LaPhonso Ellis (left) was wrong.

On January 27th, ESPN college basketball analyst LaPhonso Ellis was discussing Michigan State’s tough home loss to in-state rival Michigan. The loss dropped the Spartans to 12-8, and although that record suggests a certain amount of pessimism, Ellis was undeterred. He spoke breathlessly about senior point guard Kalin Lucas’ performance against the Wolverines. Certainly, Lucas’ 27 points on 10 of 18 shooting deserved praise. But Ellis couldn’t stop himself, and as the segment wrapped up, he said the following:

A torn Achilles takes a long time to come back from. What you saw tonight was Kalin Lucas beginning to turn that corner, even a year [after the injury]. You can expect his numbers to go up over the next six weeks.

Well, it is now then. Michigan State has lost their regular season finale to Michigan (again), and the regular season statistics are now in the books. Let’s see how Ellis’ confident prediction fared:

• Kalin Lucas, 11/12-1/27: 43.3% FG, 1.34 : 1 assist-to-turnover ratio
• Kalin Lucas, 1/28-3/5: 43.3% FG, 1.22 : 1 assist-to-turnover ratio

Maybe Lucas rebounded or defended better since January 27th. But I think we can agree that the former isn’t really asked of him, and the latter isn’t quantifiable, so it can’t be lumped into Ellis’ “numbers.” To me, it looks like Lucas’ post-prediction play is of the exact same quality as his pre-prediction play.

I’m also not going to say “I’m back!”, because I’m probably not. Intellectually, I knew that I was going to be busy this semester. But now that it’s picking up steam, I’m really starting to feel it. Between graduate school class time, graduate school work itself, my job, my friends, my family, and my girlfriend (and the fact that each of those obligations is in a different location than all the others; hooray Unlimited MetroCard!), I simply don’t have the time to write about sports with any consistency. Right now, the focus is on staying productive and sane, not railing on Len Elmore’s most recent love affair with senior leadership.

I will be back. Baseball season and the NCAA tournament are around the corner, and you know I won’t be able to resist writing about those. If you hate yourself and are interested in stream of consciousness, cranky thoughts about Vanderbilt’s woeful 2-3 zone and other random excoriations, my Twitter feed will remain active. But what I’m trying to say is this: don’t expect anything new to appear here for a while.

Have a great spring!

• Casey Mitchell, West Virginia: 6/19 FG, 13 pts

January 24, 2011

• Tim Abromaitis, Notre Dame: 29 mins, 2/2 FT, 2 pts, 2 rebs
• LaceDarius Dunn, Baylor: 4/17 FG, 6 pts, 5 TOs
• Jacob Pullen, Kansas State: 4/13 FG, 17 pts, 5 TOs

January 25, 2011

• E’Twaun Moore, Purdue: 4/13 FG, 16 pts
• Rick Jackson, Syracuse: 6/16 FG, 12 pts
• Alex Tyus, Florida: 3/12 FG, 6 pts
• Justin Harper, Richmond: 4/13 FG, 14 pts
• Malcolm Delaney, Virginia Tech: 3/11 FG, 8 pts, 8 TOs

January 26, 2011

• D.J. Gay, San Diego State: 0/7 FG, 2 pts
• Jackson Emery, BYU: 1/7 FG, 4 pts
• Corey Fisher, Villanova: 2/10 FG, 7 pts, fouled out
• Corey Stokes, Villanova: 2/16 FG, 7 pts
• Gary Johnson, Texas: 3/10 FG, 9 pts
• Preston Knowles, Louisville: 3/16 FG, 10 pts
• Dwight Hardy, St. John’s: 4/16 FG, 10 pts

January 27, 2011

• Kyle Singler, Duke: 5/14 FG, 14 pts
• Demetri McCamey, Illinois: 2/11 FG, 6 pts, 3 ast, 5 TOs
• Mike Tisdale, Illinois: 2/10 FG, 8 pts
• Steven Gray, Gonzaga: 6/14 FG, 14 pts, 1 ast, 5 TOs

January 29, 2011

• E’Twaun Moore, Purdue: 3/13 FG, 9 pts
• Kevin Anderson, Richmond: 4/16 FG, 10 pts
• Brad Wanamaker, Pittsburgh: 1/7 FG, 9 pts
• Tyrel Reed, Kansas: 1/6 FG, 5 pts
• Justin Safford, Missouri: 1/10 FG, 4 pts, 4 TOs
• Melvin Goins, Tennessee: 2/7 FG, 5 pts, 5 TOs
• Chris Warren, Mississippi: 6/21 FG, 16 pts, 1 ast, 3 TOs
• Marshall Moses, Oklahoma State: 5/13 FG, 13 pts, 3 TOs
• Rashad Bishop, Cincinnati: 1/9 FG, 3 pts

• Seth Davis comments on Kansas’ Thomas Robinson losing his mother to a heart attack this past weekend. Of course, it cannot just be called a “heart attack.” It must be an “untimely heart attack,” which is so obviously dissimilar from those auspiciously-timed myocardial infarctions. I suppose timely heart attacks exist – right before Kim Jong-il presses the “Initiate Nuclear Launch” button would qualify – but in this situation, it goes without saying that the heart attack was a bad thing.
• Andy Katz says that Kansas deserves tons of credit for winning a conference road game while grieving for Robinson’s mother. At the risk of being insensitive, there is no way that her death made it more difficult for Josh Selby, Tyrel Reed, Tyshawn Taylor, and the Morris brothers to play basketball. Kansas does deserve credit, however, for winning a conference road game against an improved Colorado squad.
• In the wake of Michigan State dismissing guard Korie Lucious from the team, Seth Davis says that “a tough season just got a lot tougher.” Right, because losing a junior who can’t hit 40% of his twos or 30% of his threes is a huge loss.

Now, please watch this clip: 

This clip, from the movie Anchorman, is an unintentionally perfect characterization of mainstream sports analysis today. Will Ferrell’s question “do you really love the lamp, or are you just saying it because you saw it?” captures analysts’ maddening tendencies to focus heavily on what they just saw rather than what a body of work says. You see this all the time. The New York Giants got a trillion penalties against the Tennessee Titans in Week 3 and people said that Tom Coughlin lost control of his team. Then they beat the crap out of the Houston Texans on the road two weeks later, and we heard that the strife and discord has brought the team together. Neither was true, but that doesn’t keep this practice from being commonplace.

I bring this up because of something I heard on Bill Simmons’ podcast this morning. NFL analyst Mike Lombardi echoed a sentiment that I hadn’t heard before this past Monday, but have been hearing quite a bit this week. He said:

And then Green Bay hasn’t really put a team away. I mean, Green Bay looks beautiful moving down the field. Those first couple drives against the Bears, you thought this game was going to be over quickly. But then they end up being 2-for-13 on third down. They don’t really have a way to put the team away . . . When you boil it down, the Packers lack a killer instinct.

He talks about this several times in the podcast, saying that the Packers let teams “hang around” while citing their Week 5 overtime loss to the Redskins as an example of this tendency. I could be wrong – and indeed, there’s no way of knowing at this point – but I’m confident that no one is talking about the Packers perceived inability to “put teams away” if they beat the Bears by 14 last weekend instead of seven. With all eyes on the NFC Title Game and the Bears missing their starting quarterback for the second half, we expected the Packers to pull away from the Bears. But because football is football and anything can happen in a one game sample (and we’re talking about a one half sample here), the score remained close and now the Packers have an undeserved reputation as “lacking a killer instinct.”

Out of curiosity, I’m going to find out for myself if the Packers are really a bunch of mentally-soft sissies. I will do so by taking a page out of Joe Posnanski’s book, and go game-by-game through the Packers’ schedule, examining how the game ebbed and flowed, and looking for evidence of them being a bunch of weak-willed, lily-livered creampuffs.

* * * *

Week 1 @ Philadelphia: Packers 27, Eagles 20

The Eagles take a 3-0 lead at the end of the first quarter, which was a rock fight featuring two punts after three-and-outs, an interception, and a field goal. The Packers come back in the second, scored a touchdown after a long drive and kicking a field goal while containing the Eagles’ explosive offense. Three touchdowns are scored in the third quarter; the score is 27-10, Packers, going into the fourth. The Packers can’t move the ball and the Eagles score 10 more points before the game ends.

Lily-livered or gladiatorial?: Gladiatorial. Against a lesser opponent, perhaps it would be lily-livered. But the Eagles were a darn good team this season – fifth-best in football, by DVOA – and it was week one.

* * * *

Week 2 vs. Buffalo: Packers 34, Buffalo 7

The Bills had 186 yards of total offense in this game. Fin.

Lily-livered or gladiatorial?: Gladiatorial.

* * * *

Week 3 @ Chicago: Bears 20, Packers 17

The Packers led 7-0 after an ugly first quarter. The Packers get a field goal to start the second, and the Bears score a touchdown right before the half, making it 10-7 at the break. No one scores in the third quarter. All hell breaks loose in the fourth quarter, as the Bears score a touchdown, the Packers respond with a touchdown, the Bears respond to the Packers’ response with a field goal, the Packers turn the ball over, and the Bears kick the game-winning field goal.

Lily-livered or gladiatorial?: Inconclusive. The Bears are a good team and the game was in Chicago. Plus, you can hardly call blowing leads of 7-0, 10-7, and 17-14 a referendum on a team’s fortitude. On the other hand, the fumble and the fourth quarter Bears’ scoring weren’t good. I am now on even more careful watch for lily-livered behavior.

* * * *

Week 4 vs. Detroit: Packers 28, Lions 26

The Packers had a 21-7 lead in the second quarter and a 28-14 lead 26 seconds into the second half against a bad (but not terrible) Lions team in Green Bay. But turnovers gave the ball to the Lions for much of the second half, who responded with an onslaught of Jason Hanson field goals. Obviously, the Lions came up just short.

Lily-livered or gladiatorial?: Lily-livered. The Lions committed 13 penalties for 102 yards and turned the ball over three times, yet the Packers still won by just two.

* * * *

Week 5 @ Washington: Redskins 16, Packers 13

The Packers managed to scratch out a 13-3 lead halfway through the third quarter, but simply couldn’t sustain any offense in the second half after settling for field goal attempts in the first half. The Redskins tied it up with a field goal towards the end of regulation and went on to win in overtime.

Lily-livered or gladiatorial?: Lily-livered.

* * * *

Week 6 vs. Miami: Dolphins 23, Packers 20

The Packers had a 10-7 lead after one, but their offense stalled in the second and third quarters, giving the Dolphins a 13-10 lead heading into the final quarter. Ten points from the Packers and seven from the Dolphins sent the game into overtime, where the Dolphins won on a field goal.

Lily-livered or gladiatorial?: Inconclusive. Although this game might not seem very different than the previous game, the Packers never led by more than three, making this game too close for the Packers to ever really blow a lead. You could argue that they should have led the Dolphins by more than three in the first place, but in examining the game, it just looks like the Dolphins played out of their minds that day.

* * * *

Week 7 vs. Minnesota: Packers 28, Vikings 24

Green Bay was down 17-14 at the half, following one of the few good halves of football Brett Favre played all year. They responded with two quick touchdowns in the third quarter to take a 28-17 lead. Fortunately for them, Favre threw three interceptions in the second half which masked their inability to get their offense going again.

Lily-livered or gladiatorial?: Lily-livered. Even though the Packers never built up a sizable lead, the fact that they almost lost to the woeful Vikings, in Green Bay, in a game where Favre threw three interceptions is not impressive. I get the sense that the Vikings would have won this thing if they had a halfway-decent quarterback at the helm.

* * * *

Week 8 @ New York Jets: Packers 9, Jets 0

This game was an abomination. I don’t want to write about it or it will make my day worse.

Lily-livered or gladiatorial?: Gladiatorial. Say what you will about the Jets – Lord knows I have – but shutting them out in New York is an impressive feat.

* * * *

Week 9 vs. Dallas: Packers 45, Cowboys 7

Much to the delight of every viewer with a soul and a functioning brain, the Packers destroyed the Cowboys on NBC’s Sunday night game.

Lily-livered or gladiatorial?: Gladiatorial.

* * * *

Week 11 @ Minnesota: Packers 31, Vikings 3

Aaron Rodgers went crazy in this one, going 22/31 for 301 yards, four touchdowns, and no interceptions. Brett Favre was terrible and threw an interception. The sun rises in the east.

Lily-livered or gladiatorial?: Gladiatorial.

* * * *

Week 12 @ Atlanta: Falcons 20, Packers 17

Despite outgaining the Falcons by over a hundred yards, the Packers never led in this one.

Lily-livered or gladiatorial?: Gladiatorial. The Falcons only lost three games all year, and have been nearly impossible to beat at home for three years now. Can’t fault the Packers here.

* * * *

Week 13 vs. San Francisco: Packers 34, 49ers 16

The outcome was in doubt at halftime, as the Packers only led 14-13. The Packers’ defense held the 49ers to just a field goal in the second half while their offense scored 20 points, giving the Packers a solid win.

Lily-livered or gladiatorial?: Gladiatorial.

* * * *

Week 14 @ Detroit: Lions 7, Packers 3

Aaron Rodgers was knocked out of the game in the first half, giving way to Matt Flynn for the remainder of the affair. Given that Rodgers is back and healthy right now, there’s no point in discussing this game as it relates to the Packers’ “killer instinct.”

Lily-livered or gladiatorial?: Inconclusive.

* * * *

Week 15 @ New England: Patriots 31, Packers 27

Technically, I should give this game the same treatment as the above game and throw out the result, since Matt Flynn started for Aaron Rodgers at quarterback in this one. But I’ll just say this: it seems unlikely that a team lacking a killer instinct would take the then-12-2 Patriots down to the final possession, on the road, with their backup quarterback.

Lily-livered or gladiatorial?: Inconclusive.

* * * *

Week 16 vs. New York Giants: Packers 45, Giants 17

I watched this game. I am a Giants fan. If the Packers lack a killer instinct, I sure as hell didn’t see that deficiency here.

Lily-livered or gladiatorial?: Gladiatorial.

* * * *

Week 17 vs. Chicago: Packers 10, Bears 3

This one was a snoozer. Neither team cracked 300 yards of total offense, the score was 3-0 at the half, and there were 16 total punts. And unlike in their first matchup of the season (when it was debatable how good the Bears would be), the Bears had revealed themselves to be a legitimately good team at this point. A seven-point win against another playoff team is nothing to scoff at.

Lily-livered or gladiatorial?: Gladiatorial.

* * * *

Wild Card round @ Philadelphia: Packers 21, Eagles 16

The Packers beat an excellent Eagles team for the second time this year, both times in Philadelphia. Certainly, the Packers led by scores of 14-3 and 21-10 at different points, but given the quality of the competition, the venue, and the implications, it would be absurd to say the Packers failed to put away the Eagles in this one.

Lily-livered or gladiatorial?: Gladiatorial.

* * * *

Divisional round @ Atlanta: Packers 48, Falcons 21

Remember what I said about the Falcons being nearly unbeatable at home? Well, the Packers absolutely demolished the #1-seed Falcons, garnering 442 yards of offense while holding the Falcons to 194. This was a butt-whooping.

Lily-livered or gladiatorial?: Gladiatorial.

* * * *

Conference Championship @ Chicago: Packers 21, Bears 14

We have finally come to the game that gave birth to the idea that the Packers lack a killer instinct. As I mentioned earlier, the Packers had trouble finishing off a Bears team that lost Jay Cutler to injury at halftime, and that eventually settled on its third-string quarterback as his replacement. Certainly, the Packers at full strength are more than a touchdown better than the Bears led by Caleb Hanie. But the Packers’ inability to demonstrate that advantage over 30 minutes of play is not sufficient enough evidence to draw conclusions about the toughness or character of the team.

Lily-livered or gladiatorial?: Lily-livered.

* * * *

By my admittedly-unscientific count, the Packers had four games this year where one could reasonably look at the box score and drive charts and say “they should have won that game” or “they should have won that game by more”: Week 4 against the Lions, Week 5 against the Redskins, Week 7 against the Vikings, and in the NFC Title Game against the Bears. But the thing is, the Packers won three of those games. And how many times have you heard someone say – in analyzing any major sport – that the test of greatness is the ability to pull out close wins even when a team isn’t having its best day? A hundred? A thousand? So why aren’t we hearing that about the 2010 Packers? We aren’t hearing it because the last thing mainstream football analysts like Mike Lombardi saw was the Packers struggling to pull away from a depleted Bears team. And far too often, the drawing of definitive conclusions based on a shard of recent evidence is passing for serious analysis.

Like I said: “Do you really love the lamp, or are you just saying it because you saw it?”

In his most recent column, Katz attributes the Kansas State Wildcats’ troubles to an absence of leadership. Apparently, seniors Jacob Pullen and Curtis Kelly – who both displayed their veteran savvy by getting suspended by the NCAA – do not have the leadership necessary to lead a team. To fair to Katz, this wasn’t his idea. He’s merely parroting and expanding upon what coach Frank Martin said:

“Everyone said Jacob was our leader last year,” said Kansas State coach Frank Martin, a day after the suspensions were announced. “But last year it was [departed seniors] Denis Clemente, Luis Colon and Chris Merriewether. Jacob talked. The media talked to him. Denis didn’t like talking to the media because he was challenged in English. Luis scored two points a game so no one talked to him. Denis, Luis and Merriewether taught people how to work. Those were the guys when the game started that got us through games. We lost that.”

Of course, that doesn’t stop Katz from interjecting his own brand of contradictory silliness into the discussion. Even though Pullen and Kelly are apparently inadequate leaders, “the absence of Pullen and Kelly, the only two seniors on the team, is a crushing blow for the Wildcats.” Why is their loss crushing? Presumably because Pullen and Kelly are the team’s first and second-leading scorers. That is, their loss is crushing because they are arguably the team’s two best players. Not best leaders – best players. Then later, Katz writes: ”But what [Pullen and Kelly's suspension] has underscored is the issue of where Kansas’ State leadership is going to come from if it’s to achieve those goals.” This is after he writes in the second paragraph that Pullen is not performing as a leader on this year’s team. So the Wildcats need to replace the leadership that Pullen and Kelly weren’t providing?

Katz doesn’t know it, but he is inadvertently arguing the same point that I’ve been hammering away at for a while now: that talent, not leadership, wins games. He can repeat and agree with Martin’s words all he wants, but Katz is singling out Pullen and Kelly not because the team will have trouble replacing their leadership, but because the team will have trouble replacing their production.

As for coach Martin, I hope he actually knows that a lack of leadership isn’t why the Wildcats are struggling (if a 9-3 record can be called struggling). They’re struggling because their offense is light years worse than it was last season. They hit a below-average percentage of their twos and threes, turn the ball over constantly, and absolutely, positively cannot shoot free throws. That’s all there is to it. It has everything to do with the loss (or immaturity) of talent, and nothing to do with the absence of leadership.

Noticeably absent from this cohort is the Yankees, although that hasn’t stopped much of the media and fanbase from wringing their collective hands over the team’s perceived inertia. The Yankees often make big moves this time of year. They were expected to make their typically aggressive plays for the prime free agents – Jayson Werth, Carl Crawford, and Cliff Lee, with maybe a little Adam Dunn and Rafael Soriano sprinkled in. But it is now December 19th, and other than retaining Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera and signing Russell Martin and Pedro Feliciano, the Yankees have been uncharacteristically quiet. This is, of course, huge news here in New York. With the team very publicly striking out on acquiring Cliff Lee and theoretical Plan B Zack Greinke now off the market, people around here are concerned that the Yankees are an organization in disarray, or at least an organization caught without a plan.

It’s tempting to launch into a 2,000 diatribe on the state of the Yankees (CliffsNotes: chill out, it’s basically the same team as last year’s 95-game winner), but that’s not why I’m writing. I’m writing because I have heard and read some pretty crazy things about the 2011 Philadelphia Phillies’. The Phillies, as you may have heard, now have a rotation featuring Roy Halladay, Cliff Lee, Cole Hamels, and Roy Oswalt. This is an incredible collection of pitching talent, so incredible that it has compelled analysts, fans, and even Las Vegas (9-5 odds!) to proclaim the Phillies favorites to win the World Series. On a general level, this is an insane thing to say. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, but baseball is not like basketball or even football. The best or most talented team does not win the championship the majority of the time, and often doesn’t even advance to the final round of the postseason. Weird and unpredictable things happen in the tiny, luck-infused samples of baseball’s playoffs (or even the entire regular season, see the 2010 Padres), so aggressively declaring any team the favorite to win the World Series in December is simply crazy talk.

But this is an objective, statistically-minded space, so naturally I have a concrete reason for my doubts about the 2011 Phillies. Specifically, I have serious questions about their ability to score runs. A glance at both the team’s 2010 performance and the names on their roster might make you wonder what the big deal is. After all, the Phillies scored the second-most runs in the National League and finished with the fourth-highest OPS. Plus they have Ryan Howard, Chase Utley, Jimmy Rollins, Shane Victorino, Raul Ibanez, and Carlos Ruiz. They’re the Phillies. How can this offense not be good? 

The answer is simple: Age. The Phillies have, at most, one position player in or approaching their prime years. It may shock some casual fans, but the hitters widely-considered to be the Phillies’ best – Ryan Howard and Chase Utley – are not young; Howard turned 31 in November and Utley turned 32 on Friday. The supporting cast isn’t young either. Jimmy Rollins is 32, Shane Victorino is 30, Raul Ibanez is 38, and Carlos Ruiz will be 32 when the season begins. The remaining three lineup spots belong to the pitcher, the impotent Placido Polanco, and (probably) 23-year-old, elite-level prospect Domonic Brown. Brown is the only player in the lineup (and he’s not even in the lineup yet) who offers some upside. We have almost certainly seen the best we’ll see from everyone else.

It may seem unfair to call the Phillies’ offense into question simply because it’s old. After all, the elderly Yankees and Red Sox led the major leagues in runs scored and OPS last season. But there is a difference here, and the difference is that there are specific, non-age-related reasons that the Phillies’ hitters are declining as a group. I’m sorry to get all bullet-pointy on you, but I can’t think of a better way to do this. Consider the following:

• Ryan Howard is not the dominant offensive force that he was in 2006. His .276/.353/.505 line is good but not great considering the high standards for his position. His walk rate has declined every year since 2007, and he still cannot hit lefties who can throw anything resembling a breaking ball.
• Chase Utley – also known as The Reason For Howard’s Annually Lofty RBI Totals – missed some time last year because of a sprained thumb, but still managed to hit .275/.387/.445. Even with the drop in power, that’s fantastic production from a second baseman. Typically a flyball hitter, his sharp increase in grounders hit bears watching. It could be just a result of the thumb injury or it could be the fact that he’s a 32-year-old middle infielder. Either way, betting on the 2007 version to show up in 2011 is foolish.
• I go back and forth on whether or not Jimmy Rollins is overrated. On one hand, his career line is .272/.328/.435 – slightly belong average compared to his peers at shortstop. On the other hand, the numbers suggest that he re-gains much of that lost value with his dazzling defense. This part, however, isn’t up for debate: he’s 32, he’s increasingly missing time with injuries, and he hit the most grounders and fewest line drives of his career in 2010. If he manages to stay healthy, play good defense, and hit for some power, he’ll be an asset. But let’s dispense with the Joe Morgan-led notion that he is an elite player, the lineup’s energizer, and the cog that makes the Phillies’ offense hum. He’s not.
• Shane Victorino is an average offensive center fielder. There’s no way around it, really. His career .279/.342/.428 line is perfectly average for the position, and the defensive numbers suggest he’s right about average with the glove, too. Unlike his teammates, there isn’t a particularly clear trend in the numbers that indicates impending decline. But you still end up with a 30-year-old, average-hitting center fielder, and those turn into 31-year-old, below average-hitting center fielders with some regularity.
• Raul Ibanez is just barely holding on to his offensive skills. Other than a flukey-good 2009 season, he’s never been able to hit lefties, and his ability to hit righties began to suffer in 2010. He hit way more grounders and way fewer flies last season, and perhaps not coincidentally, the numbers suggest that he really struggled with fastballs for the first time in his career. Of course, I could just delete everything I just wrote and type “he’s 38, what are the odds of him being a good hitter?”
• Before last season, Carlos Ruiz‘s career on-base percentage was .337 in over 1,200 plate appearances. Then, at age 31, he gets on base exactly 40% of the time in 433 plate appearances. I could bore you with the statistical reasons for this jump, but instead, I’ll go with this: I’m not buying  it. Players don’t learn new skills (to this extent) after age 30.

I don’t think that this is me going out of my way to find problems with the Phillies. Their rotation is fantastic, but their lineup has legitimate questions. There is certainly enough talent here to catch lightning in a bottle for one season. Howard, Utley, and Rollins aren’t so old that their skills have totally vanished, so a simultaneous renaissance is possible. But it is exceedingly unlikely, making the talk of the Phillies easily winning 100 games (I wish I could remember where I heard this, but I can’t) fairly ridiculous. If the Phillies are good this season – and barring injuries, they will be good – they will resemble the second-half 2010 San Fransisco Giants: excellent pitching, good defense, and enough offense to win.

Brad Tinsley is Vanderbilt’s starting point guard. He is more of a combo guard by nature, but due to Jermaine Beal’s graduation, John Jenkins’ off-ball ability, and Kyle Fuller’s youth, Tinsley has been charged with the task of running the Commodores’ offense in the 2010-2011 season. Like Hayward, Tinsley had the second-highest offensive rating on his team during his freshman year because of his proficiency from three-point range; he shot 41.1% in 168 attempts. His sophomore year, Tinsley’s three-point accuracy dipped to 29.5% on 105 attempts. He’s shooting 33.3% in 27 attempts this season.

Mike Marra is a sophomore guard on the Louisville Cardinals. He arrived on campus last season with the reputation of being a great shooter, and as a freshman on a team of veterans like Edgar Sosa, Preston Knowles, Jerry Smith, and Reginald Delk, Marra was asked to do little other than fire from beyond the arc whenever he was given a decent look. Unfortunately, he shot 24.4% in 82 attempts, and has continued his poor shooting this season. He sits at 29.8% on 57 attempts after today’s 0-for-5 showing against UNLV.

You might be wondering what these three players have to do with each other, aside from their apparent shooting futility. Ironically, they’re similar because all three have been recipients of the same label – a “knock-down” or great shooter. Yet, as we’ve seen, there is little evidence that they can shoot. Hayward shot 29.4% from three-point range his final year of college and has hit four of his 14 attempts as a professional. Tinsley shot 29.5% last season and isn’t doing much better this time around. Marra has never shot particularly well at any point, and that includes his senior year of high school when he hit just 36% of his threes. Despite their spotty track records, broadcasters and analysts consistently call all three excellent shooters.

Now, if there is one thing that I have learned over the last few years, it is that I am not a scout. I can’t look at a player’s mechanics or movements and predict how he’ll develop or improve in the future. I am the person who thought Marcus Williams would be a star point guard, who thought Matt Ryan would be a bust, who thought Brian Brohm was the best quarterback in his draft class, who killed Donnie Walsh for drafting Landry Fields, who said that Phil Hughes and Ian Kennedy would be better than Jon Lester and Clay Buchholz because their minor league ERAs were better, who thought Danilo Gallinari was a brutal pick, and who thought Shan Foster would have a long NBA career as a three-point specialist. Given that ignominious history, it is entirely possible that a professional scout sees Hayward, Tinsley, and Marra’s shooting forms and, observing nothing wrong, concludes that all three have been the victims of prolonged bad luck. It is entirely possible that all three will become consistently excellent shooters in the future, and that I am some combination of too dumb, blind, or untrained to see it. None of this would surprise me, because I simply don’t know this kind of stuff.

But I do know that 30% is not a great or even good accuracy rate from long range. And given that all of these guys have been hovering right around that mark recently, I do know that none of these guys can be considered a great shooter. It is annoying to be repeatedly told otherwise when the numbers simply do not bear that out. Hayward in particular somehow earned widespread and very public benefit of the doubt. NBA.com said Hayward “shoots with range and has excellent mechanics” in its draft profile. ESPN’s Chad Ford excused Hayward’s statistically poor shooting with one of the more remarkable sentences I’ve ever read: “He’s also a terrific shooter — despite the fact that his jump shot hasn’t been falling all season.” ESPN’s draft profile even said Hayward was a “sharp shooter with deep range.” All of this is in addition to the countless broadcasters who told me during games that Hayward was a better shooter than his numbers indicated, and who are currently telling me that Tinsley and Marra are victims of the same improbable streak of bad luck.

It’s possible that everyone is smarter and sharper than I am. It’s possible that these professional analysts and talent evaluators see these guys’ strokes and conclude that it’s only a matter of time before the shots start falling for good. But I fear that nothing like that is happening, and that instead, people are seeing three guys that look like this… :

… and are automatically concluding that shooting is their forte.

November 27, 2010

• Chris Wright, Georgetown: 1/3 FG, 3 pts, 9 asts, 6 TOs
• Zach Hahn, Butler: 2/10 FG, 11 pts, 2 asts, 3 TOs
• Preston Knowles, Louisville: 2/12 FG, 6 pts
• Delroy James, Rhode Island: 6/17 FG, 15 pts, 2 ast, 3 TOs
• Chris Wright, Dayton: 1/9 FG, 4 pts, 0 ast, 2 TOs
• Adrian Thomas, Miami: 3/9 FG, 12 pts,0 ast, 1 TO, fouled out
• Dwight Hardy, St. John’s: 4/14 FG, 14 pts

November 28, 2010

• Jon Leuer, Wisconsin: 6/16 FG, 19 pts
• Tim Abromaitis, Notre Dame: 3/11 FG, 10 pts, 0 ast, 2 TOs
• Joe Trapani, BC: 4/14 FG, 12 pts
• B.J. Holmes, Texas A&M: 2/6 FG, 7 pts, 2 ast, 7 TOs
• Justin Safford, Missouri: 2/4 FG, 4 pts, 0 ast, 5 TOs
• Chandler Parsons, Florida: 2/6 FG, 5 pts, 1 ast, 4 TOs
• Dorenzo Hudson, VT: 0/7 FG, 0 pts, 4 ast, 5 TOs

November 29, 2010

• Donte Smith, USC: 1/7 FG, 3 pts

November 30, 2010

• David Lighty, Ohio St.: 4/14 FG, 10 pts, 2 ast, 4 TOs
• Jon Diebler, Ohio St.: 3/12 FG, 12 pts, 1 ast, 2 TOs

December 1, 2010

• Kalin Lucas, Michigan State: 5/13 FG, 14 pts, 2 ast, 2 TOs
• Kyle Singler, Duke: 5/14 FG, 15 pts
• Brad Wanamaker, Pitt: 1/6 FG, 4 pts, 1 ast, 7 TOs
• Alex Tyus, Florida: 0/5 FG, 0 pts
• Chandler Parsons, Florida: 1/9 FG, 2 pts
• JaJuan Johnson, Purdue: 11/24 FG, 29 pts, 5 rebs (*he’s 6’10″ and played 44 minutes)
• Malcolm Delaney, Virginia Tech: 2/18 FG, 9 pts, 2 ast, 4 TOs
• Mickey McConnell, St. Mary’s: 1/6 FG, 2 pts, 2 ast, 4 TOs
• Jai Lucas, Texas: 2/8 FG, 6 pts, 2 ast, 5 TOs
• Tre’Von Willis, UNLV: 3/10 FG, 8 pts
• Jimmer Fredette, BYU: 5/15 FG, 13 pts, 3 ast, 4 TOs
• Joe Trapani, Boston College: 3/11 FG, 9 pts
• Javier Gonzalez, NC State: 1/6 FG, 3 pts, 2 ast, 5 TOs
• Talor Battle, Penn State: 7/21 FG, 21 pts, 2 ast, 5 TOs

December 3, 2010

• Jacob Pullen, Kansas State: 2/11 FG, 8 pts, 5 ast, 6 TOs
• Corey Fisher, Villanova: 3/13 FG, 14 pts

December 4, 2010

• Matt Howard, Butler: 5/12 FG, 13 points, fouled out
• Steven Gray, Gonzaga: 3/12 FG, 10 pts
• Casey Mitchell, WVU: 5/15 FG, 18 pts

This week’s list:

November 21, 2010

• Alex Tyus, Florida: 2/7 FG, 5 pts

November 22, 2010

• Steven Gray, Gonzaga: 6/15 FG, 15 pts, 4 ast, 6 TOs
• Demontez Stitt, Clemson: 4/13 FG, 15 pts, 2 ast, 6 TOs
• Joe Trapani, Boston College: 3/11 FG, 11 pts
• Kodi Augustus, Mississippi St.: 3/11 FG, 10 pts, 1 ast, 5 TOs
• Ben Finney, Old Dominion: 3/10 FG, 8 pts, 3 ast, 3 TOs
• Dante Jackson, Xaver: 3/11 FG, 8 pts, 3 ast, 1 TO

November 23, 2010

• Jacob Pullen, Kansas State: 1/12 FG, 4 pts, 1 ast, 4 TOs
• Kalin Lucas, Michigan State: 4/12 FG, 10 pts, 1 ast, 5 TOs
• Matthew Bryan-Amaning, Washington: 3/11 FG, 7 pts, 0 ast, 5 TOs

November 24, 2010

• Durrell Summers, Michigan State: 3/11 FG, 12 pts, 0 ast, 2 TOs

November 25, 2010

• Lavoy Allen, Temple: 5/12 FG, 13 pts, 2 ast, 4 TOs
• Joe Trapani, Boston College: 4/13 FG, 14 pts
• Ben Hansbrough, Notre Dame: 3/9 FG, 13 pts, 2 ast, 5 TOs
• Corey Fisher, Villanova: 1/10 FG, 3 pts, 1 ast, 6 TOs

November 26, 2010

• JaJuan Johnosn, Purdue: 7/18 FG, 18 pts, 4 reb
• Joe Trapani, Boston College: 4/12 FG, 11 pts, 2/8 3P
• Malcolm Delaney, Virginia Tech: 3/8 FG, 16 pts, 1 ast, 5 TOs
• Carleton Scott, Notre Dame: 5/17 FG, 16 pts, 10 reb,
• Tyrone Nash, Notre Dame: 4/11 FG, 11 pts, 3 ast, 4 TOs
• Randy Culpepper, UTEP: 6/16, 13 pts, 2 ast, 3 TOs

ESPN.com’s Andy Katz posted this, a column titled “Disappointing Tar Heels Lack A Leader.” As you might expect, his thesis is that UNC lost because a leader hasn’t emerged yet, because no players have stepped up and assumed control of the young but talented team. Then, following #2-ranked Michigan State’s loss to unranked Connecticut, Katz penned a column that was essentially the mirror image of the UNC version. In this piece, titled “Walker Now UConn’s Unquestioned Leader,” Katz argues that a big factor in the Huskies’ upset is Walker’s maturation and his willingness to accept a leadership role that he rejected last season. Yes, it would appear that Katz has got it bad for leadership in the early going.

There are, of course, huge problems with forming a causal relationship between leadership and winning. Take Vanderbilt and UNC, for example. Did last year’s Tar Heels not have enough leadership to win? Both Deon Thompson and Marcus Ginyard were seniors, and I can distinctly remember hearing broadcasters tout their leadership. Since the Tar Heels finished with a 20-17 record, why was their leadership so clearly inadequate? As for Vanderbilt, the Commodores lost senior point guard and universally-recognized team leader Jermaine Beal to graduation. And yet Beal was leading the team when they were ousted in the first round of the NCAA Tournament by Murray State, the second year in a row the Commodores lost to a 13-seed. So what happened there? Why wasn’t Beal’s leadership enough to get them over the hump?

Connecticut and Michigan State are open to this kind of questioning too. If leadership is so important, then why did last year’s Huskies finish with an 18-16 record, even though they started seniors Jerome Dyson, Stanley Robinson, and Gavin Edwards? Dyson, in particular, received consistent and effusive praise for keeping the team competitive and assuming the scoring load during such a disappointing season for the powerhouse program. Was his leadership a myth? Furthermore, why did Michigan State lose that game to UConn? After all, the Spartans are led by senior point guard Kalin Lucas, who has consistently been heralded as one of the elite leaders in the country. Aren’t we told that having a senior point guard on the court, an extension of the coach’s will and wishes, is a tremendous advantage? Why didn’t it work this time?

While Katz’s arguments are already absurd, he detracts from them even further by pooh-poohing the narratives he and his peers worked so hard to construct last season. In the UNC column, he writes:

The Tar Heels lost an unthinkable 17 games last season. Williams called the season the most frustrating he has had as a coach. Carolina had leadership — at least some outspoken types like Deon Thompson — but could never mesh.

And in the UConn article:

“It wasn’t my role,” said Walker by phone from Maui late Tuesday. “I was a sophomore. I tried to let Jerome [Dyson], Stanley [Robinson] and Gavin [Edwards] be the ones to make the big plays and lead us to victory. It wasn’t my role.”

Those three seniors clearly weren’t capable. And maybe Walker wasn’t then, either.

This is awfully frustrating to read because it’s so revisionist and arbitrary. Because those teams failed, Katz decides that their leaders “clearly weren’t capable.” So does that mean leadership only exists if the team wins? Is it not possible to have leadership on losing or struggling teams? And if the assignment of leadership is so flimsy and transient – “Thompson and Dyson were leaders last year, now they are not because their teams weren’t so good” – then why are we wasting our breath talking about leadership in the first place?

As usual, my point is that there are so many questions, inconsistencies, and logical pitfalls involved in the idea of leadership that any discussion of the quality is rarely worth the time and energy. It’s an analytical crutch, a way of looking at success or failure when you don’t have much else to say or are too lazy to do some work. North Carolina didn’t lose to Vanderbilt because they lacked a leader. They lost because they had 22 turnovers, shot 27.3% from three, and played bad defense. UConn didn’t beat Michigan State because Kemba Walker is the team’s new leader. They won because Walker scored 30 points on over 50% shooting and because they crashed the offensive glass against a typically dominant rebounding team.

That’s the truth. But if you want arbitrary, revisionist, and lazy mysticism, you can feel free to keep reading Andy Katz.