The popular sentiment in 2013 was that the "Golden Era" of TV was coming to an end. With Breaking Bad airing its final episodes and Mad Men finalizing its exit strategy, the last great anti-heroes are set to join Tony Soprano, Vic Mackey, and others in wherever it is that characters go when their shows are over. This may sound bleak, like television will never be quite as good again, but that's not really true. For each legendary show that has ended, three more great shows have popped up in their place. There are all more places to watch TV, more ways to watch TV, and more variety on TV than at any previous time. Walter White and Don Draper will be missed, but in all honesty I think I'll be too distracted by all of the shows still airing to dwell on their absence.
Because we're in a time when there are so many excellent programs (and because I watched a lot more this year), I've expanded the list to 25 shows. I figure that if I can write preseason capsules for 25 college football teams that I haven't seen play yet, I can write the same number of passages for shows that I've seen the entirety of. Recently, there seems to be a lot of backlash among critics about having to rank shows, but you will see none of that here. I love ranking things. That is literally half of what I do on this blog. With each entry, you will see a quote from the show that shines a light on what I love about each show. I will also put an asterisk next to the name of the show if the capsule is particularly spoilery, in the interest of preserving surprise for more plot-oriented shows.
One final note: A lot of the write-ups, especially the first ten or so, will probably sound more negative than they should. I love all of these shows, so writing 25 paragraphs about how awesome they all are would get old. Rather, I want to show the difference between my very favorite shows and those that fall just short, so as to better describe what I found great about TV this year.
Shows I watched this year that didn't make the list: Homeland, The Office, How I Met Your Mother, Top Chef, Trophy Wife, The Good Wife, Happy Endings, Don't Trust the B, Community, The League, It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia
The common refrain among many of these shows is that they had one or two excellent episodes, but lacked the overallconsistency of shows that made the rankings. It's Always Sunny had the Emmy episode. The Good Wife had the episode where the firm split in two (which was the only episode I happened to catch). The Office had its spectacular finale. Community had the Jim Rash-penned Freaky Friday episode. In the end though, it was such a strong year for TV that I couldn't reward shows simply for one great episode. Well, except for the first entry on the list, I guess....
#25 - Children's Hospital (Cartoon Network)
"CHANCE BRIGGS!!!" - Chance Briggs
And of course, the countdown begins with probably the most ridiculous show on the list. One that was ridiculous enough to move the setting to Japan for the whole season for no other discernible reason that to make MASH jokes. While the show was as good as it's always been, the half-hour long season finale took things to a new level. I've always seen the 12-minute running time as beneficial to the show, as the breakneck pace of gags and tomfoolery might get old if stretched to a full half-hour. "Coming and Going" quickly put those concerns to rest by showing an unexpected amount of range in splitting the characters up two-by-two into their own storylines. Of course, those stories were as silly as ever (Owen seeks out his first ever orgasm only to realize he's had thousands), but their lengthier execution showed how Children's Hospital can continue to flourish, even in its old age.
#24 - Brooklyn Nine-Nine (Fox)
"My wife was murdered by a man in a yellow sweater!" - Jerald Jimes
No show on this list is as likely to climb up the 2014 list than Michael Schur and Dan Goor's Brooklyn Nine-Nine. The duo has already shown the ability to turn a normally-drab workplace into a hilarious atmosphere (Schur on The Office and both on Parks and Rec), and the fact that Brooklyn started out stronger than either of those two leads me to believe that great things are on the horizon. The first half-season of the show was far from perfect, but we've already been treated to some good characterization and hilarious comic setpieces ("Thanksgiving" features both a deeper understanding of Samberg's Peralta, as well as the plotline that leads to Andre Braugher screaming the above quote at a perp). Of all the shows on this list, this is the one I am most likely to recommend to others, as there is quite simply something for everyone.
#23 - Archer (FX)
"Something something danger zone" - Sterling Archer
On the eve of the beginning of its fifth season, Archer keeps plugging along, stuffing more jokes into each episode than almost any comedy on the air. While the show has never resonated on a deeper level for me, there are few shows I watch over and over more than Archer, largely because there is a certain richness to many of the gags that benefits from multiple viewings. The fourth season didn't necessarily break any new ground (although the reveal of Lana's pregnancy could lead to some interesting storylines), but it kept putting the characters into fun situations such as invading Sealab* or partnering with a rather flatulent dog for a mission. Archer may never be my favorite show on television, but it's one I always look very much forward to.
*Jon Hamm made an appearance as a young Captain Murphy (which was brilliant casting). This will not be his last appearance on this list.
#22 - New Girl (Fox)
"You don't wanna wait forever for the caulk to harden." - Nick Miller
New Girl certainly has some issues, but the back half of its second season was remarkable for two big reasons. One, the show found the sweet spot between goofy and sincere, and turned that into a truly unique atmosphere. Jokes and throw-away lines take on a cadence that is unlike any other show, even seemingly similar ones like Happy Endings. Two, the show was able to use that atmosphere to create one of the most sincere and successful will they/won't they situations with Jess and Nick. The buildup to their relationship was handled with great comedic touch, while still treating everyone like real people. New Girl shows how you can take the seemingly narrow scope of the "hang-out" show formula and make something truly unique with it.
#21 - Arrested Development (Netflix)
"A Bob Loblaw law bomb." - Bob Loblaw
The fourth season of Arrested Development was simultaneously an inventive reimagination of the medium and an overstuffed mess. For every moment when multiple plotlines came together brilliantly, there was also one where something just didn't work. I'm not sure that it will grow on me either, as I've re-watched a good portion of the season in the past few days without it improving my impression of it much. All that said, we finally did get another season of the Bluth family, which I can't really complain too much about. The show was dragged down a bit by the "look at me" nature of some of the references to past seasons*, but when it kept things sweet and short (like with the above quote), the show hit it out of the park. If nothing else, the return of Arrested Development showed that if you wish for something hard enough, it just might happen.
*I would be interested to see a new show try a structure like this. I imagine it would be both better and worse: Better in that it wouldn't lean too heavily on past jokes, and worse in that we wouldn't have any knowledge of some of the characters that don't appear until later episodes.
#20 - Hannibal (NBC)
"This is my design." - Will Graham
There is a lot to like about Bryan Fuller's adaptation of the Hannibal Lecter story. The set design and art direction is more stunning and intriguing than perhaps any other network show (or any show, for that matter). Mads Mikkelsen's turn as Hannibal retains all of the creepiness of past portrayals while still finding enough originality to avoid any hints of staleness. And the overarching story of the season* leads brilliantly and logically to the fantastic conclusion that I wouldn't dare spoil here.
*The episodic elements are a little "case of the week"-ish in that they often don't matter in and of themselves (think later-season House, where the patients often just served to reflect House's internal turmoil), but the serialized elements of the show are strong enough to overcome this.
All that said, the greatest strength of the first season of Hannibal was Hugh Dancy's turn as the perpetually unraveling FBI profiler Will Graham. The phenomenal ability of the show to put us into his mind was largely dependent on Dancy's ability to mix the composure required by his character's profession with the terror that resulted from his mental state. The great drama of the first season of Homeland centered on the impossibility of knowing what goes on in another person's head (namely Brody). Hannibal took this a step further in that the central theme is unawareness what goes on in your own head. All the grisly murders in the show are surely terrifying, but nothing is quite as frightening as Dancy's Graham not knowing what is and what is not reality. In a time when the outside world is becoming less and less of a mystery, the inner working of our brains remain one of the least-understood things. Given that, shows that highlight that as well as Hannibal may just be the most important ones on TV.
#19 - Game of Thrones (HBO)
"The realm? Do you know what the realm is? It's the thousand blades of Aegon's enemies. A story that we agree to tell each other over and over til we forget that it's a lie. (...) Chaos isn't a pit, chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail, and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. Some are given a chance to climb, but they refuse. They cling to the realm or gods or love. Illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is." - Petyr "Littlefinger" Baelish
Game of Thrones shares a lot of thematic resonance with one of my favorite shows of all time, Deadwood. Both shows deal with the creation and maintaining of communities, and use their primitive settings to deal with modern themes from a comfortable distance. That said, the above quote shows a stark difference between the two shows. Whereas the members of the Deadwood community tend to all agree to the aforementioned lie (in spite of their differences, the whole town comes together against the tyrannical nature of George Hearst...also there is a two-parter literally called "A Lie Agreed Upon"), the residents of Westeros have fundamentally different understandings of society. Some parties try to unify the kingdom, while others' only concern is for themselves. That the latter group wins a lot in season three paints a bleak picture of humanity, but it might be more appropriate for the times, given the harsh political and economic climate.*
*Yes, politics has always been terrible, so the current state of affairs really isn't any worse than any other time. That said, society has made so many advances that it seems like we should be beyond a lot of the stuff that goes on.
As a show, Game of Thrones tells as majestic and wide-sweeping of a tale as anything on television. The problem with this is that there is so much going on that we start to lose touch of some of what made the earlier seasons great. In season one we spent a lot more time learning about what makes characters tick, and saw a lot of great character development as a result.* In season three, the only characters that seem to go through a major progression that isn't death are Jamie and Brianne (Bran learns how to control minds, too, so that's something). Season three of Game of Thrones was a tremendous spectacle that deserves recognition, but I hope future seasons return us a bit more towards the basics.
*Joffrey is great example of this. In season one, we saw Cersei spoil him to the point that we understood why he is a terrible person. This year, we pretty much just saw him be a crazy person with little depth.
#18 - Masters of Sex (Showtime)
"I can spot a statistically average masturbator from a mile away" - Dr. Bill Masters
In a lot of ways, Masters of Sex is two shows in one. One show follows the exploits of Dr. Masters and his partner Virginia Johnson through both the successes and failures of their study of human sexuality. The other show establishes a context for this study; a society in which gender roles dominate and true sexual desires are repressed. The first show is fantastically done, weaving in details of Masters and Johnson's characters to tell a full fledged story not just about an academic work but also the people behind it. The second show is....not as good.
It's not that I don't think the second show is necessary; without an understanding of the setting of the show and customs of the times, the viewer would be easily confused by the character's odd decisions. Instead, the problem with Masters of Sex is that this second show isn't done all that well. One example of this is the story of the provost and his wife. Beau Bridges and Allison Janney were both fantastic, but the story line just didn't do anything for me. I could tell the point of the story (that repressing ones' true desires leads to unhappy people), but there wasn't enough complexity in the characters to elicit a genuine response. The first season of Masters of Sex laid a solid groundwork for a long-running show; I hope future seasons are able to draw out the supporting storylines a little bit better.
#17 - Mad Men (AMC)
"I grew up in Pennsylvania, in a whorehouse. The closest I got to feeling wanted was from a girl who made me go through her john's pockets while they screwed. If I collected more than a dollar, she'd buy me a Hershey Bar. And I would eat it alone in my room, feeling like a normal kid." - Don Draper
Judging by the "best of 2013" lists I've seen thus far, Mad Men has fallen out of the critical eye a bit. This isn't to say that the new shows that have displaced it haven't earned their praise, but I don't think Mad Men has fallen very far (if at all) from when it was the peak of television drama. The focus shifted away from some of our favorite characters (most notably Roger), but did a lot of great things with the integration of CGC and Pete's troubles with Bob Benson. I still think the show leans a little too heavily on replicating familiar American history,* but when the show gets to the payoff of all of the character work it's done over the years (Don's speech from above), there isn't much on TV that's better.
*It would be admittedly weird for the show to not at least mention the numerous events of 1968. Weiner and company did a reasonably good job of integrating these without dwelling on them too much.
#16 - The Americans (FX)*
"Come home" - Elizabeth
There were new shows that I liked better this year, but I don't think there was a debut with as much promise for the future as The Americans. The first season of the show relied a little too much on single-episode concerns, and also had a little too much back and forth on the relationship between Elizabeth and Philip, which was honestly a little confusing from week to week. I was never quite sure how they felt about each other, which I guess could have been on purpose...they are spies after all. Still, a little more clarity on this might have brought the show into better focus. Judging by the above quote from the end of the finale, I think season two will address this problem head on.
All that said, there were so many great things that earned this ranking and make me excited to see what happens next. The fantastic use of era-specific music underscored the very eighties-ish cinematography and atmosphere. The terrific performances of Matthew Rhys, Noah Emmerich, and (especially) Keri Russell lent a human touch to a time marked by paranoia and fear. Most of all, what makes The Americans great is that it takes the feeling of its era and plays it out beautifully in the story of its characters. In particular, the progression of Nina from a low-level Russian employee to double-agent (or is it triple-agent?) shows the impact of the Cold War on its participants. On the whole, The Americans is able to pull off the neat trick of feeling very large and very small at the same time, which makes for a wholly satisfying watch.
#15 - Veep (HBO)
"Sir, we have a system that I believe to be....robust?" - Sue
During its first season, Veep was a consistent stream of terrible people being terrible to each other in the most hilarious manner possible. Season two kept the same formula as the first, but took it to a whole new level. Not only did the characters get fleshed out a little better (Mike bought a boat! Sue gets to testify in a hearing!), but the stakes are raised as well. Whether Selina is trying to successfully bring hostages home (and take the credit at the same time), or strategizing to get her name in the running for the presidency, Veep is consistently great and one of the fastest half-hours on television.
#14 - Orange is the New Black (Netflix)
"I'm here to surrender." - Piper
For the first episode of OITNB, we see Piper's entrance into prison mostly from her own eyes. This is entertaining enough, and is an interesting exercise for anyone who can envision themselves in her shoes. But that story alone isn't what makes the show one of the best of the year. Rather what makes OITNB great comes in the next 12 episodes. Over the course of the first season, we come to see prison from many other's eyes thanks to the focus on the tremendous ensemble (and generous helpings of back stories). This exercise reveals that OITNB possesses one of the most vibrant and communities of people on television. Sure, not every character is fully-drawn after just thirteen episodes, and some of the characterization is a tad simplistic, but the end result is still fantastic. OITNB provides one of the best meditations on community and relationships that television has to offer.
#13 - Parks and Recreation (NBC)
"I am tired of not being married to this woman." - Ron Swanson
Is Parks and Rec showing its age? Yes. Is it still one of the best comedies on television? Also yes. There may be a little less character development than there once was, and the threats to Leslie's career may be a little more cartoonish, but the show is still able to deliver legitimate emotional moments (Leslie and Ben's wedding, pretty much the whole London episode) in between the constant hilarity. By the way, I'm still waiting for the commercial release of Cones of Dunshire.
#12 - Rectify (Sundance)
"Because I know you, because I know you, because I know you" - Kerwin
The Sundance Channel burst onto the scene this year with three terrific new shows, of which, Rectify is the first to appear on this list. Both it and the other two shows (which you'll read about shortly) dealt with a central mystery and the claustrophobic nature of small towns. However, Rectify was unique in that the mystery wasn't the main attraction of the show. Sure, Daniel's guilt and/or innocence in the decades-old crime is of major importance, and I'm sure it will come up once or twice in future seasons. But what's paramount to the first season is simply how Daniel is able to reintegrate into a society that both doesn't want him and has forgotten about him. The methodical and reflective pace of the show normally wouldn't work for me, but the fantastic work by Aiden Young makes everything interesting, even if it's just walking around a convenience store and taking in two decades worth of changes. In fact, it's actually quite refreshing for a show to take its time and not focus solely on the central mystery. By employing the slow burn to build up Daniel's character and his relationship to those around him, the eventual reveal of his fate will likely hold far more meaning.
#11 - The Returned (Sundance)*
"Sorry, you must have been worried, but something really weird happened." - Camille
If I was only including the first seven episodes of the French series The Returned in my evaluation, then the show's placement would be much higher. The series works to build up the mystery of why the dead are coming back so well, gradually revealing piece after piece while providing clues to solving other parts. The mood and tone of the show is unparalleled, with the Mogwai-penned score providing a perfect backdrop. Finally, the characters and the fantastic acting that helps create them provide legitimate emotional stakes which take the central mystery beyond a simple matter of intrigue to a place where we really care what happens to these people. And wow, the kid that plays Victor is fantastic.
Of course, I have to count everything that happened in 2013, so I have to include the disappointing finale, which goes a little out of its way to be oblique. There is a spectrum of ways to handle a show like this: You can gravitate towards the end of obsessively trying to answer every question, or you can take a more mysterious approach and not be afraid to leave things open-ended. While I generally favor the latter method, The Returned goes a little too far in that direction. This isn't to say that I absolutely needed some sort of resolution to happen in the finale. However, the extraordinary events of the finale (the horde approaching the Helping Hand, the flooding of the town, Chloe's kidnapping) are the kind of things that should make characters stand up and ask questions. Instead, everyone accepts everything at face value, and we're left with very little resolution to the tension at hand. I am hopeful that this is just a blip in an otherwise awesome series, but it does shine a light onto how well the central mystery will hold up over time.
#10 - Eastbound and Down (HBO)*
"Victory is its own reward" - Kenny Powers
The common question entering the fourth and final season of Eastbound and Down was whether or not another season of the show was necessary. The plan had always been for just three seasons, and the previous season ended on a rather definitive note (Kenny leaving baseball to be with April) that would have worked well as a finale. Then the fourth season rolled around, and these questions were put to rest as the show was as great as ever. No other show on television is able to strike the tonal balance between normal life and surrealness that personifies the quest for fame. Just as Kenny Powers carries himself with no doubt in his abilities, Eastbound and Down makes itself necessary simply by existing.
The fourth season of the show saw more of the same (Kenny being an asshole but pretty much never the biggest one, Stevie being Stevie, etc.) but with enough of a wrinkle to make it an essential part of the series. Kenny still seeks out fame as he always has, but this time his playing days are past him. Instead, Kenny looks towards his friend's Around the Horn-type show to launch him to stardom. It's fitting that Kenny's least substantive attempt at fame is the one that ends such a desire once and for all. Yes, trying to throw baseballs for a living is inherently kind of silly, but Kenny's quest to return to the majors could at least claim some sort of noble goal. When Kenny realizes the folly of his ways, he leaves it all behind and chooses a live with April. This may seem like a cop-out of an ending*, but in reality it's perfect. Kenny's perpetual quest for fame was always a thinly-masked desire to be accepted and loved. When he realizes that no one will love him as much as his family, there is really no other choice. Eastbound and Down was always known as crass and unforgiving, but its less-talked about heart is what gave the show balance and made it great.
*Yes, I know there's the whole story/dream sequence thing at the very end, but even after a few views I don't know exactly what's going on there, so I'll leave it alone for now.
#9 - Girls (HBO)
"Don't tell anyone this, but I want to be happy" - Hannah Horvath
For most shows on this list, it was pretty easy to find a quote to sum up my feelings about the show. It's fairly telling then that this exercise was most difficult for Girls. The main reason for this is that Girls was so many different things in its second season. It was an earnest look at the difficulties young adults encounter as they go down the path of life. It was a satirical take on the unearned privilege and false drama that populates that journey. And it was often a series of hilarious events happening to a group of rather odd characters. Don't waste time trying to pin down what exactly Lena's Dunham's show is, because it is no one thing. Any show with the range to explore the inner workings of all its characters (compare Hannah's breakdown in "One Man's Trash" to Adam's in "On All Fours") deserves to be appreciated for the versatile entity that it is.
*Fun note: Andrew Rannells, who played Hannah's roommate/ex-boyfriend Elijah ,went to my high school. So did Nicholas D'Agosto, who plays Ethan on Masters of Sex. Good times for Prep. And no, not all Junior Jay alumni are insanely handsome men.
#8 - 30 Rock (NBC)
"That's our show. Not a lot of people watched it, but the joke's on you, because we got paid anyway." - Tracy Jordan
It may not seem like it, but yes, 30 Rock was actually on the air in 2013. The last five episodes of the final season aired in January, and they served as a perfect send-off to one of the greatest comedy series ever. 30 Rock did often meander a bit (especially in its later years), but the final blast of episodes accomplished so much in a seemingly effortless manner. Jack said a final goodbye to his mother, deepened his friendship with Liz, and determined the course of the rest of his career. Liz started her family by adopting kid versions of Tracy and Jenna and moved on from the end of TGS. Kenneth took over control of NBC in perpetuity thanks to his oft-mentioned immortality (the St. Elsewhere fakeout at the end was just perfect). And Ottavia Spencer suggested changing the name of Tracy's Harriet Tubman biopic to "Tubgirl." The ridiculousness of those four sentences shows just what the show could be and why it was so unique; Yes, it was a goofy show, but it was brilliantly goofy, and it always had the Liz-Jack backbone to keep it grounded.
#7 - Enlightened (HBO)
"I'm just a woman who's over it." - Amy Jellicoe
The first season of Enlightened played out a fun hypothetical: What if someone in a vulnerable state completely bought in to new age philosophies and focused her life on nothing but her own self-actualization? This idea made for great television, but Enlightened didn't truly hit its stride until the second (and sadly, final) season. One reason for this was that the plot was a little more focused on Amy's quest. Adding Molly Shannon and Dermot Mulroney as key cogs in the drive to take down Abadon helped flesh out the story better. However, the biggest reason for improvement was that the supporting cast got the spotlights they deserved. While neither was as good as season one's "Consider Helen," the episodes "Higher Power" and "The Ghost is Seen" helped to deepen Eli and Tyler's character to the point that they were just as important to the story as Amy.
All in all, Enlightened was one of the most unique shows on television this year. While most shows focus on something extraordinary (Walter White and Will Graham are geniuses, Game of Thrones is about the fate of a kingdom, etc.), Enlightened kept the focus on the ordinary and the mundane. In doing so, the show was able to shine a light on a part of life most of us can identify with: feeling powerless against the larger institutions in life and figuring out what to do about it. Amy Jellicoe may be a stubborn and grating character, but her fight against tyranny and for self-fulfillment was perhaps the best view of humanity on this list. It was also one of the best things on TV this year.
#6 - Top of the Lake (Sundance)*
"You've got a real teacher now, make sure you pay attention to him." - GJ
Top of the Lake might have been the least "TV-like" thing on TV this year. Episodes started and ended seemingly at random. Cliff-hanging revelations in the central mystery were few and far between*. The cinematography seemed wider and grander than all other shows, with a chase across New Zealand cliffs resulting in perhaps the most haunting image of the year. For a channel that specializes in showing movies, Top of the Lake was a perfect gateway into the world of TV. One big advantage that the medium of TV has over movies is the additional running time with which to build characters. Top of the Lake employs that advantage spectacularly, with Elizabeth Moss' Robin and Peter Mullan's Matt being two of the deepest, most nuanced characters on television. Their battle, both literal and metaphorical, for the heart of the small town in which the story takes place ended up as one of the best works of 2013.
*The final reveal of Sgt. Parker being behind Tui's disappearance was a little out of left field (and perhaps unnecessary to the story), but it fit with the creepy vibe of the character, so I was fine with it.
#5 - Bob's Burgers (Fox)
"Quickie Kissit: Where the currency is kisses and everyone is rich" - Tina Belcher
As television has evolved into what it is now, the family sitcom has gone a bit by the wayside. Some of the best comedies of the past focused on families, but most of the best comedies today consist of workplace and/or hangout based models. The notable exception to that is Bob's Burgers, which has sneakily created perhaps the best family on TV. It has done this by not focusing on being realistic but rather by being real. Yes, things like talking toilets and table setting competitions are bizarre, but the human interactions that underscore them are as genuine and earnest as anything on TV. And of course, the show is hilarious (just try to get those songs out of your head). In deftly managing this balance between the funny and the sincere, Bob's Burgers has become my top comedy of 2013.*
*I worked out the order of the list in early December before everyone published their best of lists. I thought this entry in particular would be a unique recognition. It was not.
#4 - Orphan Black (BBC America)*
"We're clones, OK?" - Alison
As I watched the great first season of Orphan Black, a part of me worried that the show won't be able to hold up to the weight of its mythology. As we learned more and more about the origins of Sarah and her "friends", a lot of layers were added to the story that may not hold up through multiple seasons*. Of course, there is also a part of me that thinks the other part is stupid for worrying so much about a show that was damn near perfect. Sure, there is a chance that the plot falls apart in the future, but due to the fantastic character work the show did with the different clones, I think this show will be interesting regardless of where the story goes. With the impressive differentiation between the quick-thinking Sarah, the uptight Alison, or the frantic Helena (among others), Tatiana Maslany's incomparable work as the clones was the greatest out-of-nowhere surprise of 2013.
*Upon a second read, it may seem like I'm ragging pretty hard on the plot, but that is all worries about the future. This year, it was mostly fantastic. When a mystery show works its reveals as well as Orphan Black did, it goes to show just how exciting this kind of storytelling can be. That excitement plus Maslany's performance makes this a top five show for me.
#3 - Justified (FX)
"You run into an asshole in the morning, you ran into an asshole. You run into assholes all day, you're the asshole." - Raylan Givens
When people discuss the top current dramas on TV, Justified often gets overlooked. I think part of this may be the misconception that it's still very episodic/procedural as it was in its early days, but the main reason is very simple: The show fails to be elite at any single thing. It doesn't posses a trait as superlative as the acting of Breaking Bad, the character development of Mad Men, or the insane scope of Game of Thrones. Of course, you've probably noticed the "#3" next to the shows name by now, so something about the show must be great. That something is everything.
While most other shows can point to a couple things as what they do best, Justified is quite simply great at everything. If you're looking for plot, Justified does it as well as anybody, building to thrilling and coherent conclusions at the end of every season. If you turn the focus to the characters, Rayland Givens is fascinating as a lawman as wounded and angry about his past as he is sly and smooth in the present. The acting is superb with Timothy Olyphant and Walton Goggins deserving the yearly Emmy nominations that they never get. And finally, the whip-smart dialogue is worthy of being inspired by Elmore Leonard, and is often hilarious to boot. Even though Justified isn't labeled a comedy, I find myself smirking as much during it as I do during anything (adding Patton Oswalt as Constable Bob doesn't hurt). More than any other show on the list, Justified has no weaknesses, and is an elite show as a result.
#2 - Treme (HBO)*
"Do you know what it means to miss New Orleans" - John Boutte
Unlike some of the shows that appear lower down on this list, Treme doesn't wow you with polish or execution. Storylines can be a little rough around the edges, and not all of the acting is top-notch (though some of it most certainly is). Instead of laying out perfect calculated set pieces like some shows, Treme takes the opposite route, inviting the viewer into the messy occurrence that is real life*. As a result of this approach, Treme feels like perhaps the most lived-in show I've ever seen. That sense of place and of real characters that inhibit it, make the show one of the most unique things on TV.
*Not coincidentally, the jazz/blues/etc music featured in the show serves as a metaphor for the structure of the show itself. Just as jazz is free flowing and improvised, so to does the show come off as the characters simply living their lives.
The final season may have been abbreviated, but it still packed the same punch as all of the other seasons. The Chief's descent into illness was tragic, but his resolute nature throughout was a testament to the man he was. Davis' attempt to grow up was surely futile from the start, but it did add an important layer to a character that did often appear to be the simple goofball that he came off as. Annie's struggle in choosing her career path was often a bit disconnected from the rest of the show, but the storyline went a long way in showing how far the character had come from the first season. These stories, as well as all of the others big and small, wove together beautifully to paint the picture of a diverse and vibrant city. Treme was never "The Wire: New Orleans" as many fans wanted it to be, but there's nothing wrong with that. By carving its own niche in the world of drama, Treme became a truly indispensable portrait of a community rising from the ashes to carry on its unique way of life.
#1 - Breaking Bad (AMC)*
"I did it for me. I liked it. I was good at it. And I was....I was alive." -Walter White
Breaking Bad was awesome this year. I probably didn't need to tell you that. Yes, "Felina" probably wrapped the show up a little too neatly, but that alone wasn't enough to detract from an otherwise nearly-perfect season of television. Instead of continuing on and being the millionth person to wax poetic and sing the show's praises, I'll take a different angle and talk about a larger theme of the show that I feel goes overlooked.
During the final run of Breaking Bad critics wrote ad nauseam about the thematic and moralistic implications of Walter White. It got to the point where people were even writing commentary about these interpretations. While I enjoyed the debate about what the show was and what it wasn't, I don't really want to continue any of those arguments here. As the hyperlinked column says, Walter White can be many things, all at the same time, and I often like to leave it at that. Rather, I want to offer up an interpretation of the "message" of the show through my own lens.
For me, the quote at the beginning of this section is one of the keys to unlocking the importance of Walter White. The other key is the final scene of the series, where in his final moments, Walt looks upon his creation with pride. The common theme between these two moments is the sense of pride and fulfillment that Walt feels from his meth empire. This pride provides the counterpoint of the pilot, when Walt felt dejected by his job, his brother-in-law, and even his wife. Thus the journey the series takes can be seen as Walt's journey to self-actualization. While that is a noble goal in and of itself, the series shows that too narrow of a focus on this can be disastrous. Sure, Walt was able to vanquish all of his enemies, but it cost him everything he had, most notably his family.* The lesson that we can all take away from this, is that the journey to self-fulfillment should be one of balance. While it's good to strive to be all you can be, you must be careful and spend time to reflect on the costs of the journey.
*This is part of why I didn't think "Felina" let Walt off the hook that much. Sure, he got to avenge the Nazis, free Jesse, and (perhaps) get some money to his son, but he had already paid the price for his sins when he left town in "Ozymandias." Everything after that was more focused on tying up loose ends in the plot.
Programming Note: Given the amount that I have written over the past few months, I think I am due to take a little time off. The new job is starting to ramp up, and basketball is about to hit conference play, so it would probably be best to take some to time to "relax" and focus on that. I'll return on Selection Sunday with some thoughts about what will probably be a crazy bracket.
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Monday, December 16, 2013
Bowl Picks 2013
Two years ago, I made a valiant return to my blog. My first post back was a bowl pick post, and I ended up finishing in the top 5 percent nationally on espn.com. In the tradition of that post, I will once again make my picks for all 35 bowls with the number of confidence points listed next to them (35 points for the most confidence, 1 for the least).
As I did last year, I am including some info with each pick. In the parentheses next to the team name is the FBS-only rank of each team in three metrics: Jeff Sagarin's pure points, Brian Fremeau's FEI, and Bill Connelly's S&P+. After that, I include the spread predicted by Sagarin, Football Outsiders' F/+ (which is a combo of the other two stats), and Vegas (as of 12/10).
Washington State (34,58,62) vs. Colorado State (70,64,64)
Sagarin: Washington State by 12
F/+: Washington State by 4
Vegas: Washington State by 3.5
The bowl season starts off with a whimper this year. That's weird to say considering that this game features Mike Leach, but the Cougars have yet to master their aerial attack (59th in passing S&P+). Still, it seems like the program is on the right track after a decade of despair. Colorado State put a mild scare into Alabama in September, but that doesn't mean I like them here as their defense is more suited to defend the run (21st rushing defense S&P+ versus 102nd against the pass). Even if Washington State isn't great at passing, they're certainly good at it and will do it a lot. Pick: Washington State (22 points)
Fresno State (42,48,35) vs. USC (18,18,19)
Sagarin: USC by 9
F/+: USC by 14
Vegas: USC by 5.5
I would normally be worried about a team that's on its third coach of the year, but I think the talent differential is enough to stick with the Trojans. Derek Carr is a solid quarterback, but the Bulldogs were a bit overrated this year, and their defense probably won't be able to stop the improving USC offense. Pick: USC (23 points)
Buffalo (58,73,63) vs. San Diego State (87,92,87)
Sagarin: Buffalo by 9
F/+: Buffalo by 8
Vegas: Buffalo by 2.5
Buffalo just happened to be one of the four teams I saw in person this year. In their season opening game against Ohio State, the Bulls kept it close before falling late. The best play of the game came courtesy of likely first-rounder Khalil Mack. The senior LB made a fantastic interception at the line and the returned it for a touchdown, taking a perfect angle towards the pylon. This may be one of the worst bowl games of the year, but if you do catch a few minutes of it, be sure to look out for Mack. Pick: Buffalo (17 points)
Tulane (78,67,81) vs. Louisiana-Lafayette (83,84,88)
Sagarin: Tulane by 2
F/+: Tulane by 5
Vegas: Tulane by 1
One of the best stories of the year has to be Tulane's return to respectability, as they qualified for their first bowl since 2002. While the numbers seem to favor Tulane by a bit (and in reality it should be higher given that this game is at the Superdome, where Tulane plays their home games), I think this will be one of the most even games of bowl season. Part of the dip in the advanced stats for ULL can be attributed to their season-ending blowout loss to South Alabama, when QB Terrance Broadway was out and there was nothing to play for (the conference title was already clinched). I'll still take the home team, but I think it'll be quite close. Pick: Tulane (5 points)
East Carolina (54,37,36) vs. Ohio (98,111,100)
Sagarin: East Carolina by 14
F/+: East Carolina by 25
Vegas: East Carolina by 13
Even though there are 35 bowls, there is still a such a thing as a bowl snub. This year, the Toledo Rockets appear to be the best bowl eligible team that didn't get in (Penn State not included). Instead of seeing an awesome matchup between Toledo and the upstart Pirates, we get treated to this mismatch instead. Frank Solich is a good coach, and there is still some talent in Athens, but I just can't see this game being particularly close. Pick: East Carolina (35 points)
Boise State (37,45,32) vs. Oregon State (32,46,60)
Sagarin: Oregon State by 2
F/+: Boise State by 4
Vegas: Oregon State by 2.5
Offensive F/+: Oregon State 43rd, Boise 44th. Defensive F/+: Boise 58th, Oregon State 59th. In other words, this should be a pretty close game (special teams favor the Broncos, as you might suspect, but I'm skeptical of the predictiveness of those metrics). Yes, the Beavers' offense looked virtually unstoppable during their six game winning streak, but they were playing a pretty terrible slate of defenses. I still like them in this game, if only because it might be Brandin Cooks' last game in college. If you haven't seen him yet, he's basically Steve Smith minus the crazy (which means I like him a lot). Pick: Oregon State (3 points)
Pittsburgh (60,57,51) vs. Bowling Green (28,39,26)
Sagarin: Bowling Green by 9
F/+: Bowling Green by 5
Vegas: Bowling Green by 6
One of my favorite matchups of the bowl season (for real). I'm going with the upset because Aaron Donald will probably tackle everybody:
Pick: Pittsburgh (2 points)
Utah State (30,40,27) vs. Northern Illinois (50,43,66)
Sagarin: Utah State by 6
F/+: Utah State by 10
Vegas: Northern Illinois by 1.5
If Chuckie Keeton were healthy, then this would be in the running for the best bowl of the year. Even so, Utah State has fared well in his absence, falling short of a conference title on the road by just a touchdown. In spite of losing Gary Anderson to Wisconsin and Keeton to his injury, Utah State might just be the best non-BCS team for the second straight year. I think they'll challenge for that crown with a win against Jordan Lynch in his last game for the Huskies. Pick: Utah State (7 points
Marshall (52,44,48) vs. Maryland (69,74,57)
Sagarin: Marshall by 4
F/+: Marshall by 4
Vegas: Marshall by 2.5
I've been working in Ashland, Kentucky for the past two months. Since Ashland is a pretty small town, the group I'm working with stays in nearby Huntington, West Virginia, which is the home of Marshall. It's been an interesting exercise to observe the local culture, and the personal highlight of that was stumbling across this piece decrying the CUSA's math that sent Marshall to Rice for the CUSA title game. And people wonder why newspapers are in trouble. As for this game, I'll take the team with Rakeem Cato on it. Pick: Marshall (14 points)
Syracuse (68,88,76) vs. Minnesota (57,49,70)
Sagarin: Minnesota by 3
F/+: Minnesota by 9
Vegas: Minnesota by 4.5
This is probably the least exciting bowl of the year. Yes, it's cool to see Minnesota having its best season in about a decade, but their lack of explosiveness on offense (neither the running or passing game crack the top 60 in S&P+) makes them a rather unpleasant watch. Still, they have the proven ability to beat bad teams, so I'll take them here. Pick: Minnesota (18 points)
BYU (24,21,24) vs. Washington (8,17,21)
Sagarin: Washington by 9
F/+: Washington by 5
Vegas: Washington by 3
Kyle Van Noy went crazy in lasy year's Poinsettia Bowl, in what has to be one of the most memorable individual defensive performances I can remember. This year he and his friends will face a much tougher test in a well-rested and healed Washington offense. I normally tend to downgrade a team's chances in a bowl when the coach leaves, but the upperclassmen-laden Husky offense should be strong enough to overcome that. Pick: Washington (9 points)
Rutgers (89,98,91) vs. Notre Dame (27,19,37)
Sagarin: Notre Dame by 19
F/+: Notre Dame by 22
Vegas: Notre Dame by 15.5
On one hand, it will be nice to see the alma mater win a bowl game (a win here would be just their second bowl win since I started school a decade ago). On the other hand, Rutgers is just terrible, and I can't imagine their inclusion will make this game watchable. Fun fact: With Chuck Martin and Bob Diaco off to their new jobs, and the Rutgers DC fired, Ron Prince is the only major coordinator left in this game. Yes, that Ron Prince will be one of the key players in determining how well Rutgers plays. Sometimes this is too easy. Pick: Notre Dame (34 points)
Cincinnati (49,47,56) vs. North Carolina (41,41,38)
Sagarin: North Carolina by 3
F/+: North Carolina by 7
Vegas: North Carolina by 3
Through their first nine games this year, Cincinnati was 7-2, which looks pretty good on paper. The problem is that not a single one of those games was against a team that would finish the season bowl eligible, which meant that they lost to two pretty bad teams (Illinois and South Florida). They did end up with a nice road win at Houston and an overtime loss to Louisville, so there are signs of life for the Bearcats, but I'll still take the Heels in this one. Pick: North Carolina (10 points)
Miami (FL) (40,34,22) vs. Louisville (21,22,10)
Sagarin: Louisville by 6
F/+: Louisville by 6
Vegas: Louisville by 3
The common perception about Louisville is that they are an offense-only team. With talent like Teddy Bridgewater and DeVante Parker, they are indeed great on offense. However, their defense has been just as big of a key to their success this season (22nd in F/+, up from 48th last season). I'm usually wary of relying on a high number of returning starters to suddenly improve, but in this case the 10 returning starters on defense were able to make the leap into near-elite territory. Louisville was shoved out of the spotlight after one bad quarter against UCF, but make no mistake; this is still a very good team. Pick: Louisville (21 points)
Michigan (38,29,40) vs. Kansas State (25,28,31)
Sagarin: Kansas State by 4
F/+: Kansas State by 2
Vegas: Kansas State by 3
Kansas State was a pretty good team this year that got almost immediately forgotten because of the season opening loss to North Dakota State. What no one knew at the time was just how good of a squad that was (well, they were the two-time defending FCS champs, but I don't think we expected a legitimate top-25 outfit). While I like their chances in this game, I have to go with Michigan. The Wolverines explosive offense in their biggest games (ND, Ohio State) shows the potential that lurks beneath their mediocre overall profile. I tend to think they'll figure enough out over the next few weeks to pull this one off. Pick: Michigan (6 points)
Middle Tennessee (86,70,86) vs. Navy (62,61,68)
Sagarin: Navy by 8
F/+: Navy by 4
Vegas: Navy by 6
After being the most egregious bowl snub last year, Middle Tennessee gets to go to Fort Worth to face the triple option for sixty minutes. Oh, the perks of joining Conference USA. Pick: Navy (20 points)
Ole Miss (43,31,30) vs. Georgia Tech (26,36,34)
Sagarin: Georgia Tech by 5
F/+: Georgia Tech by 1
Vegas: Ole Miss by 3
The common thought process about Georgia Tech under Paul Johnson is that because of their unique offense, they should be able to catch good teams unprepared and pull off more upsets than most teams. The problem with this line of thinking is that they really haven't done this the last two seasons. Their most notable wins have been the Sun Bowl victory over the Lane Kiffin train of dysfunction and an early season win over Duke, neither of which are particularly impressive. On the other side, Ole Miss has the nice combination of young guys improving and injured guys coming back that tends to help teams win bowl games. I think they'll use the three weeks of practice well, and should win by a decent margin. Pick: Ole Miss (15 points)
Oregon (4,11,9) vs. Texas (33,38,49)
Sagarin: Oregon by 15
F/+: Oregon by 16
Vegas: Oregon by 13
There are two very important things to know about this bowl season. One, the Pac-12 might be the best conference in the nation (if they aren't, they are a very close second). Two, the Pac-12 has some terrible bowl tie-ins. The result of this is that the conference is favored in every single one of its bowl games, with many of them looking like potential blowouts. This particular one looks like it might be the biggest mismatch of all: A great Oregon team with a few weeks to rest its hobbled stars versus a Texas program more focused on eitherhiring Nick Saban or collapsing upon itself (OR MAYBE BOTH!). Don't get cute and extrapolate out Oregon's declining performance over the course of the season; they're really good and should win this easily. Pick: Oregon (30 points)
Arizona State (6,5,11) vs. Texas Tech (45,59,50)
Sagarin: Arizona State by 16
F/+: Arizona State by 24
Vegas: Arizona State by 13.5
I still love the Kliff Kingsbury hire for the Red Raiders, but it's going to take a little time to truly turn the corner. Kingsbury's learning on the job, combined with the fact that Tech wasn't exactly oozing with talent the past few years means that we probably won't see a year like 2008 particularly soon. This game might be even more of a mismatch than the Oregon-Texas one, which is saying a lot. My pre-season surprise team has exceeded my expectations so much that the only thing that would surprise at this point would be a loss. Pick: Arizona State (31 points)
Arizona (19,27,39) vs. Boston College (61,66,54)
Sagarin: Arizona by 13
F/+: Arizona by 9
Vegas: Arizona by 7
In a lot of ways, I feel like this would be a good place to pick against the Pac-12. BC's offense is loaded with talent beyond Heisman finalist Andre Williams and is the only team to seriously threaten Florida State this year. That said, their defense is really bad (82nd in F/+). If they get in a shoot-out with the Wildcats, which I think they might, I don't think they'll be able to make that critical stop needed to secure a victory. I'll take Arizona, but as a great philosopher once said, closer than the experts think. Pick: Arizona (24 points)
Virginia Tech (35,24,12) vs. UCLA (13,14,25)
Sagarin: UCLA by 9
F/+: UCLA by 3
Vegas: UCLA by 7
There is a chance that no one will score in this game on account of Virginia Tech's amazing defense (#1 in F/+) and their not amazing offense. If someone does score, I am betting it will be the Pac-12's offensive and defensive freshman of the year Myles Jack. Too bad I couldn't find a prop bet concerning which side of the ball he will score from first. Hopefully someone from Vegas reads this blog and rectifies this. Pick: UCLA (12 points)
Rice (63,55,61) vs. Mississippi State (44,42,33)
Sagarin: Mississippi State by 5
F/+: Mississippi State by 4
Vegas: Mississippi State by 7
One of the most under-the-radar stories of the season was just how decent Mississippi State turned out to be. After a disappointing 2012 in which an empty 8-5 record hid the inherent weakness of the team, the 2013 squad actually improved despite losing some key seniors (notably, starting corners Johnthan Banks and Darius Slay). One of the trademarks of the Dan Mullen era in Starkville is that the Bulldogs just don't lose to inferior opponents. I don't think Rice is the team to buck that trend. Pick: Mississippi State (13 points)
Duke (46,35,43) vs. Texas A&M (22,25,18)
Sagarin: Texas A&M by 8
F/+: Texas A&M by 7
Vegas: Texas A&M by 11.5
Last year I picked Duke to pull off the upset against Cincinnati. This was stupid of me, and they lost by a large margin. Duke has improved a lot this year, but accordingly so has the caliber of their bowl opponent. Lebron's mentee should have a huge day. Pick: Texas A&M (27 points)
Nebraska (47,51,58) vs. Georgia (20,15,17)
Sagarin: Georgia by 10
F/+: Georgia by 12
Vegas: Georgia by 9
Please don't make me write about Nebraska. Pick: Georgia (26 points)
UNLV (80,94,90) vs. North Texas (56,52,44)
Sagarin: North Texas by 9
F/+: North Texas by 15
Vegas: North Texas by 6.5
This might be the least "sexy" matchup of the bowl season, but there are three reasons to pay attention. One, it's the only New Year's Day game played at the Cotton Bowl, which is fun if you like tradition. Two, UNLV is making their first trip to a bowl in 13 years, while the Mean Green is coming off of a nine year drought, so everyone in the game should be pretty hungry for a win. Three, North Texas isn't actually half-bad, having beaten Ball State and eventual CUSA champ Rice. Pick: North Texas (28 points)
Iowa (29,30,23) vs. LSU (17,16,20)
Sagarin: LSU by 6
F/+: LSU by 6
Vegas: LSU by 7.5
Zach Mettenberger's absence makes this a pretty even matchup. Iowa has very little in the way of explosiveness, but they are a very solid team in just about every respect. Most notably, they were 6th in rushing defense S&P+ this season, which should bode well against the run-heavy offense that the Tigers are likely to employ. I still think the talent gap favors LSU in this one, but don't be shocked if Iowa finds a way to pull this out. Pick: LSU (16 points)
Wisconsin (7,13,4) vs. South Carolina (16,12,14)
Sagarin: Wisconsin by 3
F/+: Wisconsin by 3
Vegas: Wisconsin by 1
This is probably the toughest bowl matchup to pick. Wisconsin is a better team in a lot of ways, but Connor Shaw has seemingly near-magical abilities to pull games out at the end. The Badgers should be able to stop the run a little bit better with a healthy Chris Borland in tow, so I'll give the extremely slight edge to them. Pick: Wisconsin (1 point)
Stanford (3,1,5) vs. Michigan State (12,9,8)
Sagarin: Stanford by 7
F/+: Stanford by 9
Vegas: Stanford by 4
There is no bowl I am looking forward to more than the 100th edition of the Rose Bowl. Shayne Shov, Trent Murphy, Denicos Allen, and Max Bullough just might be the best quartet of linebackers to ever play in a single college football game. Outside of that, we will see a pair of offenses that exploded in their respective conference championship games after spending the season gradually getting better and better. I'm tempted to go with Michigan State because they've been so consistent this season. However, I then remember that part of the reason they won all 12 of their victories by double digits was that their schedule was pretty weak. Stanford may have had a couple of clunkers, but they were playing better competition almost every week. I'll give them the slight edge here. Pick: Stanford (11 points)
UCF (39,23,29) vs. Baylor (5,7,3)
Sagarin: Baylor by 16
F/+: Baylor by 9
Vegas: Baylor by 16.5
In spite of the blowout loss to Oklahoma State that probably unfairly skewed our perceptions of Baylor's season, the Bears are a really, really good team. A really good team that will be much healthier for the bowl game (for example, Tevin Reese should return). UCF is a great story and Blake Bortles might be the best QB in the game, but that's not going to stop me from putting a lot of points on this game. Pick: Baylor (29 points)
Oklahoma (23,20,28) vs. Alabama (2,3,2)
Sagarin: Alabama by 14
F/+: Alabama by 18
Vegas: Alabama by 15
The typical narrative from Alabama's last non-championship bowl game (the blowout loss to Utah) was that they "didn't get up for the game." It's entirely possible that that is true, but that is also completely irrelevant for this game for a few reasons. One, 2008 Utah was a lot better than Oklahoma is this year. Two, 2013 Alabama is a lot better than 2008 Alabama. Three, Alabama destroyed Michigan State after the 2010 season in their other "meaningless" bowl game, which shows that they don't unilaterally give up when not playing for a title. Finally, I can't imagine Nick Saban just laying back and taking it easy for a game. What likely happened is that Utah simply played better that day. Utah was only a 10 point underdog in the Sugar Bowl, which meant Vegas gave the Utes roughly a 20-25% chance to win outright. Don't make the mistake of relying too heavily on one past result. Alabama should roll. Pick: Alabama (33 points)
Oklahoma State (9,6,13) vs. Missouri (14,10,16)
Sagarin: Oklahoma State by 2
F/+: Oklahoma State by 3
Vegas: Missouri by 1
This year's Cotton Bowl pits two teams that lost out on BCS bids on the final day of the season. Missouri was a pretty consistent team all season long, while the Cowboys had some big highs (slaughtering Baylor on national TV) and some big lows (losing to West Virginia). The loss to Auburn wasn't great for perceptions of Missouri's offense, but Auburn's offense is a completely unique beast. I don't think Oklahoma State will be able to recreates something quite like that. Still, this should be one of the best bowls to watch, as I'm sure it will be close and well-contested. Pick: Missouri (4 points)
Clemson (15,26,6) vs. Ohio State (10,8,7)
Sagarin: Ohio State by 2
F/+: Ohio State by 6
Vegas: Ohio State by 2.5
The popular narrative around this game is that it is a matchup of two top-notch offenses. No one is doubting that Ohio State can score on anyone: Even putting up "just" 24 on Michigan State was actually quite the achievement. However, the second best unit in this game may not be Clemson's offense, but instead their defense. In fact, F/+ would give the slight edge to Brent Venables much-improved unit (13th in D, compared to 17th in O), although the margin is slim enough that I won't argue if you think otherwise. I think this game comes down to the one unmentioned unit, the Buckeyes' D, which I think will get just enough pressure on Tajh Boyd to win the game. Pick: Ohio State (19 points)
Vanderbilt (53,53,73) vs. Houston (36,32,47)
Sagarin: Houston by 4
F/+: Houston by 4
Vegas: Vanderbilt by 3
This is one of the most SEC-biasy lines you'll see. Vanderbilt is probably better than their advanced metrics dictate (injuries hurt), but Houston showed the ability to play neck-and-neck with good teams, losing to UCF and Louisville by one score in back to back weeks. Yes, Houston didn't quite get that signature win this season, but I think there's good reason to believe that they can do it here. Pick: Houston (8 points)
Arkansas State (96,100,98) vs. Ball State (64,56,59)
Sagarin: Ball State by 11
F/+: Ball State by 15
Vegas: Ball State by 9
Arkansas State has the unfortunate honor of possessing two of the biggest traits that make me want to pick against a team in a bowl: They were bad this year and they don't have a coach. Let's not overthink this. Pick: Ball State (32 points)
Florida State (1,2,1) vs. Auburn (11,4,15)
Sagarin: Florida State by 13
F/+: Florida State by 11
Vegas: Florida State by 8.5
It's really hard to pin down this Auburn team. Yes, they pulled off three huge wins in a row to vault them into this game. However, they were only truly dominant in one of them (Missouri) and got a bit outplayed in one of the others (Alabama). That said, they were good enough to hang around in all of these games, and they were well-prepared to take advantage of the good fortune that fell their way. This makes me think that they have a chance to win this game. That said, their opponent is really, really, really good. Florida State is a well-coached team that is absolutely loaded with talent. Auburn's season has been a great story, but I think their amazing run comes to an end here. Pick: Florida State (25 points
As I did last year, I am including some info with each pick. In the parentheses next to the team name is the FBS-only rank of each team in three metrics: Jeff Sagarin's pure points, Brian Fremeau's FEI, and Bill Connelly's S&P+. After that, I include the spread predicted by Sagarin, Football Outsiders' F/+ (which is a combo of the other two stats), and Vegas (as of 12/10).
Washington State (34,58,62) vs. Colorado State (70,64,64)
Sagarin: Washington State by 12
F/+: Washington State by 4
Vegas: Washington State by 3.5
The bowl season starts off with a whimper this year. That's weird to say considering that this game features Mike Leach, but the Cougars have yet to master their aerial attack (59th in passing S&P+). Still, it seems like the program is on the right track after a decade of despair. Colorado State put a mild scare into Alabama in September, but that doesn't mean I like them here as their defense is more suited to defend the run (21st rushing defense S&P+ versus 102nd against the pass). Even if Washington State isn't great at passing, they're certainly good at it and will do it a lot. Pick: Washington State (22 points)
Fresno State (42,48,35) vs. USC (18,18,19)
Sagarin: USC by 9
F/+: USC by 14
Vegas: USC by 5.5
I would normally be worried about a team that's on its third coach of the year, but I think the talent differential is enough to stick with the Trojans. Derek Carr is a solid quarterback, but the Bulldogs were a bit overrated this year, and their defense probably won't be able to stop the improving USC offense. Pick: USC (23 points)
Buffalo (58,73,63) vs. San Diego State (87,92,87)
Sagarin: Buffalo by 9
F/+: Buffalo by 8
Vegas: Buffalo by 2.5
Buffalo just happened to be one of the four teams I saw in person this year. In their season opening game against Ohio State, the Bulls kept it close before falling late. The best play of the game came courtesy of likely first-rounder Khalil Mack. The senior LB made a fantastic interception at the line and the returned it for a touchdown, taking a perfect angle towards the pylon. This may be one of the worst bowl games of the year, but if you do catch a few minutes of it, be sure to look out for Mack. Pick: Buffalo (17 points)
Tulane (78,67,81) vs. Louisiana-Lafayette (83,84,88)
Sagarin: Tulane by 2
F/+: Tulane by 5
Vegas: Tulane by 1
One of the best stories of the year has to be Tulane's return to respectability, as they qualified for their first bowl since 2002. While the numbers seem to favor Tulane by a bit (and in reality it should be higher given that this game is at the Superdome, where Tulane plays their home games), I think this will be one of the most even games of bowl season. Part of the dip in the advanced stats for ULL can be attributed to their season-ending blowout loss to South Alabama, when QB Terrance Broadway was out and there was nothing to play for (the conference title was already clinched). I'll still take the home team, but I think it'll be quite close. Pick: Tulane (5 points)
East Carolina (54,37,36) vs. Ohio (98,111,100)
Sagarin: East Carolina by 14
F/+: East Carolina by 25
Vegas: East Carolina by 13
Even though there are 35 bowls, there is still a such a thing as a bowl snub. This year, the Toledo Rockets appear to be the best bowl eligible team that didn't get in (Penn State not included). Instead of seeing an awesome matchup between Toledo and the upstart Pirates, we get treated to this mismatch instead. Frank Solich is a good coach, and there is still some talent in Athens, but I just can't see this game being particularly close. Pick: East Carolina (35 points)
Boise State (37,45,32) vs. Oregon State (32,46,60)
Sagarin: Oregon State by 2
F/+: Boise State by 4
Vegas: Oregon State by 2.5
Offensive F/+: Oregon State 43rd, Boise 44th. Defensive F/+: Boise 58th, Oregon State 59th. In other words, this should be a pretty close game (special teams favor the Broncos, as you might suspect, but I'm skeptical of the predictiveness of those metrics). Yes, the Beavers' offense looked virtually unstoppable during their six game winning streak, but they were playing a pretty terrible slate of defenses. I still like them in this game, if only because it might be Brandin Cooks' last game in college. If you haven't seen him yet, he's basically Steve Smith minus the crazy (which means I like him a lot). Pick: Oregon State (3 points)
Pittsburgh (60,57,51) vs. Bowling Green (28,39,26)
Sagarin: Bowling Green by 9
F/+: Bowling Green by 5
Vegas: Bowling Green by 6
One of my favorite matchups of the bowl season (for real). I'm going with the upset because Aaron Donald will probably tackle everybody:
Pick: Pittsburgh (2 points)
Utah State (30,40,27) vs. Northern Illinois (50,43,66)
Sagarin: Utah State by 6
F/+: Utah State by 10
Vegas: Northern Illinois by 1.5
If Chuckie Keeton were healthy, then this would be in the running for the best bowl of the year. Even so, Utah State has fared well in his absence, falling short of a conference title on the road by just a touchdown. In spite of losing Gary Anderson to Wisconsin and Keeton to his injury, Utah State might just be the best non-BCS team for the second straight year. I think they'll challenge for that crown with a win against Jordan Lynch in his last game for the Huskies. Pick: Utah State (7 points
Marshall (52,44,48) vs. Maryland (69,74,57)
Sagarin: Marshall by 4
F/+: Marshall by 4
Vegas: Marshall by 2.5
I've been working in Ashland, Kentucky for the past two months. Since Ashland is a pretty small town, the group I'm working with stays in nearby Huntington, West Virginia, which is the home of Marshall. It's been an interesting exercise to observe the local culture, and the personal highlight of that was stumbling across this piece decrying the CUSA's math that sent Marshall to Rice for the CUSA title game. And people wonder why newspapers are in trouble. As for this game, I'll take the team with Rakeem Cato on it. Pick: Marshall (14 points)
Syracuse (68,88,76) vs. Minnesota (57,49,70)
Sagarin: Minnesota by 3
F/+: Minnesota by 9
Vegas: Minnesota by 4.5
This is probably the least exciting bowl of the year. Yes, it's cool to see Minnesota having its best season in about a decade, but their lack of explosiveness on offense (neither the running or passing game crack the top 60 in S&P+) makes them a rather unpleasant watch. Still, they have the proven ability to beat bad teams, so I'll take them here. Pick: Minnesota (18 points)
BYU (24,21,24) vs. Washington (8,17,21)
Sagarin: Washington by 9
F/+: Washington by 5
Vegas: Washington by 3
Kyle Van Noy went crazy in lasy year's Poinsettia Bowl, in what has to be one of the most memorable individual defensive performances I can remember. This year he and his friends will face a much tougher test in a well-rested and healed Washington offense. I normally tend to downgrade a team's chances in a bowl when the coach leaves, but the upperclassmen-laden Husky offense should be strong enough to overcome that. Pick: Washington (9 points)
Rutgers (89,98,91) vs. Notre Dame (27,19,37)
Sagarin: Notre Dame by 19
F/+: Notre Dame by 22
Vegas: Notre Dame by 15.5
On one hand, it will be nice to see the alma mater win a bowl game (a win here would be just their second bowl win since I started school a decade ago). On the other hand, Rutgers is just terrible, and I can't imagine their inclusion will make this game watchable. Fun fact: With Chuck Martin and Bob Diaco off to their new jobs, and the Rutgers DC fired, Ron Prince is the only major coordinator left in this game. Yes, that Ron Prince will be one of the key players in determining how well Rutgers plays. Sometimes this is too easy. Pick: Notre Dame (34 points)
Cincinnati (49,47,56) vs. North Carolina (41,41,38)
Sagarin: North Carolina by 3
F/+: North Carolina by 7
Vegas: North Carolina by 3
Through their first nine games this year, Cincinnati was 7-2, which looks pretty good on paper. The problem is that not a single one of those games was against a team that would finish the season bowl eligible, which meant that they lost to two pretty bad teams (Illinois and South Florida). They did end up with a nice road win at Houston and an overtime loss to Louisville, so there are signs of life for the Bearcats, but I'll still take the Heels in this one. Pick: North Carolina (10 points)
Miami (FL) (40,34,22) vs. Louisville (21,22,10)
Sagarin: Louisville by 6
F/+: Louisville by 6
Vegas: Louisville by 3
The common perception about Louisville is that they are an offense-only team. With talent like Teddy Bridgewater and DeVante Parker, they are indeed great on offense. However, their defense has been just as big of a key to their success this season (22nd in F/+, up from 48th last season). I'm usually wary of relying on a high number of returning starters to suddenly improve, but in this case the 10 returning starters on defense were able to make the leap into near-elite territory. Louisville was shoved out of the spotlight after one bad quarter against UCF, but make no mistake; this is still a very good team. Pick: Louisville (21 points)
Michigan (38,29,40) vs. Kansas State (25,28,31)
Sagarin: Kansas State by 4
F/+: Kansas State by 2
Vegas: Kansas State by 3
Kansas State was a pretty good team this year that got almost immediately forgotten because of the season opening loss to North Dakota State. What no one knew at the time was just how good of a squad that was (well, they were the two-time defending FCS champs, but I don't think we expected a legitimate top-25 outfit). While I like their chances in this game, I have to go with Michigan. The Wolverines explosive offense in their biggest games (ND, Ohio State) shows the potential that lurks beneath their mediocre overall profile. I tend to think they'll figure enough out over the next few weeks to pull this one off. Pick: Michigan (6 points)
Middle Tennessee (86,70,86) vs. Navy (62,61,68)
Sagarin: Navy by 8
F/+: Navy by 4
Vegas: Navy by 6
After being the most egregious bowl snub last year, Middle Tennessee gets to go to Fort Worth to face the triple option for sixty minutes. Oh, the perks of joining Conference USA. Pick: Navy (20 points)
Ole Miss (43,31,30) vs. Georgia Tech (26,36,34)
Sagarin: Georgia Tech by 5
F/+: Georgia Tech by 1
Vegas: Ole Miss by 3
The common thought process about Georgia Tech under Paul Johnson is that because of their unique offense, they should be able to catch good teams unprepared and pull off more upsets than most teams. The problem with this line of thinking is that they really haven't done this the last two seasons. Their most notable wins have been the Sun Bowl victory over the Lane Kiffin train of dysfunction and an early season win over Duke, neither of which are particularly impressive. On the other side, Ole Miss has the nice combination of young guys improving and injured guys coming back that tends to help teams win bowl games. I think they'll use the three weeks of practice well, and should win by a decent margin. Pick: Ole Miss (15 points)
Oregon (4,11,9) vs. Texas (33,38,49)
Sagarin: Oregon by 15
F/+: Oregon by 16
Vegas: Oregon by 13
There are two very important things to know about this bowl season. One, the Pac-12 might be the best conference in the nation (if they aren't, they are a very close second). Two, the Pac-12 has some terrible bowl tie-ins. The result of this is that the conference is favored in every single one of its bowl games, with many of them looking like potential blowouts. This particular one looks like it might be the biggest mismatch of all: A great Oregon team with a few weeks to rest its hobbled stars versus a Texas program more focused on either
Arizona State (6,5,11) vs. Texas Tech (45,59,50)
Sagarin: Arizona State by 16
F/+: Arizona State by 24
Vegas: Arizona State by 13.5
I still love the Kliff Kingsbury hire for the Red Raiders, but it's going to take a little time to truly turn the corner. Kingsbury's learning on the job, combined with the fact that Tech wasn't exactly oozing with talent the past few years means that we probably won't see a year like 2008 particularly soon. This game might be even more of a mismatch than the Oregon-Texas one, which is saying a lot. My pre-season surprise team has exceeded my expectations so much that the only thing that would surprise at this point would be a loss. Pick: Arizona State (31 points)
Arizona (19,27,39) vs. Boston College (61,66,54)
Sagarin: Arizona by 13
F/+: Arizona by 9
Vegas: Arizona by 7
In a lot of ways, I feel like this would be a good place to pick against the Pac-12. BC's offense is loaded with talent beyond Heisman finalist Andre Williams and is the only team to seriously threaten Florida State this year. That said, their defense is really bad (82nd in F/+). If they get in a shoot-out with the Wildcats, which I think they might, I don't think they'll be able to make that critical stop needed to secure a victory. I'll take Arizona, but as a great philosopher once said, closer than the experts think. Pick: Arizona (24 points)
Virginia Tech (35,24,12) vs. UCLA (13,14,25)
Sagarin: UCLA by 9
F/+: UCLA by 3
Vegas: UCLA by 7
There is a chance that no one will score in this game on account of Virginia Tech's amazing defense (#1 in F/+) and their not amazing offense. If someone does score, I am betting it will be the Pac-12's offensive and defensive freshman of the year Myles Jack. Too bad I couldn't find a prop bet concerning which side of the ball he will score from first. Hopefully someone from Vegas reads this blog and rectifies this. Pick: UCLA (12 points)
Rice (63,55,61) vs. Mississippi State (44,42,33)
Sagarin: Mississippi State by 5
F/+: Mississippi State by 4
Vegas: Mississippi State by 7
One of the most under-the-radar stories of the season was just how decent Mississippi State turned out to be. After a disappointing 2012 in which an empty 8-5 record hid the inherent weakness of the team, the 2013 squad actually improved despite losing some key seniors (notably, starting corners Johnthan Banks and Darius Slay). One of the trademarks of the Dan Mullen era in Starkville is that the Bulldogs just don't lose to inferior opponents. I don't think Rice is the team to buck that trend. Pick: Mississippi State (13 points)
Duke (46,35,43) vs. Texas A&M (22,25,18)
Sagarin: Texas A&M by 8
F/+: Texas A&M by 7
Vegas: Texas A&M by 11.5
Last year I picked Duke to pull off the upset against Cincinnati. This was stupid of me, and they lost by a large margin. Duke has improved a lot this year, but accordingly so has the caliber of their bowl opponent. Lebron's mentee should have a huge day. Pick: Texas A&M (27 points)
Nebraska (47,51,58) vs. Georgia (20,15,17)
Sagarin: Georgia by 10
F/+: Georgia by 12
Vegas: Georgia by 9
Please don't make me write about Nebraska. Pick: Georgia (26 points)
UNLV (80,94,90) vs. North Texas (56,52,44)
Sagarin: North Texas by 9
F/+: North Texas by 15
Vegas: North Texas by 6.5
This might be the least "sexy" matchup of the bowl season, but there are three reasons to pay attention. One, it's the only New Year's Day game played at the Cotton Bowl, which is fun if you like tradition. Two, UNLV is making their first trip to a bowl in 13 years, while the Mean Green is coming off of a nine year drought, so everyone in the game should be pretty hungry for a win. Three, North Texas isn't actually half-bad, having beaten Ball State and eventual CUSA champ Rice. Pick: North Texas (28 points)
Iowa (29,30,23) vs. LSU (17,16,20)
Sagarin: LSU by 6
F/+: LSU by 6
Vegas: LSU by 7.5
Zach Mettenberger's absence makes this a pretty even matchup. Iowa has very little in the way of explosiveness, but they are a very solid team in just about every respect. Most notably, they were 6th in rushing defense S&P+ this season, which should bode well against the run-heavy offense that the Tigers are likely to employ. I still think the talent gap favors LSU in this one, but don't be shocked if Iowa finds a way to pull this out. Pick: LSU (16 points)
Wisconsin (7,13,4) vs. South Carolina (16,12,14)
Sagarin: Wisconsin by 3
F/+: Wisconsin by 3
Vegas: Wisconsin by 1
This is probably the toughest bowl matchup to pick. Wisconsin is a better team in a lot of ways, but Connor Shaw has seemingly near-magical abilities to pull games out at the end. The Badgers should be able to stop the run a little bit better with a healthy Chris Borland in tow, so I'll give the extremely slight edge to them. Pick: Wisconsin (1 point)
Stanford (3,1,5) vs. Michigan State (12,9,8)
Sagarin: Stanford by 7
F/+: Stanford by 9
Vegas: Stanford by 4
There is no bowl I am looking forward to more than the 100th edition of the Rose Bowl. Shayne Shov, Trent Murphy, Denicos Allen, and Max Bullough just might be the best quartet of linebackers to ever play in a single college football game. Outside of that, we will see a pair of offenses that exploded in their respective conference championship games after spending the season gradually getting better and better. I'm tempted to go with Michigan State because they've been so consistent this season. However, I then remember that part of the reason they won all 12 of their victories by double digits was that their schedule was pretty weak. Stanford may have had a couple of clunkers, but they were playing better competition almost every week. I'll give them the slight edge here. Pick: Stanford (11 points)
UCF (39,23,29) vs. Baylor (5,7,3)
Sagarin: Baylor by 16
F/+: Baylor by 9
Vegas: Baylor by 16.5
In spite of the blowout loss to Oklahoma State that probably unfairly skewed our perceptions of Baylor's season, the Bears are a really, really good team. A really good team that will be much healthier for the bowl game (for example, Tevin Reese should return). UCF is a great story and Blake Bortles might be the best QB in the game, but that's not going to stop me from putting a lot of points on this game. Pick: Baylor (29 points)
Oklahoma (23,20,28) vs. Alabama (2,3,2)
Sagarin: Alabama by 14
F/+: Alabama by 18
Vegas: Alabama by 15
The typical narrative from Alabama's last non-championship bowl game (the blowout loss to Utah) was that they "didn't get up for the game." It's entirely possible that that is true, but that is also completely irrelevant for this game for a few reasons. One, 2008 Utah was a lot better than Oklahoma is this year. Two, 2013 Alabama is a lot better than 2008 Alabama. Three, Alabama destroyed Michigan State after the 2010 season in their other "meaningless" bowl game, which shows that they don't unilaterally give up when not playing for a title. Finally, I can't imagine Nick Saban just laying back and taking it easy for a game. What likely happened is that Utah simply played better that day. Utah was only a 10 point underdog in the Sugar Bowl, which meant Vegas gave the Utes roughly a 20-25% chance to win outright. Don't make the mistake of relying too heavily on one past result. Alabama should roll. Pick: Alabama (33 points)
Oklahoma State (9,6,13) vs. Missouri (14,10,16)
Sagarin: Oklahoma State by 2
F/+: Oklahoma State by 3
Vegas: Missouri by 1
This year's Cotton Bowl pits two teams that lost out on BCS bids on the final day of the season. Missouri was a pretty consistent team all season long, while the Cowboys had some big highs (slaughtering Baylor on national TV) and some big lows (losing to West Virginia). The loss to Auburn wasn't great for perceptions of Missouri's offense, but Auburn's offense is a completely unique beast. I don't think Oklahoma State will be able to recreates something quite like that. Still, this should be one of the best bowls to watch, as I'm sure it will be close and well-contested. Pick: Missouri (4 points)
Clemson (15,26,6) vs. Ohio State (10,8,7)
Sagarin: Ohio State by 2
F/+: Ohio State by 6
Vegas: Ohio State by 2.5
The popular narrative around this game is that it is a matchup of two top-notch offenses. No one is doubting that Ohio State can score on anyone: Even putting up "just" 24 on Michigan State was actually quite the achievement. However, the second best unit in this game may not be Clemson's offense, but instead their defense. In fact, F/+ would give the slight edge to Brent Venables much-improved unit (13th in D, compared to 17th in O), although the margin is slim enough that I won't argue if you think otherwise. I think this game comes down to the one unmentioned unit, the Buckeyes' D, which I think will get just enough pressure on Tajh Boyd to win the game. Pick: Ohio State (19 points)
Vanderbilt (53,53,73) vs. Houston (36,32,47)
Sagarin: Houston by 4
F/+: Houston by 4
Vegas: Vanderbilt by 3
This is one of the most SEC-biasy lines you'll see. Vanderbilt is probably better than their advanced metrics dictate (injuries hurt), but Houston showed the ability to play neck-and-neck with good teams, losing to UCF and Louisville by one score in back to back weeks. Yes, Houston didn't quite get that signature win this season, but I think there's good reason to believe that they can do it here. Pick: Houston (8 points)
Arkansas State (96,100,98) vs. Ball State (64,56,59)
Sagarin: Ball State by 11
F/+: Ball State by 15
Vegas: Ball State by 9
Arkansas State has the unfortunate honor of possessing two of the biggest traits that make me want to pick against a team in a bowl: They were bad this year and they don't have a coach. Let's not overthink this. Pick: Ball State (32 points)
Florida State (1,2,1) vs. Auburn (11,4,15)
Sagarin: Florida State by 13
F/+: Florida State by 11
Vegas: Florida State by 8.5
It's really hard to pin down this Auburn team. Yes, they pulled off three huge wins in a row to vault them into this game. However, they were only truly dominant in one of them (Missouri) and got a bit outplayed in one of the others (Alabama). That said, they were good enough to hang around in all of these games, and they were well-prepared to take advantage of the good fortune that fell their way. This makes me think that they have a chance to win this game. That said, their opponent is really, really, really good. Florida State is a well-coached team that is absolutely loaded with talent. Auburn's season has been a great story, but I think their amazing run comes to an end here. Pick: Florida State (25 points
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Various Thoughts on SPORTS
I like to think and I like to watch sports. This means that at any given time, I have a lot of thoughts about sports. This happens to be one of those times. Usually these thoughts are all focused on the sport that happens to be in season. However, in November all three of my favorite sports are in season, which means I have thoughts about all of them. In honor of the guy holding up the generic "SPORTS" sign on Gameday this past weekend, let's combine all of those thoughts into one messy post about SPORTS.
BASEBALL
Another year of MLB award voting came and went, and once again, there was controversy. AL MVP winner Miguel Cabrera had a truly great year, but he was still clearly behind Mike Trout in terms of being the best all-around player in baseball.* That said, the rest of the voting was actually pretty reasonable. I even agreed with 4 of the 5 other winners (and Max Scherzer was a fine selection for the other award, although I know at least some of the writers did it for the wrong reasons).
*In the NL, the voters went the other (and correct) direction, picking the all-around CF over the slugging corner infielder. This would be interesting if it weren't for the one variable that explains everything: playoffs. McCutchen and Cabrera's teams made the playoffs, hence they won the awards. Sigh.
While none of the winners surprised me, I can always count on examining the full results (on the BBWAA site) for a few interesting nuggets (and good laughs). Full ballot reveals also lead to some new areas of discussion about the relative merits of other players besides the main contenders. These discussions are usually glossed over in advance of the awards because people mostly like to speculate on who will win. This singular focus does a disservice to all the great players who come up short, which is too bad when there is a loaded year like the NL in 2013.
Of special interest to me (for reasons that will quickly become clear) were Joey Votto, Paul Goldschmidt, and Carlos Gomez. These are not the only notable runners up. In fact, they probably aren't even the three best runners up. However, every single one of their stat lines indicates an MVP-type season:
Goldschmidt: .302/.401/.551 (156 wRC+), 36 HR, 15 SB, 6.4 fWAR
Votto: .305/.435/.491 (156 wRC+), 24 HR, 1 infield flyball (!), 6.2 fWAR
Gomez: .284/.338/.506 (130 wRC+), 24 HR, 40 SB, +26 UZR, +38 DRS (!), 7.6 fWAR
Gomez leads the other 2 by a bit in fWAR, but you probably want to regress those defensive numbers a bit (while still acknowledging his awesomeness in CF), so they all appear to make a pretty even case. They are so even, that I put them 6-7-8 in my own meaningless ballot. However the voters, being the lovers of RBI that they are, put Goldschmidt ahead of these other two by a good margin. Not every voter agreed with this line of thinking, as a few put Goldy in the same range that I did. This angered fellow Diamondback and noted Twitterer Brandon McCarthy. His tweet about the matter evolved into a long chain about the relative merits of other candidates as well. Here was my contribution:
Now, Brandon McCarthy is one of the most stat-friendly major leaguers there is, so I don't want to pillory him for this. When you spent the vast majority of the past 8 months playing with someone as awesome at baseball as Paul Goldschmidt, I can certainly understand the desire to see him celebrated as much as possible. That said, this whole debate between Votto, Goldy, and Gomez gets to the heart of an important thing about Sabermetrics that is too often glossed over: There is very rarely a correct answer to debates such as these.
You may very well point to WAR or something like that and say that Goldschmidt is better than Votto because he was 0.2 WAR ahead of him. The problem with that is that there are enough margins for error in the components that make up WAR (especially the defensive components), that we can't say anything definitively for such small separations. Furthermore, there are a lot of things that aren't in WAR that may very well determine value. Areas such as sequencing and clutch hitting haven't been found to be particularly predictive, but that doesn't mean there aren't some aspects of those areas that may indicate real value. And then there are small things like defensive shifts that almost certainly have value, but we haven't been able to turn them into useful individual stats yet. WAR is awesome and is our best look yet at the total value of a player, but it isn't yet the final word on the matter.
The main point to take away from all of this is that, like most things in the world, very few of these awards debates have clear-cut answers. Yes, I'm pretty sure Mike Trout is the best player in baseball, but after that there are a bunch of gray areas. Rather than thinking we have all of the answers, let's embrace debate honestly, and appreciate great players for what they are. Goldschmidt's dinger prowess, Votto's insane eye, and Gomez's range are all things that should be celebrated by baseball fans everywhere. Don't let the awards process convince you otherwise.
COLLEGE FOOTBALL
This past Saturday was as good of a day of football as we've seen this season. Ed Orgeron pulled off the biggest win of his career, beating Stanford in the Coliseum. Duke ran for all the yards against Miami, in a game that put them into the driver's seat in the Coastal division. UCF held off a surprisingly feisty Temple team with one of the best catches you'll ever see. Michigan beat Northwestern largely due to an insanely well-disciplined field goal unit. And of course, Auburn beat Georgia with a deflected heave on fourth down in one of the craziest final quarters ever.
Of course, if you know me, you'll know that I want to talk about something much more mundane. In this case, it was something from the Oklahoma-Iowa State game during the early timeslot. Chris Simms was the color man, which continues the trend of ex-Buccaneer players invading the media. While I generally support this as a good thing, it unfortunately gives them a lot of chance to say stupid things.
I'll paraphrase what he said, because Google tells me that apparently no one else on the internet heard this and was inspired enough to write about it. The setup was that he was asked about whether or not he thought Baylor deserved consideration for the title game, and responded with something like this: "They're really good, but we haven't seen if their style of football can win a title yet, so I can't put them in the top two." There are a couple of hopefully obvious problems with this:
1. There's a massive circular reasoning problem there. If the people in power (of which Chris Simms isn't one, thankfully) don't consider teams that haven't won titles before, then titleless teams they shall remain.
2. Chris Simms said this with presumably a straight face while broadcasting a game involving the first team to win a title with a spread offense (Oklahoma in 2000....you can make an argument for Florida's 1996 team as well). Yes, Baylor's iteration of the spread is dialed up to 11, but a lot of the principles are similar to what Oklahoma still does to this day.
This leads to my main point: Sometimes people are so blinded by tradition and the golden days of college football past, that they fail to see what's right in front of them. In this case, stick-in-the-muds who shrug off Baylor's success this year are missing out on one of the most exciting teams of all time. One of the strengths of college football is its adherence to tradition. The hallowed ghosts that live in the decades-old stadiums are often brought to mind when we see a classic uniform like Alabama's, or hear a name like Notre Dame. In spite of how much this respect for the past gives life to college football, it can also hold it back. Thankfully, there seems to be enough impetus within the game to overcome the lines of thinking that Simms' statement embodies. More and more people are appreciating and even celebrating the uniqueness of what Baylor does. Next year, we will have a four-team playoff, and finally playing players for their work appears to be close to happening as well. The traditions of college football are good, but when they become they alone are the only reason for continuing them, it's time for them to come to an end.
COLLEGE BASKETBALL
I was in Carbondale, Illinois visiting a friend this past weekend. We spent most of the time watching football, playing pong, and eating pizza and platters of meat. All of that was great, but being the Valley fan that I am, I just had to make my way over to the SIU Arena to catch a game while I was in town. As luck would have it, the Billikens from St. Louis were in town. Ever since the 2012 squad pushed Michigan State to the brink in the round of 32, I've been a big fan of this group of players. A lot of the key contributors are still around for one more season, so I'm making sure to catch as many games as I can. But until I saw this game on the schedule a couple days before my trip, I had no idea I'd be able to see them in person.
The SIU Arena is quite nice. It was difficult to judge just how rowdy it could be since it was only about three quarters full, but the set up seemed conducive to creating a difficult atmosphere. The stands on the baselines go all the way up to the ceiling without a break in the middle, which would create an impressive wall of noise and mayhem if entirely filled with students (it was not).
The game itself was quite good. SIU jumped out to an early lead as big as 13 on their ability to get to the basket, both through one-on-one drives and deft passing. This led to a bunch of free throws for the Salukis and a little early foul trouble for the Billikens. Luckily for SLU, their shooting heated up right before halftime, with Mike McCall and Jake Barnett both making multiple threes. When the teams came back out for the second half, Saint Louis looked like a team that remembered how to play defense, and quickly built up a lead that they would not relinquish. It wasn't their greatest game (Evans didn't dominate, and Jett only made 0.5 spectacular defensive plays), but it was a relatively easy win on the road against a decent opponent.
After watching one game and looking at a couple of other box scores, I don't know exactly what to make out of this year's Saint Louis squad. The defense is still good, but it's probably not quite up to the level of the last couple of teams (losing Cody Ellis, Cory Remekun, and Kwamain Mitchell will do that). The Billikens don't shoot particularly well from 3 (34% last year, 28.3% this year), though the quick spurt that got them back in the game suggests that their best offense might be one where they launch a lot of threes. Dwayne Evans is the reigning player of the year in the A-10, but he had a pretty non-descript day against a team without a lot of effective size (318th in the country). I still think that St. Louis is one of the teams to beat in their conference (along with VCU), but there will be a few questions that Jim Crews and his staff will have to answer if they want to make a deep run in the tournament.
SPORTS pic.twitter.com/sv69FiEIcm
— ParadigmShift35 (@NAWTADIGM) November 16, 2013
BASEBALL
Another year of MLB award voting came and went, and once again, there was controversy. AL MVP winner Miguel Cabrera had a truly great year, but he was still clearly behind Mike Trout in terms of being the best all-around player in baseball.* That said, the rest of the voting was actually pretty reasonable. I even agreed with 4 of the 5 other winners (and Max Scherzer was a fine selection for the other award, although I know at least some of the writers did it for the wrong reasons).
*In the NL, the voters went the other (and correct) direction, picking the all-around CF over the slugging corner infielder. This would be interesting if it weren't for the one variable that explains everything: playoffs. McCutchen and Cabrera's teams made the playoffs, hence they won the awards. Sigh.
While none of the winners surprised me, I can always count on examining the full results (on the BBWAA site) for a few interesting nuggets (and good laughs). Full ballot reveals also lead to some new areas of discussion about the relative merits of other players besides the main contenders. These discussions are usually glossed over in advance of the awards because people mostly like to speculate on who will win. This singular focus does a disservice to all the great players who come up short, which is too bad when there is a loaded year like the NL in 2013.
Of special interest to me (for reasons that will quickly become clear) were Joey Votto, Paul Goldschmidt, and Carlos Gomez. These are not the only notable runners up. In fact, they probably aren't even the three best runners up. However, every single one of their stat lines indicates an MVP-type season:
Goldschmidt: .302/.401/.551 (156 wRC+), 36 HR, 15 SB, 6.4 fWAR
Votto: .305/.435/.491 (156 wRC+), 24 HR, 1 infield flyball (!), 6.2 fWAR
Gomez: .284/.338/.506 (130 wRC+), 24 HR, 40 SB, +26 UZR, +38 DRS (!), 7.6 fWAR
Gomez leads the other 2 by a bit in fWAR, but you probably want to regress those defensive numbers a bit (while still acknowledging his awesomeness in CF), so they all appear to make a pretty even case. They are so even, that I put them 6-7-8 in my own meaningless ballot. However the voters, being the lovers of RBI that they are, put Goldschmidt ahead of these other two by a good margin. Not every voter agreed with this line of thinking, as a few put Goldy in the same range that I did. This angered fellow Diamondback and noted Twitterer Brandon McCarthy. His tweet about the matter evolved into a long chain about the relative merits of other candidates as well. Here was my contribution:
Now, Brandon McCarthy is one of the most stat-friendly major leaguers there is, so I don't want to pillory him for this. When you spent the vast majority of the past 8 months playing with someone as awesome at baseball as Paul Goldschmidt, I can certainly understand the desire to see him celebrated as much as possible. That said, this whole debate between Votto, Goldy, and Gomez gets to the heart of an important thing about Sabermetrics that is too often glossed over: There is very rarely a correct answer to debates such as these.
You may very well point to WAR or something like that and say that Goldschmidt is better than Votto because he was 0.2 WAR ahead of him. The problem with that is that there are enough margins for error in the components that make up WAR (especially the defensive components), that we can't say anything definitively for such small separations. Furthermore, there are a lot of things that aren't in WAR that may very well determine value. Areas such as sequencing and clutch hitting haven't been found to be particularly predictive, but that doesn't mean there aren't some aspects of those areas that may indicate real value. And then there are small things like defensive shifts that almost certainly have value, but we haven't been able to turn them into useful individual stats yet. WAR is awesome and is our best look yet at the total value of a player, but it isn't yet the final word on the matter.
The main point to take away from all of this is that, like most things in the world, very few of these awards debates have clear-cut answers. Yes, I'm pretty sure Mike Trout is the best player in baseball, but after that there are a bunch of gray areas. Rather than thinking we have all of the answers, let's embrace debate honestly, and appreciate great players for what they are. Goldschmidt's dinger prowess, Votto's insane eye, and Gomez's range are all things that should be celebrated by baseball fans everywhere. Don't let the awards process convince you otherwise.
COLLEGE FOOTBALL
This past Saturday was as good of a day of football as we've seen this season. Ed Orgeron pulled off the biggest win of his career, beating Stanford in the Coliseum. Duke ran for all the yards against Miami, in a game that put them into the driver's seat in the Coastal division. UCF held off a surprisingly feisty Temple team with one of the best catches you'll ever see. Michigan beat Northwestern largely due to an insanely well-disciplined field goal unit. And of course, Auburn beat Georgia with a deflected heave on fourth down in one of the craziest final quarters ever.
Of course, if you know me, you'll know that I want to talk about something much more mundane. In this case, it was something from the Oklahoma-Iowa State game during the early timeslot. Chris Simms was the color man, which continues the trend of ex-Buccaneer players invading the media. While I generally support this as a good thing, it unfortunately gives them a lot of chance to say stupid things.
I'll paraphrase what he said, because Google tells me that apparently no one else on the internet heard this and was inspired enough to write about it. The setup was that he was asked about whether or not he thought Baylor deserved consideration for the title game, and responded with something like this: "They're really good, but we haven't seen if their style of football can win a title yet, so I can't put them in the top two." There are a couple of hopefully obvious problems with this:
1. There's a massive circular reasoning problem there. If the people in power (of which Chris Simms isn't one, thankfully) don't consider teams that haven't won titles before, then titleless teams they shall remain.
2. Chris Simms said this with presumably a straight face while broadcasting a game involving the first team to win a title with a spread offense (Oklahoma in 2000....you can make an argument for Florida's 1996 team as well). Yes, Baylor's iteration of the spread is dialed up to 11, but a lot of the principles are similar to what Oklahoma still does to this day.
This leads to my main point: Sometimes people are so blinded by tradition and the golden days of college football past, that they fail to see what's right in front of them. In this case, stick-in-the-muds who shrug off Baylor's success this year are missing out on one of the most exciting teams of all time. One of the strengths of college football is its adherence to tradition. The hallowed ghosts that live in the decades-old stadiums are often brought to mind when we see a classic uniform like Alabama's, or hear a name like Notre Dame. In spite of how much this respect for the past gives life to college football, it can also hold it back. Thankfully, there seems to be enough impetus within the game to overcome the lines of thinking that Simms' statement embodies. More and more people are appreciating and even celebrating the uniqueness of what Baylor does. Next year, we will have a four-team playoff, and finally playing players for their work appears to be close to happening as well. The traditions of college football are good, but when they become they alone are the only reason for continuing them, it's time for them to come to an end.
COLLEGE BASKETBALL
I was in Carbondale, Illinois visiting a friend this past weekend. We spent most of the time watching football, playing pong, and eating pizza and platters of meat. All of that was great, but being the Valley fan that I am, I just had to make my way over to the SIU Arena to catch a game while I was in town. As luck would have it, the Billikens from St. Louis were in town. Ever since the 2012 squad pushed Michigan State to the brink in the round of 32, I've been a big fan of this group of players. A lot of the key contributors are still around for one more season, so I'm making sure to catch as many games as I can. But until I saw this game on the schedule a couple days before my trip, I had no idea I'd be able to see them in person.
The SIU Arena is quite nice. It was difficult to judge just how rowdy it could be since it was only about three quarters full, but the set up seemed conducive to creating a difficult atmosphere. The stands on the baselines go all the way up to the ceiling without a break in the middle, which would create an impressive wall of noise and mayhem if entirely filled with students (it was not).
The game itself was quite good. SIU jumped out to an early lead as big as 13 on their ability to get to the basket, both through one-on-one drives and deft passing. This led to a bunch of free throws for the Salukis and a little early foul trouble for the Billikens. Luckily for SLU, their shooting heated up right before halftime, with Mike McCall and Jake Barnett both making multiple threes. When the teams came back out for the second half, Saint Louis looked like a team that remembered how to play defense, and quickly built up a lead that they would not relinquish. It wasn't their greatest game (Evans didn't dominate, and Jett only made 0.5 spectacular defensive plays), but it was a relatively easy win on the road against a decent opponent.
After watching one game and looking at a couple of other box scores, I don't know exactly what to make out of this year's Saint Louis squad. The defense is still good, but it's probably not quite up to the level of the last couple of teams (losing Cody Ellis, Cory Remekun, and Kwamain Mitchell will do that). The Billikens don't shoot particularly well from 3 (34% last year, 28.3% this year), though the quick spurt that got them back in the game suggests that their best offense might be one where they launch a lot of threes. Dwayne Evans is the reigning player of the year in the A-10, but he had a pretty non-descript day against a team without a lot of effective size (318th in the country). I still think that St. Louis is one of the teams to beat in their conference (along with VCU), but there will be a few questions that Jim Crews and his staff will have to answer if they want to make a deep run in the tournament.
Curvilinear
This is a very long post in which I get very nerdy about a very specific subject. You have been warned (very).
During my time as an MBA student, my career coach was an interesting presence. He was at times very helpful and insightful, putting me in contact with some great people at the places I wanted to work. He could also be a little aloof, often forgetting what we had talked about in past meetings and not always offering the most actionable advice. In the end, his work with me could have been better and it could have been worse.
Of course, I'm not going to write an entire post about the efficacy of my career coach. What I am interested in, and what led me down the rabbit hole I take you through in this post, relates to something he said during one of our meetings. In this meeting, we were discussing what I thought my strengths were and how I would be able to communicate them to interviewers. Because I've done quite well in school and have always aced standardized tests, I said that my main strength was being really, really smart. My career coach rebuffed this saying that a lot of people were smart, and that I needed to communicate what my "special sauce" was. He then followed that up by saying that people on the super-high end of the intelligence spectrum were actually less good at managing than others than people of somewhat high intelligence. That is, he said there was a "curvilinear" relationship between intelligence and management abilities.
While I certainly took his "special sauce" advice to heart (learning agility is not only a better way to phrase what I was trying to get at; it's also more meaningful), I was taken aback by his second assertion. It definitely surprised me that added intelligence could hinder my career opportunities, but I ended up not thinking much more about it and moving on.
...Until the next semester. I was enrolled in a class pertaining to management and HR, which I actually enjoyed a great deal. One of the books we read was (predictably) entitled 100 Things You Need to Know: Best People Practices for Managers & HR. The book is sectioned into 100 small chapters with bits of insight and research pertaining to HR-related questions. One subset of the chapters deals with intelligence and how it relates to managerial success. One of those chapters included this quote (emphasis added):
"Intelligence is a necessary but not sufficient cause of adulthood success in careers that demand creativity or leadership. Further findings reveal that excessive intelligence seems to hurt, with the most effective people being somewhat smarter than average for their group, but not too much smarter." (Eichinger, 2006)
Upon reading that, I remembered what my career coach had said, and began to wonder if it was true. I could definitely understand how added intelligence might have diminishing returns when it comes to managing people, but it seemed strange and counter-intuitive that such skills would actually decrease with added intelligence. If one's intelligence naturally causes them to be aloof or something like that around others, wouldn't he or she be able to use that intelligence to avoid this? I know that this assertion may seem rather trivial in the grand scheme of things (and it's definitely a big generalization, which the 100 Things book itself keeps advising against). However, I was in the middle of trying to map out my post-MBA career, which meant that information that tells me that I may not be as great of a manager or leader as I thought was (and still is) very relevant.
Luckily for me, one of the other classes I was enrolled in at the time involved a deep dive into the academic side of marketing. As part of this class, we had just completed a "library quest" where we went to Hesburgh and read from a lot of different journals, magazines, and other publications in order to better understand the depth and breadth of knowledge that was available to us. Because of my increased confidence and research skills that arose from this activity, and because the 100 Things book is well cited, I undertook the process of finding out whether or not this assertion was true.
During my time as an MBA student, my career coach was an interesting presence. He was at times very helpful and insightful, putting me in contact with some great people at the places I wanted to work. He could also be a little aloof, often forgetting what we had talked about in past meetings and not always offering the most actionable advice. In the end, his work with me could have been better and it could have been worse.
Of course, I'm not going to write an entire post about the efficacy of my career coach. What I am interested in, and what led me down the rabbit hole I take you through in this post, relates to something he said during one of our meetings. In this meeting, we were discussing what I thought my strengths were and how I would be able to communicate them to interviewers. Because I've done quite well in school and have always aced standardized tests, I said that my main strength was being really, really smart. My career coach rebuffed this saying that a lot of people were smart, and that I needed to communicate what my "special sauce" was. He then followed that up by saying that people on the super-high end of the intelligence spectrum were actually less good at managing than others than people of somewhat high intelligence. That is, he said there was a "curvilinear" relationship between intelligence and management abilities.
While I certainly took his "special sauce" advice to heart (learning agility is not only a better way to phrase what I was trying to get at; it's also more meaningful), I was taken aback by his second assertion. It definitely surprised me that added intelligence could hinder my career opportunities, but I ended up not thinking much more about it and moving on.
...Until the next semester. I was enrolled in a class pertaining to management and HR, which I actually enjoyed a great deal. One of the books we read was (predictably) entitled 100 Things You Need to Know: Best People Practices for Managers & HR. The book is sectioned into 100 small chapters with bits of insight and research pertaining to HR-related questions. One subset of the chapters deals with intelligence and how it relates to managerial success. One of those chapters included this quote (emphasis added):
"Intelligence is a necessary but not sufficient cause of adulthood success in careers that demand creativity or leadership. Further findings reveal that excessive intelligence seems to hurt, with the most effective people being somewhat smarter than average for their group, but not too much smarter." (Eichinger, 2006)
Upon reading that, I remembered what my career coach had said, and began to wonder if it was true. I could definitely understand how added intelligence might have diminishing returns when it comes to managing people, but it seemed strange and counter-intuitive that such skills would actually decrease with added intelligence. If one's intelligence naturally causes them to be aloof or something like that around others, wouldn't he or she be able to use that intelligence to avoid this? I know that this assertion may seem rather trivial in the grand scheme of things (and it's definitely a big generalization, which the 100 Things book itself keeps advising against). However, I was in the middle of trying to map out my post-MBA career, which meant that information that tells me that I may not be as great of a manager or leader as I thought was (and still is) very relevant.
Luckily for me, one of the other classes I was enrolled in at the time involved a deep dive into the academic side of marketing. As part of this class, we had just completed a "library quest" where we went to Hesburgh and read from a lot of different journals, magazines, and other publications in order to better understand the depth and breadth of knowledge that was available to us. Because of my increased confidence and research skills that arose from this activity, and because the 100 Things book is well cited, I undertook the process of finding out whether or not this assertion was true.
* * *
The obvious place to start was with the citation from the book. I was hoping this would lead directly to a study with data that supported this statement, but that was not the case (more on this in a minute). While most of the journals I investigated during my library quest were available online, the Annals of Child Development, which was discontinued in 1998, was most certainly not. Thus, I journeyed all the way up to the 13th floor of Hesburgh to find the necessary volume. I ended up getting the following quote from a book that sits about 20 feet from Hesburgh's office, so that's pretty cool. Returning to the main subject, here is the quote that almost certainly is the source of the 100 Things reference:
"The literature on both creativity and leadership frequently contains the speculation that an excessive intelligence might even militate against personal influence. (...) Will likely yield a curvilinear, concave downward function between intelligence and creativity or leadership. Under many common conditions, for example, the highest odds of exercising personal influence in a group is enjoyed by that individual with an IQ only around 1.2 standard deviations above the mean IQ of the group." (Simonton, 1987)
One thing I learned from both the marketing academia class and this line of investigation was that academic papers pile citations on top of citations. If something is cited from somewhere else, then that somewhere else is not always (or perhaps, is not usually) the first source of the finding. As you might imagine, this can give rise to the same problem we see in the "telephone game." Since I hadn't yet arrived at the end of this investigative road, I continued along my journey.
The Simonton article had two citations related to the above passage. There was another article from another psychology journal and something called Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership. What was interesting about this was how the sources came from two completely different disciplines, which shows how much interconnectedness there is between different areas of study. Here is the passage from the management book:
"Five competent studies (out of 25) suggested that 'one of the most significant findings concerning the relation of intelligence to leadership is the extreme discrepancies between the intelligence of potential leaders and that of their followers militate against the exercise of leadership....' Ghiselli reported supporting evidence. In a study of three groups of managers, he found that 'the relationship between intelligence and managerial success is curvilinear with those individuals earning both low and very high scores being less likely to acheive success in management positions than those with scores at the intermediate level." (Bass, 1981)
And here is the quote from the journal article:
"Though a curvilinear relationship between intelligence and creativity has often been suggested, the only formal test (with negative results) of this hypothesis we are aware of was conducted by Simonton in a reanalysis of Cox's historical geniuses - a sample quite probably too rarified to be a particularly good test of the curvilinear hypothesis." (Barron, 1981)
There are quite a few takeaways from these passages. First, you can see how both of these cite past studies which means each of them will lead me (and you, if you are still reading) further down the rabbit hole. Second, the Ghiselli test sounds like it might be fairly conclusive, so that will be particularly interesting to follow up on. Third, the journal article quotes a study from Simonton, who just happens to be the author of the article that 100 Things draws upon. This means that Simonton quotes someone in his article who then quotes his own study. Just cite your own study, man! Finally, the Simonton study mentioned in the article seems to indicate that there isn't any proof of this curvilinear relationship, so it will be interesting to put this up against the Ghiselli test.
Let's start by following up on the first passage from the Stogdill's book. It was rather difficult to determine exactly what the author meant by the "supporting evidence" from Ghiselli. The book cited many studies by Ghiselli as well as others. The study that seemed the most promising at first didn't seem to address the issue, as the results of the data analysis supported the introductory assertion that "...a positive relationship exists between the occupational level of jobs and the validity of intelligence tests is, of course, well known." (Ghiselli, 1963a). This assertion was stated as a conclusion of one of his earlier studies which contained much of the same analysis and wording. What this study basically shows is that people higher up in management tend to be more reliably intelligent. It doesn't offer any findings on whether or not intelligence determines success in those roles, so this appears to be a dead end.
Another potential font of supporting evidence was a 1948 article by the namesake of the book, Ralph Stogdill himself. Much of the text from that is very similar, but I will quote from the original source:
"...Extreme discrepancies between the intelligence of potential leaders and their followers miliate against the exercise of leadership. Hollingworth found that 'among children with a mean IQ of 100, the IQ of the leader is likely to fall between 115 and 130 IQ. That is, the leader is likely to be more intelligent, but not too much more intelligent than the average of the group led." (Stogdill, 1948)
The article goes on to talk about how the reason behind this is likely communication. A child with average intelligence is not likely to be able to understand the words and/or ideas coming from the child with superior intelligence. This makes sense, and I don't really have any problems with the study or the conclusion. However, I'm not sure how a study of children would necessarily lend itself to making similar conclusions about adults. First, the leaders of the child groups are not necessarily being selected with the same goals in mind, and they are not being graded on the success of their leadership. This shows a fundamental difference with what the 100 Things book is trying to demonstrate. Second, adults with very high intelligence should typically be able to understand that they are very intelligent and thus be able to make the level of their communication appropriate to their audience, which weakens the theoretical underpinning of the argument. This passage appears to be getting us closer to our goal, but it still seems incomplete.
In the end, a second study by Ghiselli seems to be the best support of the assertion from the Stogdill book. This is a one page article (!) that details a brief study assessing intelligence levels and managerial success. The conclusion states that:
"It appears that the relationship between intelligence and managerial success is curvilinear with those individuals earning both low and very high scores being less likely to achieve success in management positions than those with scores at intermediate levels." (Ghiselli, 1963b)
Jackpot! Looks like the 100 Things book was right. My blog post is finished.
Actually, I just remembered something my professor said (the one from the marketing academia class). He said, in as many words, that "all studies are flawed." What this means, is that no study is perfect since they are all based on making certain assumptions or only studying certain samples of the population. In this case, I don't think this particular study is very useful. First, there are no theoretical underpinnings to this study (as I said, it's a one page article). It's entirely possible that there is some mechanism in the brain that makes those with extreme intelligence bad at management, but rather than providing some insight into how this might work, the study really just shows some interesting data and leaves it at that. Second, the study treats success as a binary distinction, which is a little simplistic for my taste. Third, and most importantly, the data do not hold up to statistical rigor. If you click the above link, you'll see the presentation of the data, which makes it look like the highest-end group is indeed less successful as a manager. Of course, you will also notice that the highest-end group is comprised of a total of 13 people. Thus, I did some late night chi-square analysis to see if the observed percentage are statistically meaningful:
The summary answer is that no, the data do not indicate that these results aren't simply the product of random chance. The long answer is that the p-value of 0.76 is far too large for us to reject the null hypothesis that all of the intelligence groups produce the same ratio of successful managers (for more info on how the chi-square goodness of fit test works, see the link from earlier). These results do suggest that there is something worth investigating, but they are hardly conclusive one way or the other. If this ends up being the main source of the assertion from the 100 Things book, then I will feel confident in my feeling that it isn't true (or at least that we don't know if it's true).
I have finished following up on the sources from the Stogdill book, so let's take a look at the sources behind the Barron article. If you will recall, that article shared in my skepticism of the curvilinear claims. As I also said, the article quotes a study from Simonton, who we have already heard from in this post. This will help us to better understand where he was coming from in his quote. The study in question performs multivariate analysis on the data from Cox's historical geniuses subset mentioned in the article quote above. What is most interesting about this is that once the author adds control variables such as year of birth to the equation, "intelligence...exhibits neither a linear nor a curvilinear relation with ranked eminence." (Simonton, 1976). At this point, other variables correlated with intelligence, such as education, do a better job of explaining leadership success than just intelligence itself.
That article does throw out the curvilinear hypothesis in the beginning, so I did want to quickly address that. The author states:
"Moreover, since individuals can also be too intelligent to make successful leaders, the association between intelligence and leader eminence may be curvilinear." (Simonton, 1976)
This passage cites two studies. The first study simply reiterates what all the others have said, without offering up anything else, so it's not particularly useful for our purposes. The second study is more interesting. That study examines the results of multiple studies concerning individual behavior in groups in order to come to some sort of consensus about the effects various factors have on such behavior. In the section concerning intelligence's effect on leadership there is a lot of data that suggests that "the positive association between intelligence and leadership is found to be highly significant.... However, the magnitude of the relationship is less impressive; no correlation reported exceeds .50, and the median r is roughly .25." (Mann, 1959). Nowhere in that section, nor the final conclusion is there any mention of the curvilinear relationship. It seems that this avenue, too, is a dead end.
In the end, it appears from my (admittedly amateur) research that the assertion from the 100 Things book has two primary sources:
- The research that indicates leaders among children typically don't deviate far from the norm. I didn't spend much time verifying this because it seemed to be pretty much accepted in many of the articles I read, and it's somewhat tangential to the topic at hand. This may indeed be an avenue towards proving the statement from the 100 Things book, but it doesn't directly address it, so we can't really be confident in the conclusion from this alone.
- The (flawed) 1963 study from Ghiselli that shows the curvilinear relationship between intelligence and leadership.
Given this shaky foundation, it seems difficult to say we should apply this assertion substantively. This is, those in charge of hiring managers should not necessarily be wary of hiring those with very high intelligence if they are otherwise qualified. Let me be clear that I am not rejecting the hypothesis at all; it may indeed be true. What I am saying is that it isn't an extensions of some basic common sense/logic, and I haven't found any ironclad support for it in the research that would make me question that logic. In whole, this exercise taught me a number of things:
1. Don't be afraid to check facts. We can't each spend the amount of time it would take to check every fact we come across. Given our constraints, we have to determine what sources of information and reliable and go from there. However, if something seems especially fishy and that thing affects your life in some way, you should take the time to investigate it further. It did not take me a great deal of time to track down the information contained in this post, which certainly helps (luckily for me, I had some time between graduation and moving where I was able to do this). Given the proliferation of information on the internet, it is continuously getting easier and easier to do this.
2. Academic writings, in spite of their vaunted air, are not perfect. It is certainly tempting to see that something is highly researched and peer-reviewed and accept that as truth. In reality though, the people who assemble such findings are just as biased, resource-starved, and imperfect as you or me. I certainly give a lot of credence to what I read in academic publications, but it's good to play the part of the skeptic at least every now and then.
3. Findings that come from abnormalities in data need to be supported by some theoretical foundation. Saying that it appears that there is a curvilinear relationship between leadership and intelligence because of the data is fine. However, without some plausible explanation (or at least idea of how to determine an explanation), all it is is data. The communication gap theory that I saw in other articles (mostly the ones that talk about data related to children) certainly could explain that relationship, but I never really saw the connection spelled out in what I read.
I very much enjoyed going through a little research project like this. It shined the light on some of the great things about the academic world, while also putting some of its imperfection on display. Most importantly, it got me a little bit closer to learning the truth about that which I set out to learn, and it showed me that I had the ability to do this. Although the focus of college is often classes, grades, and extra-curriculars, this activity helped me get to the heart of what it's all about: the unabashed pursuit of knowledge. I heartily recommend it if there's something that you want to learn more about.
Works cited:
Barron, F. and Harrington D.M. (1981). "Creativity, intelligence and personality." Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439-476.
Bass, B.M. (1981). Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership. New York: Free Press.
Eichinger, Robert W, Michael M Lombardo, and Dave Ulrich (2006). 100 Things You Need to Know: Best People Practices for Managers and HR. Lominger Limited Inc.
Ghiselli, E.E (1963a). "The Vailidity of Management Traits in Relation to Occupational Level." Personnel Psychology. 1963, 16, 109-113.
Ghiselli, E.E (1963b). "Intelligence and Managerial Success." Psychological Reports, 1963, 12.1, 898.
Gibb, CA (1969). "Leadership." Handbook of Social Psychology (volume 4, ed 2). Addison-Wesley.
Mann, RD (1959). "A Review of the Relationships Between Personality and Performance in Small Groups." Psychological Bulletin, 1959, 56, 241-270.
Simonton, DK (1976). "Biographical Determinants of Achieved Eminence: A Multivariate Approach to the Cox Data." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 218-226.
Simonton, DK (1987). "Developmental Antecedents of Achieved Eminence." Annals of Child Development, 4, 131-169.
Stogdill, RM (1948). "Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature." Journal of Psychology, 1948, 25, 35-71.
"The literature on both creativity and leadership frequently contains the speculation that an excessive intelligence might even militate against personal influence. (...) Will likely yield a curvilinear, concave downward function between intelligence and creativity or leadership. Under many common conditions, for example, the highest odds of exercising personal influence in a group is enjoyed by that individual with an IQ only around 1.2 standard deviations above the mean IQ of the group." (Simonton, 1987)
One thing I learned from both the marketing academia class and this line of investigation was that academic papers pile citations on top of citations. If something is cited from somewhere else, then that somewhere else is not always (or perhaps, is not usually) the first source of the finding. As you might imagine, this can give rise to the same problem we see in the "telephone game." Since I hadn't yet arrived at the end of this investigative road, I continued along my journey.
The Simonton article had two citations related to the above passage. There was another article from another psychology journal and something called Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership. What was interesting about this was how the sources came from two completely different disciplines, which shows how much interconnectedness there is between different areas of study. Here is the passage from the management book:
"Five competent studies (out of 25) suggested that 'one of the most significant findings concerning the relation of intelligence to leadership is the extreme discrepancies between the intelligence of potential leaders and that of their followers militate against the exercise of leadership....' Ghiselli reported supporting evidence. In a study of three groups of managers, he found that 'the relationship between intelligence and managerial success is curvilinear with those individuals earning both low and very high scores being less likely to acheive success in management positions than those with scores at the intermediate level." (Bass, 1981)
And here is the quote from the journal article:
"Though a curvilinear relationship between intelligence and creativity has often been suggested, the only formal test (with negative results) of this hypothesis we are aware of was conducted by Simonton in a reanalysis of Cox's historical geniuses - a sample quite probably too rarified to be a particularly good test of the curvilinear hypothesis." (Barron, 1981)
There are quite a few takeaways from these passages. First, you can see how both of these cite past studies which means each of them will lead me (and you, if you are still reading) further down the rabbit hole. Second, the Ghiselli test sounds like it might be fairly conclusive, so that will be particularly interesting to follow up on. Third, the journal article quotes a study from Simonton, who just happens to be the author of the article that 100 Things draws upon. This means that Simonton quotes someone in his article who then quotes his own study. Just cite your own study, man! Finally, the Simonton study mentioned in the article seems to indicate that there isn't any proof of this curvilinear relationship, so it will be interesting to put this up against the Ghiselli test.
Let's start by following up on the first passage from the Stogdill's book. It was rather difficult to determine exactly what the author meant by the "supporting evidence" from Ghiselli. The book cited many studies by Ghiselli as well as others. The study that seemed the most promising at first didn't seem to address the issue, as the results of the data analysis supported the introductory assertion that "...a positive relationship exists between the occupational level of jobs and the validity of intelligence tests is, of course, well known." (Ghiselli, 1963a). This assertion was stated as a conclusion of one of his earlier studies which contained much of the same analysis and wording. What this study basically shows is that people higher up in management tend to be more reliably intelligent. It doesn't offer any findings on whether or not intelligence determines success in those roles, so this appears to be a dead end.
Another potential font of supporting evidence was a 1948 article by the namesake of the book, Ralph Stogdill himself. Much of the text from that is very similar, but I will quote from the original source:
"...Extreme discrepancies between the intelligence of potential leaders and their followers miliate against the exercise of leadership. Hollingworth found that 'among children with a mean IQ of 100, the IQ of the leader is likely to fall between 115 and 130 IQ. That is, the leader is likely to be more intelligent, but not too much more intelligent than the average of the group led." (Stogdill, 1948)
The article goes on to talk about how the reason behind this is likely communication. A child with average intelligence is not likely to be able to understand the words and/or ideas coming from the child with superior intelligence. This makes sense, and I don't really have any problems with the study or the conclusion. However, I'm not sure how a study of children would necessarily lend itself to making similar conclusions about adults. First, the leaders of the child groups are not necessarily being selected with the same goals in mind, and they are not being graded on the success of their leadership. This shows a fundamental difference with what the 100 Things book is trying to demonstrate. Second, adults with very high intelligence should typically be able to understand that they are very intelligent and thus be able to make the level of their communication appropriate to their audience, which weakens the theoretical underpinning of the argument. This passage appears to be getting us closer to our goal, but it still seems incomplete.
In the end, a second study by Ghiselli seems to be the best support of the assertion from the Stogdill book. This is a one page article (!) that details a brief study assessing intelligence levels and managerial success. The conclusion states that:
"It appears that the relationship between intelligence and managerial success is curvilinear with those individuals earning both low and very high scores being less likely to achieve success in management positions than those with scores at intermediate levels." (Ghiselli, 1963b)
Jackpot! Looks like the 100 Things book was right. My blog post is finished.
Actually, I just remembered something my professor said (the one from the marketing academia class). He said, in as many words, that "all studies are flawed." What this means, is that no study is perfect since they are all based on making certain assumptions or only studying certain samples of the population. In this case, I don't think this particular study is very useful. First, there are no theoretical underpinnings to this study (as I said, it's a one page article). It's entirely possible that there is some mechanism in the brain that makes those with extreme intelligence bad at management, but rather than providing some insight into how this might work, the study really just shows some interesting data and leaves it at that. Second, the study treats success as a binary distinction, which is a little simplistic for my taste. Third, and most importantly, the data do not hold up to statistical rigor. If you click the above link, you'll see the presentation of the data, which makes it look like the highest-end group is indeed less successful as a manager. Of course, you will also notice that the highest-end group is comprised of a total of 13 people. Thus, I did some late night chi-square analysis to see if the observed percentage are statistically meaningful:
The summary answer is that no, the data do not indicate that these results aren't simply the product of random chance. The long answer is that the p-value of 0.76 is far too large for us to reject the null hypothesis that all of the intelligence groups produce the same ratio of successful managers (for more info on how the chi-square goodness of fit test works, see the link from earlier). These results do suggest that there is something worth investigating, but they are hardly conclusive one way or the other. If this ends up being the main source of the assertion from the 100 Things book, then I will feel confident in my feeling that it isn't true (or at least that we don't know if it's true).
I have finished following up on the sources from the Stogdill book, so let's take a look at the sources behind the Barron article. If you will recall, that article shared in my skepticism of the curvilinear claims. As I also said, the article quotes a study from Simonton, who we have already heard from in this post. This will help us to better understand where he was coming from in his quote. The study in question performs multivariate analysis on the data from Cox's historical geniuses subset mentioned in the article quote above. What is most interesting about this is that once the author adds control variables such as year of birth to the equation, "intelligence...exhibits neither a linear nor a curvilinear relation with ranked eminence." (Simonton, 1976). At this point, other variables correlated with intelligence, such as education, do a better job of explaining leadership success than just intelligence itself.
That article does throw out the curvilinear hypothesis in the beginning, so I did want to quickly address that. The author states:
"Moreover, since individuals can also be too intelligent to make successful leaders, the association between intelligence and leader eminence may be curvilinear." (Simonton, 1976)
This passage cites two studies. The first study simply reiterates what all the others have said, without offering up anything else, so it's not particularly useful for our purposes. The second study is more interesting. That study examines the results of multiple studies concerning individual behavior in groups in order to come to some sort of consensus about the effects various factors have on such behavior. In the section concerning intelligence's effect on leadership there is a lot of data that suggests that "the positive association between intelligence and leadership is found to be highly significant.... However, the magnitude of the relationship is less impressive; no correlation reported exceeds .50, and the median r is roughly .25." (Mann, 1959). Nowhere in that section, nor the final conclusion is there any mention of the curvilinear relationship. It seems that this avenue, too, is a dead end.
* * *
In the end, it appears from my (admittedly amateur) research that the assertion from the 100 Things book has two primary sources:
- The research that indicates leaders among children typically don't deviate far from the norm. I didn't spend much time verifying this because it seemed to be pretty much accepted in many of the articles I read, and it's somewhat tangential to the topic at hand. This may indeed be an avenue towards proving the statement from the 100 Things book, but it doesn't directly address it, so we can't really be confident in the conclusion from this alone.
- The (flawed) 1963 study from Ghiselli that shows the curvilinear relationship between intelligence and leadership.
Given this shaky foundation, it seems difficult to say we should apply this assertion substantively. This is, those in charge of hiring managers should not necessarily be wary of hiring those with very high intelligence if they are otherwise qualified. Let me be clear that I am not rejecting the hypothesis at all; it may indeed be true. What I am saying is that it isn't an extensions of some basic common sense/logic, and I haven't found any ironclad support for it in the research that would make me question that logic. In whole, this exercise taught me a number of things:
1. Don't be afraid to check facts. We can't each spend the amount of time it would take to check every fact we come across. Given our constraints, we have to determine what sources of information and reliable and go from there. However, if something seems especially fishy and that thing affects your life in some way, you should take the time to investigate it further. It did not take me a great deal of time to track down the information contained in this post, which certainly helps (luckily for me, I had some time between graduation and moving where I was able to do this). Given the proliferation of information on the internet, it is continuously getting easier and easier to do this.
2. Academic writings, in spite of their vaunted air, are not perfect. It is certainly tempting to see that something is highly researched and peer-reviewed and accept that as truth. In reality though, the people who assemble such findings are just as biased, resource-starved, and imperfect as you or me. I certainly give a lot of credence to what I read in academic publications, but it's good to play the part of the skeptic at least every now and then.
3. Findings that come from abnormalities in data need to be supported by some theoretical foundation. Saying that it appears that there is a curvilinear relationship between leadership and intelligence because of the data is fine. However, without some plausible explanation (or at least idea of how to determine an explanation), all it is is data. The communication gap theory that I saw in other articles (mostly the ones that talk about data related to children) certainly could explain that relationship, but I never really saw the connection spelled out in what I read.
I very much enjoyed going through a little research project like this. It shined the light on some of the great things about the academic world, while also putting some of its imperfection on display. Most importantly, it got me a little bit closer to learning the truth about that which I set out to learn, and it showed me that I had the ability to do this. Although the focus of college is often classes, grades, and extra-curriculars, this activity helped me get to the heart of what it's all about: the unabashed pursuit of knowledge. I heartily recommend it if there's something that you want to learn more about.
Works cited:
Barron, F. and Harrington D.M. (1981). "Creativity, intelligence and personality." Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439-476.
Bass, B.M. (1981). Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership. New York: Free Press.
Eichinger, Robert W, Michael M Lombardo, and Dave Ulrich (2006). 100 Things You Need to Know: Best People Practices for Managers and HR. Lominger Limited Inc.
Ghiselli, E.E (1963a). "The Vailidity of Management Traits in Relation to Occupational Level." Personnel Psychology. 1963, 16, 109-113.
Ghiselli, E.E (1963b). "Intelligence and Managerial Success." Psychological Reports, 1963, 12.1, 898.
Gibb, CA (1969). "Leadership." Handbook of Social Psychology (volume 4, ed 2). Addison-Wesley.
Mann, RD (1959). "A Review of the Relationships Between Personality and Performance in Small Groups." Psychological Bulletin, 1959, 56, 241-270.
Simonton, DK (1976). "Biographical Determinants of Achieved Eminence: A Multivariate Approach to the Cox Data." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 218-226.
Simonton, DK (1987). "Developmental Antecedents of Achieved Eminence." Annals of Child Development, 4, 131-169.
Stogdill, RM (1948). "Personal Factors Associated with Leadership: A Survey of the Literature." Journal of Psychology, 1948, 25, 35-71.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)