Triple Slash Sports

Retroactive post #4: Truth in Advertising (AKA--A look at rookie PGs)

2010-04-10T13:18:00.000-07:00

In March 10th's edition of Rookie Watch on ESPN, Jemele Hill (as we found out in the next edition) listed Golden State PG Stephen Curry as the #1 ROY candidate--ahead of Tyreke Evans. NBA.com writer Drew Packham followed suit. Since the beginning of the new year, there have been whispers that Curry was overtaking the Kings' rookie. And since the beginning of February, there have been whispers that New Orleans guard Darren Collison was having a bigger impact than Evans. And of course there's Brandon Jennings who has been talked about since his 55-point outburst on November 14 (against Curry's Warriors)

Is the race really that close? Has Evans simply been skating by on the good numbers of his first 2 months? Has he fallen off the horse? Are Curry and Collison really outplaying the Kings' rookie?

Let's take a look at the January stats from the prominent PGs

(keep in mind that each Player is not guaranteed to be the labeled the same month-to-month. Vote for each player by the month)

via img.photobucket.com

So who would you take out of these 2 PGs? Player A has a better shooting percentage and more rebounds. Meanwhile Player B has fewer minutes, 1.6 points more than Player A, fewer rebounds and a better A/TO ratio.

Who do you vote as a better rookie? A or B?

Let's take a look at February.

via img.photobucket.com

Player C has more minutes, but also averages a full assist per game more than the other two. He also has averages more points and has the 2nd highest FG%. Yet he also has far more TOs than the other 2, sporting the worst A/TO ratio of the three despite having the high assist statistics.

Player B logged significantly fewer minutes than either of the other two players yet leads in rebounds. He is competitive with Player A for 2nd in assists, sports the best FG% and the best A/TO ratio (by a fair margin). However he has the fewest points of the bunch.

Player A seems has something that neither of the other two have--consistency. In only one category is he ranked last (FG%). He doesn't lead the pack in any statistical category, but he is 2nd among the group in every other category--averaging the envied 20/5/5 with ease (especially with the 7.3 assists per game).

So who do you think is most impressive as a rookie for the month of February? A, B or C?

Finally, let's look at the month of March--halfway through.

via img.photobucket.com

What do we notice here?

Player C sports a very high average on points per game with some incredible assist numbers to go along with a solid FG%. He doesn't have incredible rebound numbers, but they aren't bad and his A/TO ratio is fair.

Player B can flex his muscles over a double-double average with 11.8 APG to go along with his 16.4 points. He also has the best FG%. However, he does not have very many rebounds at all and he leads the pack with 3.8 TOs--a full 1.1 per game more than Player A. Even so, he has the best A/TO ratio to go along with the most minutes per game.

Player A shows of a very impressive all-around game with the fewest TOs, the most rebounds (2.9 per game more than the next contender) and very good assist, point and A/TO numbers. The glaring hole in his game is the 42.2% FG% which is less than stellar. Player A has logged the fewest minutes in March to this point.

Who would you say is the most dominant in this month? A? B? C?

Here are the results. I hope the players were not too transparent.

January:

Player A = Stephen Curry

Player B = Tyreke Evans

February:

Player A = Stephen Curry

Player B = Tyreke Evans

Player C = Darren Collison

March:

Player A = Tyreke Evans

Player B = Darren Collison

Player C = Stephen Curry

**Notes: I know that this is purely statistically based and it does not even have any pace-adjusted stats. I know that pace/system is a big part of the context in the argument. This also does not even mention October-December, but that is because we all know who was most dominant statistically in those months. This is what it is--a fairly two-dimensional way of looking at the statistics in order to give just some little bit of empirical point of view on the debate. A debate in which sensationalists will try to make claims that Player A has now gained the #1 spot after a 20-assist game or Player B has now gained the #1 spot due to a triple-double in which he hit seven 3-pointers.

Finally, I know that the award is called "Rookie of the YEAR". I know that this is only looking at a portion of the year. This post is simply meant to address the debate of Collison/Curry/Evans from January-March. It is also meant to address the idea that Evans is simply riding on the coattails of a hot November and the argument he is not nearly as hot as Curry/Collison are right now.

Retroactive post #3: Is it in the Kings' best interests to go after a guy like Chris Bosh this offseason? (Feb 19, 2010)

2010-04-10T13:14:00.000-07:00

Before anyone stops reading this to call me uneducated, or any number of other unpleasant things, let me first make a few points.

1) I have drooled over the possibility (see below about probability) of the Kings matching up with soon-to-be free agent Chris Bosh. He is a dynamic player who is at his peak.

2) I am speaking in hypothetical to address the viewpoint of those pining for the Texas-native so please don't stop me because you believe the probability of the Kings getting Bosh is the same as me spending the night [insert latest/greatest supermodel].

3) To repeat--this is hypothetical. I am trying to address the logic of whether or not the Kings can/should pursue Bosh in light of the franchise goals.

4) This post is not meant to address the merits of the Kevin Martin trade in any way. This only addresses the merits of pursuing Chris Bosh in free agency this summer.

Star-divide
Now to the meat and potatoes. Proceeding the trade of Kevin Martin (along with others), the Kings appear to be set with just enough room under the 2010-11 salary cap to hand out a max contract. In response to this, Sacramento fans are like a kid who received his first Benjamin for Christmas (or Lincoln if you had my childhood in a lower class family)--the fans just can't wait to spend this new money. With most fans assuming LeBron James is out of the question and Dwyane Wade similarly out of the question as well as a likely bad fit with PG Tyreke Evans, most of the Sacramento faithful have turned the eyes (with dollar signs in them) toward Door #3--PF Chris Bosh of the Toronto Raptors. The young PF has been a target of many fans for months, but with the financial means now to obtain the long and lanky forward, the cry for this specific free agent acquisition is getting much louder. But is this the right move? Has the trade of Kevin Martin truly cleared the path for Bosh to come to the Sacramento Kings franchise?

After the Kevin Martin trade, the Kings organization revealed one of the primary focuses of the move was age-oriented. The Kings have several key players who are 23-years old and younger--Tyreke Evans (20), Omri Casspi (21), Donte Greene (21), Spencer Hawes (21), Jon Brockman (22) and Jason Thompson (23)--and giving significant minutes to a player like Kevin Martin who is in the prime of his career did not fit into franchise's plan for the future because it took away from the minutes for the players just at the dawn of their careers. Now that Martin is gone, these players are supposedly going to receive more minutes to gain experience and each one will be given an opportunity to carve out a spot for himself (that is the assumption). With these intentions in mind, the possibility of Chris Bosh wearing royal purple in 2010 should come into question (regardless of all other factors). It would seem that a move to obtain the soon-to-be free agent would be contradictory to the stated direction of the current Kings franchise--i.e. a youth movement. Keep in mind, Bosh is no old fart by any stretch of the imagination as he is actually just under 14 months younger than the recently deported Martin, however his athletic clock is on the same period as Martin.

Just as Martin is in the prime of his career, so too is Chris Bosh in the same stage of his basketball life. While all the other key ingredients to the Kings' cake are in their early 20s, this potential free agent target will be entering his age-26 season in October 2010. By the time his max contract expires (either 5 or 6 years), Bosh would be finishing his age-31 or 32 season--coming into the downside of his career. At the same time, the core of the Kings would be just reaching their collective peaks between the ages of 26-29.

I would argue that signing Bosh to a max contract this summer would not be the most prudent move for the Kings even if I have been among those pining for him in the past few months. With the futures of Thompson and Hawes in question due to their inconsistent 2009-10 play, I would suggest the Kings should focus their efforts on building around the core of Evans, Casspi, Greene (continued development assumed) and the 2010 lottery pick. No one is suggesting the Kings should never add a significant free agent, nor is anyone suggesting that the Kings should remain in a perpetual rebuild. Wisdom, however, should be employed when discussing the prospect of a contract the size Bosh would command. I believe that wisdom mandates the Kings step back from the free agent buffet this offseason and focus on the continued development of their youth. As these youthful players continue to progress, the time will come in the summer of 2011 or 2012 to enter the free agent sweepstakes in order to find a veteran player entering his prime to push the Kings into contention for the following 5-6 years.

The positives that Bosh has over Martin is that he is a better player and he fits a much bigger need for the Kings--an interior presence (although not a top notch interior defender which is the biggest need for Sacramento). In terms of team direction, the Kings (are saying) they are going in one direction while Bosh represents a move in the opposite direction. I would argue that the Kings should not stray from the path of playing their young guns. Even though bringing in a free agent like Chris Bosh would be a lot of fun.

Retroactive post #2: Michael Taylor and the "Stanford Swing" (Dec 18, 2009)

2010-04-10T13:12:00.000-07:00

The "Stanford Swing" is an interesting concept that has continued to pop up in discussions regarding recently acquired mammoth of an OF Michael Taylor. For those of you who just got Comcast to hook up internet to your computer under your rock, he measures in at 6-6 250 lbs (which is somewhere between Lebron James and Antonio Gates); obtained for the price of Brett Wallace, Billy Beane grabbed him in a prospect-for-prospect swap with Toronto after the Blue Jays had acquired him in a trade of rotation ace Roy Halladay.

The basic scouting report of Michael Taylor is that he has monster raw power, but his level, line drive swing takes away from his ability to hit HRs in games. When discussing Taylor's level swing, people bring up his Stanford pedigree and attest his lack of HRs to the "Stanford Swing." For those of us who have little or no familiarity with the Stanford Swing, here is a short quote regarding the swing of another Stanford product--Chris Carter of the Boston Red Sox--taken from a Futurebacks.com article in 2005.

"All I asked the coaches was to not make me switch to the 'Stanford swing.' "

For those of you who don't know, wait a couple of months. The next time FOX SportsAZ is showing a Pac-10 game, chances are Stanford will be involved. Watch the Stanford lineup. There will be lefties and righties, different stances, different types of hitters, but once the swing starts, you'll see the same thing over and over again. The same swing, legs bent, bat coming through the zone flat, a slight tuck. It's one of the things that makes the program so good, the same swing, the same fundamentally sound swing, over and over and over again.

SOURCE

Even more than the slightly over-simplified description of the Stanford swing as a flat swing, the plate approach of the Stanford batter is to spray the ball the other way by tucking his hands in and employing an inside-out swing. This inside-out approach to hitting is the biggest power-sapper in the Stanford swing.

Intrigued with this concept (and the stat geek that I am), I decided I would research the major league track record of Stanford products. Using Baseball-Reference, I sorted Stanford draft picks by career HRs and here is the short list of batters over 75 career HRs (career IsoP in parentheses).

Ed Sprague-152 HRs (.172)
Steve Buechele-137 HRs (.149)
Jeffrey Hammonds-110 HRs (.177)
Bob Boone-105 HRs (.092)

HM
Carlos Quentin-71 HRs (.237)

Apparent among these 5 players is the lack of 30+ HR seasons. Among these 5 players, there were only 2 30+ HR seasons--Ed Sprague had one and Carlos Quentin had one. The best of the Stanford batters could hardly even get above the 20 HR mark, mustering only 7 seasons at or above 20 HRs between the 5 of them.

So when we read that Michael Taylor is projected to hit become a 25 HR player (in spite of his NFL TE frame that is reminiscent of the Big Hurt in the 1990s), we should not take it as a mark against Taylor as a player. In fact, for that projection to come true, Taylor would have to buck the long-standing trend of Stanford batters. If Taylor were to average 25 HRs, he would project to take the lead in career HRs by a Stanford product as he begins his 7th season in the league. And the culprit is the swing that Stanford batters are taught as soon as they begin practicing with the Cardinal baseball team.

This is not to say that Michael Taylor is fatalistically doomed to be a slap hitter in the major leagues due to the precedent set by his Stanford predecessors. Carlos Quentin's season in 2008 was a very good step in the right direction showing that Stanford products can produce great power as he hit 36 HRs with the White Sox in only 480 ABs. Neither is Michael Taylor a replica of Ed Sprague (who is 6-2 210 lbs) or Jeffrey Hammonds (who is 6-0 195 lbs)--two men who might compare more favorably to a 4-door Honda Civic or 2-door Nissan Altima in relation to Michael Taylor's Hummer or Cadillac Escalade. Nor does this preclude Taylor from making adjustments to his swing.

Quite to the contrary, Michael Taylor actually does not sport the typical Stanford swing that he had coming out of college. Taylor's swing is still very level through the strike zone (for the most part)--as is typical with Stanford players--but the monster outfielder does not apply the inside-out approach that is the Stanford signature. Make no mistakes, Michael Taylor will generate more line drives with his swing than towering HRs, but he is able to maintain quite a bit of his natural power even though he would be likely to hit 40 HRs in a season as his frame would suggest.

What Michael Taylor looks like in the future is entirely up to him and the Oakland A's hitting staff. If the A's want a 6-6 250 lb OF who maxes out around 25 HRs with 40 doubles, then they may have exactly that almost immediately as Taylor has shown excellent contact rates while maintaining that kind of power and keeping the strikeouts down. In "perfect world" projections, think a Matt Holliday-like career minus about 4 HRs a year (Holliday's 162-game averages include a .318/.387/.547 with 43 doubles, 29 HRs (think 25 for Taylor), 5 triples and 15 SBs). If the A's and Taylor decide to tinker with what has been working in the minors, Taylor could likely up his HR total to 35-40 (in peak years), but it is doubtful that he could maintain the kind of high contact rates he has shown in the past 2 years. What that truly looks like is entirely up to Taylor and the way the developmental cookie crumbles, that could look more like
Jason Bay's 2009 season at .267/.387/.537 with 29 2Bs, 36 HRs, 12-15 SBs and 162 SOs (but obviously with better defense).

Again, this is in the terms of "perfect world projections" and one must consider that no one knows what will happen when you start tinkering with a batter's swing. Maybe Taylor is able to retain his contact ability while adding more loft to his swing (which would make him look more like Albert Pujols) or maybe he totally falls apart and fails in the majors. At least with the swing that he has now, his minor league production looks to transfer favorably to the major leagues.

The bottom line is that the A's traded a very interesting prospect for another very interesting prospect at a different position. And despite the lack of HRs hit by past Stanford products, Taylor has the opportunity to be a very successful major league hitter. It is the hope of Oakland fans everywhere that his success includes completely smashing the previous career HR mark held by Ed Sprague.

Retroactive post #1: A Return to Basketball (Oct 13, 2009)

2010-04-10T13:07:00.000-07:00

I'll preface this with saying that I have been a Kings fan for, literally, my entire life. Born in 1987, I remember going to games for $1 (through some Target store promotion) to see Mitch Richmond put on a show and watch the hapless Kings lose time and time again. I remember cheering for Mitch as he displayed impeccable defense and precision 3-point shooting, leaving the games with a hoarse voice after a heartbreaking Kings loss.

Then there was a change in the Kings. Sacramento went out and starting turning over the roster and getting better. And the big shocker--Mitch Richmond traded. And the Chris Webber holdout. Then he comes around and, along with Vlade Divac, he and Jason Williams formed a team that was incredibly fun to watch. As the Kings rose to prominence, you can imagine how much I loved watching them. Then, with the combination of the 2002 heartbreaker losing to the Lakers and the 2003 heartbreaker against the Mavericks, I had to stop watching basketball. This was not because of anything the Kings did or didn't do, but this was because I began to hate the NBA's enforcement of rules. The subjectivity of the calls got me to the point where it was better for my blood pressure just to follow generally through the internet.

This whole time, I have still followed Kings on ESPN and of course always rooted for them to win, but I could not come to a place where I could have a vested interest in a game that I watched. I had to turn that switch off. Now, after a 6 year hiatus, I find myself passionately following the NBA and the Kings once again. I cannot stop myself. Kevin Martin is a guy who I have liked since the Kings drafted him and now the Kings have paired him up with an exciting talent like Tyreke Evans. Oh man, this team has me excited again. The raw ability of Evans and Thompson make me drool and the sweet shooting of Kevin Martin makes me swoon. Couple that with Spencer Hawes offensive ability and I can't help but return to basketball.

I know that the Kings aren't likely to win a lot of games, but this team promises to be an exciting one. It's not the best example, but the prospect of exciting play reminds me of the '98-'99/'99-'00 Kings with a young and exciting Jason Williams coupled with Chris Webber and Vlade Divac. Of course Jason was a different PG than Evans is and those teams actually made the playoffs, but the point is the exciting basketball that these young talents promise to bring.

I for one am excited to see the Kings head into the '10s with the talent they have acquired.

Mark Mulder, Roy Halladay, Trevor Cahill and overcoming BAD rookie seasons

2009-10-01T18:37:00.000-07:00

The general argument when it comes to Trevor Cahill is that his detractors will point to his inability to strike anyone out and his propensity to issue free passes as a reason that he is no more than a #4 starter. Trevor Cahill's supporters will make the rebuttle that he hasn't been using his most effective swing and miss pitch this season and control can be taught. Basically it is the "development argument"--Cahill has the ability to develop into a very good pitcher.

Knowing how highly I thought of Cahill coming into the season, I thought it might be a good idea to look into the likelihood of progression into the future ace/#2 starter most people thought he would develop into coming into the season. Looking at Cahill's season, it is easy to see why he has had such a rough time in the major leagues--those who argue against Cahill are right. He has a very low K/9, a high BB/9 and a subsequently very bad K/BB. Now pitchers have been able to develop one side of the equation or the other, but most successful pitchers enter the league at least somewhat proficient in one of these categories. Either they have very good control (they throw a lot of strikes) and cannot strike anyone out (ala Rick Porcello this year) or they send plenty of batters back to the dugout ok strikes and have a hard time hitting the zone (ala Clayton Kershaw). As these pitchers move foward, there is a slew of evidence that they at least have the opportunity to improve as there is a track record of pitchers who have done the same (Dan Haren, Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, etc). But are there pitchers who have had problems in both categories--to the same extent that Cahill has them--who have gone on to be successful starters in Major League Baseball?

This is what I sought to find out. My criteria was this:

1) Pitchers who had a K/BB ratio under 1.30 with more than 100 IP

2) Who later went on to post an above average FIP** for 3 years

3) They must not have exceeded 200 IP before their 1.30 K/BB season. We are looking at the ability of players to develop a good K/BB ratio not someone who is trying to bounce back from a bad season (Kenny Rogers, I'm looking at you)

For my purposes, I went searched back only to 1990. However, as I was looking through I found a couple pitchers who fit the bill going back into their careers. (Mike Moore was one of them)

All told, the results were slim. Here's what I found.

1982 Mike Moore (.092 K/BB)--immediately had 3 straight seasons under 3.60 FIP and 3 more out of the next 6 seasons above average--all told 6 out of his next 9 seasons were above average

Jose Mesa--I'm not even going to put down the years and K/BB ratios. From 1987-1992 (4 seasons), he was downright awful. However, in 1993, he began to put it together and put a string of 4 very good seasons together. He scattered a couple more very good seasons in over the rest of his career, but still came out with a career FIP of 4.31.

1991 Darryl Kile (1.19 K/BB)--Actually posted a solid 3.69 ERA in his rookie year, but had a FIP of 4.66 to back it up. Went on to post very good FIPs in 5 of the next 6 years. Wasn't quite the same after his year-29 season and ended up with a 4.24 career FIP. Solid and certainly over those 6 years he was a #3 starter.

1993 Tim Wakefield (0.79 K/BB)--Walked a LOT and Ked almost no one in his second season in the league. Went on to learn how to strikeout more and brought his BBs a little more under control scattering a few above average seasons throughout a very long career. Career FIP of 4.72 suggests that he is no more than a 4th starter.

1999 Roy Halladay (1.04 K/BB)--Now here is the first really interesting one. The others were pitchers who had moderate success but no real aces among the bunch. This is the first one to have prolonged success. After his rookie campaign (again with a a very good ERA that did not show the tale of the terrible FIP), Halladay's ERA combusted and he was sent down the minors to rework his mechanics. He came back to the majors and hasn't looked back since. His career FIP is 3.47--a true ace.

2000 Mark Mulder (1.28 K/BB)--Here is another interesting one. Mark Mulder came up from the minors in a hurry and had a very bad season his rookie year. After this, however, Mulder showed true ace potential putting up three straight seasons among the top pitchers in FIP. Injuries derailed his career and he was never same after 2003. All things equal, after his rookie season Mulder was an ace almost to the level of Halladay when he was healthy.

Apart from this handful of outliers, most other pitchers who put up K/BB ratios in the realm of Trevor Cahill faded into oblivion. The reason that I point out Mark Mulder is because so many people from the Athletics organization continue to point to Mark Mulder as a reason for keeping the A's rookies in the major leagues while they were struggling. Billy Beane specifically pointed to Mark Mulder as a guy who learned by taking some shots and then grew as a result of it. When Beane pointed to Mulder as a model, I didn't realize quite how closely Cahill's performance resembled Mulder's. For everyone's sake, Cahill had better hope that Beane was right to compare him to Mark Mulder because there are very few young pitchers who have struggled to the extent that Cahill has and gone on to be successful.

I would take it further and say that if Cahill's career follows the path of Moore, Mesa or Wakefield, he would rightly be considered a bust--or at least a disappointment. Coming into the league, Cahill was expected to be a frontline starter. Anything less than Mulder's performance (minus injury) would seem to be failure.

Better yet, Beane should hope that Cahill defies all odds and reaches for the furthest outlier--Roy Halladay. The odds are certainly against him, but Cahill has the track record and minor league scouting report to back it up.

If Cahill doesn't become the next outlier then he can expect to fade into oblivion along with Jimmy Anderson, Kirk Rueter, Ken Hill and Nate Cornejo.

**Note: FIP stands for "Fielding independent pitching." The basic idea of FIP comes from the premise that pitchers tend to have very little (specifically no) control over whether balls in play turn into outs or not. Pitchers can have good ERAs while actually performing quite poorly due to good defense and a bit of luck. This is similar to pitchers being able rack up wins while actually performing poorly although ERA is still MUCH more dependable than wins in terms of determining pitcher performance. Suffice it to say that "FIP" is a better way to determine whether or not a pitcher is performing well.

The start of something new

2009-10-01T09:48:00.000-07:00

I will start this out by giving a little bit of history. Going back 20 years ago to October of 1989, I was 2 years old. At this time my dad was a HUGE A's fan as was my mom. They were the glory days of Oakland Athletics baseball (the first of such glory since the mid 70s) with the Bash Brothers--Mark McGwire and Jose Canseco. The year before, Jose Canseco had become the first player in history with a 40-HR and 40-steal season. How did that happen? Because he wanted it to happen. In an interview during spring training of 1988 he was told that no one had ever hit 40 HRs and stolen 40 bases in a single season. In response to this, he told reporters that he would be the first to do it.

But October of 1989 was the special one. Armed with the winners of the last three rookie of the year awards (Canseco, McGwire and Walt Weiss), having added former Athletic Rickey Henderson back to the roster through trade and riding the ever-intimidating pitchers Dennis Eckersley and Dave Stewart, the Athletics made the MLB postseason for the second season in a row. This time, their combination of hitting, pitching and basestealing got them into the World Series. Here I was, a two-year old boy, lying in my favorite cozy spot under the coffee table watching the A's rip through the playoffs. At this moment, watching Mark McGwire round the bases in Game 1 of the 1989 ALCS against the Toronto Blue Jays after hitting what would be his only HR of the postseason, I became a baseball fan for life.

This marked the beginning of my interest in sports--one the was fueled later that year by the smooth stylings of Marcus Allen and lightning speed (to go along with thunderous power) of Bo Jackson. Then I remember watching in 1993, in the same cozy spot lying underneath the coffee table in our living room, as the Raiders walked off the field with their heads down while the Buffalo Bills celebrated their victory in the AFC Division Playoff game, unable to truly comprehend as a 6-year old why the Raiders' season was over and the Bills got to play next week.

Over the years I fell more and more in love with sports, even as my favorite teams went through their trials. The Raiders moved back to Oakland, but they fell out of contention for the rest of the decade. Howie Long retired after the playoff loss in 1993. Marcus Allen moved on to the Kansas City Chiefs the year before and Bo Jackson suffered a career ending hip injury in 1990 against Boomer Esiason's Cincinnati Bengals. Meanwhile the A's went through their own changes. The Network Associates Coliseum was "renovated" to accommodate the returning Raiders and Mt. Davis was added--blocking the beautiful scenery of the Bay Area. The A's lost Rickey Henderson once again, Mark McGwire dealt with recurring foot injuries, Jose Canseco was traded to the Texas Rangers for Ruben Sierra, Dave Stewart lost his mojo then moved to the Blue Jays and Tony LaRussa's seagulls came to the Coliseum. Meanwhile the Sacramento Kings were giving away basketball tickets at Target stores because apart from the silky-smooth Mitch Richmond, the Kings' teams consisted of names such as Wayman Tisdale, Olden Polynice, Duane Causwell, Lionel Simmons and Walt Williams.

Throughout these difficult time for my favorite sports teams, I can remember some of my favorite childhood memories were going to games at the Coliseum and Arco Arena. Years went by and change occurred. Charles Woodson, Rich Gannon and Jon Gruden teamed up to bring life back to the Raiders franchise. The young and innovative general manager Billy Beane rode Jason Giambi, Eric Chavez, Miguel Tejada and the Big 3 to success with the Athletics. And Chris Webber, Jason Williams and Vlade Divac brought energy to a Sacramento Kings franchise that had been the doormat of the league for decades.

And a young boy's interest in sports turned into an irrational fanaticism. That is the journey that has brought me here today. From the time that I fell in love with baseball at 2 years old, lying under the coffee table, there has always been something magical about sports. This blog is meant to be an outlet for myself and all other fans of the three top sports. For those of you who are irrational fanatics or just enjoy a good game on the weekend--you are welcome to come read, comment and interact here.

I will try to be as fair and open to the current events in sports, but I am well aware of my personal bias to the Kings, Raiders and A's. As a result of that, this blog will have a heavy lean to the West Coast--especially the Bay Area. That said, fans of all teams are welcome.