So the media now has angst in it's pants over President Bush's release of classified intelligence information to counter the false information Joseph Wilson was spreading about Iraq's attempts to purchase enriched uranium. That's bad you see because the public has no right to know the truth--unless it sells newspapers! And it's bad because it was political! Verrry baaaad! It's only good to illegally release classified information for political purposes!
I think I understand now. Governor pardons prisoner: bad; prison guard helps prisoner escape: good. Getting a bonus from your boss: bad; stealing from your company: good. A slight inversion of perspective clarifies the matter greatly!
Friday, April 07, 2006
Tuesday, April 04, 2006
I Alone Escaped McNulty's Clutches
In the summer of 1994, before my final semester at Grove City College, I served as a congressional intern for Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA). The internship program included a weekly public policy seminar with GCC alumnus Paul McNulty, then counsel for D.C. law firm Shaw, Pittman, Potts, and Trowbridge and previously spokesman for the Bush (senior) Justice Department.
At the time Paul was mulling a 1995 run for the Virginia House of Delegates. As the two of us got on reasonably well, and as I had worked on a winning 1993 campaign, and as I happened to be the only GCC intern from the Northern Virginia area, he asked if I might be interested in managing his campaign. Then came Newt Gingrich, the Contract with America, and the GOP tide which rolled over all of Washington in early 1995. Paul moved on to become chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, and I went in another direction entirely.
I watched with interest as Paul moved on to become the U.S. Attorney prosecuting John Walker Lindh, Zacharias Moussaoui, and other high-profile terror suspects. But I completely missed his rise to Deputy Attorney General until reading about the Moussaoui death penalty decision today. So on the one-in-a-million chance that you read this while googling yourself, congratulations, Paul.
You know you've arrived when you're important enough to be gratuitously villified by the looney leftists at the Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo, and others. They were certain back in October that Paul "The Grinch" McNulty was a Bush loyalist being installed to axe independent prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald; and they seem genuinely upset about his bang-up job of prosecuting terrorists! The left's paranoid demonization of the Justice Department seems foolish enough most of the time; it's yet more poignant when you know and respect the target personally.
Keep giving the terrorists hell, Paul. Oh, and how about a tip for an old acquaintance just before you impose the police state?
At the time Paul was mulling a 1995 run for the Virginia House of Delegates. As the two of us got on reasonably well, and as I had worked on a winning 1993 campaign, and as I happened to be the only GCC intern from the Northern Virginia area, he asked if I might be interested in managing his campaign. Then came Newt Gingrich, the Contract with America, and the GOP tide which rolled over all of Washington in early 1995. Paul moved on to become chief counsel to the House Judiciary Committee, and I went in another direction entirely.
I watched with interest as Paul moved on to become the U.S. Attorney prosecuting John Walker Lindh, Zacharias Moussaoui, and other high-profile terror suspects. But I completely missed his rise to Deputy Attorney General until reading about the Moussaoui death penalty decision today. So on the one-in-a-million chance that you read this while googling yourself, congratulations, Paul.
You know you've arrived when you're important enough to be gratuitously villified by the looney leftists at the Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo, and others. They were certain back in October that Paul "The Grinch" McNulty was a Bush loyalist being installed to axe independent prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald; and they seem genuinely upset about his bang-up job of prosecuting terrorists! The left's paranoid demonization of the Justice Department seems foolish enough most of the time; it's yet more poignant when you know and respect the target personally.
Keep giving the terrorists hell, Paul. Oh, and how about a tip for an old acquaintance just before you impose the police state?
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Krauthammer Smartest Man Ever?
While browsing through the footnotes of Charles Murray's latest Commentary magazine essay on race and IQ differences I ran across an interesting bit of trivia on Charles Krauthammer: Murray mentions that one of the highest scores he's ever observed on the "backward digit span" component of the Weschler IQ test was 12 by Krauthammer (and under less than perfect conditions).
A quick search turned up this scoresheet and percentile distribution (PDF) for the digits-forward and backward tests, which involve reciting strings of random single-digit numbers back to the examiner. The scoring system requires adding forwards and backwards scores together, but helpfully notes that the average person can recite about two more digits forwards than backwards. To roughly extrapolate Krauthammer's full score we must multiply his digits-backwards score by two and add his estimated digits-fowards score times two (12 x 2 + 14 x 2), which equals 52.
Krauthammer's raw score equates to a standard score (one component of Weschler IQ) of....well the scale stops at 164 for a raw score of 36! The standard score increments a steady 3.5 points for every additional point of raw score so we can extrapolate a raw score of 52 to a Weschler deviation IQ of about 220! However, this would place Krauthammer at eight standard deviations above the mean (rarer than one in 100 billion), so I think we can safely conclude that A) Krauthammer is a very bright guy; and B) that either this test is not well-calibrated for extremes or that Krauthammer's every political opination is nothing less than a scurrilous defrauding of all mankind.
UPDATE: Oops! The scoring starts at two digits rather than one, so Krauthammer's extrapolated raw score would be 48 (11 x 2 + 13 x 2) and his standard score 206, which is "only" seven standard deviations above the mean.
A quick search turned up this scoresheet and percentile distribution (PDF) for the digits-forward and backward tests, which involve reciting strings of random single-digit numbers back to the examiner. The scoring system requires adding forwards and backwards scores together, but helpfully notes that the average person can recite about two more digits forwards than backwards. To roughly extrapolate Krauthammer's full score we must multiply his digits-backwards score by two and add his estimated digits-fowards score times two (12 x 2 + 14 x 2), which equals 52.
Krauthammer's raw score equates to a standard score (one component of Weschler IQ) of....well the scale stops at 164 for a raw score of 36! The standard score increments a steady 3.5 points for every additional point of raw score so we can extrapolate a raw score of 52 to a Weschler deviation IQ of about 220! However, this would place Krauthammer at eight standard deviations above the mean (rarer than one in 100 billion), so I think we can safely conclude that A) Krauthammer is a very bright guy; and B) that either this test is not well-calibrated for extremes or that Krauthammer's every political opination is nothing less than a scurrilous defrauding of all mankind.
UPDATE: Oops! The scoring starts at two digits rather than one, so Krauthammer's extrapolated raw score would be 48 (11 x 2 + 13 x 2) and his standard score 206, which is "only" seven standard deviations above the mean.
Thursday, February 09, 2006
State of Fear Still has Liberals Thrashing
Last night I became suddenly curious about the fate of Michael Crichton's last book, State of Fear . In case you aren't familiar with it, Crichton makes an unusual direct plea to his readers, through an author's note and scientific journal citations embedded in the text of his fictional story, that we resist global warming alarmism.
It's been more fun to read the hysterical liberal comments on Amazon (approaching 900 now) than it was to read the book. And I couldn't help but wonder: Would liberal anger at Crichton's apostasy keep this book from reaching the silver screen as his offerings so frequently do? I searched Publisher's Weekly and the Web for any mention of the sale of the movie rights, but found none.
I did, however, run across this fun diatribe against Crichton and State of Fear. The writer, Marc McDonald, manages to crank out 850 words, without even attempting to refute a single specific citation in the book. Instead, he points to the Three Mile Island nuclear accident and another fictional Crichton book, Rising Sun, to show why alarmism is good, and Crichton is wrong.
McDonald's use of Rising Sun to criticize Crichton's track record is especially inapposite. He says Crichton's now clearly inaccurate portrait of a looming Japanese economic threat leaves him no credibility on global warming predictions. But Rising Sun makes predictions only through its characters. There is no direct statement of Crichton's opinion; nor are there footnoted citations as in State of Fear. Crichton typically prods both sides when treating any sensitive issue; it's not clear what he really believed about Japan.
If Crichton did fear the Japanese, his opinions squared with the alarmist popular wisdom of the time. And perhaps he learned from that to consider more carefully and investigate more deeply before taking the popular, alarmist position again.
UPDATE: Marc McDonald responds in the comments below and gets his facts wrong again. He says:
Crichton has also posted the text of two entertaining speeches that give further insight into his thinking: Environmentalism as Religion and Aliens Cause Global Warming. He has quite low regard for those who determine the correctness of scientific theories by voting:
It's been more fun to read the hysterical liberal comments on Amazon (approaching 900 now) than it was to read the book. And I couldn't help but wonder: Would liberal anger at Crichton's apostasy keep this book from reaching the silver screen as his offerings so frequently do? I searched Publisher's Weekly and the Web for any mention of the sale of the movie rights, but found none.
I did, however, run across this fun diatribe against Crichton and State of Fear. The writer, Marc McDonald, manages to crank out 850 words, without even attempting to refute a single specific citation in the book. Instead, he points to the Three Mile Island nuclear accident and another fictional Crichton book, Rising Sun, to show why alarmism is good, and Crichton is wrong.
McDonald's use of Rising Sun to criticize Crichton's track record is especially inapposite. He says Crichton's now clearly inaccurate portrait of a looming Japanese economic threat leaves him no credibility on global warming predictions. But Rising Sun makes predictions only through its characters. There is no direct statement of Crichton's opinion; nor are there footnoted citations as in State of Fear. Crichton typically prods both sides when treating any sensitive issue; it's not clear what he really believed about Japan.
If Crichton did fear the Japanese, his opinions squared with the alarmist popular wisdom of the time. And perhaps he learned from that to consider more carefully and investigate more deeply before taking the popular, alarmist position again.
UPDATE: Marc McDonald responds in the comments below and gets his facts wrong again. He says:
Actually, Crichton doesn't at all deny the existence of global warming. His author's message includes the following personal conclusions:I wasn't primarily interested in going after Crichton's citations. I'm fully willing to admit that citations exist that support both sides. Instead I was more interested in challenging Crichton's central premise in the book: that global warming simply doesn't exist. One can argue about the extent of global warming---but it is positively ignorant to claim that it doesn't exist. The vast majority of the world's scientists believe that global warming is real. A small minority disagrees. If casting my lot with the majority of the world's scientists makes me an "alarmist" then so be it.
- Atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing, and human activity is the probable cause.
- We are also in the midst of a natural warming trend that began about 1850, as we emerged from a four-hundred-year cold spell known as the "Little Ice Age".
- Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be a natural phenomenon.
- Nobody knows how much of the present warming trend might be man-made. Nobody knows how much warming will occur in the next century. The computer models vary by 400 percent, de facto proof that nobody knows...I suspect that part of the observed surface warming will ultimately be attributable to human activity. I suspect that the principal human effect will come from land use, and that the amospheric component will be minor...Before making expensive policy decisions on the basis of climate models, I think it is reasonable to require that those models predict future temperatures accurately for a period of ten years. Twenty would be better....
- There are many reasons to shift away from fossil fuels, and we will do so in the next century without legislation, financial incentives, carbon-conservation programs, or the interminable yammering of fearmongers...
Crichton has also posted the text of two entertaining speeches that give further insight into his thinking: Environmentalism as Religion and Aliens Cause Global Warming. He has quite low regard for those who determine the correctness of scientific theories by voting:
He proceeds with a litany of historical cases where scientific evidence was ignored in favor of consensus, sometimes resulting in thousands of preventable deaths. And let's not forget, while treating McDonald's argument from authority, that the "majority of scientists" who sign vague statements of concern about global warming are often not themselves climatologists; Nor are they risking professional credibility or academic standing as they would by submitting a shoddy journal article or peer review. We don't judge professional advice received at cocktail parties by the same standard as that given in the office of our doctor or lawyer for good reason. It's the same difference.I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Coleman Still Guilty
DNA tests last week proved again that Roger Keith Coleman was guilty of raping and slitting the throat of his sister-in-law. I used the Coleman case as an example of the extreme gullibility of death-penalty opponents in my Deadly Innocence article. How long before the first Coleman apologist insists the test results were faked as they did in the case of James Hanratty in Great Britain?
Not surprisingly, the Associated Press article reporting the test results looks as though it was written with the opposite outcome in mind, leading with a reminder that DNA testing has freed many prisoners and focusing on demands by death penalty opponents for retesting in other cases:
Not surprisingly, the Associated Press article reporting the test results looks as though it was written with the opposite outcome in mind, leading with a reminder that DNA testing has freed many prisoners and focusing on demands by death penalty opponents for retesting in other cases:
DNA has the power to cut short nightmares. It can save an innocent man from the horror of life behind bars for a crime someone else committed. It can ease the public's fear of a murderer walking free and looking to kill again.
In the past 16 years, DNA testing has freed scores of prisoners found to be wrongfully convicted, resolved old mysteries including murders and rapes, and transformed the debate over the death penalty. It has shaken the foundations of the criminal justice system itself.
...
Advocates for reform remain convinced that there are other executions that need to be retested, sure that an innocent person somewhere along the way has been executed--even as prosecutors and courts have been hesitant to go back and revisit cases that juries and courts have deemed closed.
Death penalty opponents are desperate for hard proof that one innocent person has been executed. But they aren't likely to find any.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Hope for Skins in Seattle?
I've been tinkering with ways to quantify NFL schedule strength differences in terms of wins and losses. While working on that I noticed a timely tidbit last night that's worth sharing before tomorrow's big game.
Seattle's opponent win percentage this year is the third-lowest in the past five years (I've only compiled data back through the 2001 season). Washington, on the other hand, is tied with six other teams for the 16th toughest schedule over the same span. The tables below include Washington, Seattle, and several other 2005 teams.
The first table lists teams with the lowest opponent win percentages (easiest schedules). Notice that six of this year's playoff teams are on the list.
Over the past five years teams with an opponent win percentage of .400 to .449 averaged 11.2 wins. Teams with an opponent win percentage of .450 to .474 averaged 10.1 wins.
The second table lists teams with the highest opponent win percentages (toughest schedules). It includes two 2005 teams whose coaches were fired this year (Oakland and Houston), and one team whose coach would likely have been fired this year if he wasn't in the first year of his contract (San Francisco). The list also includes one of the best teams not to make the playoffs this year (San Diego) and another team that barely edged into the playoffs by winning its last five games (Washington).
Teams with an opponent win percentage of .550 to .599 averaged just 5.1 wins, and teams with an opponent win percentage of .525 to .549 averaged only 6 wins over this period.
Some other offhand observations: In 2003 Atlanta Falcons coach Dan Reeves was replaced with three games to go as the Falcons finished 5-11. Too bad for Reeves. He not only lost Michael Vick that year, but also drew one of the toughest schedules in the league. In 2004 Reeves's replacement Jim Mora, Jr. was hailed as the NFL's next great genius--after getting back his star quarterback and drawing the fourth easiest schedule in the past five years.
Fortunately for Redskins fans, Buffalo unceremoniously dismissed Gregg Williams in 2003 after he led his team to a 6-10 record against the fourth toughest schedule on the list below.
And then there's Tony Dungee who was dimissed from Tampa Bay after a 9-7 down year in 2001--against opponents with a win percentage of .535. Good thing for young genius Jon Gruden that Tampa Bays' schedule strength dropped to .480 in 2002, helping his team lock up home field advantage through the playoffs.
Oh, and remember that uncharacteristically bad 6-10 record Indianapolis compiled in 2001? Yep, they had an even tougher schedule than Tampa Bay that year, which led to the firing of Jim Mora (Senior) and the hiring of Tony Dungee. And round and round we go!
I didn't include win-loss records but Washington is the only team on the toughest-schedules list to win 10 games and reach the playoffs. The Redskins may have improved more this year than is readily apparent: Last year's 6-10 record and dismal offensive performance were achieved against a much weaker schedule (.477 opponent win percentage) than this year's 10-6 mark.
Current Washington Post Redskins stories: Seattle to Washington; Seattle all Smiles; Taylor Trial Update; Uneasy Truce; Yes, Taylor Brazen Liar; Seattle Waiting; Holmgren Loser; Getting D; Prioleau Grabs Chance; Brunell Odd; Kicking Bad Habits; Focus on Offense; Kornheiser; Griffin Difference Maker; City Powerless
Lowest Opponent Win Percentages Since 2001
Seattle's opponent win percentage this year is the third-lowest in the past five years (I've only compiled data back through the 2001 season). Washington, on the other hand, is tied with six other teams for the 16th toughest schedule over the same span. The tables below include Washington, Seattle, and several other 2005 teams.
The first table lists teams with the lowest opponent win percentages (easiest schedules). Notice that six of this year's playoff teams are on the list.
Over the past five years teams with an opponent win percentage of .400 to .449 averaged 11.2 wins. Teams with an opponent win percentage of .450 to .474 averaged 10.1 wins.
The second table lists teams with the highest opponent win percentages (toughest schedules). It includes two 2005 teams whose coaches were fired this year (Oakland and Houston), and one team whose coach would likely have been fired this year if he wasn't in the first year of his contract (San Francisco). The list also includes one of the best teams not to make the playoffs this year (San Diego) and another team that barely edged into the playoffs by winning its last five games (Washington).
Teams with an opponent win percentage of .550 to .599 averaged just 5.1 wins, and teams with an opponent win percentage of .525 to .549 averaged only 6 wins over this period.
Some other offhand observations: In 2003 Atlanta Falcons coach Dan Reeves was replaced with three games to go as the Falcons finished 5-11. Too bad for Reeves. He not only lost Michael Vick that year, but also drew one of the toughest schedules in the league. In 2004 Reeves's replacement Jim Mora, Jr. was hailed as the NFL's next great genius--after getting back his star quarterback and drawing the fourth easiest schedule in the past five years.
Fortunately for Redskins fans, Buffalo unceremoniously dismissed Gregg Williams in 2003 after he led his team to a 6-10 record against the fourth toughest schedule on the list below.
And then there's Tony Dungee who was dimissed from Tampa Bay after a 9-7 down year in 2001--against opponents with a win percentage of .535. Good thing for young genius Jon Gruden that Tampa Bays' schedule strength dropped to .480 in 2002, helping his team lock up home field advantage through the playoffs.
Oh, and remember that uncharacteristically bad 6-10 record Indianapolis compiled in 2001? Yep, they had an even tougher schedule than Tampa Bay that year, which led to the firing of Jim Mora (Senior) and the hiring of Tony Dungee. And round and round we go!
I didn't include win-loss records but Washington is the only team on the toughest-schedules list to win 10 games and reach the playoffs. The Redskins may have improved more this year than is readily apparent: Last year's 6-10 record and dismal offensive performance were achieved against a much weaker schedule (.477 opponent win percentage) than this year's 10-6 mark.
Current Washington Post Redskins stories: Seattle to Washington; Seattle all Smiles; Taylor Trial Update; Uneasy Truce; Yes, Taylor Brazen Liar; Seattle Waiting; Holmgren Loser; Getting D; Prioleau Grabs Chance; Brunell Odd; Kicking Bad Habits; Focus on Offense; Kornheiser; Griffin Difference Maker; City Powerless
Lowest Opponent Win Percentages Since 2001
| Rank | Year | Team | Opp Win Pct |
| 1 | 2001 | Pittsburgh | 0.418 |
| 2003 | Kansas City | 0.418 | |
| 3 | 2005 | Seattle | 0.430 |
| 4 | 2001 | Green Bay | 0.434 |
| 2003 | St. Louis | 0.434 | |
| 2004 | Atlanta | 0.434 | |
| 7 | 2001 | Arizona | 0.445 |
| 2003 | Carolina | 0.445 | |
| 2004 | Seattle | 0.445 | |
| 10 | 2001 | New England | 0.449 |
| 2002 | Green Bay | 0.449 | |
| 2005 | Carolina | 0.449 | |
| 2005 | Tampa Bay | 0.449 | |
| 14 | 2001 | Seattle | 0.453 |
| 2004 | Philadelphia | 0.453 | |
| 16 | 2003 | Baltimore | 0.457 |
| 2003 | Cincinnati | 0.457 | |
| 2003 | Minnesota | 0.457 | |
| 2004 | Green Bay | 0.457 | |
| 2005 | Chicago | 0.457 | |
| 2005 | Indianapolis | 0.457 | |
| 2005 | Miami | 0.457 | |
| 23 | 2003 | Dallas | 0.461 |
| 2004 | Arizona | 0.461 | |
| 25 | 2001 | Chicago | 0.465 |
| 2001 | San Francisco | 0.465 | |
| 2003 | Seattle | 0.465 | |
| 2004 | Chicago | 0.465 | |
| 2004 | New Orleans | 0.465 | |
| 2005 | Jacksonville | 0.465 |
Highest Opponent Win Percentages Since 2001
| Rank | Year | Team | Opp Win Pct |
| 1 | 2004 | Cleveland | 0.590 |
| 2 | 2001 | Detroit | 0.582 |
| 3 | 2001 | Carolina | 0.574 |
| 4 | 2003 | Buffalo | 0.570 |
| 2003 | Houston | 0.570 | |
| 2004 | Oakland | 0.570 | |
| 7 | 2001 | Indianapolis | 0.563 |
| 2005 | San Diego | 0.559 | |
| 9 | 2003 | NY Giants | 0.555 |
| 2004 | Miami | 0.555 | |
| 11 | 2004 | Baltimore | 0.551 |
| 2004 | Kansas City | 0.551 | |
| 13 | 2003 | Arizona | 0.543 |
| 2003 | Jacksonville | 0.543 | |
| 2004 | Cincinnati | 0.543 | |
| 16 | 2002 | Cincinnati | 0.539 |
| 2003 | Atlanta | 0.539 | |
| 2003 | Cleveland | 0.539 | |
| 2005 | Oakland | 0.539 | |
| 2005 | San Francisco | 0.539 | |
| 2005 | Washington | 0.539 | |
| 22 | 2001 | Tampa Bay | 0.535 |
| 2003 | Detroit | 0.535 | |
| 2005 | Houston | 0.535 |
Thursday, January 12, 2006
CAP = KKK
I haven't paid much attention to the Alito Supreme Court nomination hearings. Once you know a little about the nominee the process quickly becomes quite tedious--aside from the occasional comic relief from Senatorial buffoonery. But I just can't refrain from pointing out this comment left on the Washington Post Campaign for the Supreme Court blog because it captures so perfectly the degree to which some on the left believe their own anti-Alito propaganda:
I love that! Membership in Concerned Alumni of Princeton, a conservative group supporting a mismash of causes from getting ROTC back on campus to keeping women off, is equivalent to membership in the most murderously racist organization in American history! And of course Senator Byrd's affinity for the Klu Klux Klan went far beyond mere membership: In 1942 he single-handedly signed up 150 new members and assumed leadership of the inaugural chapter of the KKK in Crab Orchard, West Virginia.I always find it interesting how often republicans and conservatives bring up Sen. Byrd's KKK membership way back in the day, but when memberships in similiar orgs like CAP are brought up then somehow it's out of bounds
Sunday, January 08, 2006
Thickening Gibberish
Something about playoff time in the NFL spurs sportswriters to fill their pages with ever thicker helpings of gibberish. I've been in the mood to bash them recently so here's another round.
NFL.com asked its stable of writers to predict playoff winners for this weekend through the Super Bowl. And boy is there a lot of gibberish. Green Bay Packers safety Darren Sharper notices that Redskins quarterback Mark Brunell and Buccaneers quarterback Chris Simms are similar...and different. After a lot of back and forth he gives the edge to Brunell because of his greater 'playoff experience'. (Do the rules change in the playoffs?)
Simms passed for five times as many yards as Brunell today--so much for playoff experience. Simms did throw one more interception than Brunell--perhaps with a little more experience he'll learn that's a bad thing to do in the playoffs.
Sharper predicted Cliinton Portis would have a big day against the Bucs because that's what he did last time. Portis didn't get the message--he finished with 16 carrys for 53 yards.
Sharper believes the Redskins had the 'momentum' edge against the Bucs after winning their previous five games. Lincoln Kennedy likes the Skins chances against Seattle but is worried that Washington has "expended too much energy just getting to the playoffs". On the other hand, at least they haven't needed to 'rebound from a tough loss'!
(Hmm. I think understand this: Wins give you momentum and make you harder to stop, but they take a lot of energy. When your energy runs out you slow down and become easier to beat. If the Redskins have enough fuel in their tanks they'll reach the Super Bowl. And Joe Gibbs owns a champion NASCAR pit crew so he'll never let his football team run out of gas!)
Today's Wall Street Journal (yes they do have a sports page) gets the gibberish of the week award. A chart in the print edition (not sure if it's online--their site requires a subscription) shows the top-seeded playoff teams and ultimate Super Bowl contenders for the past ten years. Its caption reads:
You'd think a newspaper with over two million daily readers could afford a few numerical literates amongst its fact-checkers!
NFL.com asked its stable of writers to predict playoff winners for this weekend through the Super Bowl. And boy is there a lot of gibberish. Green Bay Packers safety Darren Sharper notices that Redskins quarterback Mark Brunell and Buccaneers quarterback Chris Simms are similar...and different. After a lot of back and forth he gives the edge to Brunell because of his greater 'playoff experience'. (Do the rules change in the playoffs?)
Simms passed for five times as many yards as Brunell today--so much for playoff experience. Simms did throw one more interception than Brunell--perhaps with a little more experience he'll learn that's a bad thing to do in the playoffs.
Sharper predicted Cliinton Portis would have a big day against the Bucs because that's what he did last time. Portis didn't get the message--he finished with 16 carrys for 53 yards.
Sharper believes the Redskins had the 'momentum' edge against the Bucs after winning their previous five games. Lincoln Kennedy likes the Skins chances against Seattle but is worried that Washington has "expended too much energy just getting to the playoffs". On the other hand, at least they haven't needed to 'rebound from a tough loss'!
(Hmm. I think understand this: Wins give you momentum and make you harder to stop, but they take a lot of energy. When your energy runs out you slow down and become easier to beat. If the Redskins have enough fuel in their tanks they'll reach the Super Bowl. And Joe Gibbs owns a champion NASCAR pit crew so he'll never let his football team run out of gas!)
Today's Wall Street Journal (yes they do have a sports page) gets the gibberish of the week award. A chart in the print edition (not sure if it's online--their site requires a subscription) shows the top-seeded playoff teams and ultimate Super Bowl contenders for the past ten years. Its caption reads:
But the chart demonstrates exactly the opposite of what its caption implies! Yes, only nine of 20 teams in the past ten Super Bowls were top-seeds, but there were five times as many lower-seeded teams in the pool. Nine of 20 top-seeded teams (45 percent) reached the Super Bowl while only 11 of 100 lower-seeded teams did (11 percent). Top-seeded teams are actually four times as likely to reach the championship game! Moreover, seven of the 11 lower-seeded teams reaching the Super Bowl were second seeds--meaning they had home field advantage up to the conference championship game.While much is made of the value of getting the top seed--and it's accompanying home-field advantage--in the NFL postseason, recent history shows that teams with home-field advantage throughout the playoffs made it to the Super Bowl less often than teams that had to win on the road.
...
From 1995 to 2004 in the AFC 3 of 10 teams with the No. 1 seed (home-field advantage) reached the Super Bowl. In the NFC over the same period, 6 of 10 teams with the No. 1 seed (home-field advantage) reached the Super Bowl.
You'd think a newspaper with over two million daily readers could afford a few numerical literates amongst its fact-checkers!
Saturday, January 07, 2006
Skins Beat Bucs?!
You know you found every bit of luck you needed to win an NFL playoff game when:
Washington Post Redskins stories: Who Needs Offense?; Springs to Return Next Week; Brown Still Alive; Seattle Up Next; Defense Scores KO; Good and Ugly; Shepherd Made Catch
- You set a new record for fewest yards of offense ever by a playoff winning team (120)
- Your opponent's yards per rush (3.0) are more than double your yards per pass (1.4)
- The other team gains over twice as many yards of offense (120 versus 243)
- Your quarterback's total passing yards (41) are barely more than your average yards per punt (38)
- Your total net passing yards (25) are less than the receiving yards of your opponent's backup tight end (Anthony Becht, 26 yards)
- You fumble three times and get them all back
- The other team fumbles three times and you run one of them back 58 yards for a touchdown (fumble returns are rare and fumble recoveries are considered about 1/3 as valuable as interceptions for this reason)
- Your star safety who's shutting down the other team's star receiver is booted from the game just after halftime for spitting in the face of another player while the referee is pushing him away (expect more stuff like this from Taylor)
Washington Post Redskins stories: Who Needs Offense?; Springs to Return Next Week; Brown Still Alive; Seattle Up Next; Defense Scores KO; Good and Ugly; Shepherd Made Catch
Friday, January 06, 2006
If They Can't Get Football Right...
It's when you read the sports pages, where all the facts and statistics are simple and readily available that you begin to realize how bad some newspaper writers are at getting their stories straight.
Thomas Boswell builds up the Redskins' chances of going deep into the playoffs in his latest column by emphasizing Joe Gibbs's past success at taking weak teams to the Super Bowl. To do this he tears down the 1987 Redskins to make them appear much weaker than they were, and builds up their competition to appear stronger than it was.
Boswell first runs through a litany of the '87 team's skill position statistics and compares them unfavorably with today's players. But Washington's stars only played 12 games because of the strike shortened season. (Did Boswell forget that? No, he mentions the strike early in the article.) Despite playing just 12 games Gary Clark managed to rack up 1066 yards receiving with a hefty 19 yard per catch average. Clark was third in the league in yards and tenth in TDs that year.
Ricky Sanders also managed to pile up 630 yards and average 17 yards per catch. Oh, and don't forget Art Monk who, despite playing just nine games because of injuries, snagged 38 balls for nearly 500 yards. And while Washington had only three pro-bowlers in '87, the offensive line starters for that year were selected for a total of 13 pro-bowls between 1981 and 1988, and the defensive linemen from that team went to six pro-bowls during their careers.
"Even the ['87] defense was none too special, allowing 19 points per game -- a bit more than the current Redskins (18)," adds Boswell. There's just one problem with that comparison, though: Point production changes from year-to-year in the NFL. The '87 Redskins were actually ranked sixth in the NFL in points allowed while this year's team is ranked ninth, despite allowing fewer points. More importantly, the '87 team ranked fifth in points scored versus this year's 13th place ranking.
Next Boswell builds up the '87 competition. He notes that the 13-2 49ers were hotter than today's Colt's, winning their last three games by 124-7 and that the '87 Bears had gone 40-7 over the three previous seasons. But again he has problems: Washington never played San Francisco because the 49ers were knocked out by the 8-7 Vikings who, by the way, also dispatched the 12-3 Saints (thank you very much).
Washington scraped by the Bears 21-17 on a 52-yard Darrell Green punt return TD, and returned home to edge the Vikings before blowing out the mediocre Broncos in the Super Bowl. The 10-4-1 Broncos had the second best record in a weak AFC that year (Cleveland went 10-5). And just how strong were those Bears? Well, it's true they were 40-7 from 1985-87, but four of those seven losses came in '87. In other words, they had the same 11-4 record as Washington (while scoring 23 fewer points and allowing just three fewer points than Washington for the season).
There's a big reason why wildcard teams usually fare poorly in the playoffs: Home field advantage makes a huge difference in the NFL. Washington probably has a slightly better than even chance of knocking off the Bucs Saturday in Tampa, but realistically they have a very small chance of going deep into the playoffs. Savor a good season and appreciate the foundation Gibbs is building for serious playoff runs in the next few seasons.
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Skins Recover the Playoffs
The Washington Redskins sealed their first playoff appearance since 1999 when Sean Taylor scooped up a fourth-quarter Eagles fumble, rambled 39 yards, and launched himself into the endzone. Taylor's score was the perfect capstone to a season nearly sabotaged by what must have been one of the worst strings of fumble recovery luck experienced by an NFL team.
After the first seven games of the season Washington had recovered just 4 of 26 fumbles on offense and defense combined. Their 15 percent recovery rate at that point was far behind the rest of the league and was extremely improbably. (The chances of recovering just 4 of 26 fumbles are 1 in 3,333--about as likely as tossing 12 heads in a row while flipping a coin.)
From that point to the start of today's game Washington recovered 20 of the next 29 offensive and defensive fumbles to move from worst (by far) to ninth-worst in the league. In today's game Washington recovered four of seven Philly fumbles, lifting their season recovery rate to 45 percent. (The NFL.com stats for today are confusingly contradictory--as of this writing they show five Eagles fumbles and four Skins recoveries on the team stats page; four Skins recoveries and three Eagles recoveries on the game stats page; and three Eagle fumbles and three Skins recoveries on the play-by-play page.)
The five teams with the worst fumble recovery rates through 15 games are Houston, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Green Bay, and Seattle--all tied at 38 percent. With this poor recovery rate and one of the toughest schedules this year the Texans are likely much better than their 2-14 record indicates. At the other end of the league are New Orleans, the New York Giants, Carolina, Atlanta, and New England with respective recovery rates of 69, 61, 58, 58, and 57 percent. That's bad news for the Saints who may be worse than their 3-13 record--perhaps why Jim Haslett is so eager to escape!
Current Washington Post NFL stories: Washington Monumental; NFL Playoff Schedule; Giants Clinch East; Gibbs Gamble Pays; Kornheiser; Boswell; Jenkins; Springs Questionable; Bucs Conversion Revisited; Kornheiser II; Wilbon II; Gibbs's Replacement to Stay; Fans Snap up Tickets; Gibb's Methods
After the first seven games of the season Washington had recovered just 4 of 26 fumbles on offense and defense combined. Their 15 percent recovery rate at that point was far behind the rest of the league and was extremely improbably. (The chances of recovering just 4 of 26 fumbles are 1 in 3,333--about as likely as tossing 12 heads in a row while flipping a coin.)
From that point to the start of today's game Washington recovered 20 of the next 29 offensive and defensive fumbles to move from worst (by far) to ninth-worst in the league. In today's game Washington recovered four of seven Philly fumbles, lifting their season recovery rate to 45 percent. (The NFL.com stats for today are confusingly contradictory--as of this writing they show five Eagles fumbles and four Skins recoveries on the team stats page; four Skins recoveries and three Eagles recoveries on the game stats page; and three Eagle fumbles and three Skins recoveries on the play-by-play page.)
The five teams with the worst fumble recovery rates through 15 games are Houston, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Green Bay, and Seattle--all tied at 38 percent. With this poor recovery rate and one of the toughest schedules this year the Texans are likely much better than their 2-14 record indicates. At the other end of the league are New Orleans, the New York Giants, Carolina, Atlanta, and New England with respective recovery rates of 69, 61, 58, 58, and 57 percent. That's bad news for the Saints who may be worse than their 3-13 record--perhaps why Jim Haslett is so eager to escape!
Current Washington Post NFL stories: Washington Monumental; NFL Playoff Schedule; Giants Clinch East; Gibbs Gamble Pays; Kornheiser; Boswell; Jenkins; Springs Questionable; Bucs Conversion Revisited; Kornheiser II; Wilbon II; Gibbs's Replacement to Stay; Fans Snap up Tickets; Gibb's Methods
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Mav's Armstrong Booed For Skins Support
Gotta love this if you're a Skins fan: Dallas Mavericks guard Darrell Armstrong was met with boos by the home crowd after shouting "How 'bout them Redskins?" before his team's game against the Timberwolves Sunday night. Armstrong, a North Carolina native and fervent Redskins fan, was also fined $1,000 by Mavericks managment.
Sunday, December 18, 2005
How Sweep It Is!
Last week the Redskins made one-third of their fumble recoveries for the season to edge Arizona. This week they made one-fourth of their interceptions and sacks for the season to crush Dallas and sweep the season series. Perhaps it's too little too late, but sweeping Dallas is a sweet salve to sooth the sting of a statistically stolen season if the Skins miss the playoffs!
UPDATE: With Atlanta's loss to Chicago tonight the Skins have moved back into the the last NFC wildcard playoff spot. Dallas, Minnesota, and Atlanta are Washington's main competition in the wildcard race and each of those teams has at least one very tough opponent remaining (Dallas vs. Carolina; Minnesota vs Chicago; and Atlanta vs Tampa Bay and Chicago). Without calculating the tiebreakers it seems the Skins have an excellent chance of making the playoffs even if they lose against the Giants or Eagles and finish 9-7.
Current Washington Post Redskins stories: Skins Mania; Wilbon; Kornheiser; Boswell.
UPDATE: With Atlanta's loss to Chicago tonight the Skins have moved back into the the last NFC wildcard playoff spot. Dallas, Minnesota, and Atlanta are Washington's main competition in the wildcard race and each of those teams has at least one very tough opponent remaining (Dallas vs. Carolina; Minnesota vs Chicago; and Atlanta vs Tampa Bay and Chicago). Without calculating the tiebreakers it seems the Skins have an excellent chance of making the playoffs even if they lose against the Giants or Eagles and finish 9-7.
Current Washington Post Redskins stories: Skins Mania; Wilbon; Kornheiser; Boswell.
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Satire of Life
Sometimes life seems like an extended satire.
I traveled to Roseville, Minnesota for work last week, and the "high-speed" Internet access at the Residence Inn there routinely took more than three minutes to load articles from major newspapers around the country. (Thus there was little time for blogging.)
While catching up on the mail this weekend I discovered that DHL has "lost" one of the data tapes my morgage holder routinely sends to Experian (the credit agency), so I should be extra careful about monitoring my accounts for signs of identity theft.
I bit futher in I found a letter from my employer requiring me to sign an updated benefits form--because a dollar amount on the old form was incorrectly rounded by 1 / 250 trillionths of a cent. You read that right: Someone bound by bureaucratic rules and lacking the authority to supercede them spent hundreds of dollars to print and mail corrected forms to fix a mistake that cumulatively amounted to less than a penny.
That last reminds me of a former employer who sent, over the course of a year, at least a dozen letters requesting that I mail them a self-addressed, stamped envelope to receive my last paycheck for seventy-some odd cents.
I traveled to Roseville, Minnesota for work last week, and the "high-speed" Internet access at the Residence Inn there routinely took more than three minutes to load articles from major newspapers around the country. (Thus there was little time for blogging.)
While catching up on the mail this weekend I discovered that DHL has "lost" one of the data tapes my morgage holder routinely sends to Experian (the credit agency), so I should be extra careful about monitoring my accounts for signs of identity theft.
I bit futher in I found a letter from my employer requiring me to sign an updated benefits form--because a dollar amount on the old form was incorrectly rounded by 1 / 250 trillionths of a cent. You read that right: Someone bound by bureaucratic rules and lacking the authority to supercede them spent hundreds of dollars to print and mail corrected forms to fix a mistake that cumulatively amounted to less than a penny.
That last reminds me of a former employer who sent, over the course of a year, at least a dozen letters requesting that I mail them a self-addressed, stamped envelope to receive my last paycheck for seventy-some odd cents.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Skins Fumble Beat
I haven't written about the Redskins or their fumble recovery problems for several weeks, but Football Outsiders has some interesting commentary in response to a reader question and in this week's power rankings.
In the first article FO shows that Greg Williams's defenses don't historically have problems recovering fumbles and also provides a breakdown of the typical offense/defense recovery rate for different types of fumbles. Offense has a big advantage recovering fumbled snaps (3/4); defense has a slight advantage recovering fumbles on runs or receptions (normally 5/8 but the defensive advantage grows when the fumble is far downfield); and sack-fumble recoveries are evenly split. Special teams fumbles aren't mentioned.
The Skins played a horrible game against Arizona and won anyway, in part because they won the fumble recovery battle decisively for the first time this season. Washington fumbled three times, recovering each one, and also recovered four of Arizona's five fumbles. On a day when Mark Brunell threw one-third of the team's total interceptions for the season, Washington was fortunate to also make one-third of its total fumble recoveries for the season. (To be fair to Brunell most of the int's were not his fault.)
Sunday's game demonstrated again the decisive role of luck in games between nearly matched teams--and why sports columnists are usually off their rockers when they call for a coach's head after his team loses a few close games or loses "the big game" a couple of times. Frankly, I thought some of the things written by Washington Post writers after the Skins' loss to San Diego (their third in a row) three weeks ago were ridiculous.
A glance at the standings shows that Washington has had a darn tough schedule this year, and that, in combination with poor fumble luck, will likely cost them a playoff spot. Clearly the team has serious flaws--such as poor depth at defensive line and wide receiver. But they've also made more progress this year than credited by the press and fans. And the team is still fixing problems from the pre-Gibbs, Snyder era.
One of these problems was Lavar Arrington's notion that his whirlybird rides with Snyder made him the "face of the team" and exempt from team rules. Another was granting Laveranues Coles the freedom to exchange his statistical "penury" with Washington (2nd most passes in the league, 6th most catches) for "riches" with the New York Jets (17th most passes, 21st most catches, same 10.6 yard average). Coles's move up cost Washington about nine million dollars in salary cap penalties--certainly enough to shop for a star defensive lineman and a solid receiver.
I've been working on a way to quantify how many wins a tough schedule costs the average team, and I hope to have my initial findings polished up and ready to post in the next few days. My model shows that the Skins have made decent--but not great--progress this year. However, if you grant that poor fumble luck cost Washington just one win they become one of the most improved teams in the league this year. One more tidbit: If last year's Skins played this year's schedule they would likely have between four and five wins at this point, instead of the seven wins they do have.
In the first article FO shows that Greg Williams's defenses don't historically have problems recovering fumbles and also provides a breakdown of the typical offense/defense recovery rate for different types of fumbles. Offense has a big advantage recovering fumbled snaps (3/4); defense has a slight advantage recovering fumbles on runs or receptions (normally 5/8 but the defensive advantage grows when the fumble is far downfield); and sack-fumble recoveries are evenly split. Special teams fumbles aren't mentioned.
The Skins played a horrible game against Arizona and won anyway, in part because they won the fumble recovery battle decisively for the first time this season. Washington fumbled three times, recovering each one, and also recovered four of Arizona's five fumbles. On a day when Mark Brunell threw one-third of the team's total interceptions for the season, Washington was fortunate to also make one-third of its total fumble recoveries for the season. (To be fair to Brunell most of the int's were not his fault.)
Sunday's game demonstrated again the decisive role of luck in games between nearly matched teams--and why sports columnists are usually off their rockers when they call for a coach's head after his team loses a few close games or loses "the big game" a couple of times. Frankly, I thought some of the things written by Washington Post writers after the Skins' loss to San Diego (their third in a row) three weeks ago were ridiculous.
A glance at the standings shows that Washington has had a darn tough schedule this year, and that, in combination with poor fumble luck, will likely cost them a playoff spot. Clearly the team has serious flaws--such as poor depth at defensive line and wide receiver. But they've also made more progress this year than credited by the press and fans. And the team is still fixing problems from the pre-Gibbs, Snyder era.
One of these problems was Lavar Arrington's notion that his whirlybird rides with Snyder made him the "face of the team" and exempt from team rules. Another was granting Laveranues Coles the freedom to exchange his statistical "penury" with Washington (2nd most passes in the league, 6th most catches) for "riches" with the New York Jets (17th most passes, 21st most catches, same 10.6 yard average). Coles's move up cost Washington about nine million dollars in salary cap penalties--certainly enough to shop for a star defensive lineman and a solid receiver.
I've been working on a way to quantify how many wins a tough schedule costs the average team, and I hope to have my initial findings polished up and ready to post in the next few days. My model shows that the Skins have made decent--but not great--progress this year. However, if you grant that poor fumble luck cost Washington just one win they become one of the most improved teams in the league this year. One more tidbit: If last year's Skins played this year's schedule they would likely have between four and five wins at this point, instead of the seven wins they do have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)