I said in my last post that this season has failed written all over it. But now I've seen the light. I believe in the Mavs. Now they have what it takes to go all the way. Finally, the free agent signing that's going to put us over the top! The too-awesome-for-words Deavan George!! We bow down Mark Cuban, Donnie Nelson, and Rick Carlisle. They are surely leading us to the promised land!
There's a lot of complaining going on about the Beijing Olympics. Since the Opening Ceremony, many have been outraged to learn that some of the fireworks in the television presentation were computer generated. Even more are up in arms over a nine-year-old lip-syncing to the voice of a seven-year-old.
A question for those who are angered by these events: Exactly how big is that rock that you've been under the last twenty years?
Computer generated images and lip-syncing have become staples of big-stage presentations. In the internet age where everyone is a critic, event organizers can't take chances on firework duds or child performers. Instead, they have to play it safe with computers and pre-recorded soundtracks, the smoke and mirrors of our modern world. Any talk of the "fake" Opening Ceremony being non-compliant with the Olympic Spirit is nonsense. The only mistake the Chinese officials made here was admitting that the real singer was replaced because she wasn't cute enough. (Who is their PR man, anyway? Why didn't they just say she was shy about performing in front of such a large audience?)
While most of the world is upset about the treatment of a future hopeful for Chinese Idol, we are missing the real issues at the Beijing Games:
Hundreds of thousands of Beijing residents have lost their homes over the past five years to make room for Olympic venues. (The Guardian, New York Times)
Peaceful protests have been suppressed. Three protest zones were set up by the government, but no one has actually been allowed to make use of them. Questions regarding this situation by foreign reporters have been ignored. (The Guardian)
Despite assurances of media freedom, foreign journalists have been harassed by the police. At least one was arrested while attempting to cover a Free Tibet protest. (The Guardian) When questioned on these tactics, Chinese and IOC officials avoided giving a straight answer, later canceling daily press conferences to avoid the questions altogether. (Sydney Morning Herald) All media personnel were also inexplicably photographed by the Chinese officials after the press conference confrontation.
Thus far, these serious concerns are getting very little attention from Olympic viewers around the world. I'm not opposed to China hosting the Olympics, but I am opposed to human rights violations and government disinformation. I enjoyed the Opening Ceremony, with its portrayal of Chinese history and culture. I enjoyed seeing athletes from around the world enter the stadium, walking proud and tall. But the greater issues over the past few days have taken the thrill out of these Games for me, and I find it even more disturbing that it appears most people aren't even paying attention to it. As with any good movie, the majority of the general public is more concerned with the special effects in Beijing than looking for what is real.
I haven't written in a while (but neither has anyone else, so I don't feel bad), mainly because I haven't had a whole lot to say. It seems a waste of time to post a couple of sentences and be done with it, but if you put them all together you can become Blackie Sharrod or some other guy with opinions.
1. So the last four games have put a damper on the Rangers and they have continued to fall out of playoff contention. As I write this, they are winning the last game in the series against the Orioles, but are 7.5 games out of the wild card and fourth behind the Red Sox, White Sox, and Yankees. They were never really serious playoff threats, but those first two games against the Yankees were fun. The problem with the Rangers is, stop me if you heard this before, pitching. Their team ERA is 5.31, a full run more than next closest team. Because of injuries and ineffectiveness, they've ran a bunch of rookies and young guys (Hurley, Harrison, Hunter, Mathis, Madrigal, Mendoza, Feldman, etc). Theoretically, they are going to get better, but raise your hand if you're confident in that. I have hope, but a wise man once said hope is not a strategy.
2. About the Cowboys preseason gamethe Chargers scrubs beat the Cowboys scrubs. Big deal. My only concern is this: the Cowboys played undisciplined: lots of penalties and lots of bad special teams play. Maybe it was just the spares, but still, Wade Phillips is not running a tight camp. There's no denying that the Cowboys have awesome talent, maybe the most in the league, but if they lead the league in sloppy play (penalties, special team problems, turnovers, etc.), they'll win a bunch of games, but start to lose them down the stretch when the games get tight. Sound familiar?
a. I know Hard Knocks is just a show and they can show whatever they want, but Wade Phillips sounds like he's just glad to be there. He doesn't inspire much confidence.
b. I'm not real worried about the cornerback formerly known as Pacman. It's been a year since he played, of course he's gonna be rusty.
c. The Cowboys need a real live backup QB. I have a stronger arm than Brad Johnson. I heard Moose Johnston say on the broadcast that he was comfortable with Johnson as the back up. Maybe Brad Johnson, circa 2000, but this is 2008. He can't be counted on to play meaningful time. As a Texas, I hesitate to long for Chris Simms, but the Cowboys desperately someone they can rely on behind Romo.
d. Felix Jones looked really good. Again, mostly against scrubs, but he looked really good. Their 2nd rd draft choice, not so much. But you can tell from Hard Knocks that they love Martellus Bennett, because the TE coach was on his butt the whole time.
3. The Mavericks summer just keeps getting worse and worse. Josh Howard continues to go off the deep end. I mean, granted, if they traded him now they'd be selling low, but at least they'd trade him before he got suspended or killed for drag racing. Then they get nothing.
a. I was skeptical of getting Ron Artest, until he went to Houston. The Mavs just keep falling further and further from their Western Conference rivals.
b. Jason Kidd is in the olympics, playing behind Chris Paul and Deron Williams. Oh, Kidd starts, but played fewer minutes than the other two. In the first game, in 13 minutes this Kidd's line: 0 Points, 0 Assists, 3 Turnovers, 2 Rebounds. Makes you proud to be an Ameican!
c. Then, their only draft choice, Shan Foster, is going overseas. Another in a long line of the Mavs "draft and stash" strategy that has worked so well over the last several years.
This season has FAILED written all over it. Anyone get the feeling that Mark Cuban is interested in buying the Cubs, because he sees the writing on the wall about the inevitable decline of the Mavs?
4. Every couple of years, the Olympics roll around and I think that this year, I'm not going to care. Then I get sucked into it and watch as much as I can. The 4x100 relay last night was awesome! I hate the human interest stories and I can't hardly watch gymnastics, but everything else is great.
Finally, I don't want to turn this into a political post, but is anyone else wondering why George Bush just seems to be hanging out at the Olympics when stuff is going on all over the world. I know in these days of instant access and internet and global cell phones, but it's just a little disconcerting to hear about the Georgia/ Russia crisis, which I think will probably end up being more important in the global situation than the war in Iraq, and he's playing grab ass with the beach volleyball players, waving a flag at Michael Phelps, and leading the basketball team in a "1-2-3 hustle" chant? Is he just mailing it in?
We here at 110 percent are about to turn in our Hall of Fame nominees and judging by the amount of time I spend writing about Roy Hobbs, I mean, Josh Hamilton, it's pretty clear that he should be one of my nominees. It's hard to place his name in contention because he's been a Ranger for only a half a season and he could just as easily fail after this (in more ways then one). However this is at least my third post focused mainly on Hamilton in the brief time he's been a Ranger. The thing is he's been on my fandom radar since 2001. I've been a fan of his longer than I've known my wife, and honestly, even if he had done all this with the Yankees I would still be a fan of his. Well, maybe not the Yankees, but you get the idea. Anyway, he is the man. He is on the road to being my favorite Ranger of all time. Which leads me to my post.
After the impressive display off raw power the other night, which, BTW I jinxed quite effectively (I missed the first round for a breast feeding class and as soon as I was able to turn it on, he basically quit being able to his home runs), the national media started drooling all over Hamilton, which normally would have caused me to hate him, but I didn't mind it so much. I mean, he is Ranger. Anyway, I was reading a baseball chat and someone asked should the Rangers consider trading Hamilton for a pitcher like Tim Lincecum. If you don't know who Tim Lincecum is that's ok. He's a 24 year old ace, who this year in his second full year in the majors has an ERA under 3, a WHIP of about 1.2, and more than a strikeout per inning. He is a legitimate ace on a bad Giants team and exactly what the Rangers for lacked for most of their history. Hamilton for Lincecum wasn't an actual rumor, but a hypothetical to gauge the value of Hamilton, as in what kid of pitcher could be bring. So the question is would ya? Hypothetically, would you trade Hamilton for Lincecum? When I first read it, I was tantalized. I mean, the Rangers have all of a sudden come up with a strong outfield, even if you take Hamilton out of the equation, both offensively and defensively, with several legitimate outfielders on the way in the minors. On top of that, with Hamilton's background you have to be concerned about injuries or, God forbid, a relapse. This could be the ultimate "sell high." Also, the Rangers have a alot of pitchers in the minors, many of whom are close. But the close ones are not #1s, but rather mid rotation guys- Hurley, Harrison, etc. The big time guys with #1 potential are all in the lower minors. So a guy like Lincecum would step right in as the true ace of the staff, instead of that impostor, Millwood. (I am beginning to have lots of bitterness towards Millwood, but that is a topic for another day.)
Those would all be really good reasons to trade Hamilton for Lincecum. But after thinking about it for a while, I decided that I would be opposed to that trade. Over the history of the Rangers they've really lacked a true national superstar, both in terms of production and "face". Nolan Ryan was past his prime when he came the Rangers, and while he brought legitimacy to a moribund franchise and his production was pretty good (at times awesome), it wasn't enough to really take the team over the top. Alex Rodriguez never wanted anything more than his money and while I don't think that he's the only blame for the divorce from the Rangers, the fan base never truly embraced him. Pudge Rodriguez, after Ryan, was the closest to reach that level, and again, blame the Rangers for letting him go. I'm still trying to figure out who he learned how to handle a pitching staff as soon as he left the Rangers. I blame John Hart. He's a convenient scapegoat for the problems of the early aughts. Hamilton is a guy who can spend the prime of his career as the Rangers are in ascendancy and lead the team to heights that they've never reached before. Yes, I'm talking pennants and World Series. Scouts drool over his stools and his production has already starting to match it. The Rangers have always been a second rate franchise, even in their own town. Hamilton can bring legitimacy to the Rangers and be the national bell cow that takes the Rangers off the last 15 mins of Sports Center and onto the front pages. I think the Dallas/ Fort Worth fan base is dying to love the Rangers. With his history and the demons which he has defeated, he can be the face of the franchise as it moves into the upper eschelon of baseball.
First of all, I'd like to thank the miracle of the internet for allowing me to being able to take part in tonight's game. If it weren't for you, I'd be watching 45 minutes of ESPN before I'd have any clue what in the world happened in lowly Texas. I'd have to watch idiodicy like Titletown. Man, ESPN sucks.
But I'm not here to talk about ESPN. I'm here to celebrate the greatness of Josh Hamilton and the Texas Rangers. On a night in which the Rangers, dealing with so many injuries in the starting rotation, they started Warner Madrigal, a rookie who hadn't pitched about A ball until this year and is considered a reliever down the road, hoping he'd go three innings. The Rangers were praying just stay in the game and not have to burn through their whole bullpen, and miracle or miracles, they were in the game, down 4-2 into the bottom of the ninth, with the top of the order up.
A couple of base hits and couple of outs later, it's 4-3 with a man on and 2 outs and Hamilton at the plate. 
They don't call him Hobbs for nothing, and fittingly, as he rounded the bases, they played the tune from the Natural. (It doesn't matter that they play it after every Ranger's homer).
With my wife trying to sleep in the next room, I jumped and danced and celebrated and screamed as quietly as I could. It's these kinds of a games that makes it fun to be fan. That somehow or another, almost 700 miles away, I could join Josh Hamilton, the rest of the Ranger players, and all the Ranger's fans in celebrating a truly memorable moments for the Texas Rangers. I'll leave commentary about what this may mean for this year's edition of the Rangers for a later time. I'm too busy celebrating.
After 82 games, the Rangers are 41-41, a .500 team. A wise man once said you are what you are, and the Rangers are a .500 team with a really good (and could be great) offense and a mediocre to bad pitching staff. Sounds like the last nine years or so. But while the Rangers are what they are, they aren't what they were. Which is a mediocre team without much real hope for the future. I've said a couple of times before that the Rangers actually have a bright future. And it's not just Rangers fan and apologists who think so. I could list the names, but if you follow the Ranger's minor leagues you know who the are and if you don't, then I could just list any names and it wouldn't make a difference, but that sweet swing you see to your left belongs to Chris Davis, who was in the process of hitting his 2nd home run of the Red Hawks/ Nashville Sounds game a went too last week. The Rangers have some real talent on the way and some of it is really close.
So while they will probably spend the rest of this year around the .500 mark, they are looking better and better. So this begs the question on every Ranger fan's mind. Do the Rangers buy or sell? Is there enough here to try to make a run for it? Or do we trade everyone over the age of 26? On one hand, you never know when you're going to have a chance to make a run for the playoffs and for a fan base who is discontent to say the least, why would they really throw it all to wind and try to get CC Sabathia or Roy Oswalt and relief pitcher or two? On the other hand, how close are they really? They're 7 1/2 games back, and while they're by no means out of the race, they don't appear to be a team that's going to run off a big winning streak or even a 9 of 10 or anything like that. While a pick up of Sabathia would definitely help, I'm not sure it would enough and is it worth trading away the best of their farm system? Back in the 80s, the Rangers had a good team, but were several games behind the leading team. But they had a frustrated fan base and decided to go for it and trade Wilson Alvarez and Sammy Sosa for Harold Baines. No one wants that again. The Rangers have some tradable commodities: Kevin Millwood, Vincente Padilla, Milton Bradley, etc.
For a while this year I was an advocate of the first thought. But I'm not real big on trading everyone. I would rather the Rangers do what I call strategic trading with an eye not on 2008, but 2009 and further. They need to be ready to trade Millwood or Padilla (I don't think I'm big on trading both. That would leave them with an all- inexperienced rotation. Millwood and Padilla haven't been great, but even on days when they suck, like Thursday for Millwood, he at least pitched 5 innings. Not great, but he saved the bullpen.), but there's no reason to give them away. Don't trade for a pending free agent, like Sabathia. Trade for guys who are going to be here and help the next two years. At this point, my fear of the Rangers getting fleeced out of their young guys on a misguided attempt to hang around for a pennant when they are clearly the third best team in the division, a la John Danks for Brandon McCarthy or Chris Young and Adrian Gonzalez for Adam Eaton. I don't mind trading young guys, but I want something that helps soon. The Volquez- Hamilton deal was a tough deal, but both teams can be happy about that trade. Don't screw up like they did with the Harold Baines deal.
I'm back.
Ever play tennis? Baseline or net? Maybe you like staying on the baseline, where you have more time and can place your shots strategically. Or maybe you're aggressive and charge the net, hoping to force your opponent's hand. Either way is fine, but you don't want to get caught in no-man's land.
Stop me if you've heard this one before: the Mavs have acquired a shooter and. . . what, already?
Yes, that's right. With the 51st overall pick in the 2008 NBA Draft, the Dallas Mavericks selected Shan Foster, 6-5 shooting guard out of Vanderbilt. Word is he's a phenomenal shooter, 42% in his college career, 47% as a senior. Great. Another jumpshooter.
I realize there are few options when you are picking at 51. But does the Mavs braintrust (and I'm starting to use that term very loosely) realize that the last thing they need is another shooter? According to the Dallas Morning News, he "needs to work on his strength and defensive ability." Which, of course, is the punchline of another tired Mavs joke.
And I don't know what the Mavericks have done with the Morning News's Eddie Sefko, but the police might want to investigate. His article is ridiculous in it's praise of a very average draft selection. At one point he says that because the Mavs need more shooters "to help open up the floor for Jason Kidd, Dirk Nowitzki and Josh Howard, Foster seems to be a wonderful fit." Funny, I thought they needed strength in the front court and slashers to take pressure off the shooters. And wasn't the trade for Kidd supposed to open up the floor?
And after telling us about his shooting, Sefko spends a fair amount of the article on Foster's second best skill: the piano. That's right, the piano. No other commentary necessary here.
I've seen it coming since their '07 playoff loss to Golden State, and particularly since the Kidd trade, but this team has been caught in no-man's land. If this season had been five games longer, they wouldn't have made the playoffs this year, and they won't make it next year. Mavs fans, get ready for a string of near misses to get in the playoffs and the mid-first round picks that go with them--just good enough to keep you from the bottom of the standings, but not good enough to make some noise in the conference. This team is now running in place on a treadmill: they aren't going anywhere, and they can't get off, either. And they're staying there until the "braintrust" realizes that this team as currently constructed can't compete.
Source: Dallas Mavericks stay put at 51, pick shooting guard, Dallas Morning News
There is nothing left to do than to blow up the Mavericks. Trade Dirk and Kidd and Josh and cut anyone else who isn't nailed down. Only an idiot looks at this team and says they are legitimate championship contender. Unfortunately, it seems idiots are running the Mavs. They are not in the same zip code as LA Lakers, New Orleans, or San Antonio. They are about to get passed (if they aren't already) by Portland and Golden State. The Mavs are about to be the Kevin Garnett led Minnesota Timberwolves, a mediocre team that gets kicked out of the playoffs in the 1st or 2nd round every year. A wise man once said "You are what you are." In 2007, the Mavs lost to the team that lost to the team that lost to the team that won the championship. In 2008, they stumbled into the playoffs then lost to the team that lost to the team that lost to the team that lost the championship. In terms of tradable parts they have Dirk, Josh, Brandon Bass, and, and, and.... what else? Maybe Kidd? The Kidd trade last year just looks worse and worse. Stackhouse is nothing. Terry is nothing. George is nothing. Jones is nothing. Damp is nothing. This team is done. I'm listening to the draft and Norm and Ben and Skin are talking about the 51st pick in the draft (Shan Foster from Vanderbilt) getting time on this team! Avery was a problem, but he was not THE problem. Changing the coach is rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic and this team is on it's way to the bottom of the ocean.
I've read the post a few times, and I've started to write a response, but now, I think I'm ready. I understand the idea of rooting against teams you hate. Heck, in my bio on the left side I talk about rooting for anyone who plays the Yankees cause I don't like them. But I guess what I don't get is why you would think Tiger is almost everything wrong with sports.
I read the bit about his work ethic and determination and I agree. That is also one of the things that make him so compelling to watch. But I'll get into that in a minute. First a response to the things you see wrong with Tiger.
1. The media. The media does beat Tiger into the ground and into our heads and that is extremely annoying. But, there is a reason they do that. He is a great story on so many levels. Dominant player, Multi-Cultural icon, once-in-a-lifetime run at history, and now that he is a husband and father, he has seemed to open up a little more. I understand getting tired of seeing too much of him commercially, but I don't think he's approached Peyton Manning stages yet.. I don't think we'll see him on SNL any time soon. When a player like him is so dominant for such a long time, he is naturally going to be the top person covered. He is the golfer known by people who hate golf or don't know anything about golf. Not to cover him would be a more odd choice even when they do seem to go overboard.
2. This I just disagree with. I think it's extremely interesting to watch dominant sports figures. It's fun to watch them get pushed by someone who normally wouldn't be in the same class. It's fun to watch Tiger eat Phil's lunch over and over. I've seen some iconic figures play live and it is always amazing to watch them and the little things they do that the camera does not pick up. Wayne Gretzky, Michael Jordan, Emmitt Smith, Nolan Ryan, and Tiger Woods. I've had the pleasure of watching them all live and each time, they have not disappointed as they just looked better than the other players. Tiger's chase of the major wins is very fun for me to watch and I hope he gets it very soon (although this has been put on hold with the injury).
3. This I think was more the Tiger of the past. When he sunk the put to go to a playoff, the look of excitement was very apparent. The look of joy when he picked up his daughter was unmistakable. I think as he's mellowed a little, he does enjoy his winning more, and does it because he can feel that he's closer to what he's been working for so long.
I don't watch golf unless Tiger is playing. Which likely means I'm out for the rest of the year, but I'm not alone. I forget the player who said it, but someone said that if they won the British Open, they would need an asterisk stating that Tiger wasn't playing. He was only partly kidding and that speaks to why Tiger is worth watching and rooting for.
As I've said before on this blog, for me sports is almost as much about who I hate as to who I love. In fact, my love for my teams causes me to hate with a passion teams that drive me crazy. Because I love the Cowboys, I hate the Giants, Eagles, Redskins, 49ers, etc. I am much more of a fan of my teams than I am a lover of sports. This brings me to Tiger Woods.
I am not a big golf fan. I have a set of golf clubs and I fool around with some friends every once in a while, though I haven't played this summer. For many of my friends and lots of people on sports talk radio, the golf majors are appointment television. Actually, it would be more correct to say that the majors are appointment television if Tiger is in contention on the last day. For me, golf is switch off no matter what the situation. I listen to coverage, though hardly ever watch it on TV hoping that Tiger is loosing or struggling.
As the US Open played out yesterday, I heard several sports talk radio guys say something along the lines of, "If you're a sports fan, you have to root for Tiger" or "How can anyone root against Tiger?" And I thought, it's pretty easy. For me, Tiger represents almost everything that is wrong with sports. I say almost everything because there is one thing that he is an example of everything good about sports. For an immensely talented individual, he is very much a grinder. For most pro athletes if they don't have it, they'll say, it's not my day, go through the motions, and be satisfied with that. Tiger works his butt off on the course and it's not satisfied with anything less that being champion. That's the epitome of what it means to compete.
Now, the wrong things about Tiger and how it relates to my hatred of other things in sports:
1) The media beats everyone upside the head with Tiger. The only way they'll pay attention to golf is if he plays. He is ubiquitous on commercials- the Gatorade commercial of him on the moon drives me crazy for some reason. He almost as bad as Jordon in that they won't turn down an opportunity to sell himself for a few bucks. I can't listen to sports talk radio after a major because they bow down at the altar of Tiger. In other sports, the media takes a team or player and just beats them to death as if the only teams that matter exist in the Northeast or on the West coast. In baseball, it's minutia of the Yankees and the Red Sox and if the Cubs are even in the zip code of contention then we are inundated with articles of what those teams need to do in order to win the whole thing and what kind of problems they have and what their blowhard owners have to say about anything. I can't watch ESPN baseball tonight because the biggest question is always what is happening with those teams. If Joba Chamberlain was a Colorado Rockie (is this right? Should it Rocky?), we would have no idea who he was and not have five million article written as to whether or not he should start or relieve. Of course as teams fall out of contention, the question becomes can any of their players help the Red Sox or Yankees or Cubs or Dodgers achieve the greatness that is preordained for them? The only media darling I like the Cowboys. If I wasn't from Dallas and therefore a licenced Cowboy fan, they would be as bad or worse than the Yankees. I accept this level of hypocrisy.
2. I'm sorry, it's not fun to watch the same guy win all the time. It's really boring. The question yesterday was not if Tiger was going to win, but how. And sure enough, he choked away a three shot lead, fell behind, made a birdie put to tie, and won on the sudden death playoff hole. Technically exciting, but it's like we all knew the ending we just wanted to see how he was going to pull it off. It's Revenge of the Sith all over again. We know Anakin becomes Darth Vader we just didn't know how and hopefully they'll give us a little drama for good measure. When the Lakers and the Celtics made the finals this year, it wasn't fun, it was expected. And of course the media just drooled all over themselves as two marquee teams were in the playoffs. Too bad the NBA sucks. The NBA where boring happenings.
3. Can anybody win alot and appear to enjoy it less? Maybe Bill Belicick. Sure he cusses and throws his clubs when he messes up and pumps his fist when he wins, so obviously he cares, but he's basically one of the guys down at the municipal course who is better than everybody else but doesn't have fun doing it.
At the end of the day, I don't care about golf, but when I pay attention, I hope Tiger loses. But if Tiger's not there, I care about it even less! So maybe their diabolical plan has succeeded. Imagine what happens to golf if this knee injury is really bad and he doesn't play in the next two majors? If a golf tournament happens and Tiger isn't there to play it, does it really happen?
So I broke a rule when I made my pick for the winner of the Cup this year. I picked against a better team cause I happen to hate them. I can't stand Detroit and I probably will never come around on them. I had thought that the cracks shown in the Dallas series would be enough for Pittsburgh to attack them and be successful. I also bet against a hot goalie. Osgood played out of his mind. Finally, Malkin, who I thought would be the biggest player for Pittsburgh wilted in the playoffs. He was all but invisible against the Red Wings and that pretty much summed up why they won.
I hate Detroit, I hate that they won the cup, and I hate that they continue to build impressively talented teams in spite of being in a salary cap era. Shouldn't this have caught up to them already?
So, with the NHL officially closed for the season, I've been watching the NBA, which really is ironic considering the news regarding officiating that has come out lately. I'm obviously rooting for the Celtics to win this series and before it started, I didn't actually think they would win. Now, LA is going to have to do something amazing (which they could still do) in order to win it. Being raised in the Northeast, I was pretty much slated to root for the Celtics, Bruins, Red Sox, and Patriots (I'll have to talk about them later...) But there is something I really don't like about LA. It goes back to Magic, Worthy, Kareem (especially Kareem), and has continued with Kobe. I liked Shaq when he was there, but that's because he is Shaq. Kobe is a phenominal player, but from everything I've seen, he's a pretty sorry person. Right or Wrong, that is the impression that he gives.
This group of Celtics is another story. KG, for all the criticism that has been poured on him lately, is fun to watch. Ray Allen, Paul Pierce, Rondo, etc... they are fun to watch because it feels like a team and not just like a bunch of guys playing one-on-one games against each other. I am rooting for the Celtics to win the title, and while I'd rather it be at home, I'm OK with doing it the next game, just to make sure it happens. This may not get me watching the NBA on a regular basis, but it was a start to getting me back as a casual fan.
Tampa Bay - Bottom of 5th SCORE
TEX TAM
S Riggans singled to left. 2 1
B Zobrist WALKED, S Riggans to second. 2 1
A Iwamura singled to right, S Riggans scored, B Zobrist to third, A Iwamura to second advancing on throw. 2 1
C Crawford grounded out to first. 2 2
B Upton intentionally WALKED. 2 2
C Pena WALKED, B Zobrist scored, A Iwamura to third, B Upton to second. 2 2
E Longoria hit sacrifice fly to right, A Iwamura scored, B Upton to third. 2 3
J Bartlett WALKED, C Pena to second. 2 4
C Floyd WALKED, B Upton scored, C Pena to third, J Bartlett to second. 2 4
S Riggans struck out looking. 2 5
4 Runs, 2 Hits, 0 Errors
THROW STRIKES FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!!!!
So, I don't have much time to write, but I wanted to be on record before the first game is played. I'm picking Pittsburgh to win. This goes beyond my hatred for the Red Wings. I simply believe that the Penguins are on an incredible roll and I don't see that stopping soon. I really wish that the finals would have started a day or two ago, but since it's now, that's what we have.
Breaking it down:
Forwards: I give the edge to Pittsburgh. I just think that Crosby, Malkin, Hossa, and Staal are a better group than what Detroit can roll out. Even if the edge is ever so slight.
Defense: Lidstrom is the man, Stuart and Rafalski are excellent, and I didn't see anything against the Stars that would keep me from thinking they wouldn't continue to be great. For Pittsburgh, they have regularly sat Darryl Sydor as a healthy scratch and he has won 2 Stanley Cups. Still, the edge goes to Detroit.
Goaltending: I can't help but think that Osgood is playing with the dealer's money as it were. I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop and so far it hasn't. Fleury has played remarkably and I just feel more comfortable with him. So I say this goes to Pittsburgh.
That's what leads me to pick Pittsburgh in hopefully a long, exciting series (Pens in 7)
On April 10, the Rangers swept a double header from the Baltimore Orioles to go to 5-4 and put them over .500 for the very first time in Ron Washington's tenure as manager. Over the next 18 games, they lost 14 in absolutely awful ways: blown saves, blowouts, errors, and a lack of clutch hitting. Their record went as far down as 9-18 and it looked like another editions of the sorry, last place Texas Rangers. More of the same.
Then something happened. I'm not sure what. I'm reading all the blogs I usually read and no one seems to know what happened, but it's like a light has gone on. They've won 9 of 11 and are two games from .500 and only 4 games out of first place.
If you had said that early in May your rotation would be Millwood, Padilla, Sidney Ponson, Scott Feldman, and AJ Murray, you would have been very worried about your chances. They are basically working with their 7th, 8th, and 9th starters and each one of them have thrown at least one quality start in this little streak. The offense has been good, but not great. This streak is a product of excellent pitching. And like I said, I have no idea why. I also have no idea how long it can keep going.
It looks like smoke and mirrors to me. You can't really count on Ponson pitching like he did in 2003, the last time his ERA was below 5. Feldman is a converted sidearm throwing bullpen guy, and Murray's topside is #5 or a long man out of the bullpen. They can just as easily go on a streak of losing 8 of 10, and will Millwood going out of tonight's game with a sore hamstring, who know who will actually pitch this week.
So, enjoy it while you can, Ranger's fans. We have an interesting little team here.
31 consecutive shutout innings??? They've won 10 of 14 and 4 in a row. Talk about smoke and mirrors.
I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop. Maybe.... 3 games giving up 10+ runs or 3 games in which the starter doesn't get out of the 3rd or 3 games with blown saves in the 9th. Actually probably a combination of all three.
About Richie Sexson, I heard someone say, "I guess he threw the helmet because he didn't have his purse."
Every few months or so Sports Illustrated or ESPN or FOX Sports or some other national sports network comes out with bogus lists that are designed to do nothing more than fill space. Things like the best ballparks in baseball, the best sports towns in America, the greatest living left handed pinch hitters, greatest rivalry between directional schools in college football 1-AA, and so on and so forth. I usually don't get bogged down in those things because they are usually worth little more than the time it takes to read them. They put them out there so idiots like me will gripe and complain that their pet team, player, era, sport, city, or whatever isn't number 1. Of course there's bias, of course current and recent players often win out over older players, of course the east coast always wins out over the rest of the nation. And of course they throw garbage out there to get people all up in arms.
Case in point, Sports Illustrated has come out with their Best Baseball Players by Number. A great big time waste until you get to #42. Who is considered the greatest #42 by this group of drooling morons? Oh, Jackie Robinson, right? The man for whom the number was retired by all baseball. Who broke the color barrier. Who played two years of negro league ball before even an opportunity to play minor league baseball. Of course not! It's Mariano freakin' Rivera! A closer! A man who usually plays in about a third of the games his team plays. And of those games he plays 1/9 of the innings actually played. He can throw everything he has for 1 inning and goes out there usually with a lead. There's no doubt that Rivera is a great pitcher (although I'd like to see what he can do two times through a lineup) and he has a great postseason track record. But I'm naturally skeptical of closers. I agree that the 27th out is the hardest to get, but most closers these days throw as hard as they can for 4-5 batters, usually with a lead. They have to have strong personality no doubt, but you only need one out pitch, and for Rivera, it's a cut fastball that rides in on players, resulting in a lot of broken bats. It's a great pitch that has lasted him for almost 15 years.
But any discussion about the who is #42 in baseball history begins and ends with Jackie Robinson, perhaps the most important player in baseball history. The only one that might have something to say about that is Babe Ruth who almost single handedly rescued baseball after the Black Sox scandal.
So I've fallen into SI's trap. I talked about their stupid list. Idiots.
Update: I'm an idiot. It turns out only one moron at SI thought Mariano Rivera was a better representative for #42. Bryan Graham who I've never heard of but needs to just stop writing right away. His argument is that because Robinson's stats aren't as great as other players of the era, but did any other player of the era have to put up with the stress of what he had to deal with as the first African-American major league baseball player? Because of society's ignorance and baseball unwritten rules, Robinson didn't get to his start in MLB when he was 28! Those were leading into his prime years.
The bigger question I have is this: are closers in the era overrated? As I said earlier, they pitch in about 1/3 of the teams games, of those games they usually pitch only one inning, and they usually have the lead when they come in. In the 1998 season, the Yankees best team record wise with 114-48 and a World Series win, his numbers were 3-0 and 36 saves in 54 appearances. He had a direct hand is 34% of the teams wins and APPEARED in exactly 1/3 of the teams games anyway!
So what do you think? Closers overrated?
So, I was 3 for 4 last round, but I was way off in the games it would take for Detroit to eliminate Colorado. Can't believe they swept them.
Eastern Conference:
Pittsburgh (2) vs Philadelphia (6) - A nice intra-state rivalry that means very little travel and a lot of bad blood (apparently - I keep reading about this, but I've never seen these two teams really get into it). I just don't see how Pittsburgh loses this series. They are just too talented and are clicking really well right now. Pens in 6
Western Conference:
Detroit (1) vs Dallas (5) - I won't lie. I really wanted Colorado to beat Detroit or at least take them to seven and maybe beat up on them a little. A sweep was pretty much the antithesis of that so we move forward. Detroit is very talented and Osgood has been playing very well. But, Dallas has Marty Turco and even though he has had difficulty against Detroit in the past, before last year, he had trouble with the playoffs, so I think it's time for him to escape that problem also. I know I'm a homer and I know I'm a little crazy, but this just feels like a team of destiny (that can change really quick). Stars in 7 (I really am a homer)
There is nothing like playoff hockey. Nothing that is.. except a 4 OT game that ends with your team knocking home the winning goal. The only bad thing about it is... I'm pretty sure my work is going to suffer today. And I really wish I didn't have two meeting back to back after lunch. There's a pretty good chance I need to load up on sugar and caffeine before then...
I'll put up my next round predictions after my head clears (ie.. not today..)
Go Stars!!
Well, that's that.
And that's OK. Avery is a good coach who will no doubt quickly be hired by another team. But his demanding style had run its course in Dallas. He got more out of this team than Nellie ever did, but it took only three and a half years for burnout to set in. A change in scenery will benefit him more than Dallas.
It is interesting seeing all the talk in the media about the Mavericks, though. Lots of revisionist history going on. A lot of people were all for the Kidd trade back in February--now they are saying that it didn't work, but the Mavericks had to do the deal because they weren't going to win as is. They are only partially right.
Avery certainly has his faults, but he is not responsible for the Mavericks current situation. This team's problems are a result of poor trades and out of control spending, and that falls at the feet of Mark Cuban. After Don Carter and Ross Perot Jr, it's been nice having an owner who will spend money to improve the team. But the Mavs and their fans are about to learn a painful lesson: it's not enough to spend money. You have to spend it wisely.
How do you rebuild a team? Free agency? The Mavericks have the league's highest payroll this year and are millions over the cap. How about a trade? There are no significant tradeable parts. How about the old-fashioned way--the draft? The Mavericks traded their first round pick this year and in 2010 in the Kidd deal. And that 2010 pick is going to be a good one because this team is going on a long playoff drought starting next season--you're welcome, New Jersey. Remember how bad the Mavs were back in the 90s? Those days have now returned, and with no quick way to fix this mess, they will be here for a while.
So all those trade revisionists were right about this season--the Mavericks were not going to win this season with or without Kidd. But before the trade they had flexibility and the potential for improvement, most of which was traded away for Kidd (while the rest was lost when Josh Howard opened his mouth). In a Western Conference full of young, quick point guards, the Mavs traded one of their own away for an aging has-been. Kidd has been one of the most dominant point guards of his era, but those days are long gone.
All right, so the Mavs are going to stink. But they still need someone to lead them through this playoff drought. Who's it going to be? Cuban has never actually hired his own coach so no one is really sure which direction he will go. Usually it is a safe bet that a team will go with a coach who is the polar opposite of the former coach, particularly when they are replacing someone like Avery. But I don't think that necessarily applies in this case. Cuban doesn't care if the next Mavs coach is a high-octane offensive mind or a hard-nosed defensive specialist. He's going to be looking for someone who won't rock the boat.
Maybe Wade Phillips is looking for something to do in the Cowboys offseason.
Cuban can beat his head against the wall, hire a marshmallow of a coach and keep trying to spend and trade the Mavericks out of this hole. Or he can take a step back, make a smart basketball hire and be patient.
This isn't going to be easy.
Picture from dallasnews.com
So, I don't know the East (50%) as well as the West (100%). That's ok, not too bad for a first round. Let's get right to the second round picks. (Anyone else find it interesting that it's 1v6 and 2v5 in both conferences?)
Eastern Conference:
Montreal (1) vs Philadelphia (6) - Philly's "Upset" of Washington isn't surprising. What will be surprising is if Stellar goaltending is the mark of this series. Price has been a little rollercoastery (is that a word?) and Biron is solid, but not spectacular. I think the scoring of Montreal holds up and Price's resiliance takes them to the next round. Habs in 6.
Pittsburgh (2) vs NY Rangers (5) - Interesting match-up. The Pen's are so completely different than NJ, the Rangers may take a period or two to adjust. While their strength is defense, I don't see them holding up against the young Penguin forwards. Especially now that Crosby is back and getting healthier. Pens in 6.
Western Conference
Detroit (1) vs Colorado (6) - An old rivalry rekindled. Osgood is even back in net for Detroit. While the Colorado scorers are still good, I just don't see them beating the more talented Detroit team in a game 7 in Detroit. Wings in 7.
San Jose (2) vs Dallas (5) - If the regular season finale is any indication, this is going to be another hard-hitting series for the Stars. Marleau is starting to come around for San Jose, and these two teams seem very similar. (Great goaltending, solid defense, three solid centers) I think Marty is better in net and in the end, I think that makes the difference. Stars in 7.
So there you go.
