoning: The NCAA national championship basketball game is supposed to offer us the best of the best of college basketball.  Two teams who have won five straight games against the toughest competition on the planet, battling each other for 40 minutes, to decide which is the best team in the entire country (and since college basketball at this level doesn't exist outside this country (maybe in Canada, but we all know that doesn't count), we can safely say the best team in the WORLD).  Anyone who knows anything about sports knows that it isn't always the two best teams that match up in the national championship game, but the two hottest teams.  I have been overly critical of the Big East on this blog (and I will continue to be so), but, UConn was undoubtedly the hottest team in the country.  They had won five straight games to win the Big East tournament crown (which is impressive, even in a weak conference), and five more straight games (that is ten straight for all you non-math majors out there) in the NCAA tournament.  It is tough to get any hotter than that.  However, Butler, going into last night, had won 14 straight games, i.e., possibly the second hottest team in the country.  So, we should have been in for one of the greatest championship games ever.  Should have.

What we were treated to, however, was easily the worst NCAA championship game ever, and, possibly the worst basketball game I have ever seen.  As Billy Hoyle famously said in White Men Can't Jump, "Is this s#%t regulation?"  It looked like both teams were playing on 12-foot rims or using an oversized ball.  UConn and Butler looked like Shaq shooting free-throws.  Neither could hit water if they fell out of a boat, sand if they fell of a camel, mud if they fell off a pig...okay, you get it.  This is the first time in my life I have felt sorry for the NCAA - could that game have been anymore anti-climactic?  The answer is no.

The Odd Stat of the Week is probably an obvious one to anyone who watched the game.  Even if you didn't see the stat or hear the announcers, you realized that Butler's futility was historical.  The only question is: how historical?  Well, ladies and gents, Butler just got finished shooting the worst field goal percentage in the history of national championship games.  Period.  I briefly saw a stat last night that said the previous record was held by Washington State in the 1941 national championship game (I didn't even know Washington was a state then), when they shot a paltry 21% from the field.  That seems impossible to beat.  You have to try to shoot that bad.  But, thanks to the Butler Bulldogs, a 70-year old record fell, and fell hard.  Butler shot 18.8% from the field (12 for 64) last night.  That, is the Odd Stat of the Week, but, listen to the rest of this*:

• UConn's 53 point total was the lowest winning total since 1949, when Kentucky (barf) put up 46 points in its win;
• Butler's 18.8% field goal percentage was the third lowest in any NCAA tournament game ever;
• Butler's 12 field goals tied a record low in an NCAA championship game - Oklahoma State had only 12 field goals against Kentucky in 1949 (which tells us how Kentucky won scoring only 46 points);
• Butler was 3 for 31 from INSIDE the 3-point arc.  Yes, they shot under 10% from 2-point range;
• Butler's 3 2-point field goals were the fewest by any championship game participant ever - by 6 (the previous low was 9).  Of course, we should give Butler some deference, because before 1986, there was no three-point line anyway, so, all buckets were 2-pointers.  No way any team is only making three buckets the entire game.

In the end, it is a shame.  I think most people outside of New England were rooting for Butler.  Brad Stevens, Matt Howard, and Shelvin Mack are all likable guys.  Plus, no matter what anyone says, they were underdogs.  Not many people had them getting out of the second round, including all the "experts" on ESPN.  It is mostly a shame because those guys choked on the biggest stage there is.  And, no matter how much we like the guys from Butler, they did choke.  But, after this year, I see no reason why they won't be back there again next year, fighting for a national title.  Are you going to doubt them?

* Stats taken from Andy Katz.

The Odd Stat of (Last) Week

Issue: Baseball yet?

Short Answer: Not quite.  But, it will be coming soon.  For now, let's stick to basketball.

Reasoning: So far, the NCAA tournament has been played through the first two rounds.  I don't care that the NCAA, and ESPN, continue to claim there have been three rounds played so far.  Adding three teams (remember, the field has been 65 for a few years now) to the tournament does not change a thing, except how much money the NCAA is making.  It will be the same reasoning they use when they expand the tournament to 96 teams and perhaps allow the UConn, Tennessee, Stanford, and Baylor women's teams in.

All that aside, with 68 teams in the tournament, there were quite a few games that, on paper, looked like blowouts - all of the #1 seeds over the #16 seeds included.  No one, and I mean no one, saw any of the #8 vs. #9 matchups as being possible blowout games.  Yet, two of them (Illinois v. UNLV and Michigan v. Tennessee) turned into laughers.  In fact, Michigan's 75-45 victory was the second biggest blowout of the entire first round (yeah, I said it, FIRST round - Oh, and the biggest blowout was Duke beating Hampton by 42).  So, is Michigan's 30 point victory the biggest ever by a #8 seed?  I bet it is, but, I really have no idea.  If you want to look it up and let me know, that would be great.  Although, I really don't care.  So, save your time.

Michigan did make history in that game against Tennessee though.  It is the type of history you will not believe, and, the type of history that makes for a great "Odd Stat of the Week."  Most of the time when "never before" stats arise in the NCAA tournament there is an asterisk stating "since the tournament expanded to 64 teams (1985)."  Not this time.  The Michigan Wolverines became the first team EVER, to win a tournament game, without making a single free throw.  I will give you a chance to digest that fact.  Done?  Not only did Michigan not make a single free throw, they only attempted one.  A single free throw attempted, a single free throw missed, a 30-point victory.  Some of this can be accounted to Tennessee's Athletic Director, who, just days before the game, said on the radio that head coach Bruce Pearl may or may not return next year.  Add that with Michigan's quick start, and, it looked like most of the Vols simply quit.  And, when players don't play hard, fouls don't happen.  Then again, if the Vols had fouled, they may have lost by 50.

Runner-up for Odd Stat of (Last) Week - Ohio State, Cincinnati, Xavier, Louisville, and Kentucky all went to the Big Dance, in the same year, for the first time since.............1961.  Wow.

The Odd Stat of the Week

Issue: College basketball or the NBA - which direction are you going to go?

Short Answer: Neither.  Let's make this a truly "odd" stat.

Reasoning: I generally attempt to make my "Odd Stat of the Week" correspond with the sports that are being played right now.  Football is over and baseball is yet to begin (Major League baseball, that is - my little brother's Indiana University baseball team has about 10 games under their belts already.  Big leaguers are soft.).  As my faithful readers know, I hate the NBA, so I try not to ever write about it (mostly because I don't know, and don't care to know, much about it).  So, when my brother Casey (doesn't that guy ever work?) sent me a video link, I decided to run with it.

Squash is a sport I know nothing about.  I mean, it looks just like racquetball, but it's not called racquetball, right?  So, I decided to do a little research.  Problem is, when you type "squash" into google, you get mostly recipes.  That left me with Wikipedia, which I feel like using once is one too many times.  So, to eHow.com we go!  I went to eHow.com because they actually had an article on the differences between squash and racquetball, which is exactly what I wanted.  I'm not sure if eHow is correct or not, but I am going to ride it out (at least I tell you I'm not sure, rather than pawning off the information like I know it, right?).  Some of the differences:

1. The rackets - Racquetball rackets are shorter and wider in comparison to squash rackets. Racquetball rackets have a maximum allowable length of 22 inches and look like a small tennis racket, while squash rackets are up to 27 inches long and are similar in looks to a badminton racket.  Huge difference.  I think.
2. The ball - Squash balls are much smaller at 4 cm in diameter versus the 5.7 cm ball used in racquetball. The racquetball is made of rubber and carries momentum as it bounces around the walls, while the squash ball is denser and does not bounce as much.  Does that say "much smaller?"  Really?  4 cm vs. 5.7 cm is not "much" of anything.
3. The court - Allow me to paraphrase here: a racquetball court is bigger than a squash court.  In racquetball you can hit the ball anywhere you'd like, in squash there are areas you cannot hit the ball.  Basically, on the front wall in squash, there are lines designating where the ball must hit, and if it doesn't, the ball is not playable.  Basically, the court is the only REAL difference in the two sports.
4. The scoring - Squash is played to either 9 or 11.  Racquetball is played to 15.  Wow.  These sports are so crazy different.  Since I'm out of shape, it looks like I prefer squash.

The question now is, why the hell does anyone care?  Fair question.  The odd stat this week takes us into the bowels (no offense) of college athletics.  Yes, that's right, college squash.  I will give you a moment to stop laughing.  Done?  Turns out the Trinity College (it's in Hartford, Connecticut) squash team is pretty good.  They are good enough to have now won 244 matches in a row, including 13 straight national championships (they beat Yale last week for their 13th straight title).  Their last loss?  February 22, 1998.  This all coming from a college who plays in the NESCAC, which stands for New England Small College Association Conference.  Awesome.  The video posted below highlights the coach and the players of the longest streak in any sport, anywhere.  However, they may have a bloated view of themselves.  The video opens with one of the players stating "as everyone knows, Trinity is the best school in squash."  Uh, not so much.  Most people know nothing about squash.  Another player: "we get looked at like football players, in a sense, at other schools."  Well, when you go to a college that has less than 2,300 undergraduate and graduate students, and, is division III in all other sports, a squash team that brings home 13 straight national championships may get a little attention.  I do not want to discount this streak though.  It is as impressive, if not more impressive, than any streak I have ever seen.  But, it is squash.  Dang, I did it again.

The Odd Stat of the Week

Issue: Anything obscure happen in college basketball this week?

Short Answer: If division III counts, then yes.

Reasoning: As February comes to a close, talk begins to turn to college basketball and the "who's in" and "who's out" of the NCAA tournament.  The Big East is tough, the ACC is always good, and the Big Ten is having a year of resurgence.  March should be fantastic this year, as it always is.  However, 3,000 miles away from where I sit right now, something bigger happened this week, and most people heard nothing about it.  The Caltech Beavers are a division III athletic institution.  They are a private school with about 950 undergraduate students (my high school was much bigger).  And, they don't give out athletic scholarships.  Thirty-one faculty and alumni have won the Nobel Prize.  Hence, basketball takes a back seat at Caltech.  Or, maybe they don't even get a seat.  That is why they have been beaten time and time again, at an historical rate.

On February 22rd (or 23rd, depends on what time zone you live in), 2011, Caltech beat Occidental 46-45 (sounds like a high school score, and, something tells me there are high school teams out there that could beat both squads) in their final game of the season.  This is newsworthy because Caltech and Occidental play in the same conference - the Southern California Intercollegiate Athletic Conference (a basketball powerhouse) - and this was Caltech's first conference victory since...January 23, 1985.  That's right, it had been 310 conference games and 26 years since Caltech's last conference victory.  That stat is hard to wrap one's head around.  It seems impossible.  But, when you realize that Caltech finished this year 5-20, locking up their best record in 15 years, you realize how effing bad the Beavers really are.  Last year, the Beavers were 0-15.  The last time they had a winning record was 1954.  They suck so bad the Cincinnati Bengals feel sorry for them.  Maybe.  Let us now play, what-the-world-was-like the last time Caltech won a conference game (Jan. 23, 1985)*:

1. I was only 6 years old.  Wow.  That was a looong time ago.
2. Three days before Caltech's last conference victory, the San Francisco 49ers beat the Miami Dolphins 38-16 in Super Bowl XIX (yes, that is Super Bowl 19 - Green Bay just won Super Bowl 45).
3. Five days after Caltech's last conference victory, a bunch of entertainers got together and recorded "We Are The World" to raise money to combat famine in Ethiopia.
4. "Out Of Africa" won 7 Oscars, including best picture, even though I believe "Back To The Future" should have won every single Oscar that year.
5. The Grammy winner for song of the year was Tina Turner's "What's Love Got To Do With It?", and the award for best new artist went to Cyndi Lauper (anyone feeling really old yet?).
6. "The Cosby Show" edged out "Cheers" and "Family Ties" to win the primetime Emmy for best comedy series.  I miss good TV.
7. The median household income was under $24,000, a gallon of gas was $1.20, a dozen eggs cost $0.80, and a first-class stamp was $0.20.  Sheesh.

Oliver Eslinger, Caltech Head Coach, after the victory**: “Tonight’s win is a testament to the hard work each member of this team, the alumni and the supporters have put into this program. I hope that everyone who has participated in Caltech men’s basketball is able to celebrate a little bit tonight...[w]e still have goals and aspirations that we want to accomplish as a program and this win is another step toward meeting these objectives.”  Goals and aspirations?  Really?  What, like win another conference game before 2037?  Maybe Caltech should just keep pumping out Nobel Prizes, because they will never have another celebration like this:

Wow.  And I thought I couldn't feel any more sorry for these guys.  But, in their defense, they are almost certainly smarter than you or me.  At least they have that going for them.

*I got most of these from Wikipedia, so I don't know if they are correct or not.  But, I think they are.

**The article where I got most of this information.

The Odd Stat of the Week

Issue: Are you the type of person who typically gives credit when credit is due?

Short Answer: Sure I am, but...

Reasoning: ...I really despise everything Pittsburgh.  I don't watch hockey at all, but I hate the Penguins.  The Pirates haven't been relevant in years, but I still can't stand them.  Thankfully, since Pittsburgh is a smaller sized city, they don't have teams in all of the major sports, and, they only have one college program to speak of, the University of [crappy city] (Duquesne and Robert Morris are neck and neck for the next best).  So, as a longtime Cincinnatian and Bengal fan, I am afforded the opportunity to direct most of my hatred toward the Steelers.  And, rightfully so.  The Steelers have won three-times as many Super Bowls as the Bengals have been to.  Their quarterback (I'm not denying his talent here people - he is good, no doubt about it) has to be one of the biggest d-bags on the planet, and he is a Super Bowl winner two-times over (thank you Green Bay Packers).  And, just typing the name "Hines Ward" makes me want to vomit (he went to the University of Georgia too - I've been hating him for quite awhile). I don't hate them because they are good, but that makes me hate them more.

But, the NFL season is over (thanks again to the Packers), so I've been watching a lot of college basketball, and, living in Cincinnati (Big East team), I watch a lot of Big East games.  Quite a few of these games have featured the top-5 ranked University of Pittsburgh Panthers.  In watching the Panthers play I have realized a few things: 1) I like their Head Coach, Jamie Dixon; 2) I don't hate the team as much as I would like, you know, because of the "Pittsburgh" across their chest; and 3) They are damn good.  Even in the game the Panthers most recently lost at St. John's, they were winning most of the game (after the first ten minutes), and were beat on a lay-up where the St. John's player stepped out of bounds.  The Panthers are fundamentally sound and play great defense.  I think I may have them going far in my tournament bracket (even though the Big (L)East usually lays an egg in the tourney).

My Odd Stat of the Week will tell you that the Panthers have been damn good for awhile, and have been that good without much in the cupboard.  On February 7, when Pittsburgh won at West Virginia, they solidified their 10th straight season with 20+ wins and 10+ Big East wins.  With the parity that exists today in college athletics, that is nothing short of unreal.  Especially because they have done it in what is considered the top conference in the nation, by most (not me).  Pittsburgh has also done this without a single first-round NBA draft pick (they have had only four total first-rounders ever: Jerome Lane (of Bill Raftery "send it in Jerome!" fame as he broke the backboard) and Charles Smith in 1988, Eric Mobley in 1994, and Vonteego Cummings (uh, what?) in 1999).  Since 2002, when this streak started, Pittsburgh has only had 4 total players drafted, all in the second round (Chris Taft in 2005, Aaron Gray in 2007, and Sam Young and DeJuan Blair in 2009).  Good coaching, fundamental basketball, tough defense, and even tougher players, all of whom are unselfish, have made the Pittsburgh Panthers into a formidable force in college basketball.  And that makes me like them.  A little bit.

The (Belated) Odd Stat of the Week

Issue: So, you do realize you didn't have an Odd Stat of the Week last week, huh?

Short Answer: I was torn...

Reasoning: You may have noticed some changes to Uncommonly Sports recently.  Last week I added a Facebook "Like" box to the page (after a bout with attempting to make a Facebook "fan" page, but instead making a "group" page and causing all sorts of people to receive e-mails they never signed up for and possibly forever losing them as loyal readers - thanks to Facebook, for that humbling experience); and I also added "labels" in the right-hand column, which give the reader folders full of posts with like content.  And I noticed an abnormality - 16 NFL posts.  The next closest is college football, with 8.  Granted, when I started this blog football was in full-swing, and it only makes sense that I would write about it the most.  So, last week I came upon a few "stats" that I thought were worthy of the "Odd Stat of the Week" moniker.  One of them NFL, one of them college basketball.  Since the NFL has completed its season, I thought I should do the college basketball post.  And then, I thought, screw it.  One more NFL post won't hurt anyone (I hope).

There have been a plethora of game-changing plays in Super Bowl history.  Who can forget (Super Bowl number in parentheses) Lynn Swann's juggling catch against the Cowboys (X), or Marcus Allen's 74-yard touchdown run against the Redskins (XVIII), or David Tyree's impossible catch against his helmet to take down the undefeated (almost) Patriots (XLII), or Desmond Howard's 99-yard kickoff return for a touchdown to give Brett Farve his only Super Bowl victory (XXXI), or John Riggins shredding the Dolphins defense, on a 4th-and-1, for a 43-yard touchdown (XVII), or Joe Montana's touchdown pass to John Taylor with under a minute to go against the Bengals (XXIII - curse you Barney Bussey!), or Santonio Holmes' amazing catch and tap-both-feet-down-in-the-corner-of-the-endzone against the Cardinals (XLIII), or John Elway getting spun around like a top but still picking up the 1st down, leading his Brocos over the Packers (XXXII)?  But, none of these plays were as game-changing as the good old, run-of-the-mill (if that's possible) pick-to-the-house.

See, in Super Bowl history, teams that have had an interception return for a touchdown, are now 11-0.  In fact, the last three Super Bowl winners have had one - Nick Collins for the Packers this year, Tracy Porter for the Saints last year, and James Harrison's 100-yarder against the Cardinals the year before.  Basically, you can take all of your fancy catches, tough runs, great tackles, pressure-packed field goals, and, chuck them out the window.  Forget everything.  Teams should take the entire two weeks before the Super Bowl and work on intercepting footballs and then finding a member of the other team to put on the ground.  Invent a new defense that contains 8 defensive backs, where all players are going for that decisive pick-six.  Alright, maybe not.  The stat does make sense, as an interception for a touchdown is a momentum-shifter and a morale-crusher.  But, you would think one team, somewhere in 45 Super Bowls, would do it in a losing effort.  I have no doubt that if the Bengals ever get back to the Super Bowl, they will be the first to accomplish this feat.

The Odd Stat of the Week, Super Bowl Edition

Issue: Who is better, the Steelers or the Packers?

Short Answer: The Green Bay Packers.

Reasoning: Ladies and gentlemen, I am going to make an outlandish assertion: the Green Bay Packers were THIS close [pan out to a shot of me holding my thumb and index finger extremely close together.  No, like, really, really close] to being considered one of the greatest teams ever.  That's right, I said "ever."  When people think about the greatest teams ever, usually, overall record is the only stat that is considered.  A Super Bowl victory no longer matters.  I say this, because the 2007 New England Patriots, who went 18-0 before losing to the New York Football Giants in the Super Bowl, usually crack the list at #2 of "Greatest NFL Teams of All Time."  The #1 team is obviously the 1972 Miami Dolphins who went 17-0 and actually won that all-important game at the end of the season.  So, how, at 10-6, can the 2010 Green Bay Packers almost (I know, horseshoes and hand grenades) be considered one of the best teams ever?

As Mike Florio at ProFootballTalk reports (via the Wall Street Journal) the Packers are the first team in NFL history to lose six games in a season, all of them by four points or fewer.  In fact, they are the first team to even lose five games in a season, all by four points or fewer.  The only team in history to lose four games by four points or fewer was the 1987 Washington Redskins, who went on to win the Super Bowl.  So, it seems the Packers were THIS close [the thumb and index finger again] to possibly being undefeated.  Let us review their losses:

1. Week 3 @ Chicago - The Packers were flagged a season high 18 times for a season high 152 yards (their next highest total was 66 yards).  The Packers had a touchdown wiped out by a holding call, an interception erased with a roughing the passer penalty, and another interception wiped out by a pass interference call.  Devin Hester broke the record for most return TD's in the history of the NFL, and he did it in the 4th quarter.  And still, it took a Robbie Gould field goal with 4 seconds left, for the Bears to pull the game out, 20-17.
2. Week 5 @ Washington - After a sloppy game for both teams, and a mostly sloppy overtime period, Aaron Rodgers threw an interception to LaRon Landry at the Green Bay 39-yard line.  After two costly Green Bay penalties, Graham Gano hit a 33-yard field goal to give the Redskins a 16-13 victory.
3. Week 6 vs. Miami - Really?  They lost to Miami at home?  This is why betting on the NFL is impossible.  Or so my buddy told me.  Aaron Rodgers tied the game with 13 seconds left to go on a 1-yard scamper (first time I have ever used the word "scamper" - not as cool as I thought it would be).  After a Packer punt in overtime, the Dolphins took over on the Green Bay 48, ran 7 plays, kicked a field goal, and escaped with a 23-20 victory.
4. Week 12 @ Atlanta - Aaron Rodgers fumbled on the Atlanta 1-yard line in the 2nd quarter (oops), and the Falcons turned that into a touchdown just before the half (even though Tony Gonzalez may not have actually made the catch on a 4th down conversion to keep the drive alive).  Fast forward to 4th and goal with a minute left in the 4th quarter, when Aaron Rodgers scrambles out of the pocket and finds a streaking Jordy Nelson in the end zone to tie the game (I'm sure you have seen this highlight on ESPN ad nauseum).  However, a 15-yard facemask penalty on the ensuing kickoff meant doom for the unlucky Packers.  Matt Bryant hit a 47-yard field goal with 13 seconds left to give the Falcons a 20-17 win.
5. Week 14 @ Detroit - This had to knock some people out of their survivor pools.  Remember, don't bet on the NFL.  Oh, and this was tied for the biggest blowout suffered by the Packers in 2010.  Four points.  Aaron Rodgers got hurt, Matt Flynn came into the game, the Packers scored 3 points, and lost 7-3.  Let's move on.
6. Week 15 @ New England - The Packers suffer another 4-point loss.  It's a wonder how they could get their psyche back in tact, and make a successful playoff run, after suffering back-to-back blowouts like this (I hope you are sensing my sarcasm by this point).  Did I mention Matt Flynn again played instead of Aaron Rodgers?  And he threw 3 touchdowns.  Maybe people who were riding the Patriots all the way to the Super Bowl should have realized how bad their defense was (myself included - I picked the Patriots over the Jets to knock me out of my survivor pool.  No worries, I still got a little piece of the pie).  Still, the Packers lost 31-27.

The moral to the story?  Since the Packers lost 6 games this year, they will never be considered one of the best teams ever - even if (when?) they win the Super Bowl.  But, one could make an argument that the Packers didn't really play a bad game all year.  Why would the Super Bowl be their first one?  Packers 27, Steelers 17.  Or so I hope.  I can't stand to see the Steelers win another Super Bowl.

The Odd Stat of the Week

Issue: No football this week.  Where are you going to go for your stat?

Short Answer: How about tennis?

Reasoning: I can honestly say that I have yet to watch a single point during the Australian Open.  It is the first major of the year in the great sport of tennis, and, I can honestly say, I don't care.  Tennis is fine.  I don't mind it.  I have watched a match or two in my life.  I even enjoy watching Wimbledon - something about playing tennis on grass.  I don't know.  Maybe I don't care so much about tennis because I stink at it.  Sure, I am competent - I can hit the ball over the net, and I bet I could beat most people that are reading this - but, if I played against someone who was good, I would be made a fool of.  Let me tell you how I know this.

Allow me to take you back to the year 1999.  I was a 20 year old sophomore at Georgia Tech.  A good buddy and teammate of mine, Derek, was dating a girl who played on the tennis team.  I too happened to be "seeing" a girl on the tennis team (I'm not going to mention her name, but she is married to someone famous now.  Kinda weird.).  Somehow a conversation came up of which the result was this: sure, Derek and I will play you guys in tennis, and I bet we can hold our own.  Hell, I bet we can win.  We are dudes, and dudes don't lose to chicks at anything.  Obviously Derek and I weren't THAT sure of ourselves.  And, after a short warm-up period, any confidence we did have, was shattered.  Our damage control systems kicked in, and we agreed with the girls that maybe we needed a little head start.  We wanted 2 games.  They gave us 5.    A 5-0 lead in each set.  We could actually win this thing now.  Right?  Not quite.  Final tally?  7-5, 7-5.  I think we won 3 points the whole time.  I really never expected to win, but I didn't expect to be humiliated.  Lesson learned.  If you can't even serve over-handed, you probably aren't going to beat division-one tennis players.  Even if they are chicks.

Anyway.  This upcoming men's Australian Open final will be only the third major final since 2004 to not feature either Rafael Nadal or Roger Federer (or most likely, both of them).  The 2008 Australian Open final featured Novak Djokovic defeating Jo-Wilfried Tsonga.  The 2005 Australian Open featured Marat Safin defeating Lleyton Hewitt.  That's right, every single French Open final, every single Wimbledon final, and every single U.S. Open final has featured either Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal, since 2004.  25 total grand slam finals (counting the 2011 Australian).  22 have had Nadal or Federer.  7 ('06, '07, '08 Wimbledon, '06, '07, '08 French, and '09 Australian) have actually had both at the same time (Nadal is 5-2, but 3-0 at the French Open).  Federer has 18 grand slam finals appearances.  Nadal has 11 appearances.  These. Dudes. Are. Beasts.  Pretty sure either of them could handle me and Derek.

Runner-up for odd stat of the week: Roger Federer's career record, at a major, when winning the first two sets - 166-0.

The Odd Stat of the Week

Issue: NFL Conference Championships are this weekend - what makes these games different?

Short Answer: I have an interesting little tidbit.

Reasoning: To draft a quarterback in the first round is to do so at your own peril.  Trust me, I'm a Bengals fan.  David Klingler?  Akili Smith?  Alright, maybe this is more about the Bengals front office (or lack thereof) than anything, but you catch my drift.  History is full of quarterbacks drafted in the first round who never amount to much.  Aside from the two I just mentioned, Rick Mirer, Heath Schuler, Jim Drunkenmiller, Ryan Leaf (you knew that one was coming), Tim Couch, Cade McNown, Joey Harrington, David Carr, Byron Leftwich, Rex Grossman (he did go to a Super Bowl!), Brady Quinn, Patrick Ramsey, J.P. Losman, JaMarcus Russell, and Alex Smith were all first round selections in the NFL draft.  Obviously there is no science to these picks and a team might as well play pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey when picking a quarterback in the first round.

This weekend's Conference Championship games will mark the first time since the NFL-AFL merger in 1970 that all four quarterbacks playing were former first round picks.  This stat lends credence to the fact that a first round quarterback is a shot-in-the-dark.  Mark Sanchez of the New York Jets (5th overall in 2009) was the highest draft pick of the four, a fact that is laughable at best.  But, he is in the AFC Championship game and I am writing about him in an average-at-best blog, so I think he gets the last laugh.  His opponent, Ben Roethlisberger, was the 11th pick in 2004, a quarterback draft that may one day compete with those quarterbacks taken in 1983.  Roethlisberger was drafted after Philip Rivers and Eli Manning but before J.P. Losman.  Whoops.  Maybe 1983 will continue to reign.  Jay Cutler of the Chicago Bears was the 11th pick in the 2006 draft by the Denver Broncos, behind Vince Young and Matt Leinart.  Even though Cutler is no longer with the Broncos, at least they didn't draft Vince Young or Matt Leinart.  His opponent, Aaron Rodgers, was the 24th pick in 2005.  The lowest draft position of the 4, but perhaps the biggest upside of the 4.  He has shined this postseason, and it wouldn't shock me to see him hoist the Vince Lombardi Trophy this year as a Super Bowl Champ.

Remember folks, defense wins championships, and all four of these teams have top 10 defenses this year, so we know what is going to win these games.  But these four guys should make it plenty more interesting to watch.  Happy football watching.

The Odd Stat of the Week

Issue: Anything odd happen during Wild Card weekend?

Short Answer: It most certainly did.

Reasoning: The Baltimore Ravens have long been known for their defense.  Let us remember that the Ravens victory in Super Bowl XXXV was with Trent Dilfer as their quarterback.  Yes, Trent Dilfer has done something that Dan Marino, Dan Fouts, Ken Anderson, and Boomer Esiason have not, and that is win a Super Bowl.  Although most people who know the game know that the Ravens would not have won that Super Bowl if it wasn't for their defense.

Times are no different in 2010-11, as the Ravens are once again in the playoffs, due largely to their defense.  But something happened in the openning round of the playoffs against the Kansas City Chiefs, that doesn't often happen against the Ravens.  Midway through the first quarter, with the Ravens holding a 3-0 lead, Jamaal Charles, Kansas City's best running back, busted through the defensive front and outran the Baltimore secondary to score a 41-yard touchdown.  That doesn't seem like THAT big of a deal.  But it was.  Ladies and gentleman, this was the first rushing touchdown allowed by the Baltimore Ravens defense, of 30+ yards since....2005.  Wow.

The last time the Ravens had given up a 30+ yards rush for a touchdown was October 9 of 2005 when Detroit Lions running back Shawn Bryson (who?) took his only carry of the game 77 yards to the house.  Since that day, the Ravens had gone 2,484 straight rushing attempts against without giving up another 30+ yard touchdown scamper.  Jamaal Charles ended that streak on Sunday, but let us not forget - it was the only points Baltimore would reliquish the entire game.  The final score was 30-7, as the Ravens move on to face the Steelers.  I think it is a fairly safe bet that Rashad Mendenhall will not break a 30+ yard touchdown.  But, football is a crazy game.

Runner-up for odd stat of the week (and it's related!): the score in the last 17 meetings between the Baltimore Ravens and the Pittsburgh Steelers is 302-302.  Should be a good game this weekend.

The Odd Stat of the Week, Part II

Issue: It's playoff time in the NFL, so, where are the San Diego Chargers?

Short Answer: They are playing golf, but I'm not sure how it happened either.

Reasoning: With a week 16 loss at Cincinnati (WHO DEY!), the San Diego Chargers missed out on the playoffs for the first time since 2003.  That alone makes it strange enough not to see San Diego playing in January.  However, the Odd Stat of the Week makes it even stranger.  See, it turns out that San Diego was way better than its 9-7 record indicated at the end of the year.  NFL.com tells us that the San Diego Chargers were #1 in total offense (measured in yards per game, they averaged 395.6 YPG) and #1 in total defense (measured in yards per game allowed, they averaged 271.6 YPG), and yes, the Chargers failed to make the playoffs.

The question then becomes: how rare is it that a team be #1 in total offense and #1 in total defense and fail to make the playoffs?  This is the first time it has ever happened.  Not surprising.  The question really should be: how in the world does it happen in the first place?  Some things that jumped out to me:

1. They lost 16 fumbles on offense, tied for third worst in the NFL;
2. They had a -6 turnover margin (meaning (for all my female readers) they had 6 more turnovers on offense than turnovers caused on defense).  Playoff teams this year with a worse turnover margin - Seattle -9.  Let's not forget that they won the putrid NFC West with a 7-9 record;
3. While they lead the league in YPG allowed on defense, they allowed 322 points (20.1 per game), which was only good for 10th in the league;
4. The Chargers special teams allowed 5 touchdowns, including a punt return for a touchdown, a blocked punt for a touchdown, and 3 (yes, 3) kickoff returns for touchdowns;
5. The defense had only 16 interceptions (tied for 14th in the league) and recovered only 6 fumbles (30th out of 32 teams);
6. Their kickers (Nate Kaeding, their best kicker, did get hurt for part of the year) were 27 for 33 on field goals (82%) which was only good enough for 19th in the league.

Not sure any of that answers the question how a team in #1 in total offense and #1 in total defense finishes 7-9 and misses the playoffs, but maybe it helps.  It seems virtually impossible to me that a team can gain more yards per game, and give up less yards per game, than any team in the league, and be an average team.  But the Chargers proved it was possible this year.  Crazy sport (Seattle over New Orleans, anyone??).