Walk Off Strikeout

The walk-off home run is one of the most spectacular plays baseball can offer. There are plenty of ways to end a game, of course. There's a blog dedicated to one of them- the walk-off walk. That's got to be pretty embarrassing for the pitcher. For the catcher, an even more embarrassing event has to be the walkoff strikeout- there, the pitcher has just dominated a hitter to get the strikeout.... but wait! The ball is bouncing around the backstop! The game-winning run scores!

How often does this kind of humiliation occur? Well, it just happened in a minor league game-- the Toledo Mud Hens beat the Pawktucket Red Sox 5-4 after Timo Perez swung at a ball in the dirt, and Freddy Guzman raced home with the winning run. In the major leagues, however, the event is somewhat rare. Unfortunately the Play Index won't let me run the search all at once; I had to check each year in the database individually. The results, in reverse chronological order:

August 3, 2005- With the game tied, a runner on third, and one out in the bottom of the ninth, Lou Pinella instructed Cubs pitcher Mike Remlinger to intentionally walk both Chase Utley and Bobby Abreu to load the bases. That brought up Pat Burrell, and Remlinger was replaced by Michael Wuertz- because apparently, going to the closer in a tie game on the road is ill-advised. Anyway, Burrell swung feebly at the first two pitches, and then Weurtz wasted a couple, including one in the dirt. On the 2-2 pitch, Weurtz got Burrell swinging, but the pitch got away from catcher Michael Barrett. According to this recap, Barrett panicked and threw to third rather than chasing down Jimmy Rollins, who was halfway between third and home. Rollins scored easily with the winning run. Barrett later claimed that umpire Dana DeMuth "did us a favor really by calling him out. If I had just eaten the throw
and run at him, it would've been a different ballgame. I can't blame
[DeMuth]. The place is so loud. I was expecting a foul tip call and
didn't get it." Barrett was not alone in making a mental mistake in the game, but his was the most costly.

September 27, 2003- Late in the season, in front of a paltry crowd of 14,277, the worst team in over 40 years avoided tying the modern baseball single-season record for losses in a season by beating the Twins on a walk-off strikeout. The Detroit Tigers had rallied to tie from down 8-1 with a three-run seventh and a four-run eighth, but still needed a lot of help. With one out, Alex Sanchez drew a walk. With William Morris batting, Sanchez went to work- stealing both second and third base. This ESPN recap says that the 2-2 pitch went to the backstop, while Morris swung and missed. Sanchez scored easily, preventing the Tigers from losing their 120th game, which would have matched the 1962 Mets for most losses since 1900. Like Michael Barrett in the game above, Sanchez "thought it was a foul ball, but everyone in the
dugout was yelling for me to go, so I took off. As soon as I started running, I knew we were going to win the
game. That's when I put my arms in the air."

September 22, 1997- Walk-off strikeouts are not reserved only for poor teams; this time it was the 101-win Atlanta Braves who stunned the Expos in the eleventh inning. It had been seven innings since a run had crossed the plate, when Expos pitcher Shayne Bennett got into trouble-- a single, sacrifice bunt, and intentional walk gave runners on first and second with one out. Unfortunately, Bennett walked the next hitter, Greg Colbrunn, which brought up Mike Mordecai. Steve Kline was called from the bullpen, and quickly got to an 0-2 count. After wasting a pitch, Kline got Mordecai to swing on the next pitch, which was wild and Denny Bautist scored from third with the winning run.

June 16, 1986- The largest gap between walk-off strikeouts so far, more than ten years back to this game between the Rangers and Angels. With California trailing 1-0 in the ninth inning, Texas starter Charlie Hough was still going strong. The knuckleballer got pinch hitter Rupert Jones to strike out looking, and then another pinch hitter, Jack Howell, hit a line drive to left field. George Wright, who had entered the game in the ninth, presumably as a defensive replacement, botched the catch, which went for a three-base error. Wally Joyner singled in Howell, and advanced to second on a passed ball. After a strikeout and an intentional walk (of Reggie Jackson), it brought up George Hendrick. Hough is credited with a strikeout of Hendrick, which should have ended the game. But catcher Orlando Mercado is credited with a passed ball, and Joyner scored all the way from second. Mercado was generally a solid catcher, with only sixteen passed balls in his 247 career games, but six of them came in 1986-- his only season catching Charlie Hough. So perhaps we shouldn't heap too much blame on Mercado for this one; he probably wanted to wait for it to stop and pick it up. Still, this is the first of the games I've looked at where the walk-off strikeout should have been the third out; it also is the first game I've seen where the winning run scored from second.

August 15, 1970- Sixteen years, back to a classing pitching matchup between the Mets' Tom Seaver and the Braves' Phil Neikro. Seaver was still pitching in the ninth inning, his team up 2-1. Unfortunately for Seaver, it all began to fall apart-- a single (Tony Gonzalez), flyball, and infield single (Rico Carty) brought up pinch hitter Hank Aaron. The famous slugger drew a walk to load the bases for Bob Tillman. Seaver managed to get Tillman to strikeout for the third time in the game, but the pitch was wild. So wild, in fact, that it ended the game. The first run is charged to Seaver's wild pitch, but Rico Carty scored on an error by catcher Jerry Grote. So this game is interesting because the tying and winning runs scored on the strikeout, but it was an error that was ultimately responsible for the end of the game.

And that's all for the play index. Fifty-two years, and in just five games has there been a walk-off strikeout. We've seen it happen to good teams and some of the worst teams, good pitchers and bad. It probably won't make it into the memoirs of anyone involved, but their feats are stored here for all posterity.

Mariano Rivera: Greatest Pitcher of All Time

In a mop-up role, having not pitched for four days, Mariano Rivera took the mound in the ninth inning, facing the heart of the Baltimore Orioles' lineup. It started poorly, as Aubry Huff knocked Rivera's fourth cutter into the right field seats. But Mo settled down to retire Melvin Mora, Jay Payton, and Kevin Millar in order, vaulting himself into the history books.

That one inning pitched last night in Baltimore gives Mariano Rivera 1000.33 innings pitched for his career. By reaching this plateau, Rivera now qualifies for the all-time ERA and ERA+ leaderboards, according to Baseball-Reference.com. First, the classic statistic-- earned run average. Rivera now ranks 17th all time, tied with Jim Scott. Four of the pitchers ahead of Rivera had their careers end before 1900; the latest anyone ahead of him pitched was 1933 (some guy named Ruth), pitched seriously- 1927 (Walter Johnson).

If there's one thing the statistics revolution has taught me, it's that athletes are best judged relative to their peers. For while raw statistics are impressive, their true meaning only comes from studying how much better a great athlete was, compared to his competition. And so we reveal the new career adjusted ERA+ leader: Mariano Rivera. According to ERA+, Rivera has, since 1995, been 98 percent better than his peers, measured by ability to prevent earned runs. Rivera not only takes the top spot; he dominates it. Which raises the question: is Mariano Rivera the greatest pitcher of all time?

Clearly, mlb.com does not think a reliever should enter the discussion. Officially, to qualify for the career ERA title, one has to pitch 2000 innings, double the amount required by baseball-reference. A starting pitcher probably could eclipse the lower mark (1000 innings) in four or five full seasons; indeed Jake Peavy (7 seasons, 1202 IP) and Brandon Webb (6 seasons- 1235 IP) already grace the Active ERA leaderboard. But none of them have an ERA+ anywhere near the range of Mariano Rivera. Is his elevated ERA+ a factor of being a relief pitcher?

The short answer is: perhaps. Goose Gossage, whose recent election to the Hall of Fame might finally open the door for closers, finished with 1809 IP and an ERA+ of 126. All-Time saves leader Trevor Hoffman, who will soon match the 1000 IP plateau, has a career ERA+ of 144. Rather than try and name everyone; here is a list of all pitchers who relieved at least 80% of their games and threw at least 750 innings. Even with a lowered standard, only one other pitcher eclipses Pedro Martinez's record for career ERA+ by a starter (157)- Billy Wagner at 181. Rivera well out-paces Wagner's 181, although it lends some credence to the theory that relievers have inflated ERA+ that shouldn't be quantitatively compared to that of a lifetime starter.

Still, one has to expand the field to include all pitchers with 200 IP to find a single player who eclipses Rivera's ERA+ mark (and I didn't like who I found there either). Whatever the adjustment made to Rivera's numbers, due to his pitching role, it cannot completely erase how Rivera's peers have failed to come anywhere close to his production. Among pitchers with 1000 IP, Rivera is also in the top 25 in Strikeouts 9/IP, all time. Since 1995, no pitcher has prevented home runs better than Rivera. For fourteen seasons, Rivera has compiled a resume that I believe allows him to be compared with the starting pitchers, and statistically he rises as the best. And of course Rivera is, without a doubt the greatest relief pitcher of all time.

But if we can define "greatness" by performance relative to one's peers, no pitcher is greater than Mariano Rivera.

Who cares to challenge this?

Photo credit

Long and Winding Road (Records)

It is with tireless enthusiasm that we here at The Immaculate Inning stand strong against inaccuracy in sports journalism. Short-tempered mainstream media like Buzz Bissinger and Stephen A. Smith like to criticize blogs because we don't have training and access. Yet, along with more famous blogs such as Fire Joe Morgan or Dodger Thoughts, it is up to us to take to task those who, despite training and access, can't even do a simple Google search. For me, the journey is just as interesting as the valid goal of achieving accuracy, and many of my posts here recently have been inspired by the mistakes of others.

So, standing on the wobbly shoulders of behemoths, I offer this Red Sox-Yankees series preview. This particular piece has Matt Brown of Yahoo Sports on the by-line, but the story was taken mostly from the Associated Press. The puzzling sentence:

Trying to improve on their mediocre 23-23 road record after sweeping
Minnesota and Oakland at home, the Yankees will send Joba Chamberlain (2-3,
2.52) to the mound.

Also appears here (Minneapolis Star-Tribune), here (NorthJersey.com), here (ESPN.com), and here (Connectiuct's theday.com). The Associated Press was convinced, without much evidence, that a 23-23 road record was "mediocre." It sure seems so, compared to the team's 56-45 overall record, and brightly contrasted the six straight games they'd won in Yankee Stadium leading up to the series in Fenway. Yet, a simple check of baseball-reference.com tells a different story: The Yankees (now 25-24 on the road) have the second-best road record in the American League! In fact, the team that they were trying to "improve on their mediocre" road record against, the Boston Red Sox, have one of the worst road-records in baseball, at 24-32. It is puzzling, even disappointing, that a news agency as distinguished as the Associated Press didn't bother verifying its numbers.

Meanwhile, my "Random Baseball Stat" wheels were already churning- a .500 record is second-best in the AL? Is that an odd happenstance? Many baseball analysts point to the home-road splits of individual players to look for evidence that their home ballpark is to credit/blame for their performance: Matt Holliday is a Coors creation; Jake Peavy benefits from the large stadium in Petco. What, then, is to be made of an entire team that underperforms on the road? If the team is constructed in such a way as to benefit the home ball-park, it's certainly possible that their performance on the road will suffer more than normal. But, we must first determine what is normal.

I've tabulated the total and road records for each team in the past two seasons. You can play with the spreadsheet yourself by going here. The average AL team, in 2008, sees a winning percentage drop of 0.059 when playing on the road. The Red Sox, meanwhile, suffer a drop of .142, third-worst in all of baseball. Curiously, the two teams below the Red Sox in this category are the Rays and the Cubs, who each have higher overall winning percentages. Might having a poor road performance be not all that damaging to a team's playoff chances?

Looking at 2007, the first thing to notice is that the American League showed, overall, a lower dropoff between overall, and road winning percentages. (0.045 versus 0.059 this year) The 2007 playoff teams are all over the map, from the Angels (0.086 difference) to the Red Sox (0.037 difference). The National League is similar, especially when you consider the Mets, who lost the division in the last week of the season despite a better record on the road than at Shea.

In 2006, the story is similar. The difference in the average team's overall record versus the road record were about the same as in 2007; 0.045 for the AL and 0.046 in the NL. In the American League, the playoff teams were slightly biased toward being road warriors; the Tigers, Yankees, and Angels all had better than average road records, while the Twins were below average. The NL, meanwhile, had teams two teams above and two teams below average, including the World Champion St. Louis Cardinals, who had one one of the worst road records in baseball.

It would definitely take an examination of all 14 wild-card era seasons to make a conclusion about the relationship of road performance and playoff appearance. In addition, it would probably be helpful to look at each team from a runs scored/runs allowed perspective, to see if any team got unlucky on the road. Still, the lesson remains that "mediocre" is a term to be applied to relative status, not absolute status. It is clear that teams which underperform their overall record while on the road are not rare.

Pitcher as Fielder

In response to Matt's post about near-Perfect games, jl25and3 wrote

"I'll disagree with you on Dick Bosman. The pitcher-as-fielder is considered separately from the pitcher-as-pitcher, and that's the way it should be. You're judging his pitching performance, and his fielding isn't relevant.

Think of it this way: if a batter reaches on a pitcher's error, would you count that in the pitcher's DIPS? Of course not, because it had nothing to do with his pitching.

Once the ball is hit to him, he's no longer a pitcher. He's just another infielder. That infielder's bad play shouldn't affect any evaluation of the pitcher's performance."

I started to write a response but then figured it deserved it's own post. I disagree strongly with jl. The purpose of the pitcher is to prevent the other team from scoring runs. It is extremely arbitrary to say his job as a pitcher ends as soon as the ball leaves his hand.

If a pitcher is a complete liability on defense then he cannot be a successful pitcher. A pitcher who can pitch well but cannot field his position isn't any more useful to his team than a pitcher who can't pitch well. I'd argue that batters who get on base due to errors by the pitcher should count as earned runs if they come around to score and should count toward a pitcher's WHIP(more reasonable to make a new stat called WHEPIR Walks + Hits + Errors by Pitcher / Innings Pitched).

Let's consider 3 possible results from a 3-2 count.
1) The pitcher misses the zone and the batter walks.
2) The pitcher leaves the ball up and the batter gets a single.
3) The pitcher makes a decent pitch and the batter hits a dribbler to the mound. The pitcher misplays it and the batter gets to first.

Scenarios 1 and 2 are considered the pitcher's fault as a Pitcher. In scenario 3 it's considered the pitcher's fault as a Fielder. In all three the batter is on first due only to the actions of the pitcher. I don't see the purpose of separating pitcher's pitching statistics and pitcher's fielding statistics outside of a thought experiment. The pitcher's job before he pitches is to prevent runs and the pitcher's job after the ball leaves his hand is to prevent runs. The player who throws the ball to the catcher and the player who fields the 1 position are one in the same so why should stats treat them as different people?

Robbed By the Defense: Almost Perfect Games

Tonight I was intently following (via MiLB.com Gameday) the start of one Ian Patrick Kennedy, 23-year old prospect for the New York Yankees. He finished the sixth inning with seven strikeouts, no walks, and no hits. It was the second game of a double-header, so the most Kennedy (or IPK as some like to call him) could expect was a seven-inning perfect game. Well... except for the fact that his teammates made four errors behind him. This fielding futility included two in the seventh inning; second baseman Chris Basak booted a grounder with two outs that would have ended Kennedy's short no-hitter. The next hitter hit one over the head of right fielder Greg Porter, whose botched catch allowed the tying run to score.

All of this got me thinking about no-hitters and perfect games. Now, for anyone who has tried to explain the concepts of "wins" and "errors" to non-baseball fans knows, these concepts are pretty arbitrary and don't really tell us anything about a pitcher's ability. There are still old fashioned folks who declare they'd rather have the pitching stats of a 2008 Livan Hernandez (10-6, 5.29 ERA) than of a 2008 Johan Santana (8-7, 3.05 ERA) because the former has more wins. Others will frequently disguise this stupidity as "he can't pitch to the score."

Similarly odd, yet less talked about, is the concept of the Earned Run. Like pitcher wins and losses, it's an invented statistic attempting to take the blame of a run away from a pitcher whose defense has failed him. Taking the defense out of the statistic should theoretically lead to a stat that more closely belies the true ability of the pitcher. However, recent stat analysis shows us the opposite; a pitcher's stats are more correlated from one season to the next if the "unearned" runs are included. (However, it is with taking the other extreme and considering only the outcomes that are independent of fielding- home runs, walks, and strikeouts- that are most predictive of pitcher ability).

Now, let's return to the concept of the "perfect game," as defined- all batters in a game of at least nine innings, retired without reaching base. The essence of the rule regarding official perfect games is constructed to make it a team effort, and I do not disagree with that. There is something that makes twenty-seven up, twenty-seven down special, and it includes the defense (and the offense scoring at least one run). However, there is also something special about a pitcher going nine innings without allowing a base-runner of his own accord. I was inspired by IPK's performance to investigate whether any pitchers have been "robbed" of a perfect game by their defense. Here's the play index search: 9 innings pitched, 0 hits, 0 walks, and more than one baserunner.

The search returned eight games, since 1956, in which the pitcher went 9 innings and had no hits, no walks, but did have some baserunners. Of these, five pitchers allowed a baserunner by hitting batsmen; these I believe to be against the spirit of the search and shall be excluded. Starting with the earliest:

Dick Bosman- July 19, 1974

Dick Bosman was a mediocre pitcher (1974: 88 ERA+) on a mediocre Indians team (77-85), who was long displaced from his best seasons with the Washington Senators. He did have good control, walking just 2.74 men per 9 innings over the course of his career. In his previous start in Minnesota, Bosman took a no-decision after 6.1 uninspiring innings, allowing 4 runs (3 earned) on 4 hits. On July 19, Bosman took the hill against the Athletics and retired the first eleven men in order. After allowing a man to reach on an error; Bosman retired the final sixteen men in order. His final line: 9 IP, 0 H, 0 BB, 0 R, 4 K. Should this game be included, in spirit, with the seventeen official perfect games?

I say no. The reason lies, specifically, in the reason for the error. You see, with two outs in the fourth inning, A's third baseman Sal Brando hit a ball right back to Bosman, and our potential hero threw the ball into the seats. The lone base-runner of the game was still Bosman's fault. So Bosman should still be in the league with mere mortals throwing mortal no-hitters. According to Wikipedia, Bosman is noteworthy for rebuilding old cars and selling them, including a 1933 Ford to actual perfect game thrower David Wells. The Baseball Almanac notes that Bosman is the only pitcher in recorded history to have ruined his own perfect game with a throwing error.

Jerry Reuss- June 27, 1980

Jerry Reuss was a tad more successful pitcher; over 22 seasons Reuss pitched in 628 games (527 starts) and a dead-average career ERA+ of 100. In 1980, Reuss had one of his best seasons, crafting a 2.51 ERA (141 ERA+) and winning 18 games. He would later finish second in the Cy Young voting to Steve Carlton. In the games leading up to June 27, Reuss was nothing short of spectacular. On June 21, he threw 9 shutout innings against the Mets; on June 16 he went ten innings against the Phillies but still got a no-decision. Amazingly, he already had three shutouts before taking the mound in San Fransisco, eager to top his already brilliant season.

This time, it wasn't long before the lone baserunner reached; it was in the first inning, when a ground ball of the bat of Jack Clark ate up third baseman Bill "No, A Different One" Russell. Reuss then retired the next twenty-five batters in order, winning the game for the Dodgers 8-0. Reuss had twice previously been one batter short of a no-hitter. Mike Robbins, who wrote a book about situations such as these, called "Ninety Feet from Fame: Close Calls with Immortaility" wrote that in 1972, after one of these near no-hitters, Reuss said "If I ever get to the ninth-inning again with a no-hitter, I'm going to get it." So he did. You were perfect in my eyes, Jerry.

Terry Mulholland, August 15, 1990

Terry Mullholland was much more like Bosman than Reuss; though his longevity (20 years) was more like the latter, his performance (93 ERA+, 124-142 record) was more like the former. Still, Mulholland managed to piece together some good seasons, and 1990 was one of them, with a 3.34 ERA (114 ERA+) in 26 starts for the Phillies. In the dog days of the summer, Mulholland had been struggling, allowing four or more runs and ten or more hits in each of his previous four starts. On August 15, things turned around.

While the Lenny Dykstra led Phillies staking him to a lead, Mulholland retired the first eighteen Giants in order, striking out nine. But textbook perfection was not meant to be, as San Fran centerfielder Rick Parker knocked one towards the hole between short and third. With the speedy Parker racing down the line, third baseman Charlie Hayes grabbed the ball and threw wide of John Kruk's considerably large target at first base. It was ruled an error, and Parker was eraced with a double play in the next at bat; Mulholland would retire the final 9 batters in order. According to Robbins, Kruk lobbied to have the error charged to him, but the official scorer did not relent; Hayes also apparently preserved the no-hitter by making a diving catch to end the game.

Said Mulholland after the game: "I'm not Nolan Ryan. I'm not knocking on the door for the Cy Young Award. I'm just Terry Mulholland." And yet Mulholland came closer than ever Ryan did to throwing a perfect game. He is the only man to ever have thrown a no-hitter while facing just twenty-seven batters.

Wikipedia has a good section discussing other, pre-Retrosheet Era games, including a classic pitcher's duel between Christy Mathewson (who threw a no-hit, no-walk game but was failed by two errors) and Mordecai "Three Finger" Brown, who also took a no-no into the ninth, but lost the game. In addition, there are other amazing pitching performances not counted as perfect games. For example, Babe Ruth was famously thrown out of a game in 1917 after walking the game's first batter. Ernie Shore relieved him, and after the runner was caught stealing retired the next twenty-six batters. It was once recognized as a perfect game, but does not fit under the current definition (it is still an official combined no-hitter).

Pedro Martinez pitched one of the best games in recent baseball history in 1995 when he went nine perfect innings, only his Expos teammates had failed to score a run. Martinez came out for the tenth but gave up a leadoff double and was taken out for a reliever.

To close, I give you the most impressive non-perfecto of them all: the twelve perfect innings by Harvey Haddix on May 26, 1959. He retired thirty-six consecutive hitters before an error allowed the 37th batter to reach base. After a sacrifice and an inentional walk (to Hank Aaron), Joe Adcock hit a home run to win the game- the homer was changed to a double because Hank Aaron simply walked off the field, and Adcock passed him on the bases. The Pirates had failed to score any runs for Haddix, despite 12 hits.

These seemingly-freak occurences should be teaching us a lesson about blame and credit and how they are divided among the men who play baseball. Immortality is rightfully given to the men who throw perfect games, but no one ever remembers the defenders who helped them do it, or the hitters that ensured the game only lasted 9 innings. Yet, in a tragedy worthy of the Bard, immortality shuns those pitchers who dare to do all they can to acheive perfection but are robbed by imperfection off the mound. To them, the Tantaluses of baseball, my glass is raised.

UPDATE: As if on cue, MLB.com posts this song about the "fateful game" about Harvey Haddix, pretty awesome. Why don't we add old Harvey to that list, indeed.

Johnette Howard is wrong

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ny-sphow235773988jul23,0,3392980.column

Ok, we're not Fire Joe Morgan(nor do we write for The Office), but this is two days in a row where intense disagreement has driven me to write. Johnette slams Johan Santana for not demanding to be kept in the game after pitching 8 strong innings. At the end of 8 the Mets had a 6-2 lead over the Phillies. Billy Wagner wasn't available to pitch, but it wasn't even a Save situation. The Mets had the entire rest of the bullpen available for the purpose of recording 3 outs before the Mets scored 4 or more runs. I don't care what inning it is, a Major League Pitcher should not give up 4 runs in an inning. If you can't trust your bullpen to hold that lead then why do you have a bullpen?

If they only gave up 3 runs then nobody questions Santana's desire to win. If they left Santana in and he gives up 4 runs, Jerry Manuel gets roasted for leaving him in too long(see Little, Grady). If they leave him in for the 9th but he strains his elbow while throwing the last pitch, then Manuel gets slammed(and rightfully so) for overworking his pitcher for a game in July.

He had thrown 105 pitches after 8 innings, and whether you agree with it or not, 100 pitches is rule of thumb for pulling a pitcher. This isn't the playoffs where there's no tomorrow, there are 61 regular season games left, and Santana will probably pitch in about 12 of them. The NL East is a 3-way battle and it's not worth jeopardizing the 80 or so innings that a healthy Santana would pitch for one inning when you have a 4 run lead.

Jeffri Chadiha is wrong

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/columns/story?columnist=chadiha_jeffri&id=3498223

The idea of this list is to take the top 10 players who are the most irreplaceable on their teams. The answer for number 1 is simple: Peyton Manning. Now, Tom Brady may go down as one of the best, if not the best, quarterback in history, and this is coming from a teal-and-orange-bleeding Dan Marino fan. The list isn't about the best player though, it's the most indispensable.

If Tom Brady goes down, the Pats still have their defense, they still have their absurd offensive line, and they still have Randy Moss. The same Randy Moss that made Daunte Culpepper look like a good quarterback. They're obviously not as good without Brady, but they're still a lock for the playoffs in the weak AFC East.

Peyton Manning isn't just the quarterback of the Colts, he's pretty much the offensive coordinator as well. Peyton Manning runs the offense like he's playing Madden. The play that he came to the line with is merely a suggestion. He takes a look at what the defense is throwing at him, turns his head, waves his arms around, and chooses a play to beat that defensive scheme. If Peyton goes down, Tony Dungy won't, nor should he, allow Jim Sorgi to run the offense. The Colts would go from one of the most dynamic offensive teams to another team that has the play called in from the sideline.

T.O. is a joke at number 3. He was tied for 20th in the league for receiving yards per game last season. The Cowboys are still very good without T.O.

Looking down the list, with a Defensive Tackle in 6th, I can only imagine that this article is meant as some sort of comment or blog bait meant to annoy people and argue about why he's wrong. Well, I bit.