The Peter King article.

w
v

======================
“The key is Higbee,” Gurley told me at his locker after the game. That’s Tyler Higbee, the Rams’ Bavaro-like 255-pound tight end. “Higbee’s a beast.”

On this play, Gurley is split left in the slot, and he runs out just past the line, then does a crosser to the right. The Packers’ precocious inside linebacker, Blake Martinez, spies Gurley and makes a beeline for him. But here comes Higbee. All he wants to do is “accidentally” knock the Gurley cover guy off his course. Higbee puts an “accidental” shoulder into Martinez, and suddenly, Gurley is wide open. Martinez, who would have been hopelessly behind Gurley, now covers Higbee, hoping one of his mates sees the legal pick play…..

…McVay, afterward, didn’t want to give away the store, but he did tell me, “That was by design.” Of course it was. So many things the Rams do are by design, ghost-like maneuvers you don’t see clearly but when they’re over, you wonder, “How’d that happen?”

At his locker, Gurley was almost sheepish about it, like his coach. “Their guy [Martinez] was off me a little bit,” Gurley said. “My job is just be patient and then go across, come underneath him. It was wide open. We were practicing this play for probably a month.”

“A month?” I said.

“Yeah,” he said. “Never called it once. Not in a game. Just in practice. In practice, our guys haven’t been able to pick it up, not one time in practice. We’re like, ‘Yeah, this is gonna work.’ “

“You mean the pick part of it?” I said.

“Yup,” he said. “It’s a natural pick. Higbee’s the best. He’s one of the best shift blockers in the league. He does a lot of great stuff that gets unnoticed on this team. He’s our sixth offensive lineman and he’s always doing great job in play action passes, everything. His work does not go unnoticed by his teammates—tell you that.”…see link
link:https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2018/10/29/rams-packers-todd-gurley-fmia-nfl-week-8-peter-king/?cid=rotoworld

Link: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/placebo-myths-debunked/
3.3K
SHARES
3.3K60013100
Placebo effects are largely misunderstood, even by professionals, and this leads to a lot of sloppy thinking about potential treatments. This problem has been exacerbated by the alternative medicine phenomenon.

Several decades ago, the proponents of so-called CAM promised that if only their preferred if unconventional treatments were properly tested medical science would discover how effective they are. “Effective” (or more precisely, “efficacy”) has a specific definition in medical science – it means that a treatment has been found to perform statistically significantly better than placebo in a blinded controlled trial. Several decades and thousands of studies later, the most popular CAM modalities (homeopathy, acupuncture, reiki, manipulation for medical indications, and more) have been shown to be no more effective than placebo. This means they don’t work.

Not to be deterred by reality, CAM proponents simply shifted the goal posts. Now many of them are saying that placebo effects are real, and therefore being as effective as placebo means that their treatments “work.” As part of this strategy they have promoted and amplified common myths about placebo effects. Let’s take a closer look at these myths and show why they are wrong.

Myth #1 – “The” placebo effect
The first and overriding myth about placebos is that there is one placebo effect (singular). This confusion is understandable, because scientists often refer to “the” placebo effect. However, they are referring to what is measured in the placebo arm of a clinical trial – that net effect (the difference between baseline or no treatment at all and a placebo treatment) is the placebo effect for that study.

There are multiple placebo effects contributing to that difference, however. Anything that might give the appearance of an improvement will contribute to the measured placebo effect. These placebo effects include: Regression to the mean – when symptoms flare, they are likely to return to baseline on their own. If you take any illness that fluctuates in severity, any treatment you take when your symptoms are at their peak is likely by chance alone to be followed by a period of less intense symptoms.

Similar to this but distinct is the reality that many illnesses are self-limiting. If you have a cold, you will likely get better even if you do nothing – so anything you do will be followed by improvement. There is also bias in perceiving and reporting subjective symptoms. People want to feel better, they want to think that the treatment is working, and they may want to please the researcher or their physician. Further, researchers and doctors want their treatments to work.

There are also many possible non-specific effects just from the act of being treated. Hope can be a very positive emotion, and that alone may make people subjectively feel better. Subjects in a trial are also getting medical attention, and are likely paying more attention to their own health. They are likely to be more compliant with other treatments.

The treatment under study itself may have several components, some specific and some non-specific. Do people sometimes feel better after a session of reiki or acupuncture because they were laying down listening to music and smelling incense during the treatment? How much of a relaxation effect is at play? Does it matter if you actually stick the needles in alleged acupuncture points (the answer is no)?

Myth #2 – Placebo effects can cause healing
Because it is often believed that “the” placebo effect is one thing, that one thing is often believed to be a real mind-over-matter physical healing. There is no evidence to support this interpretation, however. In fact researchers looking for that real healing effect of placebos have only demonstrated that it doesn’t exist.

Part of the problem here is that the term “healing” is vague. It does not have a specific definition, but the implication is that biological repair is taking place. In practice researchers distinguish objective vs subjective markers of improvement. Subjective just means that the patient feels better in some way, per their own report. They rate their own pain, for example. An objective outcome is something measurable, like blood pressure, survival, or tumor burden.

A systematic review of cancer research, for example, found that placebo interventions resulted in minor improvements in subjective symptoms, but no improvement in the cancer itself.

Placebo effects break down into several categories. One category is illusory – the misperception of improvement through regression to the mean or biased reporting. The second category is non-specific effects, such as emotional comfort from a practitioner, relaxation, or improved self-care or compliance. This third category is comprised of effects which can plausibly result from psychological interventions only. These relate mainly to stress, depression, anxiety, and the perception of pain and similar subjective symptoms. There is a mind-body connection – it’s called the brain.

There is, however, no magical control of your brain over biological or physiological processes that are not networked with the brain through nerves or hormones.

Myth #3 – Animals and babies cannot have a placebo effect
This myth results from the false assumption that in order to have a placebo effect you need to believe that you are taking an active treatment. It is the belief that is causing the effect, and therefore it is a prerequisite. The logic then follows that animals and babies, who cannot know they are receiving a treatment, can therefore not have a placebo effect. Any improvement in this context, therefore, must be a physiological response to the treatment itself.

It should already be obvious, however, that these assumptions are incorrect. There are many sources of placebo effects that do not depend upon the subject knowing they are being treated, such as regression to the mean, the self-limiting nature of many ailments, and non-specific effects or benefits from simultaneous interventions.

Further, however, someone has to determine that the animal or baby has improved. That person is vulnerable to biased perception and reporting, and will also contribute to any measured effect.

This means that studies of treatments in animals or babies still need to be properly controlled, and whoever is assessing the outcome needs to be properly blinded to treatment allocation.

Myth #4 – Fanciful or alternative treatments yield better placebo effects
Desperate to salvage a role for their preferred but ineffective treatments, many alternative practitioners will argue that their real expertise is in maximizing placebo effects. OK, sure, the scientific evidence shows that my treatment is no better than placebo, but placebo effects are real, and I am very good at eliciting them. This is the “placebo medicine” gambit.

I have already debunked the first part of that claim. There is also no evidence for the second part, that alternative practitioners elicit more of a placebo effect. What the scientific evidence shows is that all interventions will produce some placebo effect, depending mainly on the outcome to be followed. The more subjective and amenable to variables such as mood, the larger the measured effect will be.

The existence of a placebo effect does not justify using inactive or pseudoscientific treatments. You can elicit the same effects from science-based interventions. Related to this is the notion of placebo effects without deception. This is certainly possible, if you include all the non-specific and statistical effects, but most patients would likely not be happy to be receiving a treatment that they were told was completely inert, just so it may bias their perception of their symptoms. All pseudoscientific treatments, even if they are justified through placebo effects, are given with a generous helping of deception, which violates patient autonomy.

The other variable that seems to be important, but requires further study, is the therapeutic relationship between practitioner and patient. Having a positive relationship may enhance the measured placebo effect, but that may be just another measure of bias.

In any case, anything useful about placebo effects can be had with a positive therapeutic relationship, using science-based interventions, and following the ethical requirements of informed consent and patient autonomy.

Q&A: Rams cap guru Tony Pastoors on offseason deals, the Jared Goff ‘high-class problem’ and ‘more work to do’

Vincent Bonsignore

https://theathletic.com/594953/2018/10/19/qa-rams-cap-guru-tony-pastoors-on-offseason-deals-the-jared-goff-high-class-problem-and-more-work-to-do/

There​ is a classic​ scene in the movie “Swingers”​ where​ Vince Vaughn’s character introduces Jon​ Favreau’s character​ as​ “The guy​ behind the​​ guy behind the guy.”
Ironically, that line aptly describes most NFL front offices these days. The Rams included.
Out front, we always see general manager Les Snead or head coach Sean McVay or COO and executive vice president of football operations Kevin Demoff. And while the trio is largely responsible for the Rams’ undefeated start through the first six weeks of the season, there exists a guy behind the guy behind the guy, someone who largely operates behind the scenes without much fanfare or recognition.
But he’s just as important to the whole operation as Snead, McVay and Demoff.
Tony Pastoors — a quiet, measured 31-year-old former Dartmouth football standout — holds the title of vice president of football and business administration. And with a professional inscription as impressive as that, you can only imagine how wide and deep his responsibilities run.
But for the purpose of brevity, all you really need to know about Patoors is that he’s the Rams salary cap guru and their chief contract negotiator.
And while Snead and his staff are in charge of identifying and acquiring all the players and McVay and his staff are entrusted with coaching them up and Demoff and owner Stan Kroenke decide what the budget looks like each year, it is Pastoors who somehow makes it all work within the NFL’s incredibly complex and excruciatingly difficult salary cap.
So if you’re a Rams fan looking to thank anyone for the incredible offseason the franchise achieved in which it rewarded Aaron Donald (six-year $135 million extension), Todd Gurley (four years, $57.5 million), Rob Havenstein (four years, $32.5 million), added Ndamukong Suh for $14 million, acquired Brandin Cooks and gave him a five-year $34 million extension and traded for Marcus Peters and Aqib Talib, then Pastoors is your guy. He made it all work under the cap.
And keep in mind Pastoors also preserved financial flexibility moving forward to take care of Jared Goff, who is creeping into that rarified air occupied by franchise quarterbacks and will need to get paid like one sooner rather than later.
With an eye on the present and the future, Patoors helped lock in the Rams’ incredible young core. He also left plenty of room to supplement it in such a way that, provided they keep making sound personnel decisions, it will leave the Rams as playoff contenders over an extended window.
“His job is to make sure that, ‘Hey, not only can we have Christmas but we can have birthdays and next year’s Christmas and next year’s birthdays and so on and so forth,’ ” Snead said.
Demoff, a fellow Dartmouth alum, brought Pastoors to the Rams in 2010 after he graduated. Pastoors’ role continued to grow and evolve until Demoff finally handed over contract negotiating responsibilities to him in 2015.
“I always knew I wanted to work in sports,” Pastoors said. “I’m a passionate sports fan and always loved the team aspect and being around a team. And wanting to help build a team.
“I don’t know that I ever dreamt about negotiating contracts. I think that’s just one of those things, it’s just how the world worked out. I had an unbelievable mentor in Kevin to learn from and over the years, kind of helped to take things off his plate more and more and more until one day he kind of looked at me and said, ‘Hey go for it.’ ”
Along the way, Pastoors has cultivated a much-needed calming presence in the often volatile and emotional world of pro football in which the desire to win now must be balanced with the bigger picture. What might look great today could cause major ramifications tomorrow.
“He’s a great compass,” Snead said. “Because he’s the one who will constantly remind us of our philosophy that was designed and put together during the calm moments and not during the storm when we’re irrational or emotional.”
“When all four of us are together he’s going to listen like 95 percent of the time,” Snead added. “But then when he does say something, it’s absolutely worth listening to.”

Pastoors sat down with The Athletic to talk about his role, the Rams’ offseason and how things look moving forward.

In your role as the salary cap manager and contract negotiator, do you ever have to play the role of the parent having to tell the kids they might not be able to get that one big present they were hoping for?

I hope that’s never happened (laughing). No, honestly I think that’s probably a lot of Kevin’s role. At the end of the day, that’s big picture. And while I certainly do that, part of what I always strive to do is to make sure you never have to say no. And be in a position where you always have the flexibility to do those kinds of things. Now, I don’t want to say I’ve never said no. But certainly, and I think Les and Sean have an unbelievable understanding of all this, there are tradeoffs to everything we do. So yes, we may be able to do this, but we’re not going to be able to do this, this or this. Fortunately, to this point, we haven’t had to say no too much, but I think a lot of that is because of their understanding.

It would seem in your world with managing a salary cap that you’re constantly thinking one year, two years, five years down the road. Is that accurate?

That’s probably more of how I operate than say Sean and Les. Especially during the season, right? Coach lives in a week-to-week, so Sean is only thinking right now. And certainly Les goes right along with that. What do we need this week? Especially in season, they’re pretty focused on the now. Every once in a while you’ll be able to get Les out and have a bigger picture conversation. But if you want to talk about the future or planning right now with Sean, it’s probably not an ideal time. So yeah, it’s pretty much how I function. I have to look ahead.

I’m constantly trying to plan years out in advance and forecasting where we’re going to be. And obviously it looks nice right now, but realistically how much is it going to be that way? In a perfect world, it’s ‘Hey, this is what we’ll look like in ‘19, this is what we’ll look like in ‘20.’ But obviously, there’s hundreds of variables in between that will change all that. So at times you kind of feel like you plan ahead only to throw it all away anyway.
But, no, right now I’m not looking much at all at 2018. We’re done and gone there. We’re looking ahead to 2019, 2020 and 2021 and trying to figure it out and make sure we’re continually set up for success.

You were front and center in an incredibly successful — and I’m sure stressful — offseason. Let’s start with the Aaron Donald situation, which for obvious reasons dominated the news. It took more than a year to get that done. As the person in the thick of those negotiations, can you shed any light on what the primary sticking point was?

There’s so many — especially deals of that magnitude — there’s just so many little nuances that go into it. Obviously, the dollar amount is what everyone will fixate on or the guarantee amount. But the structure and how the mechanisms in that contract work and when the guarantees fully vest and what does that mean from a financial standpoint for the club and things like that, all of those things get played into it. And since it had been a while since a top-notch defender was done like that, I think it further complicated things.
And so, trying to put Aaron in a position where he felt appreciated and he felt the contract was commensurate with his play and do it in a structure that we were able to actually deal with and handle today, tomorrow and two or three years from now — right? — you can’t just do a deal and say, “Hey, you’re the highest paid defensive player, great, let’s just move on.” I mean, that deal is going to, we’re going to feel that for years to come. And if he keeps playing the way he plays I don’t think we’ll have any issues with it, right?
But just making sure we’re set up for success because this is one of those games where it’s not just about that one guy. There’s always going to be 53 guys and so how do you manage all of that and, like I said, if things continue to progress and go the right way, hopefully, we’re looking at another big contract for a quarterback here soon. And so how does all that fit in? And how do we spread these things out and manage them over the years?

Staying on 2018, it was a pretty active offseason with the trades for Marcus Peters, Aqib Talib and Brandin Cooks and adding Ndamukong Suh and extending Aaron Donald, Todd Gurley and Rob Havenstein and Cooks. It really could not have played out much better. What do you attribute the smoothness to?

I think it starts and ends with (Rams owner) Stan Kroenke. Players have taken note, right? And so, we had a pretty successful year a year ago and have an unbelievable young head coach who the players really, really respect and love and that gets around pretty quick. I think all of those things made the offseason much easier than it probably could have been.
Not to say it was easy by any stretch. It’s never easy getting some of those things done. But between Kevin and Les and Sean and the support we have around here, we were able to get things done. And we were fortunate we worked with some really good agents on the other end who were willing to work with us and, at times, were willing to be creative.
We’re not always the most simple “this is how we do things” (franchise). We have no problems looking at things differently and creatively. And so we were pretty fortunate in that sense.

From the outside looking in, the perception is you guys were much more aggressive this offseason in adding players. Fair? And if so, what was the motivation?

I don’t know that we were more aggressive this offseason than we’ve ever been. I think it was just, probably, it just came across as a little different. And people probably pay a little more attention because you are 11-5 and you are in Los Angeles and you have Sean as your head coach and Les. And things are going the right way and people kind of sensed and felt that.
But with every move, there’s a tradeoff and so we’ve been fortunate in that we’ve had a lot of good players. And some of them left in free agency and so, OK, how do we supplement some of that? And we trade away players too, right? We acquired an Aqib Talib and a Marcus Peters, but we also traded away a former defensive captain and former first-team All-Pro.
So things went in and things went out. That’s where the notion that we were ultra-aggressive, it probably just manifested itself in a different way than it had before. But I think every offseason you go into wanting to try and better your team.
That said, even with all the moves you made, this wasn’t a one-and-done situation. The long range has been protected.
The notion that we pushed all the chips in and went all in (this year), I mean, I understand where it comes from. It’s just not how we’re set up at all.

You mentioned the possibility of a big contract soon for your quarterback, Jared Goff. For whatever reason, there is a certain line of thinking that it’s so hard to build a Super Bowl contending team while paying a quarterback big money. It’s almost like some people think it’s impossible to do so. Where do you fall in that regard, especially as someone who manages the salary cap and negotiates contracts and who has a young, high-level quarterback who will eventually be paid as one?

I’m actually going through Super Bowl teams in my head and, aside from Russell Wilson on a rookie deal and, obviously, Philadelphia was different last year because of the quarterback injury. But aside from those two examples, I’m pretty sure they were all veteran quarterbacks or guys that were not on rookie contracts.
Matt Ryan was on a $20-plus-million contract when he played in a Super Bowl. Cam Newton, when he played in a Super Bowl, was on his second contract. Obviously, Peyton Manning was well-paid in his Super Bowl appearances. Ben Roethlisberger, aside from maybe his first one, was on a big contract. Eli Manning was on a second contract. Aaron Rodgers was on a second contract. Drew Brees was not on a rookie deal when he won a Super Bowl. And obviously, Tom Brady has been on a few contracts.
And so the notion of, your (only or best) shot is when your quarterback is on a rookie deal has been disproven regularly. And certainly you have the ability to do some things, and you try to stagger some of these things in how and when people are paid in preparation for assuming a quarterback contract.
That position is just different. That’s the one position in this game you can’t truly scheme away from. If the best pass rusher is on one end, well, you can run away from him. The best receiver, you can double cover him. The quarterback is getting the ball on every play, and there’s nothing you can really do to stop that. And certainly, there are defensive coordinators over the years that have shown ways to slow it down or maybe affect it. But you can’t stop — whether it’s Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers or whoever from getting the snap from center and doing what they do. And so that position is different. It’s paid what it is for a reason. And I don’t think it’s a hindrance to pay a quarterback.
If you’re paying a quarterback, it means you’ve got a quarterback. And if you’ve got a quarterback, you’ve got a chance. Otherwise, you’re looking for one. And we did that for a number of years. Some unfortunate injuries and (other factors), and so you were looking.
Obviously, Jared has demonstrated over the last year plus he is truly in command of this offense and what he’s done so far (this year) speaks volumes to who he is as a player and the work he’s put in and the relationship he has with Sean and the work they’re doing together. Really, that offense as a whole. But it’s a great problem to have. A high-class problem. Worrying about paying a quarterback? Great. That means we’ve got one. We can figure out the rest.

Does having an owner with the resources of a Stan Kroenke help when it comes to managing the salary cap? The way you can structure contracts and pay them out?

Not really because there’s such parity in the NFL and you have the hard salary cap. In the NBA, you have a luxury tax in which the big-market teams can go above and beyond because of their local TV deals. Baseball you can do the same. But with it being a truly hard cap, it makes it a pretty even playing field across the board and between all the owners and the teams. With the CBA and the minimum spend thresholds over four-year periods and everything like that, we’re all pretty much living in the same world. And so, I don’t know that it gives us any sort of advantage.
I think the advantage we have from our owner — and I truly believe we have an unbelievable advantage having someone like Mr. Kroenke. I mean it’s right there on the wall (pointing to a wall-sized rendering of the new $4.5 billion stadium the Rams are building in Inglewood). What he’s doing here in Los Angeles — players and coaches and media and people are taking note. What he’s doing here is special and unique and it’s probably once in a lifetime. And to be able to be a part of it is pretty cool. I think our players see that every day and we’re fortunate to have a guy like Sean, but to me, it all starts and ends with Stan.

You seem like a very laidback guy. But as someone who negotiates contracts, that can be a pretty volatile, emotional world. How would you describe your demeanor as a negotiator?

I try to be laidback. I’m not sure you’ve ever seen Kevin or Les on game day but … someone needs to be laidback. Or at least calm.
No, I think that’s, I think by nature I’m a little more tranquil, but I certainly can get excited at times. I think anyone can. But that’s something I’ve learned over the years and something I learned from Kevin. And certainly something you learn from Stan. I mean, he’s as even-keeled as they come. Obviously, those two have been pretty successful in what they’ve done, so you try to imitate some of that. And obviously, you see Sean on the sidelines in the way he handles himself.
I don’t know that getting into an argument is going to help either side. It doesn’t mean I always agree, but there are certain ways to communicate that in a respectful manner and not get everybody all up in arms.

Sean McVay has talked about still evolving as a play caller. Do you feel the same way managing a salary cap and negotiating contracts?

If you’re not learning and evolving, you’re probably in trouble. I think it’s with everything we do. You want to look at it and go back and, “OK, what did we do well? What did we do not so well?” And for me, it’s always keeping an eye on what’s going on around the league. It’s not just our deals we look at, it might be others.
And I’m just a fan of sports and building and managing teams. No different than Sean being a fan of great coaches. I’m a big sports fan. So whether it’s the NBA or the NHL, MLB, NFL or even some of the soccer stuff now. You follow that stuff. You keep tabs on it. A big contract comes in, and how do these things get done? And so it’s always been interesting to me how things get done, how they’re put together and how do people build teams. Whether it’s this sport or another sport.
What the Warriors have done is really, really impressive. Being able to put that team together with, and while everyone talks about “Oh, they went and bought Kevin Durant in free agency,” but that team was essentially put together through the draft. And you kind of forget about that. Look, a few years prior to that, Oklahoma City with James Harden and Russell Westbrook and Kevin Durant you kind of look back and go, “Whoa.”
And so, how do those teams get put together? How do you keep those teams together? And that’s the hardest part. And we have one here in the NFL that somehow does it year in and year out in New England. How do they continually have such success? So certainly you keep tabs on all that stuff and try to learn from them. And even in the business world. I mean, I look at that (the rendering of the new Inglewood stadium) every day, right? And how that came to be and everything that went into it.
That will make an unbelievable book someday. But just being able to see how that all came about, there’s so many different ways to learn.

Obviously, the CBA is incredibly complicated. Are there elements in there that would take you by surprise?

There’s always going to be something. But you always want to continue to learn. And I would never say, “Oh, I’ve mastered the salary cap” and this is easy or anything like that. Because there’s a lot that goes into it and a lot of preparation for everything we do and a lot of planning and forward thinking.
And I think the other part of it is, while the salary cap — and people kind of get fascinated by it and talk about how teams manage it — but at the end of the day there’s real money behind it. And it’s not my money. So I will always be, probably, overly careful and overly cautious or at least try to be. Because you take very seriously the responsibility of taking care of, or spending, someone else’s money. And like I said, it begins and ends with Stan, and for him to give us these resources and allow us to compensate our players well, it’s a responsibility you don’t take lightly.

With the NFL salary cap as hard as it is, does it get frustrating at times knowing you simply have to come to grips with making difficult decisions?

It certainly can be frustrating, but I think what you always want to do is set yourself up and set the organization up to be flexible to adapt. And you never want to disappoint anyone. Whether it’s the coaches or the players. But inevitably someone’s maybe not going to feel valued the way they think they should.
But we’re pretty fortunate, and at the end of the day you can always manipulate salary caps. And Kevin will tell you, it’s like a credit card, right? You can pay it all now or you can pay it over time and feel the pain little by little. And for the most part, we’ve always tried to take as much pain in the here and now. Now, obviously, when you do a deal like Aaron Donald or Todd Gurley you can’t exactly do that. And so, there’s some elements of where we deviated a little bit from how we’ve done things in the past.
But at times you have to be willing to do that for exceptional players like that. And when you have the Offensive and Defensive Players of the Year, you’re probably going to have to do that. And we’re unbelievably fortunate because of everything Mr. Kroenke allows us to do and the resources he gives and the support he provides everyone in this building. It really makes a lot of it manageable.

Trades can happen in a variety of ways — quick process, prolonged — and as the salary cap guy you probably have to have answers quickly in order to give Les a sense of what can be accomplished or not. In the case of, say, the Marcus Peters trade, how did that play out?

That one actually came about pretty quick. But I think it was no secret to anyone that one of the places we looked at this offseason to improve was at cornerback. And we had a guy (Trumaine Johnson) who was on two franchise tags and we’re making a decision about financially how does it work potentially putting a third tag and what does his free agency number look like and all those different things.
You lean on the scouts as far as what does the draft look like? Where we’re picking, what are the chances we can get a guy who can come in and play right away? And we fill those things in. OK, if he’s not a right-away day-one starter and he’s a year or two away, what do we do this year? How do you fill that spot? So you’re looking at all these different scenarios and all these different ways to address it.
And so when Kansas City reached out, it was a pretty quick conversation. Les came over and said, “OK, what’s the contract look like?” And it’s a rookie deal. So you knew financially that it fits. Especially at that time of the year. And from there, Les and Sean sit down and go through the player and watch tape together and that kind of stuff. And all the while you’re trying to figure out what’s the ask. What do they really want? And what are we willing to give up in exchange for a player like this? And obviously a player like Marcus’ caliber, they don’t come cheap.
And then just finding a way to get that deal done — obviously not having a 2018 second-rounder, you had to look ahead to 2019. You put that deal together and you’re able to when Les and Sean and everyone kind of signs off and Les and we’re constantly bouncing off, “OK, what exactly does the compensation look like?” And when Les finally gets us to a place where we’re all like, “OK.” At that point, you just wait for the trade papers.

But making a trade like you did for Marcus Peters, there are financial considerations looming in terms of his next contract. How much is that talked about?

Yes, you have to look at everything. You can’t just say, “Hey we’re going to make this trade and it’s all going to work out and life is good.” You have to look at: What does this mean a year from now? Two years from now? What’s the fifth-year option number? What does the franchise tag potentially looks like? How does that fit if that’s the road you have to go down? Are you able to actually do that?
And then for us, once that deal was done, OK, how do you address the other (cornerback) side? And credit to Les and credit to our scouts, they were able to scour college, pro, everything. And there aren’t enough guys on the planet that can go outside and play corner. There just aren’t.
So to be able to acquire two good ones (Aqib Talib being the other) in one offseason is a credit to those guys. And trying to figure out how to actually make it work, I’m just trying to hold up my side of it.

And almost simultaneously, here comes a trade for Brandin Cooks for a first-round pick knowing he was set to become a free agent at the end of the year. Can you shed light, from your end of things, how that that all played out?

There was some interest last year. Obviously, he was traded to New England, so it’s a guy you kept tabs on.
When we went into free agency, we were unsure where we were going to end up with (Sammy Watkins), and when that got to a point where it’s just not looking good, it’s going to end up here, you kind of go back to work and say, “OK, what are our other options? What does the draft look like? Who are the other free-agent options? Who can you potentially trade for?”
And so you kind of talk through that list and then Les kind of reaches out to New England and obviously the whole story of Sean and Bill Belichick at a clinic together. Then it’s how does it all work? And the thing that made that one a little tougher is we were courting Ndamukong Suh at the time.
So, trying to balance, “Hey, where can we go on Ndamukong?” And … “if this is where Ndamukong’s number grows to or this is where that market heads, you can’t fit this in too.” And so if this is going to come, then Ndamukong has to be between this and this. And how does it all balance itself out?
And during the offseason when Sean’s not in game-plan mode — he’s in the office and he’s grinding on tape and doing all that kind of stuff — we’re constantly talking as a group. And Kevin will be here as well. And so what does it look like moving forward.
And so then, when you formulate all that stuff you kind of run it up the flagpole and get Stan’s perspective on it as well. Which is always invaluable. Especially this offseason, the support. Obviously, he was a major part of last season. He’s been a major part of every offseason but obviously this year incredibly so.

It just seems like there was an urgency. Not to say there wasn’t one when you were making the climb up, but winning the division and the goal line being within arm’s reach, it just seems like there was an urgency during the offseason to close that gap.

Last year just felt different for everybody. And wanting to build on that and from the day the season ended, 11-5 was fun, it was great, but it’s not good enough. And so how do we take those next steps and Mr. Kroenke is a major part of that process with us.
And so, as we went through everything this offseason for him to be supportive and part of it and, really, in a lot of regards the driving force behind all of this, that’s where we have such an advantage with him. We wouldn’t get Suh if Stan is not a part of this. And that’s where it’s so awesome to have an owner like that.

It almost seems like, at the beginning of Suh’s free agency you guys couldn’t be serious contenders considering everything else that was going on. But you stayed patient and it just seemed like his market eventually fell into your world.

Yeah, sometimes I think being patient is just fine. It’s not always hurry up so you get something done. And so you make decisions. And again, a lot of that comes from the guidance of guys like Kevin and Stan.
So while, yeah, it would have been great if we were able to get it all done a year earlier or six months earlier or whatever it may have been, the process had to play out.
It’s no different than players, right? Sometimes you’d love to, say, “I wish we would have done Aaron’s deal a year earlier.” It would have probably caused me a lot less stress and him a lot less stress and Les and Sean and our fanbase a ton less stress. But sometimes it just doesn’t work out that way. And being patient is never a bad thing. And sometimes things fall to you, sometimes things don’t. But I think people, players especially, they see and they know what’s going on here. And so sometimes we can afford to be patient and things work themselves out.
You don’t get any of these deals done, whether it’s trades or extensions or anything like that, without a buy-in from players. We can offer a lot of these guys whatever it is, but if this isn’t where you want to be or this doesn’t feel right, it’s probably not going to work out for anybody. And that’s something we’ve been extremely fortunate with.

Do you give yourself a chance to celebrate or is it always onto the next one?

This offseason, it definitely felt like, “OK, we’re on to the next one.” But it’s exciting, obviously. And I don’t want to take away from that. To be able to extend a guy like Todd Gurley and keep him in a Rams uniform for a long time is really exciting for our fans and our coaches. For the city of Los Angeles. And so, I don’t want to take that away and I never would.
But I don’t know if it was last season, and kind of the mentality of this offseason, but we feel like we’ve got more work to do. There’s unfinished business. And so it was — it’s great to get those things done because I hope it sets us up for years to come. But at the same time, while an NFC West championship last year was a great first step, it’s not the ultimate goal.

https://theathletic.com/589786/2018/10/14/week-6-scouting-notebook-tarik-cohen-david-njoku-level-up/

Michael Salfino

The​ announcers were too​ dim-witted to notice​ but​ the Broncos​ wisely​ letting Todd​ Gurley​ run​ the​ ball up and​ down the​​ field resulted in the Rams being below average in scoring points. The object of defense is to limit points, not shut down the running game. I’ve said for a couple of weeks now that this was how defenses should play the Rams. This will catch on. Todd Gurley will run wild. But that Rams passing game and receivers will be less productive and thus total Rams points will decrease.
My analogy with this approach is that the Rams are Mr. Freeze and defenses are Batman. Does Batman want Mr. Freeze to just shoot him (analogous to quick touchdowns via the air) or laboriously try to kill him by making him into a snow cone (the slow death via the running game). Like Batman, a defense can avoid the slow death. Here’s a photo to help you understand these advanced football concepts.
Finally, the Rams had 17 third downs. They converted eight. But the key is getting Los Angeles into third down. Against the Vikings when they lit it up, they had seven third downs (and converted just one).
The Vikings are the poor-man’s Rams in that you want to dare them to run not only because their passing game is so deadly but because they seemingly can’t run. That changed today when Latavius Murray romped for 155 yards. If you can wait like three weeks, buy Dalvin Cook.

===

Sean McVay’s harsh self-critique reveals just how accountable Rams really are

https://theathletic.com/589867/2018/10/15/sean-mcvays-harsh-self-critique-reveals-just-how-accountable-rams-really-are/

DENVER​ — Maybe the​ craziest part of​ all​ is that,​ as​ much as​ Twitter​ was​ @-ing​ Rams head coach​ Sean McVay​​ wondering why he wasn’t just feeding Todd Gurley every time the Rams sniffed the red zone on Sunday, no one was criticizing McVay louder or with more frequency than McVay himself.
It happens like that sometimes, even for an offensive wunderkind like McVay, whose Rams improved to 6-0 with a much closer than expected 23-20 win over the Denver Broncos. Frankly, they pulled off the victory somewhat in spite of their 32-year-old head coach.
“I thought I put us in some horrible spots throughout the game [by] really getting impatient, forcing things that weren’t there,” McVay said. “The players bailed me out finding a way to get a win.”
That seems odd considering the Rams just completed a two-game road sweep in two of the most difficult places for visiting teams to win in the NFL — Seattle and Denver — and did so in wet, cold and very un-L.A.-like weather conditions while digging deep into their depth chart to overcome the losses of some key starters for long stretches of both games.
But these Rams are an accountable bunch, and it starts at the very top. So while everyone was celebrating another big road win, McVay was kicking himself for making it harder than it should have been.
“We were able to stay ahead of the chains,” he said. “Really with an exception of some things with me putting us in bad spots.”
That might be pushing it a little bit. Especially since no one is more responsible for the franchise’s dramatic turnaround than McVay, whose creativity, passion and offensive genius have turned the Rams into one of the most dangerous teams in the NFL.
But then, the criticism was mostly self-directed.
In fact, McVay chastised himself after his Rams survived the snow, frigid cold and stubborn Broncos. The way he sees it, he got a little too cute and a tad too aggressive on a couple of early red-zone trips that resulted in field goals instead of touchdowns and turned a potential blowout into an eventual nail biter.
And as the Rams’ play caller, the blame falls squarely on his shoulders.
“The cold didn’t really dictate the play selection,” McVay muttered afterward. “If anything, the cold might have just affected my brain with some of the decisions I made.”

The play calling did seem a bit curious considering the Broncos opted to over-defense Jared Goff and the passing game while blanketing the second and third levels and bringing plenty of heat with the pass rush duo of Bradley Chubb and Von Miller.
The Broncos did so knowing full well it might mean Gurley going off.
“Today, that was kind of part of our game plan, try to make them run the ball, really,” Broncos cornerback Chris Harris said. “Their offense has been putting up 40 points per game, so we just tried to figure out a way to slow them down.”
Defending the Rams these days has become a dangerous game of pick your poison. The Broncos decided if anyone on the Rams was going to beat them, it was going to be Gurley.
“One of the centerpieces of what makes us so special on offense is that week in and week out we see teams and defensive coordinators that (decide) either Todd’s not going to beat me or I’m going to let Todd get off and stop them from throwing the football,” Rams left tackle Andrew Whitworth told The Athletic.
Or as Goff explained it: “We had a good feeling we were going to get some removal up front on some of these guys if they wanted to play a little bit deeper like they did in the secondary, which is fine. They were having a hard time stopping the running. Today we were able to run home. It is a testament to up front what we were able to do so. Todd, just being the guy he is, he’s the same guy every week and today we got to see it in full-force.”
Gurley ran for a career-high 208 yards and two touchdowns on 28 carries, averaging 7.4 yards per carry. It was a spectacular performance that thrusts him back into the MVP conversation.
And it was evident very early that Sunday had all the characteristics of one of Gurley’s signature-type games as he kept gashing the Broncos for big chunks of yards.
“It was obvious when we’re carrying the ball [and] getting five, 10 yards per carry,” Gurley said.”Obviously you want to go with what’s working and that’s what we did today.”
Gurley’s numbers could have been more pronounced — and the path to a Rams win much, much clearer — had McVay remained disciplined at some critical junctures and simply pounded the Broncos with his reigning Offensive Player of the Year.
“You ride the hot hand, right?” Rams center Jon Sullivan said. “No matter what, we’re going to execute the plays that are called. We trust Sean. That’s never going to change. I’m not going to say at times we weren’t lobbying to keep running that thing.”
But McVay got away from the run game at times. He admits it probably cost the Rams.
“The players will look at themselves as well, but there was a handful of plays that I really thought I didn’t do a very good job for us today,” McVay said.
The first curious decisions came on the Rams’ first drive of the game when they threw six straight times only to stall at the Denver 8-yard-line and settle for a 26-yard Cairo Santos field goal. The second head scratcher took place on their next possession when Gurley ran five times for 43 yards but, with the Rams facing a third-and-2 from the Broncos 22, McVay opted against another Gurley run in favor of a short pass to Robert Woods that fell incomplete. Out came Cairo again for a 39-yard field goal to make it 6-0.
Only it felt like the Rams should have led 14-0.
The third curious play call might have been the most egregious. Leading 13-3, the Rams got the ball at the 50-yard line with 39 seconds left in the first half after the Broncos were thrown for an 11-yard loss on fourth down. Denver smartly over-defended the long pass on the back end and brought pressure off both edges and along the interior of the line. The situation was ripe for a screen pass or a draw play to Gurley to beat the heat or a short-to-intermediate pass to work the sideline to get the Rams into field goal position.
Instead, the Rams tried to push the ball downfield with slower developing pass concepts, resulting in Goff getting sacked on two of his three pass drops to negate any chance for a field goal attempt.
McVay fumed at himself.
“I think that’s where I’m most bothered is because of the decisions where I put our guys in those spots where you can stay ahead of the chains,” he said. “Some of those third downs or even the two-minute at the end of the half, I thought I did a poor job of running plays that give us the best chance to execute. That’s something I’ve got to do a much better job of.
“Fortunately, with the way the team and the players played, coaches doing a good job, you can learn being able to win in a tough atmosphere on the road. Those are some things that you can’t wait to go back, look at the tape and think about why some of the decisions were made.”
The Rams are 6-0 as the league’s lone undefeated team. So it’s sort of a new world problem, right?
That said, McVay shouldn’t beat up himself too much. After the Broncos cut the lead to 20-13 in the fourth quarter, he called nine runs as part of a 13-play drive that took 5:39 off the clock and resulted in a field goal for a 23-13 lead with 3:15 remaining.
McVay’s players urged him to go easy on himself.
“I thought he was great today. He may say differently, but I thought he did a great job,” Goff said. “There are just things to learn from the win. We hold ourselves to such a high standard that if we do not turn the ball over and score 30 points, it does not feel the same.
“I think as the rest of the night goes on, I think that mood may shift. A win is a win and we are 6-0 overall. We are lucky to be in this position but have worked to be here. It’s a great road win.”

The Rams’ New Wrinkle, and Why the NFC West Might Already Be Won

The offense has opponents playing on their heels, and the defense is more than holding up its end of the bargain through three season-opening wins. Things will get tougher for the Rams, but with the 49ers losing their quarterback, the Seahawks trying to find their way and the Cardinals flopping, those challenges probably won’t come from within the division

ANDY BENOIT

https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/09/24/los-angeles-rams-sean-mcvay-jared-goff-nfc-west-jimmy-garoppolo-knee-injury-acl?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=themmqb&utm_source=twitter.com&__twitter_impression=true

Right around kickoff in their Battle for Los Angeles against the Chargers, the Rams unofficially clinched the NFC West. It happened the moment when, 1,600 miles east in Kansas City, 49ers quarterback Jimmy Garoppolo planted his left foot and lowered his shoulder along the sideline at the end of a scramble, his left knee buckling; the fear is a torn ACL. The Niners, regarded as the Rams’ greatest challenger entering this season, had also lost their second most important offensive player, tailback Jerick McKinnon, to a similar injury in a late summer practice. Now they’re a team with few skill position weapons, an improving but work-in-progress defense and no quarterback. See you in 2019.

Don’t say this to Sean McVay, though. Prior to the season, he and I were discussing the NFC West teams. He lauded the Niners and Cardinals, and when I absentmindedly dismissed the Seahawks as a rebuilding team trending in the wrong direction, I got admonished. “Any team that has Russell Wilson you have to consider dangerous,” he said.

O.K., fair enough. But Seattle’s offense has always been a week-to-week proposition and, now, so is the defense. It hammered a downtrodden Cowboys offense on Sunday, but for this season’s long-term, there remain major concerns about the pass rush and secondary. And even greater concerns pock a now 0-3 Cardinals team that is averaging 6.7 points per game and just coughed up a two-touchdown lead to the Bears at home.

During McVay’s first offseason as the Rams head coach, people would ask him how he was liking his new job. His answer was always: “Couldn’t be better—we’re still undefeated.” Then he’d smile. But this past offseason, his stock answer reversed. At any mention of his team—and especially its litany of headline-generating moves—he quickly said, with no smile, “We haven’t won a game.”

With the 35-23 handling of the Chargers on Sunday, they’ve now won their first three. Their offense, which has gained a year of experience in McVay’s scheme plus an elite playmaker in wideout Brandin Cooks, looks even more dangerous than the one that led the league in scoring last year. It’s certainly more innovative. McVay and his staff have discovered the power of jet-action. More than any team now, the Rams put a receiver in fast motion before and/or during the snap. One defensive coach told me this offseason that dealing with jet-action is “an absolute bitch.” At least half a dozen other defensive coaches echoed this. Jet-action messes with a defense’s gap assignments. McVay builds run and pass plays that exploit this. And to ensure the defense keeps reacting with its gap assignments, he regularly hands the ball to the jet motion man. Wideouts Cooks, Cooper Kupp and Robert Woods all have multiple carries this year.

Right now, defenses don’t have an answer for it—just like they didn’t have an answer last year for L.A.’s play-action game, which remains strong. Constantly facing defenders who are put in assignment conflicts, Jared Goff, somewhat quietly, is becoming one of the NFL’s most proficient QBs. He’s completing 70.3% of his passes and averaging 9.32 yards per attempt, with a passer rating 111.0. Maybe he is a system QB. But sharply orchestrating the smartest system in football makes you a bona fide star.

On film, Goff appears to be dripping with confidence. He’s become more patient working into his progressions, waiting the extra half-beat to let second-window throws unfold. Against zone coverage, he’s throwing to spots, trusting that a receiver (and, also, not a defender) will be there. Against man, he’s throwing with pinpoint accuracy to defeat even the tightest coverage. (As John Madden used to say in one of his video game’s automated voiceovers, “There’s no defense for a perfect throw.”) Playing with this mix of aggression and patience requires a quarterback to make throws with defenders in his face—something Goff did willingly, but too often ineffectively, his first two seasons. Now, he’s become adroit here, using his 6′ 4″ frame and high release point to make contested throws look easy.

McVay is aware that his young team has not yet faced much adversity. It stayed healthy last year, performed well on the road (even on cross-country and international trips), handily won a bunch of Sunday afternoon games and played in a distracted city that’s still rediscovering its passion for pro football. The Rams shrunk a bit in the bright lights of the playoffs, losing at home to the Falcons, but by then outsiders had already declared their season a roaring success.

Things will get harder. They have to. Maybe even as soon as this week. Star corners Marcus Peters and Aqib Talib left Sunday’s win with injuries. Either or both could be unavailable Thursday night against a Vikings team that boasts two of football’s best wideouts, Adam Thielen and Stefon Diggs. Those Vikings, despite their embarrassing no-show against an untalented but impressively tenacious Bills team on Sunday, have the defense best equipped to contest with this high-flying Rams offense. The showdown, being FOX’s first Thursday Night game, will be hyped. The Vikings have played regular season contests on such stages before. The Rams have not.

Adversity could be on the immediate horizon. Still, it’s nothing compared to the type of adversity that comes from having a rebuilding offense, or a retooling defense. Or, certainly, from having an injured quarterback. In 2012, the Broncos won the AFC West by a whopping six games. In 2015, the Panthers won the NFC South by seven games. In 2007, the undefeated Patriots won their division essentially two times over, finishing nine games ahead of the second-place Bills. The Rams, with some help from the NFC West, are positioned to join this group of dominators.

Rams Q&A recap: Vinny Bonsignore on the biggest NFC West threat, Sunday’s Coliseum crowd, Jared Goff’s critics

Alex S.How do the Rams feel in division after the thumping of AZ?

Vincent Bonsignore @Alex S. Good. But no one is focused on what they’ve done. Sounds like a cliche but it’s about what’s ahead. Two tough games looming

robert S.Are the 49ers the only nfc west team that is even a threat this yr? Az looked bad as did Seattle,last night?

Vincent Bonsignore @robert S. Barring any injuries, yes. And I question just how big a threat they really are, to be honest. The Rams are a very, very good football team. It’s going to take a max effort from the other team and breakdowns on their part to get them this year. That can and probably will happen at some point. But you better be ready to take advantage

Cesar C.Any update on Ogbonnia Okoronkwo ? I’m not sure if anyone asked yet, I’m just excited to see him rush QBs

Cesar C.And yes, i copied and pasted his name

Vincent Bonsignore @Cesar C. working off to the side during practice. We’ll see where he’s at when he’s eligible to come off IR. But could be a redshirt year for him

Vincent Bonsignore @Cesar C. No explanation needed!!! Ha

Andy H.What’s the consensus across the NFL about Goff? The local guys have been killing him with their hot takes. Thanks!

Vincent Bonsignore @Andy H. Mostly good. But there are some people who stupidly and prematurely went out on a limb on him early and haven’t brought themselves to come around yet. But the people who know, know.

robert S.I have seen theories and studies that say it is better to go for 2 after every td. Any way McVay does that since it worked last week?

Vincent Bonsignore @robert S. I’m going to ask this week. Jared told me: “It’s basically just another short yardage play.” He didn’t even know where exactly the ball was lined up – the 2 or the 3. But they certainly showed they can go get those two when needed

Cesar C.I can’t see the games here in Chicago other then the nationally televised games, but is Kelly getting any touches? He ran hard in preseason. I’m curious to see what he could do with the first unit. I thought he would get an extended look when Gurley left against Arizona

Vincent Bonsignore @Cesar C. He hasn’t been on active roster yet for a game. Keep in mind blocking is hugely important at that position – especially on third downs as Todd and Malcolm show – so he could be going through a learning curve on that end. They like him a lot, though. Just need to be patient.

Rick P.Any news on a permanent training facility/home office?

Vincent Bonsignore @Rick P. Nothing new. But I’d imagine by this time next year we’ll have clarity, if not sooner

Jed K.
How is Sam Ficken’s range? I saw him hitting a 65-yarder on his Instagram. That was just during practice though. What would be a realistic range during game time?

Vincent Bonsignore @Jed K. I’d say 55

Vincent Bonsignore And that is pushing it

tim S.
Do you think the Rams could/should sign Blythe to a team friendly extension? Also, would Sam Shields be given a big workload if anything happened to Peters or Talib?

Vincent Bonsignore
@tim S. He’s under contract through 2019. So no need just yet

Benjamin M.Has anything in practice, or in offensive focus changed since LaFleur left?

Vincent Bonsignore @Benjamin M. No, not really. With or without him there were going to be new wrinkles, add ons, this year

robert S.
Charger game is first real test. What is the plan to stop Phillip Rivers? Without Bosa rams can probably score but Rivers is a gunslinger and will take chances. And he has decent receivers

Vincent Bonsignore
@robert S. I agree. Chargers have a lot of talent and present a host of issues on both sides of the ball. Marcus Peters has Rivers’ #, so we’ll see if that continues

Christopher W.
Obviously this isn’t your call to make, but can you think of any reason the Rams elect to start Brown over Blythe, outside of injury?

Vincent Bonsignore
@Christopher W. If they earnestly feel he’s the best option, then he gets the nod. That’s how it always has to work.

robert S.
Any chance rams can go 16-0? They would probably be favored against any team now

Vincent Bonsignore
@robert S. Always a chance. But man…..that’s hard to do

Robert A.
The rams seem a bit then at back up wide receiver with both Cooper and Thomas on IR. Any chance Hodge gets called up?
If not, who replaced Thomas on special teams?

Vincent Bonsignore
@Robert A. I expect more moves between now and tomorrow and yes, WR is a position I’m keeping an eye on

Robert A.
Any news on Barron, hoping he is ready to go for the vikings game. We could definitely use him in that one.

Vincent Bonsignore
@Robert A. Week to week proposition

robert S.
A note of caution. Rams started 1969 season 11-0, then lost the final 3 games to Minnesota, Detroit and Baltimore Colts. Then lost heartbreaker of a playoff game to vikes. We gotta keep it uo

Vincent Bonsignore @robert S. Yes you have to play through the finish line

Talfourd K.
I saw M. Christian had 30 snaps on D against Cardinals. I have not watched the tape to track him, but does that mean he is essentially playing Mark Barron’s role at ILB? I’d love to hear more about how Wade is working him in . I saw Robey had 29 snaps, so it would seem we played a lot of D with 3 CB’s and either 3 S’s or, again, Christian as an ILB.

Vincent Bonsignore
@Talfourd K. Yes they bring him in as a hybrid LB/S who can run support nut also cover.

robert S.
Why isn’t Roman Gabriel’s #18 retired? I love Kupp but it bothers me to see him wear it. Roman was mvp in 1969 and was a dominant qb as well as my childhood favorite. My dad took me to Coliseum in 1969 for my first game as an 11 yr old and was in awe of Romam

Vincent Bonsignore
@robert S. Not sure why. But at this point, it would be hard to justify taking it off Cooper.

robert S.Do you ever hear from any st Louis reporters? Most said rams were hopeless. Now what do they say?

Vincent Bonsignore @robert S. I have not heard from any of them. I mean, it was hard to see all this coming after 2016. But the Rams felt very strongly in Goff and McVay. It probably happened quicker than even they expected. But they felt they’d get here with those two as the lynchpins and Los Angeles as the backdrop.

Talfourd K.
Per your point about Kelly and blocking, both Gurley and Malcom had a few dominant blocks against the Cardinals that I saw on Twitter.

Vincent Bonsignore
@Talfourd K. I wanna say Todd was darn near perfect on pass blocks last year. He’s really good at it. And Malcolm is solid across the board. Very reliable backup.

robert S.
Vinny would you take the rams and give up 6.5 pts? No hemming and hawing!

Vincent Bonsignore
@robert S. I do think they win by more than a TD

Rahim A.How’s Everett coming along. Are their still some health issues going on. Also was there anything linking Rams and Josh Gordon. Did FO put any feelers out?

Vincent Bonsignore @Rahim A. Getting better and working his way back by the day. I expect him to be a bigger part of the game plan moving forward.

robert S.How long will Ficken be with the team?

Vincent Bonsignore @robert S. Until Greg is fully healthy

Kolby M.Might be completely off topic but is there any updates on Okoronkwo? Another weapon coming off the edge would be nice since Ebukam looks like he’s taken a couple steps this year

Vincent Bonsignore @Kolby M. He works to the side every day. We’ll see when he’s eligible to come off the IR. But might be looking at a redshirt year for him

leslie C.Great win by the rams, however it seems injuries to the back up wrs may be a concern. Do the rams activate someone from the practice squad or keep 4? Do they have a wr who could fill in at either slot or on then outside?

Vincent Bonsignore @leslie C. I think they are comfortable with the four they have for now

robert S.Vinny do you think rams r satisfied with backup qb? Heard a lot in preseason. I don’t have confidence in Mannion. Rg3 anyone?

Vincent Bonsignore @robert S. Yes, kind of. But confidence has a lot to do with belief that DSean McVay will coach the back-up up and put him in good position

Tom T.Vinny, are the Rams tight ends out of favor or is this part of Sean McVay’s plan to alter his play calling this season?

Vincent Bonsignore @Tom T. Not at all. Gerald has been working his way back from a shoulder injury, so he fell behind a little bit. He showed what he can do on Sunday. Plus, it’s tough getting them out of 11 personnel. They are so good out of it

V S.The team chemistry seems very strong. A lot of big names putting egos aside. How much of that is coming from respect for coaches? What could cause the chemistry to breakdown? How much do players appreciate things like the day off last week and being treated like adults?

Vincent Bonsignore @V S. It’s partly the coaches but it’s also reflective of how smart this team is. It kind of reminds me of some of the Lakers teams I covered – Fox, Fisher, Kobe, later Pau. Super, super smart.

robert S.Also expected to see Mannion and reserved maybe midway thru 4th qtr Sunday. Why risk injury when game is in hand?

Vincent Bonsignore @robert S. Those are always tough calls when to bring a guy in and what purpose it really serves

Tom T.Is Jim Hill the “Helen Thomas” of the Rams Press Corps? He seems to ask the first question in every press conference.

Vincent Bonsignore @Tom T. Always!!!!!!!

Tom T.Watching the Bears on MNF last night. It was interesting seeing all the jet sweeps and even a touchdown on a shovel pass. It looked very Rams-like. Do Nagy and McVay have any
connection?

Vincent Bonsignore @Tom T. Reid, Andy.

Vincent Bonsignore Nagy is a longtime Reid guy.

Mayumi S.What do you think about Goff’s accuracy?
I think he should hit the TD PASS to Woods. His long passes are quite overthrown. Should be adjusted soon?

Vincent Bonsignore @Mayumi S. Excellent accuracy. Excellent vision. He just rushed the throw on Woods, I don’t read anything into that. Don’t agree on the overthrows. He puts it there

Ryan M.You do you think the best edge rusher is other than Ebukam? I havent been as impressed by Easley as some writers are. Who do you think takes the majority of snaps at OLB opposite of Ebukam?

Vincent Bonsignore @Ryan M. As a standup rusher, yes, Easley is showing up pretty well. Franklin-Myers is pretty good out of a stance as a rotation guy. He’s got a nice natural rush skill set.

robert S.There are very few charger fans around here yet. I would expect that the crowd this week will be 90% plus ram fans. Thoughts?

Vincent Bonsignore @robert S. I think there will be more Chargers fans then you might think. Keep in mind, the prices to StubHub are very high because of the lack of seats. A Chargers fan who won’t pay that price at StubHub might be ok with paying less to see them at the much bigger coliseum

Matt Y.Hey Vinny, I have a couple questions for you. Is Wade looking to coach for a few more years? Are the Rams grooming someone on staff to learn from him and replace him eventually. Also, any word on the naming rights for the stadium? Farmer’s Field seemed like a thing for a couple years and ground was never even broken. I’m surprised a sponsor hasn’t jumped at the chance to get a couple years of publicity during construction.

Vincent Bonsignore @Matt Y. 1: Wade hasn’t indicated anything about wanting to step down any time soon. But at his age, it won’t be a surprise whenever he does announce he’s stepping down or planning to. Aubrey Pleasant is someone they really like. Joe Barry – their LB coach – is a former defensive coordinator. So there are candidates on staff. 3. They are sorting through various offers. I’m told no shortage of interested companies looking to come on board. I expect it to break reacords

Daniel R.How have ticket sales gone for this sunday? Last weekend was surprisingly very full and mostly rams fans. I’m guessing near capacity for this weekend?

Vincent Bonsignore @Daniel R. I expect mid 60,000’s throughout the season. Packers-Eagles will probably get into the 70,000s. Vikings maybe too, although Thursday night might dissuade some people

Los Angeles Rams HC Sean McVay

(On if he’s getting to the point that it’s time to go play)

“Yeah, you know guys are excited. We’ve got about 48 hours out now, so got to do a good job just kind of resting their minds, resting their bodies, getting ready to go and making sure that we’re ready to go at kick off. It’s going to be a long wait, but we’ve got to be patient and peak at the right time.”

(On how much practicing this weekend and at night will help on Monday)

“I think it wIll based on kind of what I’ve learned, but I think the players are best served to answer that. I know that earlier on you know you feel a little bit kind of sluggish and tired and you feel like you’ve adjusted a little bit. But most importantly, this has been for our players and if they’re feeling good, if their bodies are ready to go in and kind of peaking at that time – just based on when we’ve been practicing and how we’ve adjusted things, then that’s kind of the goal of all of this.”

(On if there’s any update on LB Mark Barron)

“Yeah, he’s the same status. We listed him as doubtful for the game. So, it’s not looking great, but we’ve still got some time being that it’s a night kickoff and different things like that, so we’ll see. But if he’s not able to go, we’ve got a lot of confidence in those guys that’ll be stepping up and looking forward to seeing them compete, if that’s the case.”

(On how WR Pharoh Cooper looks as a punt returner and a wide receiver)

“He’s done a good job. I think one of the things that stood out about (WR) Pharoh (Cooper), really since we got here as a staff and just taking (Special Teams Coordinator John Fassel) Bones’ advice and listening to (General Manager) Les (Snead) and those guys – and I remember even evaluating him coming out of South Carolina – just a good football player. One of those guys that just finds a way to get it done. He’s breaking tackles, working edges on people and he’s gotten better and better as a receiver – he really plays in that slot position for us. But, he can do a lot of different things for you. Then, as a returner, you see the production that he had last year. He’s consistently fielded the ball for us and made good decisions and now really, it’s going to be about translating that into the games where it’s most important. It’s always hard – just based on the way that we’ve practiced teams in some of these settings – practice special teams is what I’m talking about, in these settings. But, he looks like he’s progressing. I think he’s got an ownership of what we’re trying to get done and we expect him to do well again this year.”

(On if the trainers think they can get Barron to 100% or if they think it’s something that will be week to week)

“It’s really a tough thing because it’s kind of an uncharted territory in terms of just the way that achilles responds. Sometimes it feels good, sometimes it doesn’t. Last year, like you mentioned, it kind of flared up based on – I don’t know if it was the weather, there was just the pounding of the games that took a toll on him. But, we all know what a tough competitor Mark is and how much he’s persevered through some of these injuries. But if he’s not able to go, then we’ve got a lot of confidence in (LB) Ramik (Wilson) to be able to step up and do some good things. But, there’s not a tougher person than Mark Barron. So, you know if he’s not able to go, then it’s bothering him.”

(On if there will be a guy that plays a similar role as Former Rams WR Tavon Austin did last year)

“Yeah, you’ll have to see on Monday night. We’ll see. Wish nothing but the best for (Cowboys WR) Tavon (Austin). He did give us a different element – being able to do some different things, specific to his skillset. Pharoh’s a guy that definitely provides a similar skillset, things like that, but we’ll see.”

(On how well DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Aqib Talib and CB Marcus Peters are grasping the new defense)

“I think they’ve done a great job. One of the things that’s consistent about all three of those guys and really (CB) Sam Shields, you can add him into the mix and Ramik Wilson for that for that – these guys play football. They’ve played a lot of football, so they’ve been exposed to some different systems. Aqib has some history playing under (Defensive Coordinator) Wade (Phillips) in Denver. I think they’ve all got a great feel for the game. They’ve got a understanding of where they fit within the framework of the calls specific to different situations and I think that’s why you see those guys have had such great production throughout their careers. We’re looking forward to seeing them all play together. It’s been good to get (DT) Aaron (Donald) back as well. It’s going to be a great challenge. There’s a lot of things that I know (Head) Coach (Jon) Gruden will do an excellent job presenting from an offensive standpoint. They’ve got a great quarterback in Derek Carr and some elite playmakers to be able to get the ball to, tough offensive line. So, it’s going to be a great challenge and hopefully our guys will be ready to go.”

(On how much of a challenge it was to come up with new wrinkles for the offense)

“I think the biggest thing is every year, whether you look at yourself from a self-scout standpoint and you try to make sure that you evolve and you adapt. The league, especially just from a defensive coaching standpoint, they do such a great job of presenting a variety of looks or adjusting based on year-to-year. Some of the trends that inevitably come up within the framework of a season or over the last couple years, so we try to be mindful of that. You know part of that is studying yourself, but then part of that is also not being afraid to study some other people. There’s a lot of really good coaches around this league and in college as well, that we’ve studied some different tape. It’s about if it fits our players. We’re certainly – I’m not afraid to steal a play from somebody if we feel like it fits us. All these plays, I can promise you that not a single play we run we were the first ones to do it. It’s all kind of going back from just adjusting it off of what other people have previously done. That’s why you feel fortunate to have been exposed to a lot of good coaches that teach you and then you try to adjust to your players.”

(On if he’s planning on watching games tomorrow and if so, does he think he’ll see a lot of plays from the Rams offense being stolen around the league)

“Well, I don’t think it’s really our offense. I think maybe it’s a couple plays, like I’ve said, that’ve been run before. It wasn’t like we were the first ones to invent it. A lot of the stuff that we’re doing has been a collaboration of our coaching staff. (Run Game Coordinator) Aaron Kromer has great ideas. (Pass Game Coordinator) Shane Waldron, (Quarterbacks Coach) Zac Taylor, (Wide Receiver Coach Eric) Yarber, (Running Backs Coach) Skip Peete – everybody’s contributing to what we’re really trying to get done offensively. It’s been really a unique situation of work with such a great group and let’s figure out how we can adjust to our players. When you’ve got good players like we do, it makes it fun. Definitely want to watch those games – get some stuff done –because I still am a fan. Can’t wait to see some of these guys compete but it’ll feel like probably an eternity sitting around all day on Monday waiting to play. I’m talking to myself as much as anything saying don’t be too early.”

Adam Schefter@AdamSchefter
Trade official, source tells ESPN:

Bears get: Khalil Mack, a 2020 second-round round pick and a conditional 2020 fifth-round pick.

Raiders get: 2019 first-round pick, 2020 first-round pick, 2020 third-round pick, 2019 sixth-round pick.

So Bears get back second-round pick, too

==

Louis Riddick@LRiddickESPN
No logical reason for #raiders to make this “football” move. No salary cap reason either. This has to be a cash issue. You do not let guys like @52Mack_ out the door. Their loss is #bears gain. 🤷🏾‍♂️

—

Vincent Bonsignore@VinnyBonsignore
People are lazily making it seem like #Raiders decided they’re better off w/o Mack. They decided they’re better off w/o Mack at the number his demands rose to & what meeting it would have meant to ability to build a balanced roster.

My sense: Mack/camp were always going to wait out Donald’s situation before getting serious. It was the benefit of Mack making $14m to Donald’s $7m this year. Better position to be patient

Aaron Donald deal changed dynamics. Raiders could have met/topped, but ultimately decided adding 2 1sts/spreading Mack money around was wiser approach

#Raiders decided they’re better off moving Mack at that # for draft capital & better financial flexibility to construct that balanced roster. No guarantees picks pan out. But also no guarantee you can build a consistent contender while devoting so much cap space to a LB

they’ve always been willing to make him highest paid defensive player of all time. But that threshold moved to another level with Donald deal. Topping that new number wasn’t prudent in #Raiders eyes compared to the draft capitol and $$ flexibility gained in trade

#Rams are in a different place roster wise. It’s just a better roster across the board with more cost-certainty moving forward.

It helps #Bears had the cap space to meet Mack’s demands and the willingness to give up two first round picks. That situation may never have presented itself to #Raiders again

—

Benjamin Allbright@AllbrightNFL
“Two first rounders is too much to pay for Mack”

Ok… would you trade the last two first rounders your team picked for him?

99% of you would say yes

==

Jim Trotter@JimTrotter_NFL
Going forward, each time I hear Gruden say he wants players who have great character and talent, who don’t miss games, who are bad-asses on the field but gentlemen off it, who are great teammates and leaders, I’m going to post a picture of Khalil Mack.

=

Dan Wiederer@danwiederer
When Matt Nagy gathered his team Friday for an important announcement, one player shouted from the back: “Have we all just been traded for Khalil Mack?”

Prince Amukamara: “It was awesome. I was cracking up.”

==

Rich Hammond@Rich_Hammond
Trying to envision what my life would be like right now if the Rams had traded Aaron Donald for two first-round picks. It’s not a pleasant thought.

==

Gary Klein@LATimesklein
Who woke up happier than Sean McVay? Aaron Donald is back for the Rams, and Khalil Mack is gone from Raiders.

—

Joel Corry@corryjoel
It’s hard to reach an agreement when refusing to negotiate with Khalil Mack’s agent.

Joey Bosa has the same agents as Aaron Donald. He’s eligible for a new contract after the 2018 regular season ends. If the Chargers wait until 2020 when he’s in his option year, more than $25M per year & over $100M in guarantees wouldn’t be a surprise.

—

Lindsey Thiry@LindseyThiry
One observation that stood out to me after Aaron Donald signed yesterday: Sean McVay, a giddy kid earlier in the week after he learned Donald’s deal was close, returned to football-only mode. He was a freight train in motion, geared toward Oakland.

Aaron Donald took a brief pause Friday when talking to reporters about what his six-year, $135 million contract extension meant to him and his family. Donald said when he started in the NFL he never imagined he’d one day become the highest-paid defensive player in league history. “My ultimate goal was always to make it to this point and be able to retire my mom and dad,” Donald said. “So, to have an opportunity to call them and tell them that they don’t have to work another day in their life, that was the best feeling ever to me. So, thinking about it I get a little emotional. My mom and dad are just happy. Told them they can just relax, it’s on me now. So, like I said, God is good and I’m just blessed

==

Rams COO Kevin Demoff is just like us, according to GM Les Snead. Last-minute flights to and from Atlanta during Aaron Donald negotiations. Middle seat, Southwest air. pic.twitter.com/Vy4A8i4yit

— Lindsey Thiry (@LindseyThiry) September 1, 2018

—

Three-and-out. #LARams

A post shared by J.B. Long (@ramsradio) on Sep 1, 2018 at 8:56am PDT

A doctor’s take on one of the problems with healthcare in the US.

Link: https://opmed.doximity.com/death-by-patient-satisfaction-169e6c21887d

The Many Problems With ‘Moneyball’

ALLEN BARRA

https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/09/the-many-problems-with-moneyball/245769/

Michael Lewis’s book-turned-movie made a legend out of Oakland A’s general manager Billy Beane. But does his record match the hype?

The film Moneyball is—just like the 2003 bestseller by Michael Lewis it’s based on—an idealized version of what happened with Billy Beane and the Oakland A’s in the early part of the last decade. Beane is credited with adapting baseball analyst Bill James’s statistical concepts into practical application. James, a lucid and witty writer with a refreshingly iconoclastic view of baseball history, had argued for years that on-base percentage (OBP, which measure a batter’s ability to reach base by hit or walk) was much more significant than mere batting average (BA, which only measures hits). James also stressed the relative value of slugging average (SLG, which measures a batter’s total bases per at-bat) and dismissed the more traditional baseball stats such as stolen bases and bunts.

James long ago won over the smart guys, in whose ranks this writer regards himself. The cult of professional statisticians that followed in James’s wake came to be known as “sabermatricians” as nearly all of them are members of SABR, the Society for American Baseball research. But a myth has built up around Moneyball the book, a myth largely propagated by the smart guys who want to see their most cherished beliefs about baseball transformed into hard reality. The myth says Beane single-handedly changed the game by recognizing the value of sabermetrics. But the myth doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

So popular has Moneyball proved since its publication that few have bothered to notice some of its very fundamental flaws. Throughout the book, Lewis makes it clear that he doesn’t understand baseball.

His first important error is his misunderstanding of the competitiveness of the sport by the end of the 20th century. In the preface to Moneyball he writes, “For more than a decade, the people who run professional baseball have argued that the game was ceasing to be an athletic competition and becoming a financial one. The gap between rich and poor in baseball was far greater than in any other professional sport and widening rapidly.” Lewis is correct if he’s talking about the salaries paid by the richest and poorest teams, but he’s not correct if he’s talking about the competition in the ballparks.

He writes:

At the opening of the 2002 season [the year Lewis’s focus is on in Moneyball] the richest team, the New York Yankees, had a payroll of $140 million while the two poorest teams, the Oakland A’s and the Tampa Bay Devil Rays, had payrolls less than a third of that, about $40 million. A decade before the highest payroll team, the New York Mets, had spent about $44 million on baseball players, and the lowest based payroll team, the Cleveland Indians, a bit more than $8 million. The growing disparity meant that only the rich teams could afford the best players. A poor team could afford only the maimed and the inept, and was almost certain to fail. Or so argued the people who ran baseball.

And I was inclined to concede the point. The people with the most money often win.
From an historical standpoint, Lewis is, well, way off base. By the end of the 20th century baseball had achieved a greater level of competitive balance than at any time in the game’s history. As I noted in my 2002 book, Clearing The Bases, “In the year 2000, for the first time ever, not a single team in baseball history finished above .600 or below .400 … as the twentieth century went on, the difference between the best teams in baseball and the worst teams narrowed, and by the year 2000 it was smaller than at any other time in baseball history.”

Simply put, in 2000 the average difference between the worst and best teams was 20 percentage points; ten points plus or minus is all that was needed to close the gap between the team with the best record in baseball, the San Francisco Giants at 97-65 for a won-lost percentage of .599, and the worst, the Philadelphia Phillies and Chicago Cubs, tied at 65-97 for a .401 mark. In a bit of irony that Lewis did not notice, the team with the best record in 2000 was a small-market team, the Giants, who were right across the Bay from Oakland, and the two teams with the worst record were from huge markets, Philadelphia and Chicago. (By the way, the small-market Giants won the World Series last year.)
Competition looked uneven by the year 2000 because the Yankees, an organization shrewdly built on both developing players and buying free agents, had won four World Series from 1996 through 2000. But the Yankees had pretty much dominated baseball since the 1920s. The point is that by the year 2000 many more teams had a chance to make the playoffs, and, as Billy Beane himself was fond of saying, “The postseason is a crapshoot.”

But Moneyball doesn’t just get the state of present-day baseball wrong; it also misrepresents the history of the sport. Baseball didn’t become a game of “moneyball” in 2002—it has always been a game about, for, and dictated by money.

Moneyball doesn’t give you a picture of what baseball in general and the Oakland A’s in particular were like before the game entered the era of free agency and before Billy Beane is said to have changed the game. As I wrote in an article for the Wall Street Journal last week, “In the 26 seasons before Beane became general manager of the A’s in 1998, Oakland was the biggest winner in baseball, with six pennants and four World Series victories. The Yankees, by comparison, won five pennants and three World Series over that span.”

Three of those Oakland pennants—1972, 1973, and 1974—came when the irascible Charles O. Finley was the A’s owner. Finley had few resources but was an amazingly shrewd judge of talent; Marvin Miller, founder of the player’s union, called Finley “absolutely the best judge of baseball talent I’ve ever seen.” Part of Finley’s wisdom was investing whatever money he had in his farm system, particularly the Birmingham A’s of the 1960s, who produced Reggie Jackson, Rollie Fingers, Bert Campaneris, and other mainstays of his later big-league championship teams. Finley whipped the big boys with patience and smarts, beefing up his minor league affiliates at a time when the richer, arrogant Yankees allowed theirs to decay. It can be argued that Finley thrived before the era of free agency, which drove up salaries and made it more difficult for small-market owners to compete. The problem with that is that the A’s had another three-year dynasty after the advent of free agency, from 1988-1990, in which they dominated the American League, going to the World Series for three straight seasons.

The point is that in baseball there have always been factors that mitigate domination by the richest teams. There’s no denying that the Yankees, Phillies, and Red Sox, with the highest payrolls in baseball, have definite advantages. But the Phillies, though they are the largest single-market team in baseball and don’t share their territory with another major league team (as do the Yankees with the Mets, the Cubs with the White Sox, and the Dodgers with the Angels) were the worst team in either league until the last few years. (When Philadelphia won the World Series in 1980, they were the last of the original 16 teams to win the championship. When they won in 2008 it was only for the second time in the franchise’s history.)
Injuries, bad luck, front-office stupidity, sentimental weaknesses that result in signing older players to multi-year contracts, and just plain dumb luck have always been among the reasons why just pouring money into a major-league team doesn’t automatically result winning a pennant. And while baseball doesn’t have a salary cap and a fair revenue-sharing program like the National Football League, contrary to Lewis, its free market has produced a fairer system in terms of giving most teams a chance to win than the other major sports.

However far back you want to take the comparison, from the first Super Bowl in 1967 to the present, or just from the start of the new millennium, baseball has had more different playoff teams and more different champions than professional football.

The real problem with Moneyball, however, is not Lewis’s failure to understand baseball history. It’s his failure to see what was going on right in front of his and Beane’s eyes in 2002. In their book, The Beauty of Short Hops: How Chance and Circumstance Confound the Moneyball Approach to Baseball, Sheldon Hirsch and Alan Hirsch point out perhaps the biggest hole in Lewis’s analysis. They write that Moneyball

distorts the reason for Oakland’s success. The team thrived primarily because of superb pitching. During its turn of post-season appearances, the A’s were second to third in the league in fewest runs allowed, whereas in some of these seasons, they finished in the bottom half in runs scored. At the heart of the pitching staff were three dominant starters: Mark Mulder, Tim Hudson, and Barry Zito. All three wee early-round draft picks, highly scouted, and well regarded—Mulder and Zito were selected in the top ten of their respective drafts. This was hardly a case of Beane’s spotting sleepers … because of nuanced numbers. Indeed, Michael Lewis does not suggest that sabermetrics had anything to do with Beane drafting the three studs who led Oakland to greatness. Indeed, he virtually ignores them. Lewis devoted a few paragraphs to the Big Three (making the strained claim that Beane appreciated them for quirky reasons), quickly dropping them and transitioning to an entire chapter on … Chad Bradford.
Bradford was indeed one of Billy Beane’s quirkiest pitchers and one of his most unusual finds. If you saw him pitch, you’d never forget him—his right-handed delivery was so sidearm that some called it “underarm.” Some swore that his knuckles actually grazed the ground. Few teams took Bradford seriously because of his unorthodox delivery, but he proved to be a pretty good relief pitcher with an ERA of 3.26 for 12 seasons.

“One can understand,” the Hirsches write, “why Lewis, ever the gifted storyteller, devotes more than 40 pages to this relatively anonymous relief pitcher. Which is fine, except that Moneyball implies that Bradford played a crucial role in Oakland’s success. In a typical season, Zito, Mulder and Hudson gave the team more than 650 quality innings and roughly 50 wins, whereas Chad Bradford never won more than seven games and topped at 77 innings. What about saves? Bradford recorded hardly any because Oakland never trusted him to be their closer. In a book ostensibly written to explain a team’s success, Michael Lewis treats three dominant pitchers as an afterthought and obsesses about a pretty good middle-reliever.”
Alan and Sheldon Hirsch highlight an unfortunate truth about Moneyball, namely that what does not fit Lewis’s narrative—that Billy Beane’s revolutionary use of baseball statistics changed the game—tends to be left out entirely.

At the beginning of the hoopla for Moneyball the movie a week or so ago, a former Phillies relief pitcher, Mitch “Wild Thing” Williams, identified something else Lewis overlooked on MLB.com: “What Oakland won they didn’t win because of sabermetrics. They won because of Mulder, Hudson, Zito and Tejada.”

Shortstop Miguel Tejada more or less slips through the pages of Moneyball with little notice; you’d scarcely know that he batted .308 that season with 34 home runs and 131 RBIs. He simply wasn’t Billy Beane’s kind of player. Though his OBP was a respectable .354, you get the feeling that he just didn’t reach base the right way—the “moneyball” way. In one passage, Beane dismisses him altogether. “Oh, great,” he says with real disgust, “Here comes Mister Swing-At-Everything.” Mister Swing-At-Everything did reach base 204 times with hits, but that’s not the Billy Beane way.

Tejada and third baseman Eric Chavez drove in 240 runs between them, but Moneyball glosses over that fact as if the A’s would have found a way to get those 240 runners home anyway. Runners like catcher-turned-first baseman Scott Hatteberg. No doubt making a strong contribution to the A’s division championship, Hatteberg batted .280 with 15 home runs. His .374 OBP was 20 points higher than Tejada’s and 26 higher than Chavez. But his OBS—on-base percentage plus slugging average, a useful stat which measures not only how often a hitter gets on base but his power as reflected in extra base hits—was 54 points lower than Tejada’s and 53 lower than Chavez’s. But Hatteburg reached base the Beane way by walking 68 times, so he gets the lion’s share of the ink in Moneyball.

As the movie implies, Hatteberg’s story is something of a Cinderella tale, and Beane deserves all the credit for recognizing his usefulness. He had posted on OBP of .367 in 2001 with the Red Sox, but neither the book or the movie tells the whole story. As Sheldon and Alan Hirsch put it,

A large part of Beane’s genius, and Lewis’s telling, concerned knowing when to obtain and release players; he buys low and sells high. But the opposite was the case with Hatteberg. Beane signed him for $900,000, but after three seasons had to pay him $2,450,000. Beane lost interest in him, and Cincinnati signed him to a one-year contract for the bargain basement price of $750,000. Moneyball claims Beane succeeded on a low budget because of mega-efficiency, but Hatteberg reflects Beane at his least efficient; at Cincinnati, Hatteberg’s productivity per-dollar was astronomically higher than at Oakland.
By the way, The Beauty of Short Hops, though it punctures gaping holes in Moneyball, has all but been ignored by the baseball sports establishment, just as the truth of the numerous Bill James-derived statistics that Beane used were previously ignored by the old baseball establishment.
Moneyball ends with the story of Jeremy Brown, one of eight players who Beane was obsessed with at the time Lewis was writing the book. Brown, an overweight catcher for the University of Alabama, couldn’t run or field his position very well but had a remarkable talent, at least at the college level, of getting on base, often by drawing walks. Beane chose Brown with the 35th pick in the amateur draft. In 2008, after accumulating just 10 at-bats in the major leagues, Brown gave it up and retired.

“It turned out the scouts were right,” write the Hirsches, “to compare Jeremy Brown to Babe Ruth because both were fat and walked a lot was like comparing Manute Bol to Wilt Chamberlain because both were tall and blocked shots .. Michael Lewis, caught up in a theory and a story, found their merger in this improbable spectacle. If Jeremy Brown didn’t exist, Beane and Lewis would have invented him. In fact, that’s exactly what they did.”

None of Beane’s other 2008 draft picks panned out, either.

Perhaps the bitterest irony, one that still hasn’t gotten across with most of the sports media, is who sabermetrics actually did end up helping. The subtitle of Moneyball is “The Art of Winning an Unfair Game.” As a long, feel-good story in the September 26 Sports Illustrated details, the team that seems to have benefited most from the study of sabermetrics is the Boston Red Sox, who hired Bill James as an advisor in 2004. It was, of course, long overdue that major league front offices should recognize James’s genius, but surely Red Sox GM Theo Epstein, a James aficionado, would have made use of his talents with or without Billy Beane’s relative success in Oakland. And it certainly must be acknowledged that the Red Sox, with enormous resources at their disposal, had the money to pursue and sign high-pried free agents who the A’s and other low budgets teams could not.

With James on board, the Red Sox finally broke the so-called “Curse of the Bambino” and won two World Series in 2004 and 2007—though they won in 2004 in the most improbable of ways, coming back from a 0-3 deficit to the Yankees in the ALCS, just as they had lost the ALCS to the Yankees in the most improbable fashion the previous season when their ace, Pedro Martinez, melted down and lost a sizeable lead in the deciding game.

So while baseball is left to sort out for itself exactly what the true impact of sabermetrics is, it’s always good to remember that no set of statistics has ever been invented that predicts the future so well as it predicts the past. As I write this, the Red Sox—2011 payroll estimated at $161.7 million—are a horrendous 6-18 in September and are in a fight for their lives for the wild card spot in the AL playoffs with the same Tampa Bay Rays—payroll approximately $41.1 million—that Michael Lewis thought back in 2002 could no longer afford to be contenders.
Lewis’s misunderstanding of baseball has led a legion of sportswriters and fans to revere Billy Beane. But does the record support the hype? To answer that question, we have to confront the A’s dismal post-season performance—a factor Beane (and Lewis) prefer we dismiss.

“Anyone,” Beane told an ESPN reporter years ago after an A’s loss in the 2003 postseason, “who wants to diminish our accomplishments by focusing on the playoffs is foolish and ignorant. That’s not respectful to the players on this team.” Well, yes and yes. Most veteran baseball observers would agree that it’s the regular season that shows a team’s true strengths (and weaknesses) and that postseason success in baseball is not so certain as in football or basketball, where, generally, the team that’s supposed to win does win. But even in a crapshoot—and Lewis, as well as Beane, uses the term to define the postseason—the dice should eventually roll your way. Is there anything to be said about the repeated postseason flubs of Billy Beane’s best Oakland teams?

Let’s review. From 2000-2003, the A’s lost in the first round of the playoffs, the American League Division Series, each year. Their collective record for those four series was 8-12. Even more stunning, given their success during the regular season, the A’s were an eye-popping 0-9 in potential clinchers—games that would have won the series and sent them on to the next round of playoffs.

Some of their errors and miscues are among the most famous in 21st century major league baseball. In 2000, the A’s won 91 games over the season to the Yankees’ 87 but lost in the final game of the ALDS when Terrence Long, not known for his defensive skills, misplayed a long fly ball in the first inning, allowing the Yankees to clear the bases and blow the game open. The next season, the A’s once again outplayed the far richer eastern devils, winning 102 games to the Yanks’ 95. One of the key plays in the series came in game three when Derek Jeter streaked all the way across the field to snag a weak throw down the first base line and flip it to Jorge Posada, who tagged an unbelievably lazy Jeremy Giambi, who had forgotten to slide. In game five, the A’s led 2-0 in the bottom of the second when three Oakland errors led to two unearned runs that were the difference in the 5-3 win; one of the errors was by Jason Giambi at first base. Giambi was probably one of the worst fielding first basemen in baseball; the only reason he was playing the position that day was because he couldn’t play DH because his brother, the even worse fielding Jeremy, was in that slot.

In 2002, the A’s faced the equally small market Minnesota Twins in the ALDS. Oakland was easily the better team, winning 103 games to the Twins’ 94. But in game four, the A’s fielding unraveled with two errors leading to five unearned runs in an ugly defeat. One error was committed by the normally sure-handed Miguel Tejada, but the other was by the usually unsurehanded Scott Hattesberg who was in the lineup because Beane loved his ability to get on base, not for his fielding skills. (As Lewis puts it, infield coach Ron Washington “was the one coach in baseball who could be certain that his general manager wouldn’t be wasting any money on fielding ability.”)
The next season the A’s won three more games (96-93) than the big market Boston Red Sox. But in game three, perhaps the worst in Beane’s career, they committed four errors, capped off by Tejada and Eric Byrnes taking the team out of scoring opportunities with bone-headed base running. (Base running is low on Beane’s list of priorities.)

What’s interesting about these four series is that three of them were against much larger-market teams. Each year Oakland demonstrated that they had the talent to win more games than the big guys, but each time they couldn’t play the “small ball” required to clench the key games that would have given them the series. You can call it a crapshoot, but all this is reflective of talents that Beane was largely indifferent to, namely fielding and base running, the kind of small things that get overlooked when a general manager is obsessed with large concepts like on-base percentage. And yet they are skills that don’t require a great deal of money to work on.

Sports Illustrated’s Tom Verducci wrote in 2003 that “There are real reasons why the Athletics don’t get it down in October, and they have nothing to do with shooting craps. Beane’s teams don’t catch the ball well enough … and, as one Oakland source put it, ‘We’re the worst base running team in the league.'”

Crap shoot? Perhaps, but the first front office official in baseball to studybaseball statistics had, perhaps, a better explanation: “Luck,” said the legendary Branch Rickey, a full half-century before Beane, “is the residue of design.”

Curiously, Beane has been given a free pass by baseball writers for his team’s wretched postseason performance. Even more curious is another problem with Beane’s Oakland A’s that has gone almost complete unnoted. Front offices all over the major leagues have been sharply criticized for wearing blinders on the subject of performance enhancing drugs, yet drug use by the A’s in the Moneyball era has drawn practically no attention from anyone, especially Michael Lewis.

We now know now that their best player and the 2002 American League MVP, Miguel Tejada, was on steroids from 2001-2003—he’s admitted it. We don’t know if Jeremy Giambi was doing anything more potent than marijuana at this time, though he later said he used anabolic steroids similar to those his brother Jason admitted to using in both Oakland and New York. We know that reserve outfielder/third baseman Adam Piatt dealt drugs when he was with Oakland from 2000-2003 (there even copies of two checks Tejada wrote him for the PEDs).

It certainly isn’t as if there no red flags for Beane to notice. The leaders of the A’s 1988-1990 AL pennant winning teams, Jose Canseco, the self-proclaimed godfather of steroids, and Mark McGwire were rumored to taking some kind of steroids for years. Canseco was back on the A’s in 1997 while Beane was an assistant GM. Perhaps in 2002, when Lewis was writing Moneyball, too little was known about PEDs, but why is there nothing concerning the revelations of drug abuse on the team in subsequent editions?
In The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, James Stewart patiently tells a reporter the real story about his legend: he didn’t really do what he was famous for doing. The reporter says with a shrug, “This is the West. When the fact becomes legend, print the legend.” Michael Lewis took fact and molded it into a legend. And now, lucky Billy Beane, with Brad Pitt playing him in the highly regarded film version of Moneyball, looks even better on the big screen than he did on the printed page.

But while Hollywood can create legend, it can’t change the facts. And the fact is that first baseball analysts, then sportswriters, and now Hollywood have bought into the legend.