Your First place Cincinnati Reds!!

Ok, its a three-way tie...still, the team is overachieving early this year, much as they did last year. The trick this year is to avoid the collapse of 2003, and continue to contend this season.

Most people thought we'd have a tough time splitting with the 'Stros, especially once we had absorbed Pettite and Clemens. Not so fast....the Reds won games started by both guys. It is especially satisfying given our embarassing performance in Houston a couple of weeks ago.

A sell-out was great last night, even if it was mostly to see the Rocket. That just shows these are baseball fans we're talking about. I saw the Rocket pitch for the Jays in Tiger Stadium, and you don't forget it.

Last night's game was a little bit of nail-biter. Danny--who is an average closer at best--certainly got himself in trouble, but eventually he and the defense bailed him out.

One last point--the team has come around since the injuries started to peel back. A good sign for our long-term health.

Long-term, can we stay with Houston? I doubt it. But who knows. One day at a time.

Moving in the Right Direction....

But not as quickly as it looks.

To nearly everyone's amazement, the Reds are 20-17 so far this year. Projected out, this would mean an 88 win season, which would exceed nearly everyone's goals.

I don't think that's how it will turn out, but time will tell.

Here's why.

The enquirer this weekend looked at where the Reds stand in the NL standings in key measures. The results show the Reds in the bottom half of the league. Looked at another way, the Reds Pythagorean would project them to be 17-20--not 20-17 at this date.

The meaning of these numbers are clear. At this rate, these results are going to catch up to the club. You can't keep giving up more runs than you score and win games. Sounds dopey, but you could find an argument on the topic.

Today, a .500 season would still be an achievement.

Things are moving in the right direction, however.

Looking at key stats (mostly pitching), the Reds are moving where they should be, although they remain below the NL average in each of the following categories. See below.

BB/9 (2003--3.67 2004--3.08 NL Avg--3.42)
K/9 (2003--5.80 2004--6.06 NL Avg--6.54)
H/9 (2003--9.82 2004--9.72 NL Avg--8.96)
ERA (2003--5.09 2004--4.67 NL Avg--4.27)
K/bb (2003--1.58 2004--1.96 NL Avg--1.91)
hr/9 (2003--1.30 2004--1.19 NL Avg--1.07)
e/game (2003--0.87 2004--0.73)

So, bottom line. We can't expect to win unless these numbers improve, but things are moving in the right direction, and there may be a light at the end of the tunnel. Its more fun to watch than last year.....

Its the morning after the first day of the draft, and like most Lions fans, I sit in a relaxed satisfied stupor. I can't believe after years of this mess, that yesterday's performance was pulled off by the Detroit Lions...I really can't. The trading moves--which got us Teddy Lehman for nothing--actually smacked of a team that was paying attention while other teams were picking, and not playing their Playstations. I mean, this year, OUR team saw all those trades being made, and said, "hey, wait a minute, what if WE did one of those trade things? Can we do that."

Someone said, (after a long pause) "I guess so. I don't know why not." And away we go.

I like the Roy Williams pick. I liked Taylor, and I liked Winslow, but Rogers and Williams are a good start, and with Hakim in the slot, he might be more productive. Personally, I would cut him and save the $$ because they are too much for a number 3, but I don't expect that to happen. Anyway, Streets and Anderson are in the wings.

I also like trading up for Jones. A lot. First, it shows rare initiative. Second, he's a good player and a great value. He and Pinner (who Mooch says has been "running around like crazy" in the off-season, whatever that means...I assume its good) make a good tandem and one or both should work out.

I also like Lehman a whole bunch. I read his bio on ESPN. Plays hard. Fast. Like a coach on the field. Do you know who this is? Chris Spielman. We ought to just give him #54 and get it over with. I can't believe we got him in the second.

As an aside, the McNeese State kid is thought to be the best deep cover corner in the draft. With some seasoning, he could be a good one, too.

Only two picks left today, but that's fine. Those guys in the late rounds rarely work out.

Kudos to the Lions. Next stop...a .500 record.

Much has been made of the Reds Spring Training efforts to pound the zone...so how's it going so far?

BB/9
2002: 3.67
2003: 2.25

K/9
2002: 5.80
2003: 6.55

H/9
2002: 9.82
2003: 9

K/BB
2002: 1.58
2003: 2.91 (!!)

ERA
2002: 5.09
2003: 2.91

Errors per game
2002: .87
2003: .2

Bottom line is, ten games in, these efforts are bearing fruit. There's a long way to go, but on some key indicators, the pitching is looking much stronger.

With the Spring game past, I thought I would take a minute to compare the 2002 and 2003 BGSU Football teams, just for the fun of it.

Offense

The 03 Falcons actually scored less than the 02 team, and by a full TD. Scoring went from 40.8 to 33.6 in the one season.

Obviously, there are a number of factors in that number--not the least of which was a tougher schedule. Still, its an odd result, because:

The '03 team had almost 6 more first downs per game.
The '03 team had almost 9 more rushing yards per game.
The '03 team had more than 70 more passing yards per game.
The '03 completed 8.3% more passes than the '02 team.
The '03 team ran 15 additional plays per game.
The '03 team had 1:54 more TOP.
The '03 team had 5% higher 3rd down conversion.
The '03 team had 1.1 yards per pass more gained, on average.
The '03 team ran the ball less (52.5%) than '02 did (55.7%).

Why--Two specific reasons--turnovers, and red zone efficiency.

In 2002, BG was 61 of 63 in the red zone. Those 61 scores were an amazing 52 Td's and 9 FG's. (No missed red zone FGs). That's 339 points on 63 trips to the red zone--or 5.4 points per trip. The percentages you see are often misleading because a FG and a TD count the same, but to get 5.4 points EACH TIME you are in the red zone. Its mind boggling.

2003….59-70….45 TD's, 14 FG's. That works out to 312 points on 70 trips, or 4.45 points per trip, and nearly a point less per trip than the year before. There were six missed FG's in the red zone, in addition to five other errors. But the key variable here is seven fewer TD's in a year where there were seven more chances to score.

Clearly, the 2003 team was not able to match the deadly precision of the 2002 team in the red zone.

Turnovers are the other problem. Coach Brandon has identified this as an issue, and it’s 100% true. Winning 11 games with a -6 turnover differential is no small feat, and a tribute to our D, and our O for creating new scoring chances time and again. In 2002, we were plus 9, so the difference is 15 TO's, more than one per game. In raw numbers, we committed ten more turnovers (in two extra games, granted), with eight of them being fumbles and two more interceptions. Even factoring in the extra plays, we still had a worse record turning the ball over.

Defense

This has been the subject of some debate here. Numerically, there is little doubt that our defense had a good season. First of all, in an odd coincidence, despite playing two more games, we gave up the exact same number of points as in 2002--304.

The 2003 team allowed 3.6 fewer points per game than the 2002 team.
In total offense, BG gave up four fewer yards than in 2002.
Sacks were up from 1.3 per game to 2.4 per game.
Third-down conversions were 33% for the 2003 team, as opposed to 41% for 2002. (Getting off the field was a noted strength of the D in 2003).

By almost every other measure, however, the 2003 defense was a little worse than the 2002 defense.

Yards per play, was up slightly in 2003 (5.4) over 2002 (5.1)
Rushing yards allowed per game was up in 2003 (153.4) as compared to 2002 (131.7)
Yards per rush was up as well, from 3.9 to 4.2.
Completion percentage by the opponents was about the same (2002: 53.8%, 2003: 54.7%)
Yard per pass was 6.8 in 2003 as opposed to 6.4 in 2002.
The opposing team ran five more plays per game.
We picked up 22 turnovers in 14 games in 2003, as opposed to 27 turnovers in 12 games in 2002.
We had three defensive TD's in 02, none in 03.

Special Teams

These are hard to rank, but on balance the workman like stuff was OK/a little weaker, but we didn't make big plays on special teams in 03 like we did the year before.

In terms of placekicking, Shawn Suisham was much worse in 03 than he was in 02. Now, in 02, he was really, really, good, hitting 12 of 14. Still, UM limited his chances and didn't always show confidence in him. His 66.7% was well below that, and tied for sixth in the MAC. He also missed 4 extra points (% was 11th in MAC), and kicked a lot of kicks out of bounds.

Nate Fry had a tough job coming in for Pat Fleming at punter. In his senior year, Fleming punting 3.6 times per game (!) for an average of 39.2. Nate's numbers were about the same, with 3.5 punts per game (!!) and a 40.2 average.

KO returns--while this seemed like a lackluster part of the game during the season, but we were third in the MAC, and increased our returns from 19.9 per game to 20.3 per game.

Punt Returns--Exactly the same (8.1 average) as the season before.

KO Coverage--This facet of the game was considerably worse in 03. Some may recall that UM preached KO coverage big time, and it showed with a 15.9 average in 02. In 03, the average was 18.9, 9th in MAC.

Punt Coverage--Much improved. In '02, teams averaged 15.7 yards in PR against us, but in '03 that tightened up to 9.4 yards.

Big Special teams plays--Another big fall-off here.

In 03, we blocked 2 punts, while in 02 we blocked 7 punts.

Conclusion

The offense controlled the ball and just created chance after chance after chance. The defense was plenty good, and the special teams were adequate. However, as has been noted, if the offensive production falls off, then we need better play on D and special teams to make up for it. I think its there--at least on D, but that remains to be seen.

With the Spring game past, I thought I would take a minute to compare the 2002 and 2003 BGSU Football teams, just for the fun of it.

Offense

The 03 Falcons actually scored less than the 02 team, and by a full TD. Scoring went from 40.8 to 33.6 in the one season.

Obviously, there are a number of factors in that number--not the least of which was a tougher schedule. Still, its an odd result, because:

The '03 team had almost 6 more first downs per game.
The '03 team had almost 9 more rushing yards per game.
The '03 team had more than 70 more passing yards per game.
The '03 completed 8.3% more passes than the '02 team.
The '03 team ran 15 additional plays per game.
The '03 team had 1:54 more TOP.
The '03 team had 5% higher 3rd down conversion.
The '03 team had 1.1 yards per pass more gained, on average.
The '03 team ran the ball less (52.5%) than '02 did (55.7%).

Why--Two specific reasons--turnovers, and red zone efficiency.

In 2002, BG was 61 of 63 in the red zone. Those 61 scores were an amazing 52 Td's and 9 FG's. (No missed red zone FGs). That's 339 points on 63 trips to the red zone--or 5.4 points per trip. The percentages you see are often misleading because a FG and a TD count the same, but to get 5.4 points EACH TIME you are in the red zone. Its mind boggling.

2003….59-70….45 TD's, 14 FG's. That works out to 312 points on 70 trips, or 4.45 points per trip, and nearly a point less per trip than the year before. There were six missed FG's in the red zone, in addition to five other errors. But the key variable here is seven fewer TD's in a year where there were seven more chances to score.

Clearly, the 2003 team was not able to match the deadly precision of the 2002 team in the red zone.

Turnovers are the other problem. Coach Brandon has identified this as an issue, and it’s 100% true. Winning 11 games with a -6 turnover differential is no small feat, and a tribute to our D, and our O for creating new scoring chances time and again. In 2002, we were plus 9, so the difference is 15 TO's, more than one per game. In raw numbers, we committed ten more turnovers (in two extra games, granted), with eight of them being fumbles and two more interceptions. Even factoring in the extra plays, we still had a worse record turning the ball over.

Defense

This has been the subject of some debate here. Numerically, there is little doubt that our defense had a good season. First of all, in an odd coincidence, despite playing two more games, we gave up the exact same number of points as in 2002--304.

The 2003 team allowed 3.6 fewer points per game than the 2002 team.
In total offense, BG gave up four fewer yards than in 2002.
Sacks were up from 1.3 per game to 2.4 per game.
Third-down conversions were 33% for the 2003 team, as opposed to 41% for 2002. (Getting off the field was a noted strength of the D in 2003).

By almost every other measure, however, the 2003 defense was a little worse than the 2002 defense.

Yards per play, was up slightly in 2003 (5.4) over 2002 (5.1)
Rushing yards allowed per game was up in 2003 (153.4) as compared to 2002 (131.7)
Yards per rush was up as well, from 3.9 to 4.2.
Completion percentage by the opponents was about the same (2002: 53.8%, 2003: 54.7%)
Yard per pass was 6.8 in 2003 as opposed to 6.4 in 2002.
The opposing team ran five more plays per game.
We picked up 22 turnovers in 14 games in 2003, as opposed to 27 turnovers in 12 games in 2002.
We had three defensive TD's in 02, none in 03.

Special Teams

These are hard to rank, but on balance the workman like stuff was OK/a little weaker, but we didn't make big plays on special teams in 03 like we did the year before.

In terms of placekicking, Shawn Suisham was much worse in 03 than he was in 02. Now, in 02, he was really, really, good, hitting 12 of 14. Still, UM limited his chances and didn't always show confidence in him. His 66.7% was well below that, and tied for sixth in the MAC. He also missed 4 extra points (% was 11th in MAC), and kicked a lot of kicks out of bounds.

Nate Fry had a tough job coming in for Pat Fleming at punter. In his senior year, Fleming punting 3.6 times per game (!) for an average of 39.2. Nate's numbers were about the same, with 3.5 punts per game (!!) and a 40.2 average.

KO returns--while this seemed like a lackluster part of the game during the season, but we were third in the MAC, and increased our returns from 19.9 per game to 20.3 per game.

Punt Returns--Exactly the same (8.1 average) as the season before.

KO Coverage--This facet of the game was considerably worse in 03. Some may recall that UM preached KO coverage big time, and it showed with a 15.9 average in 02. In 03, the average was 18.9, 9th in MAC.

Punt Coverage--Much improved. In '02, teams averaged 15.7 yards in PR against us, but in '03 that tightened up to 9.4 yards.

Big Special teams plays--Another big fall-off here.

In 03, we blocked 2 punts, while in 02 we blocked 7 punts.

Conclusion

The offense controlled the ball and just created chance after chance after chance. The defense was plenty good, and the special teams were adequate. However, as has been noted, if the offensive production falls off, then we need better play on D and special teams to make up for it. I think its there--at least on D, but that remains to be seen.

This question could change your life...

With all your honor and dignity What would you do?

This test only has one question, but it's a very
important one. Please
don't answer it without giving it some serious
thought. By giving an
honest answer you will be able to test where you stand morally.
>
> The test features an unlikely, completely fictional
> situation, where you
> will have to make a decision one way or the other.
> Remember that your
> answer needs to be honest, yet spontaneous.
>
> Please scroll down slowly and consider each line -
> this is important for
> the test to work accurately.
>
> You're in Florida...In Miami, to be exact...There is
> great chaos going
> on around you, caused by a hurricane and severe
> floods...
>
> There are huge masses of water cascading all over...
> You are a CNN
> photographer and you are in the middle of this great
> disaster. This
> situation is nearly hopeless.
>
> You're trying to shoot very impressive photos. There
> are houses and
> people floating around you., disappearing into the
> water. Nature is
> showing all its destroying power and is ripping
> everything away with it.
>
> You see a man in the water, he is fighting for his
> life, trying not to
> be taken away by the masses of water and mud/ You
> move closer. Somehow
> the man looks familiar. Suddenly you know who it is
> - it's George W. Bush!
>
> At the same time you notice that the raging waters
> are about to take him
> away...forever.
>
> You have two options. You can save him or you can
> take the best photo of
> your life.
>
> So you can save the life of George W. Bush, or you
> can shoot a Pulitzer
> winning photo. A unique photo displaying the death
> of one of the world's
> most powerful men.
>
> And here's the question: (Please give an honest
> answer) Would you select
> color film or go with the simplicity of classic
> black and white?
>