Much ado nothing. Rutgers may have a Division I basketball program, but it was never consistently competitive, with talented players going elsewhere to play ball. So the fallout and blowback to Rutgers and the NCAA is minimal. That's how it is in college sports, where no one in the high levels of the university, like the President is accountable. The folks who claim to have “integrity” in higher education are always the first ones to run and hide when things fall apart. As long as there's an athletic director and a lawyer to take the fall, the college presidents can avoid responsibility like they do for everything else. There's no leadership from the NCAA and college presidents, and all anyone cares about is keeping the money making aspect of college sports intact. Money that the athletes will never see, of course. Yes, many receive scholarships, but their entire college career is really about the sport that they play in, so that free ride to a degree does have a cost. The college presidents and whoever runs the NCAA? They certainly can't be bothered with minor issues such as the welfare and well-being of the student athletes.
The attention is all focused on Eddie Jordan now, and what he can do turn the basketball program around and recruit talented high school players. Too bad Rutgers didn't hire Jordan instead of Mike Rice the last time around.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
NCAA offers zero leadership
How does one get a job with the NCAA? How did they start and what is their purpose? I need to do some research. It seems like whenever there's some sort of problem in college athletics, like the Rutgers basketball situation, the NCAA doesn't offer any leadership. Their leadership is in their back pocket. It's in their wallet. I'd like to know what the salaries are for some of the upper level employees at that place.
In college football and college basketball, the coaches are the stars. How come coaches can get out of their contracts to take a job in professional sports, but college athletes have to sit out a year if they want out of their scholarship in order to go play at another university? How come coaches get paid whatever is remaining on their contract if they get fired, but an athlete's scholarship is renewed year by year?
I hope college athletes really enjoy the sport that they're playing. Wouldn't seem worth it otherwise.
In college football and college basketball, the coaches are the stars. How come coaches can get out of their contracts to take a job in professional sports, but college athletes have to sit out a year if they want out of their scholarship in order to go play at another university? How come coaches get paid whatever is remaining on their contract if they get fired, but an athlete's scholarship is renewed year by year?
I hope college athletes really enjoy the sport that they're playing. Wouldn't seem worth it otherwise.
Above the law: How come baseball players who fight on the field are not arrested?
Most baseball brawls start when a batter is hit by a ball thrown by a pitcher. The batter might charge the mound and assault the pitcher, and then all players and coaches from both teams dive into the fray. There's usually lots of pushing, shoving, and grabbing, and punches are thrown, but they don't always land on their intended targets. Once in a while a player is badly injured, as what happened recently with Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher Zack Grienke.
A question I have is, how come players who fight on the field are not arrested and charged, as they would be if a fight occurred off the field? Do baseball players, and other professional athletes, have some sort of immunity on the field? A lawyer out there has to answer this question for me. If two employees of a company have a fistfight in the office, the police are called, and someone might get arrested. How come baseball players can't be arrested? The field is their "office." It's still a public place. There's lots of witnesses.
Personally, I think guys who charge the mound after getting hit by a pitch are babies. Maybe if Carlos Quentin didn't stand so close to the plate he would not have led the National League in 2012 and the American League in 2011 in the "Hit By Pitch" category with 17 and 23, respectively. Batters who crowd the plate thinking that gives them and edge should be prepared to be moved away by a pitcher who is going to throw inside.
In any case perhaps the legal types out there can advise as to why pro athletes who fight on the field are never arrested.
A question I have is, how come players who fight on the field are not arrested and charged, as they would be if a fight occurred off the field? Do baseball players, and other professional athletes, have some sort of immunity on the field? A lawyer out there has to answer this question for me. If two employees of a company have a fistfight in the office, the police are called, and someone might get arrested. How come baseball players can't be arrested? The field is their "office." It's still a public place. There's lots of witnesses.
Personally, I think guys who charge the mound after getting hit by a pitch are babies. Maybe if Carlos Quentin didn't stand so close to the plate he would not have led the National League in 2012 and the American League in 2011 in the "Hit By Pitch" category with 17 and 23, respectively. Batters who crowd the plate thinking that gives them and edge should be prepared to be moved away by a pitcher who is going to throw inside.
In any case perhaps the legal types out there can advise as to why pro athletes who fight on the field are never arrested.
Yanks' Gardner not making a difference in centerfield so far
Baseball's sabermatricians often talk about range factor, zone fielding, and runs saved when calculating defensive statistics. I'm not sure if any of it actually translates into wins on the field for a team, but if it does matter, it doesn't seem like the Yankees made the right decision about moving Brett Gardner to centerfield and shifting Curtis Granderson to left field this season.
While it's somewhat of moot point being that Granderson has missed the first month of the season due to a broken arm and Gardner has had to play centerfield, since the Yanks have no one else who could really do it everyday, taking a look at Gardner's defensive stats seem to show that he hasn't made much of a difference.
In 19 games and 172 innings to date Gardner has been minus 6 in runs above or below average that a fielder is worth based on the number of plays made. Over the course of a 162 game season that means he would cost the Yankees 40 runs. Hardly the type of stat that you would want from your regular centerfielder. His current range factor is 2.30, only slightly above the league average of 2.26.
While it's obvious Gardner's speed allows him to cover a lot of ground and get to balls that other fielders would not, at the moment the statistics don't support the idea that he is an outstanding defensive centerfielder. On the other hand, it could mean that sabermetrics don't mean all that much. As long as the fielder doesn't make any obvious errors on fly balls or throws, perhaps the .04 percentage difference in range factor isn't going to translate into a championship for a baseball team.
While it's somewhat of moot point being that Granderson has missed the first month of the season due to a broken arm and Gardner has had to play centerfield, since the Yanks have no one else who could really do it everyday, taking a look at Gardner's defensive stats seem to show that he hasn't made much of a difference.
In 19 games and 172 innings to date Gardner has been minus 6 in runs above or below average that a fielder is worth based on the number of plays made. Over the course of a 162 game season that means he would cost the Yankees 40 runs. Hardly the type of stat that you would want from your regular centerfielder. His current range factor is 2.30, only slightly above the league average of 2.26.
While it's obvious Gardner's speed allows him to cover a lot of ground and get to balls that other fielders would not, at the moment the statistics don't support the idea that he is an outstanding defensive centerfielder. On the other hand, it could mean that sabermetrics don't mean all that much. As long as the fielder doesn't make any obvious errors on fly balls or throws, perhaps the .04 percentage difference in range factor isn't going to translate into a championship for a baseball team.
Thursday, February 28, 2013
The best Managers in New York Yankee history
10) Yogi Berra: In slightly more than two years as manager, Berra had a
192-148 record, for a .565 winning percentage. He led the team to the 1964 World
Series, but was stuck with a middling team in 1984, when George Steinbrenner
saddled him with mediocre players.
9) Clark Griffith: From 1903-1908 Griffith had a 419-370 record, a .531 winning percentage.
8) Buck Showalter: In 1995 Showalter led the Yankees to their first playoff appearance since 1981, a fourteen year drought. In four years at the helm he had a winning percentage of .539, with a 313-268 record.
7) Ralph Houk: Managing the team for 11 years, Houk led the Yankees as they went from the top of the baseball world in 1961 to its bottom depths in the late '60's and early '70's. He finished with a 944-806 record, a winning percentage of .539.
6) Joe Girardi: The Yanks have made the playoffs in four of Girardi's five years with the team. His record is 479-331, a .591 winning percentage, with one World Series title. Girardi has done a good job managing his pitching staff and bullpen.
5) Billy Martin: Taking five turns as manager, Martin ended up with a 556-385 record, a .591 winning percentage. The team won pennants under his helm in 1976 and 1977, taking the World Series title in '77.
4) Miller Huggins: With the game's best players in Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig on his roster, Huggins compiled a 1067-719 record, a .597 winning percentage, from 1918-1929. A monument at Yankee Stadium was erected in his honor.
3) Joe Torre: Torre led the Yanks to four world championships in 12 seasons, from 1996-2007. His 1173-767 record, a .605 winning percentage, demonstrates consistency while facing adversity as manager.
2) Casey Stengel: In 12 years from 1949-1960, Stengel won seven World Championships, plus three more American League pennants. His 1149-696 won-loss record gives him a winning percentage of .623.
1) Joe McCarthy: The longest tenured Yankee manager at 16 years, McCarthy holds the record for most wins as Yankee manager, and his 1460-867 regular season record gives him a winning percentage of .627, which is also tops among Yankee managers who were at the helm for more than one season. His teams won seven World Championships from 1931-1946.
source for statistics: www.baseballreference.com
9) Clark Griffith: From 1903-1908 Griffith had a 419-370 record, a .531 winning percentage.
8) Buck Showalter: In 1995 Showalter led the Yankees to their first playoff appearance since 1981, a fourteen year drought. In four years at the helm he had a winning percentage of .539, with a 313-268 record.
7) Ralph Houk: Managing the team for 11 years, Houk led the Yankees as they went from the top of the baseball world in 1961 to its bottom depths in the late '60's and early '70's. He finished with a 944-806 record, a winning percentage of .539.
6) Joe Girardi: The Yanks have made the playoffs in four of Girardi's five years with the team. His record is 479-331, a .591 winning percentage, with one World Series title. Girardi has done a good job managing his pitching staff and bullpen.
5) Billy Martin: Taking five turns as manager, Martin ended up with a 556-385 record, a .591 winning percentage. The team won pennants under his helm in 1976 and 1977, taking the World Series title in '77.
4) Miller Huggins: With the game's best players in Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig on his roster, Huggins compiled a 1067-719 record, a .597 winning percentage, from 1918-1929. A monument at Yankee Stadium was erected in his honor.
3) Joe Torre: Torre led the Yanks to four world championships in 12 seasons, from 1996-2007. His 1173-767 record, a .605 winning percentage, demonstrates consistency while facing adversity as manager.
2) Casey Stengel: In 12 years from 1949-1960, Stengel won seven World Championships, plus three more American League pennants. His 1149-696 won-loss record gives him a winning percentage of .623.
1) Joe McCarthy: The longest tenured Yankee manager at 16 years, McCarthy holds the record for most wins as Yankee manager, and his 1460-867 regular season record gives him a winning percentage of .627, which is also tops among Yankee managers who were at the helm for more than one season. His teams won seven World Championships from 1931-1946.
source for statistics: www.baseballreference.com
Yanks will regret signing Hafner
Signing Travis Hafner to a $2 million contract is one of Yankee GM Brian Cashman's sillier moves. Cashman, baseball's most over-rated general manager, is trying to make up for some of the team's lost home run production due to the departure of Nick Swisher, Raul Ibanez, and Russell Martin, as well as the absence of Alex Rodriguez.
However, Hafner has played in less than 100 games the past two seasons due to injuries, and at age 36 can hardly be expected to play 140 games a year, even if it's only as a DH.
Hafner hasn't played in the field since 2007, and hasn't even bothered to take ground balls at first base during spring training. He's unable to throw due to a past shoulder injury.
So Cashman has saddled Joe Girardi with what will basically be a 24 man roster - assuming Hafner doesn't land on the disabled list first. Hopefully the Yankee manager won't have to deal with any major injuries during games, or be involved in many extra inning games. If that happens Girardi may end up using one of his pitchers in the field.
However, Hafner has played in less than 100 games the past two seasons due to injuries, and at age 36 can hardly be expected to play 140 games a year, even if it's only as a DH.
Hafner hasn't played in the field since 2007, and hasn't even bothered to take ground balls at first base during spring training. He's unable to throw due to a past shoulder injury.
So Cashman has saddled Joe Girardi with what will basically be a 24 man roster - assuming Hafner doesn't land on the disabled list first. Hopefully the Yankee manager won't have to deal with any major injuries during games, or be involved in many extra inning games. If that happens Girardi may end up using one of his pitchers in the field.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
What's wrong with hiring an unemployed person?
I'd like to hear from recruiters and hiring managers about why they won't even consider an application or resume from an unemployed person. It seems as though they don't care about bringing in the person who can best do the job and contribute to their organization. Instead they get hung up on silly things, like the length of unemployment. People can be unemployed for any number of reasons; it isn't automatically a given that they are lazy, not up-to-date on skills, or some sort of "low performer."
The most important question in any job interview is "What is your plan for doing this job effectively?" (Or for a profit, if it's in private industry). Anyone can talk about their past accomplishments. But what does that have to do with how they will perform in their next job? Past performance doesn't necessarily predict future performance. Which is why length of unemployment should not be a consideration in the hiring process. Besides, does anyone stay in one job forever? Even your best candidates can leave a job - not only someone who is under-employed and looking for a better opportunity. Everyone is always looking for something better!
I'm not sure how hiring managers sleep at night, placing ads that state "only employed" need apply. So enlighten me, recruiters. What am I missing here?
The most important question in any job interview is "What is your plan for doing this job effectively?" (Or for a profit, if it's in private industry). Anyone can talk about their past accomplishments. But what does that have to do with how they will perform in their next job? Past performance doesn't necessarily predict future performance. Which is why length of unemployment should not be a consideration in the hiring process. Besides, does anyone stay in one job forever? Even your best candidates can leave a job - not only someone who is under-employed and looking for a better opportunity. Everyone is always looking for something better!
I'm not sure how hiring managers sleep at night, placing ads that state "only employed" need apply. So enlighten me, recruiters. What am I missing here?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)