Uncategorized

In the 2004 remake of the movie Alfie, Jude Law plays a Manhattan playboy who casually sleeps with dozens of women but resists a real relationship, partly because he’s British and good-looking and just can’t pass up banging countless hot chicks, but more because he can’t be with a woman without seeing her flaws. “Hair on her arms,” he grumbles about one former fling, dismissing an otherwise knockout blonde due to an excess of follicles. He even throws away guaranteed happiness with a perfect 10 played by Marisa Tomei (still in her extended and perhaps infinite prime) just so he can maintain some nebulous sense of masculine freedom. It’s a classic character study of a commitment-phobe: Every time Alfie sees something good, he winds up running the other way.

Well, that’s exactly how I feel about college basketball this year. Every time I think about backing a potential NCAA tournament champion, all I can see are its flaws. The main difference between Alfie and me – well, other than the fact that he got laid six times a week, whereas I spent roughly four hours every day watching basketball for the past three months – is that Alfie was an idiot who couldn’t appreciate the beauty of what sat right in from of him. I, however, am not so deluded, as the objects of my affection – namely the 68 teams vying for this year’s NCAA title – are all more flawed than the characters in The Social Network. Read More

Simple rule: If I’m forced to go three consecutive days without watching a baseball game (I’m ignoring the fantastically pointless Midsummer Classic), I’m allowed to post about the preeminent performers in fantasy baseball thus far this year. It’s in the Constitution, look it up. Anyway, I won’t waste time with a detailed methodological explanation; check out last year’s post if you’re interested in the minutiae. I will, however, highlight a few minor changes from last year’s calculations. First, I’ve applied linear weights to all denominator-based stats (OPS, ERA, and WHIP), since these measures are averages rather than raw totals. Essentially, if two players have the same OPS but one has 200 at-bats while the other only has 100, the first player receives more weight for his OPS (either positive or negative, depending on its position relative to the mean). This is, I believe, an important improvement – kudos to my buddy Pat for the suggestion. Second, I’ve adjusted the steals multiplier to vary per position, so it’s now higher for speed-prone positions (shortstop, outfield) and lower for catcher and first base, where steals are virtually inconsequential. For the record, I tried eliminating the steals multiplier altogether but didn’t like the resultant data. The problem with steals is that the standard deviation is extremely high relative to the mean, so they wreak havoc with Z-scores; still, I think this accounts for them as appropriately as possible. Finally, the sample comprises 168 batters, 87 starters, and 44 relievers. For batters and starting pitchers, I used the standard qualifying metrics as provided by FanGraphs and ESPN. For relievers, I got a little creative and selected players who were either primary closers or frequently eligible for save chances, since saves are all anyone cares about from relievers in fantasy leagues (for the same reason, I applied a substantial multiplier to the saves category). Everybody got that? Good. Here we go with the Manifesto’s 2009 Fantasy Baseball All-Star Team:

CATCHER Brandon Inge, Tigers. But wait, you’re thinking – where’s Joe Mauer? Surely the selection of Inge is the result of the Manifesto’s anti-Mauer bias rather than any actual mathematical precision, yes? No. Mauer has been an absolute force thus far this year since he returned to the lineup … but he didn’t return to the lineup until the beginning of May. As a result, Inge leads Mauer in all categories other than OPS, and while Mauer holds a significant advantage in that area (1.069 vs. .876), it isn’t enough to prevent Inge from possessing the dominant Z-score. It’s a bit absurd, of course, since Inge isn’t a catcher, but he’s eligible at the position in fantasy leagues, and his 51 runs scored (second among catchers), 21 homers (tops at the position, and 21 more than he hit during Monday’s agonizingly long Home Run Derby), and 58 RBI (one behind Victor Martinez for the position lead) clearly place him at the top. But just in case you think I’m all about hating Joe Mauer, let me point out the following: Mauer has currently played in 64 games. Just for fun, let’s pretend that he wasn’t hurt earlier this year and was capable of producing at his current level for an entire season. If we prorate his numbers out to 146 games (his career-high games played), we have the following: 112 runs, 34 home runs, 112 RBI, and a 1.069 OPS. Not bad for one of the best defensive catchers in the game. Apologies to: Mauer, Victor Martinez (position-leading 54 runs and 59 RBI, 14 homers, .859 OPS. Read More

In sports, equality is overrated. Sure, the global economy might be in a crippling recession, but that’s nothing compared to the dwindling talent level in college basketball. By my count, no fewer than 11 teams have a legitimate shot to win the NCAA title this year. Eleven! Are you fucking kidding me? Do you realize John Wooden once won 10 championships in a 12-year span?

Think about this: The 2002 Duke Blue Devils – the best collegiate basketball team I’ve ever seen – won their games by an average margin of 19.5 points. This year’s top overall seed, the Louisville Cardinals, have an average victory margin of 12.3 points. That’s a staggering 37% decrease. Teams just can’t dominate wall-to-wall anymore.

For better or worse, the 2008-09 college basketball season is one of extreme parity, and while that might make for some competitive contests, it also signifies the lack of an Upper Crust – a truly elite group of teams that is all but guaranteed to dominate in the postseason.

I can’t decide if this phenomenon is good or bad. Read More

Fantasy football is by far the most popular fantasy sport around. This saddens me because, of the three major fantasy sports (baseball, basketball, and football), football is by far the worst. Its immense popularity can be attributed for the most part to its head-to-head format. Unlike baseball and basketball leagues, which utilize the Rotisserie format (whereby owners attempt to gain points in different categories, for the most part ignoring performance of other teams), in football two teams match up against each other every week. (Yes, I acknowledge that some baseball and basketball leagues employ a head-to-head system – I won’t get into exactly why this mechanism is flawed for those sports, but trust me that such leagues are reprehensible.) As such, every Sunday you wind up obsessively following not just your own team’s performance on an absolute basis, but how your players are faring compared to your opponent’s. Since you’re actively playing against a friend, sibling, or colleague, this mode of direct competition can be legitimately exciting.

Unfortunately, it is also completely unfair. The randomness inherent in head-to-head matchups often rewards inferior teams at the expense of superior squads, as teams’ schedules can be as crucial a component to their success as the talent of their actual players. By way of example, two years ago my friend Omar squeaked out an 8-6 regular season record and wound up making the playoffs, finished third, and won prize money; meanwhile, five other teams outscored him by greater than 100 points, only to finish 7-7 or 6-8 and watch the postseason from the sidelines (figuratively speaking). Similar inequities arise constantly in fantasy football – weighting matchups on a weekly basis will inevitably result in standings that range from mildly skewed to downright fallacious. Read More

The great thing about fantasy sports is that they provide you with verifiable data with which you can better insult people. I’ll readily label anyone who defends Darren Aronofsky’s The Fountain a complete moron, but those who disagree with me can always supply some half-assed, wildly pretentious defense about how Aronofsky brilliantly inverted the conventionally accepted apparatus of narrative filmmaking in order to achieve a greater level of surrealism. Yeah, that’s bullshit, but without any raw numbers to back up my point (other than perhaps to mention that watching The Fountain physically damaged my eyelids), I can’t categorically win the argument, so I wind up just getting frustrated/beaten up by someone bigger than I am.

(For the record, other movies that fall into this category include, but are not limited to, I Heart Huckabees, Elephant, The New World, and The Darjeeling Limited. And yes, all of these films received positive reviews – if not outright raves – from the New York Times. Just further proof that I could never be a professional film critic.) Read More