VPFL Playoffs first round

52 Judean Front (10-4)
42 Bane Silvers (7-6-1)

102 Alamo City Spartans (10-4)
69 Mounds View Meerkats (8-6)

Ah well. Another year, another first-round exit. I can’t say I’m too surprised, but it’s a bit annoying to again lose while outscoring both teams in the other side of the bracket. And no one can argue that the Front and the Spartans have been the two teams to beat this year; the failure to get any serious production out of Clinton Portis, Greg Jennings, and Matt Forte really hurt me, as did the mid-season collapse of the New York Giants defense.

VP-AFL

116.70 AZ Hammeroids (8-6)
114.65 Lesbian Dorito Night (9-5)

122.65 The Thunder (8-6)
99.10 Brave Sir Robins (10-4)

Two big upsets in the Alumni league, as blog favorites Lesbian Dorito Night complete their late-season collapse and Brave Sir Robins end their season in classic Meerkats 08 manner. Here’s hoping that the Vikes don’t follow suit today; we need that first-round bye.


VPFL Playoffs Round One

Judean Front (10-4)
Bane Silvers (7-6-1)

Alamo City Spartans (10-4)
Mounds View Meerkats (8-6)

It looks like another one-and-out for the Meerkats, although that’s less disappointing this year. Getting no performance out of two of my three keepers – Clinton Portis and Greg Jennings – and making a terrible blunder by picking up Mario Manningham instead of Steve Smith (NYG) left me scrabbling to fill my roster from week to week. With every starter but one playing on the road and the Spartans up 30-7 already thanks to early points from MJD and Miles Austin, I’m just hoping to keep it halfway respectable. Besides, everyone would be disappointed to miss the big showdown between the Spartans and the Front.

The Saints have blown their perfect season, I expect the Colts will next week. I’m just hoping the Saints drop another one while the Vikes win out and claim home-field advantage.


VPFL Week 14

64 Mounds View Meerkats (8-5)
50 Judean Front (10-3)

71 Masonville Marauders
61 Alamo City Spartans (9-4)

78 Valders Valkyries (6-7)
61 Winston Reverends (6-7)

89 Burns Redbeards (4-9)
58 Black Mouth Curs (5-8)

56 Bane Silvers (7-6)
41 Greenfield Grizzlies (4-9)

The Meerkats are in the playoffs for the third year out of four, but I have to say that they have never looked less likely to win it all. The Piranha of the Serengeti are stumbling toward the finish, with copious injuries and possibly the weakest collection of WRs in the league. Still, it was a big win last week over the powerful Judean Front; this week’s question is whether to start Percy Harvin or not. Rookies tend to wear down during the final four games, after all.

I have to admit, I’m just a little bit concerned about the Vikes. I’m not worried… but I am concerned. A strong performance against the Bengals today would be very encouraging.


VPFL week 12

97 Judean Front (10-2)
25 Valders Valkyries (5-7)

48 Alamo City Spartans (9-3)
44 Burns Redbeards (3-9)

79 Mounds View Meerkats (7-5)
64 Masonville Marauders (5-7)

79 Winston Reverends (6-6)
69 Bane Silvers (6-6)

59 Black Mouth Curs (5-7)
50 Greenfield Grizzlies (4-8)

VP-AFL

98.85 South Plains Storm (5-6)
81.80 Lesbian Dorito Night (8-3)

112.55 Lambs (3-8)
79.25 Brave Sir Robins (7-4)

145.30 COS Paper Tigers (4-7)
101.10 Village Valkyries (6-5)

115.85 Ocean Sprayer (6-5)
113.50 Cranberry Bogs (5-6)

116.45 Supernaut’s Jihad (5-6)
114.45 The Choking Thunder (6-5)


I can’t wait

To see what the Sports Guy has to say about this column arguing for women playing in the NBA one day:

5 reasons to believe a woman will play in the NBA

• David Stern thinks it will happen. On Tuesday in the conference room outside his NBA office in Manhattan, I asked the commissioner whether we’ll see a woman playing in his league someday.

“Sure,” he said matter-of-factly. “I think that’s well within the range of probability.”

Speaking as a former NCAA D1 sprinter and martial artist, my opinion is that the Chicago Bears will start five women on the offensive line at the same time a woman wins a spot in the regular rotation of an NBA team. People understand that women are weaker, but they never seem to grasp that women are incredibly slow compared to men. And it’s not top speed where the difference is greatest, but quickness and acceleration.

Throw in the lack of durability, especially related to the female ACL, and there is no chance of this happening. One can’t rule out a woman making an NBA roster; if the Basketball Godfather elects to go a particularly stupid marketing route then I wouldn’t be surprised to see mandated female players. The truly interesting aspect to this article is the way it reveals the asinine extent to which male public figures are willing to go in order to be politically correct.


Digging deeper

Malcolm Gladwell simply isn’t smart enough to know when it’s time to throw in the towel:

First, the editorial in question made a number of other arguments that, I think, most observers would agree fall on one end of the nature-nurture continuum: that all IQ tests measure the same thing, that heredity is more important that environment in determining it, that group differences are relatively unaffected by schooling or socioeconomic factors. It also said that the IQs of different races cluster at different points, with the average IQ of blacks falling about a standard deviation lower than that of whites, and that these differences show no sign of converging over time.

Actually, first should have been Gladwell admitting that his statement about there being “no connection” between NFL draft order and quarterback performance is completely, utterly and provably false. But let’s summarize the points Gladwell makes in his continuing attempt to steer the discussion away from his egregious blunder by attacking “Stephen” Pinker. (The man’s name is actually Steven Pinker – you’d think Gladwell could get it straight by his second letter addressing Pinker’s criticism.)

1. Something Gladwell thinks about what most people would agree about an article. Who cares what Gladwell thinks about what people would agree with or not? And what does this old editorial have to do with Gladwell’s hypothesis about NFL quarterbacks anyhow? Irrelevant.

2. Only one-third of the editorial board signed the statement. BFD, especially since Gladwell doesn’t know the others “declined” to sign it, he only knows they didn’t sign it. Conclusion unsupported by facts.

3. The editorial appeared in the Wall Street Journal! Well, then it must be false, right? Genetic fallacy. And still irrelevant.

4. 14 of 52 signatories had received funding from an organization that Gladwell doesn’t like. Genetic fallacy #2. And, yes, still irrelevant.

5. I don’t know enough about a 1996 APA report on intelligence to judge if Gladwell’s summary of it is correct or not. But regardless, what does what Gladwell describes as its oppposition to “IQ fundamentalism” have to do with NFL quarterbacks and draft position anyway? All Gladwell has managed to prove proves is how far he is willing to stray from the original subject in attempting to poison the well against Pinker’s correct criticism of his egregious blunder regarding NFL quarterbacks.

However, Steve Sailer insists that there is method to Gladwell’s seeming madness:

[Y]ou’ve got to admit that Gladwell has a point: if people can make more accurate than random predictions about which college quarterbacks will be better than other college quarterbacks, then they can make predictions about more politically incorrect things, too. Thus, Gladwell wages relentless war upon predictions, upon quantitative thinking, upon science, indeed, upon that ultimate evil: knowledge.

It is no surprise that Gladwell is predisposed to attack both knowledge and the scientific fact of inherited intelligence, given how it is eminently clear that the man doesn’t possess a great deal of either.


VPFL Week 11

93 Judean Front (9-2)
35 Winston Reverends (5-6)

93 Alamo City Spartans (8-3)
51 Greenfield Grizzlies (4-7)

71 Bane Silvers (6-5)
48 Black Mouth Curs (4-7)

68 Mounds View Meerkats (6-5)
55 Burns Redbeards (3-8)

82 Masonville Marauders (5-6)
99 Valders Valkyries (5-6)

Vikes are a bit banged up, but this is when having the best backup RB in the league comes in handy. I hope Chilly has the good sense to keep AD on the bench, let him get healthy, and ride Chester Taylor to a win over a collapsing Chicago team.


The Sports Guy suspended… from Twitter

In case you weren’t already convinced that ESPN has gone mad with its market power:

ESPN.com columnist Bill Simmons is serving an ESPN-imposed two-week suspension from Twitter, Steve Krakauer writes. ESPN.com editor-in-chief Rob King wrote a blog post on ESPN.com explaining the suspension, saying it was in reference to a recent Simmons tweet regarding WEEI. “We have internal guidelines designed to inform how we discuss the topic of sports media,” King writes. “These guidelines are important us, because they help maintain the credibility with which ESPN operates. No one knows the guidelines better than Bill Simmons, and he customarily works within these standards. . . . Regardless of the provocation, Bill’s communication regarding WEEI fell short of those standards. So we’ve taken appropriate measures.”

I wonder how long it will be before Simmons tells ESPN to take a hike. I suspect the suspension would have involved more than a two-week ban from Twitter if they weren’t afraid of his reaction. By the way, I should probably mention that WND hasn’t suspended me from Facebook, I just don’t find social networking as amenable as blogging.

The funny thing, beyond the intrinsic humor of someone being suspended from Twitter, is that you didn’t even have to click on the Instapundit link – “ESPN COLUMNIST SUSPENDED FROM TWITTER” – to know that it had to be Simmons.


VPFL Week 10

102 Burns Redbeards (3-7)
39 Valders Valkyries (4-6)

72 Judean Front (8-2)
63 Masonville Marauders (5-5)

91 Winston Reverends (5-5)
72 Black Mouth Curs (4-6)

75 Bane Silvers (5-5)
61 Alamo City Spartans (7-3)

52 Greenfield Grizzlies (4-6)
42 Mounds View Meerkats (5-5)

The Meerkats are struggling with the collapse of the NYG defense, so I traded Greg Jennings to Greenfield for Steve Slayton and Larry Johnson. Yes, it’s a desperation move. The big mistake of the season so far? Picking up Mario Manningham when his fellow Giant Steve Smith was available. That one blunder cost me two games so far. Here’s hoping Burns exhausted its point potential for the year last week, and that the Vikes simply put in a solid, workmanlike performance, don’t get anyone hurt, and put the Seahawks away by the end of the third quarter.

VP-AFL

126.25 South Plains Storm (4-6)
112.00 Supernaut’s Jihad (4-6)

93.45 Hetero Frito Pie (5-5)
66.20 Lambs (2-8)

107.15 Lesbian Dorito Night (8-2)
75.15 COS Paper Tigers (3-7)

127.65 Cranberry Bogs (5-5)
79.00 The Thunder (6-4)

106.15 Brave Sir Robins (7-3)
72.85 Village Valkyries (6-4)


Malcolm Gladwell is a whiny little liar

His hapless attempt at CYA isn’t going to convince anyone who isn’t already foolish enough to take the silly man seriously:

It is always a pleasure to be reviewed by someone as accomplished as Stephen Pinker, even if—in his comments on “What the Dog Saw” (Nov. 15)—he is unhappy with my spelling (rightly!) and with the fact that I have not joined him on the lonely ice floe of IQ fundamentalism. But since football has been on my mind these days, I do want to make one small observation about his comments.

In one of my essays, I wrote that the position a quarterback is taken in the college draft is not a reliable indicator of his performance as a professional. That was based on the work of the academic economists David Berri and Rob Simmons, who, in a paper published the Journal of Productivity Analysis, analyze forty years of National Football League data. Their conclusion was that the relation between aggregate quarterback performance and draft position was weak. Further, when they looked at per-play performance—in other words, when they adjusted for the fact that highly drafted quarterbacks are more likely to play more downs—they found that quarterbacks taken in positions 11 through 90 in the draft actually slightly outplay those more highly paid and lauded players taken in the draft’s top ten positions. I found this analysis fascinating. Pinker did not. This quarterback argument, he wrote, “is simply not true.”

I wondered about the basis of Pinker’s conclusion, so I e-mailed him, asking if he could tell me where to find the scientific data that would set me straight. He very graciously wrote me back. He had three sources, he said. The first was Steve Sailer. Sailer, for the uninitiated, is a California blogger with a marketing background who is best known for his belief that black people are intellectually inferior to white people. Sailer’s “proof” of the connection between draft position and performance is, I’m sure Pinker would agree, crude: his key variable is how many times a player has been named to the Pro Bowl.

First, describing an eigenvalue as an “Igon Value” is not a spelling error, it’s strong evidence that you don’t know what the hell you are writing about. It’s like an economist writing about Gross Domestic Prada; the nature of the mistake reveals the full extent of the ignorance. Second, as Steve Sailer points out, Gladwell did not write “that the position a quarterback is taken in the college draft is not a reliable indicator of his performance”, instead he claimed that there was “no connection between where a quarterback was taken in the draft… and how well he played in the pros.” This clearly reveals that Gladwell is not only ignorant of eigenvalues, but of the NFL as well. Yes, JaMarcus Russell sucks, as anyone with half a brain knew he would, but it’s not hard to note that the distribution of the excellent young quarterbacks in the league, from Eli Manning, Phillip Rivers and Ben Rothlisberger to Matt Ryan and Joe Flacco, was not random throughout the draft as it would be if Gladwell’s thesis was correct. When it’s Gladwell vs Football Outsiders, who are you going to believe?

Third, Pro Bowls are a perfectly reasonable measure of NFL excellence, the players’ voting bias towards past performance notwithstanding. More importantly, though, it’s only one of several measures that Sailer has cited, all of which demonstrate Gladwell’s ridiculous assertion to be false. And fourth, Gladwell’s attack on Sailer as a source for Pinker is nothing but a naked genetic fallacy and suffices to show what a scrawny little slimeball he is.