I don't know if this has been talked about yet, but it was so shocking I just needed to share.  We got our ESPN Magazine today and it’s The Body Issue.  I think the best way to describe it would be to say that it's a semi-nude collection of athletes, though the term is loosely defined.  Some are actually doing their sports, some are just posing; some are wearing clothes, some are posed with 'stategery.'  It's kind of interesting to see who they picked for it, like one of a table tennis player.  Anyways, my wife actually looked through it before I did and was showing me a picture of a woman with one leg and guess who I noticed on the page across from her…..

….

NELSON CRUZ!?!?! So odd. He’s holding a bat and is sweaty (most of the athletes are).  It's weird that is who got picked...I guess Tommy Hunter was busy.

Here’s a quote from Michael Young: “Nelly goes about 6’3” 230 lbs and is country-strong. We were in the weight room one day, and some guys were benching 315 lbs. Nelly walks in and says, “Let me hop in.” And he just starts pushing up 315 right away. Without stretching. As a warmup set. That’s just not what normal people do."

Link, though it's behind an Insider wall.

Ok, everyone, I've been around for a while, but this is my first post with graphs/pictures, so go easy on me if I don't do this correctly.

I was reading an interesting post over an fangraphs.com about run distribution.  In it they link to a previous article done by Dave Studeman over at The Hardball Times a while ago, which I read, but is a bit more involved.  The basic concept gets to something that I've seen Rangers fan discuss for a while:  Total runs scored is a good way to tell if an offense is good or not, but it always seems that the Rangers offense isn't quite as good as total runs suggest.  Now, undoubtedly, part of this is due to the RBiA effect.  These two links come up with another aspect of offense to consider:  variance.  Which is another way to say, sure scoring 30 runs in a game is great, but it doesn't help you the next game when you only score 2 runs.  So as a way to chart this, Studeman looked at teams from 2000-2004 to see how many times each team would score a particular number of runs.  

"For instance, if your league averaged five runs a game, and your team scored exactly five runs in every game, it would typically have a .600 winning percentage instead of .500, even though it had scored the average number of runs. That is the power of looking at distributions instead of averages."-Dave Studeman

To make a long story short (though the article is very interesting if you have the time), the most important runs scored (in terms of getting wins) are the 2nd-5th runs scored, followed by the 6th and 7th runs.  What I wanted to know was, how does this hold for the Rangers.  First, here is the Rangers run scored distribution (Rangers) and runs allowed distribution (Opponent):

via i40.tinypic.com

Now then, assuming that worked, what does that mean?  For those who didn't go through the Studeman article, the biggest thing to note is that this is skewed to the right.  Obviously, small sample sizes apply.  Anyways, a large part of the right skew is due to the fact that the Rangers simply score (and allow) a lot of runs.  However, it is also worth noting that the Rangers have scored 5 and 6 runs the most this season (40% together), more than they have scored less than 4 runs together (25%).  This is good in the sense that scoring more runs is good, but does lend some credence to the idea that the Rangers are boom or bust with their run-scoring.

Another topic I wanted to delve into concerns the fact that the Rangers allow runs in a similar manner to how they score them, namely a lot.  So, how does this change the importance of the number of runs scored from earlier (2-5 are most important, then 6 and 7)?  This is pretty striking, especially compared to league average, but remember that we're only 20 games in:

via i42.tinypic.com

This is only a cumulative look at wins.  It doesn't mean that the Rangers win 90% of the games they score 12 runs in.  It means that in the Ranger wins, they have scored 12 or less 90% of the time.  Why is that useful (since most teams have a high winning percentage when they score 12 or less runs)?  Compared to the league average winning percentage for 2000-2004, the Rangers don't win very many (or any so far) games when they don't score 5 runs. 

As a final note to this novel:  It could be argued that the Rangers feel the need to swing for the fences so much because their pitching is bad and thus they have to score 5 runs in order to win.  Remember though, that consistently scoring an average number of runs results in more wins (usually) than scoring the same number of runs with more variance.  There are some teams who are the exact opposite.  They score less runs, but get more wins out of the runs they do score.  While a majority of that is good pitching and defense, we can now see that there is another aspect that matters: consistency.

Last year, I (along with most people who followed the Cowboys) considered the defense to be great at stopping the run, very good at generating a pass rush, and mediocre to bad in coverage.  As the season went on, it became obvious that the coverage problems revolved around two main guys: Jacques Reeves (Houston has a problem) and Roy Williams.  The Cowboys spent the offseason upgrading the secondary with 2 draft picks and a trade, and could continue this by placing Roy Williams on the hot seat if his coverage doesn't improve this year.  However, by all accounts, this is already a very good secondary, probably top 5 in the league once everyone is healthy (Newman) and practiced (Jones, Jenkins, Scandrick).  So for most of us, the thought of a great defensive coach like Wade Phillips leading this collection of talent means that we'll finally see a domninant defense. I'm excited!

However, this recurring idea keeps popping up over the internet.  Apparently, the Cowboys do not have a very good pass rush.  Ummm...what?  Here are some places I've seen it:

From Bill Simmons:
Postscript: I nearly picked the Cowboys before remembering that they can't rush the passer.
Link

From Peter "Burger" King:
But my feeling is they'll put up enough points to make up for a just-OK pass rush.
Link

I don't understand where this idea came from, but it's surely not from facts, right?  The Cowboys finished the season with 46 sacks, third most in the league.  NE had 47, NYG had 53 (with that fake inflation from the "Winston Justice" game).  Also, DeMarcus Ware tied for 3rd most sacks with 14 (behind Jared Allen-15.5 and Patrick Kerney-14.5) with Ellis' 12.5 sacks tied for 6th most in the league.

So to review, we had the 3rd highest team total for sacks to go along with 2 of the top 6 pass rushers in the league.  But we have a weak pass rush.  Well....okay.

John Clayton had an article this morning talking about the draft class of 2013 that would theoretically include Favre, Sapp, Strahan (assuming he makes it, I think he will), and possibly Ogden (assuming he retires).  Here's the link.

Edit: Reading Peter King's column yesterday reminded me that Larry Allen and Junior Seau (assuming he's retiring) would also be in this class.

This got me thinking about the Hall of Fame, the league right now, and current Cowboys.  If you look at the contending teams of the past few years, it seems they all have a couple of players who are either locks for the HOF or have very good chances.  For example, New England (Brady, Moss, Belichick), Indy (Manning, Harrison probably), and San Diego (LT, maybe Merriman one day).  These are players who are first-pick Pro-Bowlers every year, often All-Pro, and have Player of the Year awards.

So here's my question: We all think of the Cowboys as serious Superbowl contenders (myself included), so are there any players on the team now who are considered strong HOF candidates?  Here's my list of guys, in order of my perceived strength of their HOF bids.

1. TO: Should be Top 3 in TD's by the end of his career.  2nd best receiver of this generation.  6 Pro-Bowls, 5 time All-Pro to go with what should be 1000 catches and almost 15,000 yards.  I think he's a lock either way, but winning a Superbowl solidifies his first-ballot status.  Prediction: Canton-bound.

2. Ware: He's young, this is more projection than anything.  I think he has the potential, but he has to maintain this level.  So far, he's been in the league 3 years and has been to 2 Pro-Bowls, and been All-Pro twice.  He's averaging about 11 sacks a year, meaning he would have to play another 10 years at this rate to reach Strahan's totals.  Like Strahan, he is not just a sack artist but is just as good in run defense.  Strahan was All-Pro six times, NFL Defensive player of the year once (NFC twice), and won a Superbowl.  All of these (especially the last hopefully!) are in reach for Ware, but he's got a long way to go. Prediction: Projecting a lot, but I say yes.

3. Romo: He will be hurt by 2 things: 1. He became a starter later than most, so he's got a couple less years of stat accumulation. 2. The competition at QB is always so tough.  Possibly also that he throws a lot of interceptions, but I expect that to improve.  Working in his favor, he's the QB of the Cowboys, so he gets plenty of attention and he dates really hot women, so he gets plenty of attention.  Uhh...moving on.  Jerry has put together a good team around him and should continue to do so, so he should always have the good receivers/TE's to throw at.  Assuming Red is the next head coach, I expect the offense to continue to put up big numbers.  But numbers alone do not assure a HOF ticket.  For QB more than any other position, postseason wins matter.  In the younger generation of QB's, he is in a battle with Big Ben, Carson Palmer, possibly Brees, and (UGH!) Eli Manning; only a couple will be picked and SB wins will probably matter most.  Prediction: Too much projection, too much competition, I just don't know.

4. Witten: Fortunately, the HOF voters usually look past just the big stats like sacks, TDs, receptions, etc.  I say this because Witten was not put into the same position that Dallas Clark or Antonio Gates was from the start (being more of a checkdown option than an actual deep threat).  However, he has steadily improved each year going to 4 Pro-Bowls and making his first All-Pro team last year.  I think he is a definite possibility, but he will need to improve on last year slightly and then maintain that level for a few more years.  It's tough for TE's to make it, but hopefully the writers will realize that the spread offenses have taken TE's into account more and put more of them into the HOF.  Prediction: Should be yes, assuming continued performance and the HOF voters wising up.

5. Flo: I just don't know.  I'd like to say yes, because he has been very good for a while.  But in his ten year career, he has only been All-Pro once (last year), and made 4 Pro-Bowls.  If the Cowboys win 2 superbowls and he All-Pro a couple more times, then maybe.  But as of right now, I think the penalties and lack of consistent excellent performance doom his chances.  Prediction: Sadly no.

Honorable Mention: Greg Ellis

If you made it this far, congrats! Now let me know what y'all think...

Here's a story about Jenkins from before his Senior game at USF last year from the St. Petersburg Times.

Mike Jenkins-St. Petersburg Times

A couple of interesting points about our new 6'0", 197 lb CB.  He chose USF because he wanted to be close to his family.  Not because he gets homesick as much as he took care of his mom and brother some while he was in college.  His mom has diabetes and didn't use to manage it very well.  He got clearance from the USF coach when he signed to make sure it would be okay if he had to go home sometimes.

Second, even though he had some incentive to get to the NFL as quick as possible (to help take care of his family), he listened to his coach and his mom and decided to stay an extra year.  He went from being a 5th-6th Round pick to a 1st round pick today. 

Good for the 'Boys.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3358557

ESPN is reporting that the Bengals have rejected an offer for Chad Johnson from the Deadskins offering this year's 1st (21st) and a conditional 3rd next year that could turn into a 1st.  It also mentions that the Eagles and Cowboys have been rebuffed.

I thought the Bengals were really going to trade CJ and were saying no just to drive up trade demand.  Now, I'm not so sure.  The big possibility that remains is them waiting until June 1st so they can spread out the cap damage.

This is really funny.  It's a blog that is aimed at helping minorities/foreigners understand white people.  They don't mention this, but they're really talking about rich, white liberals, but it's pretty funny anyways.  Check it out, it's funny to see how easily some of your friends will fit into this mold:

http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/

Here's the link: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/s...

I'm happy for Greg Ellis.  He did bother me with his complaining over the past two offseasons, but in both instances I could at least see where he was coming from.  I didn't agree the method he chose, but it seems to be modus operandi for most unhappy players in today's NFL.

I think that if you told Jerry what he would get from Ellis right before he drafted him, he would have been satisfied with it.  Maybe not happy, but definetly satisfied.  And to drag up an old argument again, I still don't know if you would be happy if you had Moss.  For two reasons: 1. Would he have worked as hard without the chip on the shoulder that he got from being drafted below where he thought he should be? 2. Would he be racking up those huge numbers on your team, or for someone else?  The Raiders got very little from him, the Vikings got historically good numbers and mediocre numbers frm him, and the Pats seem to have done well with it.  But who knows how it would have played out in Dallas?

Anyways, sorry to bury the lead.  Congrats Ellis.  And thanks Jerry for keeping him happy...

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7...

Gibbs is retiring.  

Honestly, I'm pretty suprised.  I thought that the success that they had this year would lead us to see him for the next couple of years.  In a way, it kind of reminds me of our situation with Parcells.  Parcells was great at putting teams together, but seemed to struggle in dealing with this generation of players, as evidenced by how many people were happy to see him go.  It seems like Gibbs has done a pretty good job of getting them into a better situation than they were in a few years ago (still not out of the woods), but he has made some key errors in managing games and can tend to get conservative when it comes to play-calling.  It's gotten them to where they are, but change is probably not a bad thing for this team.

I kind of hoped he'd stay because I don't think Gibbs outcoaches people very often, and that's the type of guy you want coaching your arch-rival.  Here's hoping DannyBoy picks someone worse..

Hey everyone, there is no link here.  Just me posting some of my thoughts on the Cowboys.

Being a big Cowboy fan and a student, I waste a lot of time reading "analysis" of the 'Boys.  Often times, I will pick up on something or be reminded of something that I had forgotten.  However, it seems to me that the Cowboys are getting respect for something that isn't entirely accurate, and aren't getting respect for something I think is incredibly important.  Here's what I mean.

Continue reading this post »