How Bill Livingston Failed Cleveland
Posted by disappointmentzone on 27 November 2007
On Sunday Bill Livingston, columnist for the Cleveland Plain Dealer, wrote an column imploring the Browns organization and Browns fans to be clear minded when approaching the topic of Derek Anderson, who is set to become a free agent after this season. Livingston lays out a list of reasons why it would be reckless to sign Anderson to a long-term contract extension and then argues that the Browns should offer him a one-year contract for $2.5 million.
This makes sense. Such a contract would give the Browns ample protection against losing Anderson. The team could still match any offer Anderson received and if they didn’t match the offer then they’d be compensated with the first-round and third-round draft picks of the team that does sign him. This is a heavy bounty for any NFL team to pay, especially for a quarterback with only a year of NFL experience, which is why such huge signings rarely take place. Simply put, if the Browns want to keep Anderson around for one more season without doing serious damage to their salary cap then they’ll likely be able to do so. The $2.5 million contract offer is the best way to do that. Barring something completely unforeseen, this is what will happen.
So why did I call Livingston’s column idiotic?
My issue with Livingston’s column is that it fails spectacularly to address the interests of any faction of Browns fans. It takes an extraordinary effort to swing and miss that spectacularly. Let’s dive in to how he accomplished such a feat.
Livingston’s column begins with a simplistic view of Anderson’s performances so far this season, which serves as the basis for his argument that it would be reckless to sign him to a big contract. For example, Livingston writes:
“Most of Anderson’s big games have come against the league’s dregs. His two monster games were against Miami (now 0-10) and St. Louis (now 2-8). Cincinnati provided his third big quarterback rating game.”
Simply put, that Anderson’s best games came against his worst opponents is the dumbest rationale for anything ever. I do not know what this is supposed to prove. Were I playing small forward for the Knicks and assigned to guard LeBron James I would hope he’d have his best game against me. But that he had his best game against me wouldn’t prove anything about his ability as a player, and it certainly wouldn’t provide any evidence against the position that he’s an elite NBA player worthy of a monster contract extension. (1) (2)
Furthermore, in addition to the simplistic view of quarterback performance Livingston also invokes the unfounded view of quarterback performance, citing Anderson’s “two straight unimpressive performances” against the Steelers and Ravens.
When you consider that the Steelers and Ravens lay claim to the NFL’s first and sixth best defenses it is worth placing Anderson’s performances against each in context. After all, that’s what Livingston does when considering his games against weaker competition. So in context how does Anderson stack up?
Against the Steelers Anderson had a below-average QB Score per play (.46). It’s probably fair to say that this was an unimpressive performance, even if the game came on the road. No arguing with Livingston here. On the whole Anderson did indeed fail to impress against the Steelers.
Against the Ravens, however, Anderson had an above-average QB Score per play (2.59). Only a cynical ignoramus would think that playing above average against an elite defense in a division game on the road would constitute an unimpressive performance.
True, Anderson didn’t put up All Pro numbers against those two teams. But hardly anyone puts up All Pro numbers against these teams. Most quarterbacks put up undeniably terrible numbers in Pittsburgh and Baltimore. Anderson falls somewhere in between, and he’s an awful lot closer to the positive end of the spectrum than the negative.
Now, I agree that the prudent thing for the Browns to do is offer Anderson a one-year deal. I don’t think anyone who knows anything about football would disagree. Which is precisely one failing of the column. This column is not serving the needs of interested Browns fans. When you’re the lead sports columnist for the largest newspaper in a region filled with rabid Browns fans, this is probably not the best way to go about things. In this regard he’s preaching to the choir. It’s the column equivalent of the straw man. He mailed it in.
Newsflash, Livy: LeBron James is good at basketball. There, I wrote your next column.
The column he wrote about Anderson best serves people who are only casual fans of football — namely, the people who think locking up Anderson to a six year deal right now is the best option for the Browns. However, if he really meant for this column to be aimed at casual Browns fans then he’s doing them a huge disservice by relying upon simplistic, unfounded views for evaluating a quarterback. He’s misinforming the people. He’s keeping the wool pulled over their eyes. Here’s a guy with an audience of thousands and the opportunity to affect people’s appreciation of sports for the better and yet he does no such thing. In fact, he reinforces bad habits and the same irrational Sports Talk Radio views that make so much of the mainstream sports media difficult to stomach anymore.
In one column Livingston fails the interested fans and fails the casual fans. He fails twice over, which, as I said, is a pretty spectacular feat. Failing on one level isn’t too difficult but failing on all levels really takes some effort. Failing on all levels is also the sign of a bad column.
Which is why I called it idiotic.
fn 1: Please dear god let the Cavs sign LBJ to a monster contract extension.
fn 2: Moreover, in a column imploring Browns fans to think about Anderson with a clear head — the implication being that we’re wonderstruck by inflated statistics earned against inferior competition — there is something incredibly weak about using a straw man Livingston to set up his argument. It’s a pompous move that’s completely full of bluster, like when a senile man on the streets says that unless you stop wearing red the devil will get you.
Dawg Pound said
Not to mention he was on Les Levine’s show spouting the same crap…I wonder why he gets paid for this crap and we don’t. ;)
Erik said
I think Livy’s career is running out of gas. A talented writer, but I have to wonder how much he likes his job anymore.
He preceded the Anderson column with a piece on how LeBron’s supporting cast is inadequate. No kidding? Bet you had to go all the way to ESPN.com to get inspiration for that one.
He’s quickly turning into the sports page’s Dick Feagler, minus the funny zingers. He picks out whatever is pissing him off and writes about it, usually as if he’s written about it a thousand times before and he’s sick of writing about it. In other words, he’s becoming a total curmudgeon.
Needless to say, any kids that run across Livy’s lawn probably get a cane emphatically shaken in their direction.
kiddicus said
someone needs to fire the Plain Dealer.
disappointmentzone said
Other than Pluto — who I hope took the PD for a boatload of money — and maybe their OSU beat writer the PD sports section is a travesty for a major metro newspaper, especially one covering three pro sports teams and a university with the largest athletic budget in history. They need to inject some new blood in there.
RockKing said
GREAT post. I’ve been saying sort of the same thing for the past couple years. I used to really enjoy Livingston’s writing, but since LeBron came to town, it’s been nothing but steady love letters about LeBron and simplistic, redundant, and inane columns about, essentially, nothing.
Also agree with your comment about Doug L. (no idea how to spell it, and too lazy to look it up). Wish the PD featured more of his writing, as he tends to have even better insight into OSU sports than the Dispatch does.
Erik said
The PD definitely needs some new blood. This is what happens when decreasing circulation leads to layoffs, attrition and a hiring freeze. Most of the people who write sports for the PD have been there for at least 15-20 years, and the relatively-new hires like Jodie Valade aren’t from around here, leading to the whole feeling that the PD is out of touch.
I like their Indians coverage. I think Paul Hoynes and Dennis Manoloff have been sold for a long time. Tony Grossi writes the occasional column like he’s trying to influence the decision-making in the Browns front office, leading me to believe that maybe he’s a little too involved with what goes on in Berea. But I really can’t complain about the coverage he and Mary Kay Cabot provide. The Browns are the most-followed team in Cleveland, and are covered as such in the PD.
The Cavs coverage … well, let’s just say that more Mary Schmitt Boyer and less Branson Wright is always a good thing. As long as Brian Windhorst is at the Beacon, the ABJ will blow the PD’s Cavs coverage out of the water.
The two front-page columnists are old, sullen and cranky. Livy is the poster child, and I get the feeling that given another five years, Bud Shaw will hate his job as much as Livy does. Shaw’s writing is by far the more bland of the two, and his Page 2 package that replaced Roger Brown is a joke — which is ironic, because Shaw desperately tries to be funny throughout it.
Pluto is great with few exceptions. I’m just hoping Livy and Shaw don’t rub off on him.
Erik said
That should be, “Paul Hoynes and Dennis Manoloff have been SOLID for a long time.” Curse you, Arial font.
disappointmentzone said
Erik, your point about Grossi is spot on. He often strikes me as far too invested in the team (in the bad way for a beat writer to be invested).
I actually miss Roger Brown. His was the only piece of writing in the PD sports section I read every day (or M,W,F,Sun). As often as not I thought he was wrong — analysis was not his strong suit — but the format was so much more tolerable than the columns of Shaw and Livy. He actually did something resembling reporting, too (even if that reporting was on house prices for departing NFL players). If I found out tomorrow that Livy and Shaw have been living in Alaska the past three years I wouldn’t be surprised.
Haze said
“The column he wrote about Anderson best serves people who are only casual fans of football”
Is this to say that casual fans of professional football are somehow of inadequate intelligence, as opposed to “rabid” ones? Oh, please say yes to that one. :)
disappointmentzone said
The difference between casual and rabid has nothing to do with intelligence. The difference is interest.
Haze said
So if the writer uses “simplistic and unfounded” viewpoints in regards to simple math (the percentage of Anderson’s passing capability coupled with costs of keeping him) he or she is speaking mostly to a casual audience because the rabid fan otherwise would notice the descrepancy? Its simple: one good year = unproven. Salary cap with a long term commitment = bustline, with unreliable results. I agree he sucks as a writer but any one individual can understand why just by briefly scanning the article. He doesn’t articulate why Anderson has been good or bad or why Quinn would be any better.
disappointmentzone said
I don’t know who Livingston intended his column for — casual, rabid, both.
I do know his thesis would only be interesting to casual fans of the Browns.
Were casual fans his intended audience then he does them a disservice by making an idiotic point about Anderson’s best games and an incorrect point about Anderson’s unimpressive performances against the Steelers and Ravens.
Were rabid fans his intended audience then his column was 1) boring (because we all agree that it’s not wise to sign Anderson to a huge contract right now) and 2) repulsive (because of his mostly idiotic reasons for not locking up Anderson right now).
I don’t think it takes complex formulas to evaluate quarterbacks. QB Score is incredibly simple to calculate — certainly far easier than the NFL Quarterback Rating. On this blog I have no interest in speaking down to casual fans. I’m more interested in raising the level of discourse. With that column Livingston adversely affected casual fans and in so doing lowered the level of discourse. So I called him out for it.