Grantland

[TroyOLeary]

The difference between Lowe and Barnwell is that Lowe comes in without any preconceived notions, and almost every strong-ish statement he makes about a player or team he follows with some sort of caveat or clarification.
 
Barnwell on the other hand seems to cherry pick the metrics to support his hypothesis, attributing certain things to luck in some places and not in others (a lot of which tends to be driven by the picks/predictions he makes early in the season).  A lot of times he'll just go against popular opinion, even if his devil's advocate position isn't particularly supported by data.  His column on the Patriots-Panthers game in particular was an example of this:
 

 
But given how New England played with the game on the line, it deserved to lose, regardless of how that final call shook out.

 
Huh?  That sounds like something you'd hear on a pre-game show, not from a guy who is presented as an analytical thinker.
 
He also either doesn't seem to have a full grasp on win probability or intentionally used really misleading numbers to prove his point.

 

[DJnVa]

But given how New England played with the game on the line, it deserved to lose, regardless of how that final call shook out.
 

 
With the game on the line, they drove down the field in less than a minute against a top NFL defense and had their final shot to win taken away when they officials picked up a flag. Is that what he means by "with the game on the line"?

 

[coremiller]

But given how New England played with the game on the line, it deserved to lose, regardless of how that final call shook out.

 
This is an especially dumb statement in light of FO finding that New England had a higher DVOA for the game than Carolina did.  

 

[tims4wins]

Peyton has lost his last 3 playoff games (2 of which were at home). Clearly he has mastered the postseason!

 

[PedroKsBambino]

The difference between Lowe and Barnwell is that Lowe comes in without any preconceived notions, and almost every strong-ish statement he makes about a player or team he follows with some sort of caveat or clarification.
 
Barnwell on the other hand seems to cherry pick the metrics to support his hypothesis, attributing certain things to luck in some places and not in others (a lot of which tends to be driven by the picks/predictions he makes early in the season).  A lot of times he'll just go against popular opinion, even if his devil's advocate position isn't particularly supported by data.  

 
This is my take as well.  I enjoy Barnwell, but he reminds me of Joe Sheehan circa about 2005: he's more analytical and objective than the typical tv/newspaper commentator, there are things I learn reading him, and he also has a tendency to cherrypick to fit some of his own preconceptions while putting forward a noticeable percentage of conclusions which are baseless and still presented as objective fact.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

I thought he actually had an OK point to make in the column, that the old narratives that people used to use to denigrate Peyton are pretty dumb and could be used to similarly denigrate Brady now.  But more importantly, those narratives don't really do much to support the argument that one is better than the other (either now or 10 years ago).  Both are transcendent NFL QBs in their own ways, and choosing which one is "better" is kind of a stupid exercise.  I pretty much agree with him on that point, and I am an unabashed Brady/Pats fanboy and hate Manning's stupid face.
 
Hopefully Barnwell didn't write the by-line that reads "Have the two iconic quarterbacks of the 21st century actually traded places?" because he doesn't really say anything about them having trading places.

 

[Spacemans Bong]

 
This is my take as well.  I enjoy Barnwell, but he reminds me of Joe Sheehan circa about 2005: he's more analytical and objective than the typical tv/newspaper commentator, there are things I learn reading him, and he also has a tendency to cherrypick to fit some of his own preconceptions while putting forward a noticeable percentage of conclusions which are baseless and still presented as objective fact.

 
Circa 2005? Sheehan still does that. 

 

[PedroKsBambino]

 
Circa 2005? Sheehan still does that. 

 
Oh, sorry should have been more clear!  Totally agree Sheehan still does so, but at this point with him I don't even find him more analytical or objective than mainstream writers, nor do I ever learn anything from him anymore.   I think the sabermetric community passed Sheehan by around 2005, and he hasn't adjusted to it (or learned much since) which is where that year came from.

 

[Mystic Merlin]

The statement that a team 'deserved' to win or lose a given game is literally white noise to me.

 

[Infield Infidel]

I don't really get Barnwell's criticism of the taking the wind in OT last night.  http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/10033624/bill-barnwell-week-12-nfl

 
 
Is that trade worth it? Meh. Although the Broncos hadn't been playing very well on offense, they're also the league leaders at scoring touchdowns. Before Sunday, they had scored touchdowns on 38.5 percent of their offensive possessions, the best rate in the league by a significant margin. The next best team was the Saints, at a lowly 30 percent. (OK, not lowly.) Even if you don't think that number is Denver's "true" touchdown rate in the specific context of this game against these Patriots in overtime, they're really good at scoring touchdowns. The smaller gains Belichick was chasing — 10 yards here and there — add up over time, but there's no guarantee you'll get more than a possession for it to actually matter. It's difficult to quantify because there are so many moving parts, but my suspicion is that Belichick traded a dollar for 90 cents worth of change. In any case, I don't think it was clearly a good move or a bad one, just uncommon.

 
So their chances of not scoring a TD was 61.5%, and that's considering drives starting everywhere on the field, and with little wind or wind at their backs. Starting from the 20 into the wind, the chances of them not scoring a TD are probably significantly higher than even the 61.5% they've had during the season, maybe 2:1 or 3:1. 

 

[kenneycb]

I can't read good.

 

[Leather]

"In any case, I don't think it was clearly a good move or a bad one, just uncommon."
 
Ok.  So, why the disseration trying to prove it was a bad move?
 
Also, I hate it when writers use informal/hip language for no real purpose other than to sound informal/hip:
 

Belichick has the gravitas and respect to get away with a lot of stuff that other coaches wouldn't be able to fade.
 

 
To "fade"?  Really?  How about just "Belichick has the gravitas and respect to get away with a lot of stuff that other coaches wouldn't be able to."  Full stop. 

 

[SidelineCameras]

I don't really get Barnwell's criticism of the taking the wind in OT last night.  http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/10033624/bill-barnwell-week-12-nfl
 
So their chances of not scoring a TD was 61.5%, and that's considering drives starting everywhere on the field, and with little wind or wind at their backs. Starting from the 20 into the wind, the chances of them not scoring a TD are probably significantly higher than even the 61.5% they've had during the season, maybe 2:1 or 3:1. 

 
A lot of that article is really disjointed, and I usually like Barnwell. Field position is critically important at that point in the game. Make a stop, force the Broncos to punt into the wind, and then take that 10-yard cushion on the field goal attempt. (Obviously this is not how it played out on the first Pats possession but the odds in that situation are tremendous). And if the Patriots do have to punt themselves, they're punting with the wind. I would accept him saying something along the lines of "The game ended like four hours ago and I'm going to revisit this topic, it definitely warrants further study," but just writing "Meh" there is basically blogger-level lameness, not the chief football writer for a national site.
 
 

 The reaction to those three fumbles was curious. The Patriots obviously couldn't punish Tom Brady for fumbling amid a heavy rush, but Bill Belichick laid down the hammer on running backs Stevan Ridley and LeGarrette Blount, neither of whom played a snap after giving up the football. Obviously, Ridley has had fumbling problems recently; this was his fourth fumble of the year and his second consecutive game with a fumble.

 

 The Patriots also went without Ridley and Blount for much of the game, although that was by choice.

 
 
1. That was Ridley's third consecutive game with a fumble.
2. No mention of Blount being knocked-out cold on the hit, to say nothing of the helmet-to-helmet contact? No mention of at least the possibility (and I'd argue likelihood) of a concussion? He keeps mentioning Blount to further his argument against benching fumbling players without once mentioning the injury concern. But you know, it's not like head injuries and the NFL is a topic that keeps coming up.

 

[Shelterdog]

"In any case, I don't think it was clearly a good move or a bad one, just uncommon."
 
Ok.  So, why the disseration trying to prove it was a bad move?
 

 
Take it easy on the guy.  He's licking his wounds after spending a few weeks saying that the Pats "aren't very good"  and predicting on the grantland podcast he said it wouldn't be close because Denver is better than the Patriots in every phase of the game except coaching.

 

[TroyOLeary]

"In any case, I don't think it was clearly a good move or a bad one, just uncommon."
 
Ok.  So, why the disseration trying to prove it was a bad move?

 
He does this a lot.
 
From his Patriots-Panthers recap:
 

 
They also became the latest victim to take the points. When the Patriots failed to come up with a key third-down pass to Dobson on third-and-1 from the Carolina 8-yard line with 6:36 left in the game, the Patriots were forced to kick a 26-yard field goal to go up by three points. As much as I like to castigate teams that kick short field goals on fourth-and-1, this isn't a case where the Patriots were scared to fail or anything like that; you basically have to kick in that spot and hope your defense can hold the other team to a maximum of three points. (The numbers say New England should have tried to convert if it had a 63 percent chance of success.) When the New England defense failed to do so, the Patriots were eventually stuck needing to convert a much more difficult play from the 18-yard line to try to win the game. It's often true that teams that pass on a short fourth down to kick in a close game eventually have to try a much more difficult fourth-down play later in the contest, but the issue here isn't what the Patriots did on fourth down; it's that they couldn't pick up the yard they needed on third down.

 
He's got all these pet topics (mostly revolving around coaching decisions) that he always brings up, and even when it was the right decision to punt or go for a field goal or challenge a play or whatever it is, he can't let it go.  Like in the above, where he says it was clearly the right call, but then uses language that appeals to the outcome of the game to sort of cast the decision in doubt.  Where if it was the other way around, and a coach made the right probabilistic call to go for it and it didn't work out, he would completely (and rightly) handwave the outcome away as meaningless to the decision.

 

[johnmd20]

Barnwell's column today about the Pats/Denver game was impossibly disjointed. He made a bunch of claims but didn't back any of them up. Manning's stats in cold weather are worse than when it's 61 degrees or above. It's close, but his rating is 96-109 when it's above 60 degrees and between 90-92 when it's below 60.(taking away his two games at below 21, where he is at 65) So he is worse in cold weather. Not a lot worse, but he's worse.
 
And this is also a history book. It is worth mentioning Peyton was lights out earlier THIS season when it was warm and now has dropped off a bit. And who can forget his pretty choppy performance against Baltimore last year.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

Agree with you guys---this was a very bad (and extremely Sheehan-esque!) column from Barnwell.

The more he analyzes plays within the game the more interesting I find him---the more he sets up boogeyman to shoot down the more trite he reads to me.   I don't really need him to tell me 'momentum' isn't a real thing, I'd rather see him breaking down defensive adjustments by the Pats in teh second half..which he is capable of doing if he feels like it.
 
In particular, as several noted, he seemed to ignore the weather in assessing a bunch of things.  It was a major factor in decision making, and i would argue in the game as well.  One can't just wish it away.

 

[rodderick]

Love how he spends a third of the Pats-Broncos part of the column making excuses for Manning's performance (yeah, his drive to tie the game was "the drive of the night", the one that was aided by an INT being called back and a PI) and doesn't write a fucking word about Brady's performance. 

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

I don't really get Barnwell's criticism of the taking the wind in OT last night.  http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/10033624/bill-barnwell-week-12-nfl
 
So their chances of not scoring a TD was 61.5%, and that's considering drives starting everywhere on the field, and with little wind or wind at their backs. Starting from the 20 into the wind, the chances of them not scoring a TD are probably significantly higher than even the 61.5% they've had during the season, maybe 2:1 or 3:1. 

 
"The Broncos score TD's on 38% of their possessions this year!"
 
Great Bill. They also only scored TD's on 21% of possessions in that game. One of those TD's came on a 10 yard drive. Remove that TD and you're looking at 2-13, or 15%. I think it's safe to say that the weather conditions last night completely changed the Bronco's offense. Which is kind of the whole point. Bill.
 
He's been terrible lately.
 
Edit: Almost as terrible as my math.

 

[MarcSullivaFan]

 
"The Broncos score TD's on 38% of their possessions this year!"
 
Great Bill. They also only scored TD's on 21% of possessions in that game. One of those TD's came on a 10 yard drive. Remove that TD and you're looking at 2-13, or 15%. I think it's safe to say that the weather conditions last night completely changed the Bronco's offense. Which is kind of the whole point. Bill.
 
He's been terrible lately.
 
Edit: Almost as terrible as my math.

I agree that he's been weak recently. The "momentum" trope is really tired. He's preaching to the choir.

I also found his take on the Pats benching Ridley in the Carolina game to be a crazy overreach.

First of all, his "benching" was short-lived. Second of all, of he'd been paying attention, he's know that the Pats have been rotating backs all season, so Ridley sitting out a long drive is hardly remarkable. It's just bizzare that he would pick BB sitting Ridley as an example of an irrational reaction to fumbling. BB has been far more patient with Ridley than most NFL coaches would be.

 

[TheRooster]

Does he really think the right response to Ridley's fumbles is a pat on the back and a "get 'em next time"?  Negative reinforcement can lead to behavioral changes and it is very possible that Ridley's issues have to do with concentration.  Oh, and if Ridley can't fix it, benching him gives you a better chance at replacement level fumbling, which is about half his rate. 

 

[Bellhorn]

 

But here's the thing: Just as it didn't for the Patriots two weeks ago on Monday Night Football, the refereeing decision at the end of the game doesn't excuse the way Washington played on that final drive.

 
Leaving aside how fucked-up this sentence is, is he really trying to suggest that the Patriots played badly on their final drive of the Carolina game?  Apart from Shane Vereen dropping a pass, it seemed they did pretty well to drive to the 18-yard line in under a minute.  Plus, it appears that "contributing factor != sole cause" has replaced momentum as Barnwell's new talking point.
 
Don't really know what's going on, but it sure seems that he's been mailing it in for the past few weeks. 

 

[DJnVa]

Well, in the Pats case I think he meant that had they played better earlier it would not have mattered.
 
But in the Skins case, a game ending drive is judged by it's outcome--they didn't really have a fair shot at getting the positive outcome.

 

[Hendu for Kutch]

Well, in the Pats case I think he meant that had they played better earlier it would not have mattered.

 
I know you're not the one saying this, but that line of thought has always come across as over-simplistic to the point of stupidity.  Of course if they'd played better earlier it wouldn't have mattered.  Just as if Carolina had played better earlier it wouldn't have mattered either.  It's the NFL, there are going to be tight games.  Is terrible officiating somehow more tolerable and less damaging when it happens in a close game?  How does that make any sense?  Or must every team be expected to blow out every opponent every week, to avoid potentially getting boned by the refs?

 

[Mystic Merlin]

Barnwell made the same dumbfuck point in his weekly recap article on Monday, in this case in response to the fuckup in the Giants/Skins game. If you're going to preach to the plebes, you had better be making analytically sound points.

 

[Bellhorn]

A small slip-up in the grand scheme of things, but I can't resist pointing out that Barnwell was dead wrong with his #1 worst coaching call of the week:
 

1. Sean Payton turns down a holding penalty that would have given him a first-and-10 in favor of a second-and-3 situation. I really like Payton, and I know this isn't exactly a game-changing decision, but I just can't make any sense out of this call. His team started a drive with a seven-yard completion from Drew Brees to Robert Meachem, but Panthers defensive end Charles Johnson was whistled for holding on the play. If Payton accepted the holding call, he would have left his team with a first-and-10 on its own 21-yard line. Instead, he mysteriously declined the call, giving New Orleans second-and-3 on its own 23.
Of course, that's a trade that makes no sense. You would always trade two yards for a new set of downs; no team would prefer, say, second-and-8 to first-and-10. But that's the trade Payton made, keeping the two extra yards gained by the play while keeping the lost down. You'd make that trade only if New Orleans's expectation on the ensuing first down was below two yards, and while Mark Ingram lurks dangerously around this conversation, that's clearly not the case. Payton is one of the league's best in-game coaches, but this was a bizarre decision.

No, doofus - he traded a 1st and 10 for a 2nd and 3, a situation where the probability of converting a first down is higher than it is on 1st and 10.  So basically, you gain two yards, plus a little bit of first-down-probability equity.  Admittedly, there is a very minor downside in the fact that the expected field position of a new first down, should one be achieved, is slightly worse in the 2nd-and-3 scenario.  But it's highly implausible that this actually outweighs the gain from the decision, let alone being obviously inferior to such an extent that it warrants being called the worst coaching call of the week.

 

[tims4wins]

Barnwell has basically sucked this year. Just been terrible every week.

 

[johnmd20]

Great Column About ACL Tears
 
That was an interesting read.

 

[JimBoSox9]

I described it as "uncomfortable" to read.  It made my knee hurt, particularly when they talk about the Pop.  Almost must-read territory for sports fans.

 

[Morning Woodhead]

Barnwell has basically sucked this year. Just been terrible every week.

 
Somewhere in the thread, someone mentioned how bad Barnwell is compared to Lowe, and I think that is true of all of their NFL coverage.  Lowe is the best at the NBA, I look forward to his stuff all week.  I've really been enjoying "Down goes Brown" and his hockey analysis all season.  Jonah Keri is obviously great too, in fact I wish he did a little more. 
 
But for the NFL, they have Barnwell who has been terrible this year, and Mays who I don't think brings anything great to the table either.  I would love to see them step up their NFL game next year, because right now it sucks. 

 

[BS_SoxFan]

 
Somewhere in the thread, someone mentioned how bad Barnwell is compared to Lowe, and I think that is true of all of their NFL coverage.  Lowe is the best at the NBA, I look forward to his stuff all week.  I've really been enjoying "Down goes Brown" and his hockey analysis all season.  Jonah Keri is obviously great too, in fact I wish he did a little more. 
 
But for the NFL, they have Barnwell who has been terrible this year, and Mays who I don't think brings anything great to the table either.  I would love to see them step up their NFL game next year, because right now it sucks. 

Mays at least comes across as someone with whom you wouldn't mind watching a game. Barnwell, on the other hand, seems like the kind of person who would point out how every observation you make over the course of a game is wrong.

What an epic step down those two have been from when Simmons used to regularly have Lombardi and Schatz on the BS Report.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Hey look, another article about the Cowboys where Barnwell defends Romo! Quelle surprise!

 

[Senator Donut]

I enjoyed this Zach Lowe article about the NBA's record setting pace of three-point attempts and how defenses and rule-makers plan to handle it.
http://es.pn/18wJezR

 

[The Social Chair]

The Yankees aren't good, and they aren't getting better by Rany Jazayerli
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/10150907/the-new-normal-new-york-yankees

 

[chrisfont9]

The Yankees aren't good, and they aren't getting better by Rany Jazayerli
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/10150907/the-new-normal-new-york-yankees
 

I am seriously thinking of printing this article out, toasting it, and sprinkling it over my salad at lunch. It's that delicious.

 

[Don Buddin's GS]

The Yankees aren't good, and they aren't getting better by Rany Jazayerli
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/10150907/the-new-normal-new-york-yankees
 

The convergence of Sox success and Spankee sucktitude makes the future all the more promising.

 

[ifmanis5]

The convergence of Sox success and Spankee sucktitude makes the future all the more promising.

And the Knicks are even more of a mess.

 

[NatetheGreat]

I enjoyed this Zach Lowe article about the NBA's record setting pace of three-point attempts and how defenses and rule-makers plan to handle it.
http://es.pn/18wJezR

 
 
This is classic Lowe. Tackles an interesting question in an evenhanded, openminded way, intelligently analyzes the games himself using both stats and video, and supplements his conclusions with interviews with knowledgable insiders. He's pretty much the ideal for what modern sportswriters should aspire to do consistently.

 

[Drocca]

I enjoy reading him more than I enjoy the NBA. A writer that engages you in something you don't care about has serious chops.

 

[The Social Chair]

2013 Roundtable with Zach Lowe, Jonah Keri, Sean McIndoe, and (the Ringo of the group) Bill Barnwell.
 
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/10161406/jonah-keri-zach-lowe-bill-barnwell-sean-mcindoe-year-sports

 

[jmcc5400]

Zach Lowe again, breaking down Indy-Miami:
 
http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/86563/12-takeaways-from-miami-indiana-round-2
 
He should be working in a front office, preferably in Boston. 

 

[NatetheGreat]

Zach Lowe again, breaking down Indy-Miami:
 
http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/86563/12-takeaways-from-miami-indiana-round-2
 
He should be working in a front office, preferably in Boston. 

 
Honestly, I'm shocked he hasn't been poached already. Both Hollinger and Sebastian Prutti parlayed "stat guy" sportswriter jobs into front office positions, and Lowe is better than either.

 

[ifmanis5]

He didn't mention the play where Wade crashed into two Pacers, flopped to the ground, didn't get a call, did a snow angel on the floor in protest while the play went the other way, then as soon as the next whistle blows he gets in the face of the refs to complain. I'd like to see that sequence broken down.

 

[mandro ramtinez]

He didn't mention the play where Wade crashed into two Pacers, flopped to the ground, didn't get a call, did a snow angel on the floor in protest while the play went the other way, then as soon as the next whistle blows he gets in the face of the refs to complain. I'd like to see that sequence broken down.


I'm surprised he didn't mention it, I've seen him rail about Wade's selfish whining on twitter a bunch of times.

 

[tims4wins]

Zach Lowe with an interesting look at how to eliminate the NBA draft lottery and the tanking problem: http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/86940/the-nbas-possible-solution-for-tanking-good-bye-to-the-lottery-hello-to-the-wheel
 
I could care less about the NBA, but just like his article on the 3 pointer, he writes about an interesting topic in a way that makes me want to read.

 

[joyofsox]

 
The Steroid Hunt
We know what MLB players were doing during the steroid era. Here's what baseball writers did.
By Bryan Curtis on January 8, 2014
 
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/10261642/mlb-hall-fame-voting-steroid-era
 

 

[Skeesix]

 
The Steroid Hunt
We know what MLB players were doing during the steroid era. Here's what baseball writers did.
By Bryan Curtis on January 8, 2014
 
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/10261642/mlb-hall-fame-voting-steroid-era
 
 

Posnanski wrote about this in his recent pieces on the hall, but what about the managers?
 
Tony LaRussa presided over the bash brothers in Oakland and McGwire's home run chase in St. Louis. How many of his career wins come from that? Is he going to face any pushback from Hall voters over that? If 16 people are going to vote against Maddux because "the whole era is tainted" then what about the managers?

 

[JakeRae]

Considering he's already been elected, I'm going to guess no on if he will face pushback from Hall voters.

And only two of the 16 have spoken out about why they didn't vote for Maddux. I'd be willing to bet the majority of the remaining 14 would be more along the likes of "if player X wasn't unanimous than no one should be".

There might be one or two who just felt their vote had greater utility elsewhere too.

 

[JimBoSox9]

Posnanski wrote about this in his recent pieces on the hall, but what about the managers?
 
Tony LaRussa presided over the bash brothers in Oakland and McGwire's home run chase in St. Louis. How many of his career wins come from that? Is he going to face any pushback from Hall voters over that? If 16 people are going to vote against Maddux because "the whole era is tainted" then what about the managers?

 
Yup.  The isolation of blame regarding steroids to the players has never been on clearer display than in this vote.  It's embarrassing and stupid and can't be harped on enough. 
 

Considering he's already been elected, I'm going to guess no on if he will face pushback from Hall voters.

And only two of the 16 have spoken out about why they didn't vote for Maddux. I'd be willing to bet the majority of the remaining 14 would be more along the likes of "if player X wasn't unanimous than no one should be".

 
Posnanski's article demonstrates that you're not likely to hear from the 14, either, as the No votes for Maddux (and the other slam-dunk guys) were overwhelmingly private ballots.  Combine the JoePos ballot article with the great Grantland look back at writers during the steroids era, and it's a group that collectively comes off as a bunch of massive cowards.

 

[NatetheGreat]

I'm not a fan of the new site design. Looks fine on my phone, but awful on my browser.