I just assummed that last years NBA finals would be the absolute worst it could get. Boy was I wrong.
I know that they could still come back from this travesty. They won three games in a row a number of times this year. It's not impossible. But they look like crap. I honestly can't believe this.
Before, I get into the next round, I have to separate myself from the journalist side and try to avoid being driven to tears by last night's game. Two things that totally killed me about the game. 1. The referees so concerned about making sure they made calls they were supposed to make, made calls they should never have thought of making - and the Stars not realizing that until they had given the Canucks about 10 power-plays and the lead. 2. (and most importantly), I will never forgive the My27 broadcast team (who must have been rooting for Vancouver) for putting up a stat on Marty's shutout streak while the Stars were about to go on the penalty kill again. It couldn't have been 2 minutes after that graphic that Vancouver scored. It never fails. If your watching a home-team broadcast, shouldn't graphics like this be outlawed?
OK, so I did great in the Eastern Conference and picked every winner (although I missed the number of games in a couple cases - we should have had a NHL playoffs bracket so I could redeem myself after the NCAA embarassment). Next round:
Sabres (1) vs Rangers (6). So, this is a great matchup if you like a lot of team speed and to top it all, it's another NY matchup. The Sabres handled the Islanders pretty easily, but the Rangers swept the Thrashers. When two teams are well-matched, I tend to go with goaltending (as I stated before). I think Ryan Miller is a superb netminder and will win this series. Sabres in 6.
Devils (2) vs Senators (4). I'm going against my best goalie trend here. I think the Senators are too hungry and talented for even Brodeur. I think NJ is a good team, but I feel that the Sens will move on. Ottawa in 7
Western Conference:
Ducks (2) vs Canucks (3). This should be another great goaltender matchup for Vancouver. Marty almost did them in and Giguere can be just as frustrating. That being said, I think the Ducks can be more frustrating to play against defensively because of the pounding they dish out. The Canucks have some momentum from winning a game 7, but the Ducks are more rested and their offense has been clicking more lately. I think Ducks in 6 (If Vancouver wins again, I won't pick against them anymore)
Detroit (1) vs. San Jose (5). San Jose is probably the best 5 seed I've seen in a long time. I still find it hard to believe that Detroit has remained so good under the cap. The big questions are can Thornton do it in the playoffs? (jury's still out), and Will Hasek Dominate? I think San Jose gives too much defensively and that will hurt them in the long run. Detroit in 7
We have been in the middle of a great MVP debate in the NBA for months now, and everyone has an opinion. Your choice for the award depends on how you define MVP, though.
I admit, this is something I have a hard time with because my definition changes. I can't decide which is the best definition, which I suppose is what makes MVP such a lively debate.
Some simply define the MVP as the best player on the best team.
Some look for the most dominant player.
Some say the MVP is the best player in the league based on stats.
Some say the MVP is the player whose team has the worst record without him.
Some penalize a player for being on a bad team.
Some penalize a player for being on a good team.
Some people think 'valuable' is a general term.
Others think it means 'valuable' specifically to a player's team.
Some say you just know it when you see it.
Bill Simmons, always doing things his own way, has three questions that he asks:
Again, I'm not here to debate who the MVP is, but rather how we define the term. And I'm not looking for consensus, either. I just want to hear the reasoning behind your MVP definition.
Don't forget the other sports as well. Just because NBA MVP talk is dominating at the moment, don't limit yourself to that. Does your MVP definition change for different sports—for example, the Heisman in college football?
What does MVP mean to you?
So, I'm not totally sure how to post this, because naturally, it started with hockey, but has moved beyond that in my mind. I've actually been thinking of writing this column since Saturday, but life gets in the way sometimes. I'm totally rambling. So here is what I've been thinking about. The Statement Game - def. when a game is played by a player/team who has had they ability/heart questioned by another team, or the media, and they so dominiate that the only response after is that they made a statement with the way they played the game. The thought began with Marty Turco's shutout of Vancouver after a heart-wrenching loss to the Canucks in 4OT (yes, I watched all of it - and yes, I was completely worthless for the first half of the next day at work). That game did a lot to start changing the way Marty has been seen in the playoffs. Unfortunately, he followed it up with a late goal against and a goal against in OT, but to be honest, I put that loss more on the lack of scoring than his goaltending.
Statement games are always enjoyable because they usually lead to the reimaging of a player (or the cementing of an image). They can happen when a player has never made it on the biggest stage, or when someone says that a player has lost his ability to age, or when a rookie is said to be over his head. And of course, there is always the "you shouldn't have traded me/let me go through free agency" game. I started thinking back to come up with some statement games and thought it might be fun to throw it to the group. I'll come up with a list, and you guys help me add to it. Here are some I came up with:
1. Turco's shutout - still a statement game
2. Tiger Woods Last year - Even though no one thought he'd had it, after getting cut at the US Open, he tied for second at his next tournament and then won the next 8.
3. Jordan against the Jazz with the flu - He looked awful before and after the whistles, but once the game was playing, he looked like Jordan.
4. Gretzky's first season in the NHL - Coming from the WHA, he was thought to be overmatched. All he did was win the MVP (Hart trophy), and tie for the league lead in scoring (the most ever by a first year player - didn't get the trophy cause he had two less goals than Marcel Dionne)
So, let me know some of your favorites.
Well, not quite 1/10 of the way through the season and I've finally had a chance to breath after they really stunk it up the first series against the Angels. I mean it's frustrating. You wait six months for baseball to start, you're reasonably optimistic about the season and they lay an egg on the west coast, which means if you want to watch or listen to the game you gotta stay up past midnight. There's another issue to complain about as a Ranger's fan. Why is it that the Rangers are the only team two whole time zones away from their rivals in the division? With the unbalanced schedule a ton of games start at 9:00. That's ridiculous, but that's not why I'm writing now.
Where are the Rangers after this first two weeks of the season? In the same place they have been far too often in their history: last place. Thankfully, it is still the first two weeks and not the last two weeks. So at least we still have something to talk about and hope can still grow. But for hope to really take hold, they gotta start playing better. Let's take a look at what's gone right and what's gone wrong and what we need to see coming up for them to claw their way out of the depth of what looks like a pretty mediocre division.
The Good
1. Ian Kinsler- Any list of what is goin right has to start with the sophomore second baseman. He leads the team in HR (6) and RBIs (10) and is hitting 343 .452 .886 to pace the team. He has unquestionably been the Texas' early hitting star. Which raised the question of why Ron Washington continues to bat him ninth instead of the Wilkerson or Sosa, who, though not making the what's not going wrong list, have struggled out of the gate. There is not a baseball player (who isn't a catcher or pitcher) who looks less athletic than Brad Wilkerson. He looks like he should be in beer league somewhere.
2. The late bullpen- The closer combination of Akinori Otsuka and Eric Gagne have been good at the back of the bullpen and Joaquin Benoit and Scott Feldman have been pretty good.
3. The starters haven't been an abomination (with the exception of Brandon McCarthy's last start: a less than sterling effort- 2IP, 6H, 6ER, 3 HR. I mean could we not have had John Danks give up a bunch of homeruns in that spot in the rotation? I thought the fact that McCarthy had had major league experience was a major plus over Danks.) Millwood has been the horse that he's supposed to be and Tejeda is showing signs of being a decent #4 starter.
Ok, I confess. It's been hard to come up with three things that have gone well so far. But they are what they are.
The Bad
1. Vincente Padilla- Norm Hitzges warned us that Padilla, with a guaranteed contract, would not be that great and his initial starts have just not been that good. So far, in three starts he has 17.2IP, 19H, 15R, 7BB, 6K, 6.62 ERA. In his only good outing, he gave up two long homeruns to David Ortiz. I am expecting much more from the #2 starter.
2. Mark Teixeira and Hank Blalock- Neither of these guys right now can hit their way out of a paper bag. Tex, a notorious slow starter, has continued that trend- .233 .365 .256, 1 double. That's right. One extra base hit. He's batting clean up and has 2RBIs. Chris freakin Stewart has 2RBIs! Blalock is usually terrible in the second half, but he drops of from what's he's been doing, then they need to send him to AAA- .256 .289 .349. He has more extra base hits, but no HRs and only ONE RBI. The one saving grace for Teixeira is he has 8BB, indicating that either he's not getting any pitches (and with Sosa behind him, it's possible) or he's close because at least his eye is still there. These two guys have got to start hitting. (Even Michael Young has been less than expected so far. It just hasn't been a good year offensively so far for the Rangers.
3. Sosa- I've alluded to him a couple of time. The guys on the radio say the Rudy Jaramillo says that Sosa's close. Well, he has not looked real good so far. I give through Memorial Day to get his stuff together.
The Ugly
1. Defense- Ron Washington is supposed to be a defensive guy. Well, so far, the lessons have not taken. They have had some sloppy games defensively, the last two losses to Seattle were prime examples. They committed 3 errors in both games have had at least 2 errors in 4 games and lead the league in errors with 13. I thought that this was going to be a fundamentally sound team, but not so far.
2. Clutch Hitting- This is little more nebulous and I haven't seen a stat, but it seems that they are having trouble getting the runners in after they get on base. They've have opportunities, but have blown them on too many occasions.
3. Ron Washington- Have you seen a picture of this guy? He is one funny looking dude.
As I look at all this, I can only say that's it's still very very early. They've got a tough couple of weeks ahead: @ CWS, OAK, SEA, @CLE, @TOR. Hopefully, they can start improving on their rough start.
Don Imus has been ripped for his racist comments and has paid for it. But there is another suggestion in his comments that I haven't heard being mentioned that I also find disturbing.
Imus referred to the Tennessee team as 'cute' and the Rutgers team as, well, you know what he said. This seems to imply that Imus thinks women's athletics exists purely to be eye candy. This shows a blatant disrespect for the women on both teams, who were playing for the national championship.
Unfortunately, Imus is not alone in this opinion. There are many sports fans who were disgusted by the racist aspect of his comments, but feel the same way regarding women in athletics. Here are a few other examples of female athletes not being taken seriously:
Imus got what he deserved, but perhaps there are plenty of others who need to thing about how they view female athletes.
Finally, a confession of sorts: Before this situation, I had never heard of Don Imus. Maybe I've lived a sheltered life. I'm pretty sure I was happier not knowing him.
Let me start by saying that I have no idea how the team will do this year with Wade Phillips coming in. I'm not thrilled by him, but Bill Parcells leaving is worth something. Basically, this is all even more conjecture than usual. But I'll give it a shot anyway.
Sept. 9 v New York Giants
Cowboys split with the Giants, each team winning at home. Win
Sept. 16 @ Miami Dolphins
Miami is in turmoil. Win
Sept. 23 @ Chicago Bears
I'm not a Chicago believer. Win
Sept. 30 v St. Louis Rams
The Rams are about five seasons into their decline. Win
Oct. 8 @ Buffalo Bills
Bills got nothing. Win
Oct. 14 v New England Patriots
I keep waiting for their Rams-like decline, but it hasn't happened yet. Lose
Oct. 21 v Minnesota Vikings
See Bills. Win
Oct. 28 BYE
I like the placement of the bye week—right in the middle of the season.
Nov. 4 @ Philadelphia Eagles
Same as Giants—split season series. Lose
Nov. 11 @ New York Giants
Season split with the Giants means a loss in the Meadowlands. Lose
Nov. 18 v Washington Redskins
See Bills/Vikes. Win
Nov. 22 v New York Jets
See Bills/Vikes/Skins. Win
Nov. 29 v Green Bay Packers
See Bills/Vikes/Skins/Jets. Win
Dec. 9 @ Detroit Lions
See Bills/Vikes/Skins/Jets/Pack. Win
Dec. 16 v Philadelphia Eagles
What goes around comes around. Win
Dec. 22 @ Carolina Panthers
Toughest pick on the sked because the Panthers are so unpredictable. But since they couldn't get it together last year, and they're all a year older, I'll go with a Cowboy Win
Dec. 30 @ Washington Redskins
Skins still got nothing. Win
Can the Cowboys really go 13-3? The schedule seems to favors it, and I'm not one to usually drink the Cowboy kool-aid—I save that for my Longhorns. Besides, as I mentioned before, not having Parcells and his tension around should be worth something. Note: a 13-3 record would not necessarily make the Boys a great team. But even if they don't quite reach 13-3, they should easily make the playoffs this year, and who knows, they may even win a game once they get there. Anything can happen once you get to the playoffs—just ask Tony Romo, he of the botched hold.
Due to PJ's constant NHL banter since the launch of 110 Percent, I have thought quite a bit about hockey over the past few months. I mentioned before that I used to be a fan, but had lost interest, largely because of ridiculously inept leadership. Upon further reflection, I have been reminded of the things that attracted me to hockey in the first place. I finally decided that I'm not going to let Bettman rob me of a great game, so I'm back on the bandwagon and excited about the Stanley Cup playoffs. Let me make perfectly clear: I have experienced this shift in spite of Bettman and the NHL leadership (or lack thereof), not because of them. Without further ado, here are the reasons why the NHL is greatness.
The Stanley Cup - In Baseball v Cricket, I said the Ashes urn was a nine. For reference, the Stanley Cup is a ten—it is the hockey icon. Watch the final game of the Stanley Cup Finals this year (even the playoffs are named for the Cup) and witness the winning team pass the Cup around, each player taking their turn hoisting it over their head. And then you get to the off season, when each player on the championship team gets the Cup for one day, and legendary stories emerge. In every other North American sport, you talk of winning a ring. In hockey, it's all about the Cup.
Party crashers - There is almost always a young, low-seeded team that rides a hot goalie deep in the playoffs. They win their first round series and everyone calls it a fluke. But when they reach the conference finals, people take notice. A couple years ago, it was the Calgary Flames and the Sea of Red who were the darlings of the Finals. If you like underdogs, hockey is the sport for you.
Overtime playoff hockey - If you like sudden death overtimes, this is the only place it really happens. Basketball tacks on more minutes, and baseball is only sudden death for the home team. I suppose the NFL has sudden death overtime, but that is negated by the fact that it almost always ends with a couple running plays to center the ball before concluding with another field goal. Where's the tension in that? Nothing beats triple overtime playoff hockey, full of breakaways, odd man rushes and jaw dropping saves. Nothing.
Exciting defense - In most sports, good defense makes for boring games. Not so in hockey, where a goalie standing on his head, particularly in the playoffs, is more exciting than the league leading goal scorer. Picture this: Kobe drives the lane after losing his man with a wicked crossover, then clangs the layup off the front of the rim. Result: you were brought to the edge of your seat, but you feel cheated when it doesn't result in points. Now this: Sidney Crosby dekes two defenders and fires off a shot only to be robbed by a Brodeur glove save. Result: no score here, either, but it's still exciting because one great play is trumped by another.
Team handshakes - Two teams slug it out over seven games—they fight, bleed, hack and generally try to tear each other to pieces in order to advance. So when one team has clinched the series, what do they do? They line up and shake hands, congratulating the winners and appreciating the effort of the defeated. You don't get this in any other major American sport. Pure class.
So there you have it. Over the next two months, you have the chance to see some great hockey. Forget Bettman, strikes, lockouts and all the mess and enjoy the greatness of the Stanley Cup playoffs, because you never know when two goalies are going to go nuts and star in a triple quadruple overtime game.
So, that time is upon us again. Things have been crazy around sports and my favorite sport is heading into the playoffs (that's hockey for those who don't know). I'm extremely excited for this year's playoffs because unlike the last two times the Stars made it, there is no possible way for the Colorado Avalanche to knock them out this year. Before I start the Playoff Preview, I'd like say congratulations to Mike Modano of the Dallas Stars. Modano finished the season with 507 goals (for his career, not the season... that would be crazy) which is the most of any US-born player in the NHL. How cool is it when every goal you score is a new record. He is also 6 points away from having the most points of any US-born player. He'll have to get that record next year.
Now, to the playoffs. Let me start with the Eastern Conference. Sabres (1) v. Islanders (8). This one is easy. The Sabres have been rolling (except the hiccup against Philly) and the Islanders limped into the playoffs because Montreal lost and they won in a shootout. Sabres in 5
Devils (2) v. Lightning(7). This should be a very interesting match-up. The Lightning can score as Lecavalier showed in the regular season with his NHL-leading 52 goals, but no goaltender is as "money" as Brodeur. I think Devils in 6 maybe 7.
Thrashers (3) v. Rangers (6). I think we see an upset here. Lundqvist has been great in goal for the Rangers and both teams can score, so with all else equal, I go with the better Goaltender. Rangers in 7.
Senators (4) v. Penguins (5). This one all hinges on how Fleury plays in goal unless Crosby can continue to find open space and time. He's been everything advertised and led the Penguins to the playoffs a year or two before anyone really expected him. Ottawa has a tendancy to fold in the playoffs, but they know that and have built to avoid it. I think Ottawa in 6 and the loss has a positive effect on Crosby for next year.
The Western Conference: Red Wings (1) v. Flames (8). Detroit hasn't fallen off the face of the Earth as they were expected to after the implementation of the salary cap and Stevie Y's retirement. Hasek looks like he's ten years younger which would still make him older than Kiprusoff, and Detroit has a ton of balance on scoring. If Iginla doesn't catch fire (pun intended), the Wings roll. Detroit in 5.
Ducks (2) v. Wild (7). I think the Ducks are too strong for Minnesota. I know Gaborik and Demitra are supposed to light it up for the Wild, but the Ducks have better scoring and are defensively on par with Minn. Ducks in 6.
Predators (4) v. Sharks (5). Wow, I'm not sure where to go with this one. It's the hardest pick of the playoffs for me because both teams have great scoring, timely goaltending, and potential game-breakers. Neither team made a massive playoff surge, so it's hard to go on recent record. So, I've got to go with the team who has the intangibles. Forsberg, Arnott, etc... mean that the Predators should take it (even though I can't stand Tootoo). Nashville in 7.
Finally, Canucks (3) v. Stars (6). I hate this first round match-up for the Stars because they will be going against a Goaltender who can change the game. That being said, I'm not sure how Luongo will do in the playoffs. Plus I'm a huge Stars "Homer" Therefore, I say Stars in 6.
Let me take you back to October 17, 2005. Game 5 of the NLCS and my beloved Astros are one out away from their first World Series. Forty three years of frustration was about to come to an end and in front of the home crowd. Only one batter stood between the Astros and history, Albert Pujols. The great Brad Lidge stood on the mound armed with serious cheese and killer slider. For the previous couple of years, Lidge had been as automatic a save as anyone in baseball
I was giddy with excitement. Jumping around my bedroom ready to celebrate over 1000 miles away in Queens Village, NY, probably the only person in New York who cared.
Unfortunately, the unthinkable happened. A slider didn't quite make it all the way inside of the plate and floated out over the plate, and like it was on a tee, Pujols crushed it to left. Now Minute Maid park has a short left field where its just 315 down the line. But this ball, I think, was still on an going up when it hit the window looking out onto the street.
Now the Astros won game six behind Roy Oswalt, and the Astros went on to the World Series to be swept by the Chicago White Sox. Maybe things would have been different if Oswalt would have started game 1, but probably in the end, the Astros wouldn't have been able to buy a clutch hit anyway. But the real question is what has happened to Brad Lidge? Ever since then, he has been terrible and basically kept the Astros from winning the NL Central last year. (Of course, their anemic offense didn't help. Heck, calling the Astros offense anemic is an insult to all those people out there who lack a sufficient number of red blood cells.) Pages could be and have been written about the Astros putrid offense, but I'm focusing on Brad Lidge.
Here is some statistical evidence:
2005: 4-4, 42 saves, 5 HRs, 2.29ERA
2006: 1-5, 32 saves, 10 HRs, 5.58ERA, 6 blown saves
In the middle of the season, the Astros moved to a closer by committee. After the All-Star game, he saved 10 of 12, but Dan Wheeler was their main closer.
Tonight, in the season opener, after Roy Oswalt has pitched a solid 7 2/3 innings and the offense put together a grand total of two runs, Lidge got the first two outs easily, but then gave up a tieing home run to Xavier Nady.
Lidge still has nasty stuff. Even last year when he struggled, he averaged well over a strike out per inning. But there is something wrong. Perhaps a change of scenery would help him get out of his funk, but he is done in Houston. He was terrible during spring training (9 in, 13 H, 2 HR, 11 ERA) and it doesn't look good for 2007. He can't be the Astros closer anymore. Perhaps the rest of league has caught up to him. If so, put in as the set up guy. He flourished in that when he joined Billy Wagner and Octavio Dotel as the best bullpen in the big leagues. They have a guy who can close in Wheeler. If he can't handle that kind of demotion, trade him for a bag of balls and a fungo bat.
Let me first say thank you to Rus for answering the charges laid before me regarding the Rangers this season. However, I was already preparing my own answer, even before the question was asked. And while I appreciate Rus's effort, he gave the wrong answer. I suppose it's the thought that counts.
As I said in a comment to Patrick and his case for the Braves, when you start dropping if's to argue your team's case, you've already lost. Rus even titled his post if, if, if.......—not good. Here is the correct answer to the question: What about the Rangers? If #1: Pitching - Yes, it is better. No, it is not good enough. No ace. You've got three pretty good 2-3 type guys, although that hasn't really shown this spring. At the bottom of the rotation, who knows? The bullpen should be good. If Gagne holds up, and I think he will, Otsuka can be traded for a starter. Again, the staff is better, but it's not felt (read: pennant material). If #2: Offense - Something we've always taken for granted in Texas. Comparatively speaking, this offense is rather anemic, especially considering their home park. If they had a top notch pitching staff they could get away with it. But they don't, so they won't. The defense should be good, but they'll pay for it at the plate. If #3: Manager - Yes, Buck is gone, and any change has to be good, but I'm not buying in to Wash yet. I'm suspicious of all the hype There may be fewer ifs, but the bottom line is that there are still plenty, certainly more than other teams have. I think the Rangers will finish third, although I wouldn't be surprised if they came in second. First is out of the question for at least another year. They are getting closer, but they aren't there yet. However. . . if they do somehow take first out West, I think this team could make some noise in the playoffs. I assume that they will have traded for some pitching to get there, and once in the playoffs, the bottom of their rotation becomes irrelevant. I think they have three guys (plus the hypothetical trade acquisition) who can compete with most, and their defense becomes more important in tighter playoff games. I think this team is built for playoff baseball, but I don't think they can weather the 162 game schedule to actually get there.
As I have stated in a previous post , I am a sports pessimist. Except when it comes in spring time with the Rangers. I am going to answer for Chris.
I know this is the year. This is the year that the Rangers break through, the A's break down, the Los Angeles Califonia Angels of Anaheim California collapse under the sheer stupidity of their name, and the Mariners are the same as always. In fact, there's no reason the Rangers can't go all the way. That's right! I said it. World Series for the Rangers in 2007!!!! At least win a playoff series. Is that too much to ask? Actually the crazy thing is that sane baseball people actually expect something out of the Rangers as well. Joe Sheehan of baseballprospectus actually has Texas in his top 10, best of the AL West and third in the AL behind the Yankees (bleah!) and the Indians.
Ok, so here's a list of best case scenarios and worst case scenarios that can happen to this team. Hopefully, more of the first, than the later.
BCS #1. The pitching is NOT a problem on this team. For the first time in years, the Rangers have four credible starters: Kevin Millwood, Vincente Padilla, Brandon McCarthy, and Robinson Tejeda. John Koronka gave this team some pretty good innings last year and isn't even really on the radar for this year. That's good news.
WCS #1. Millwood throws a ton of innings, but also has about a 6 ERA. Vincente Padilla falls off the wagon, or worse, realizes that he's not in a contract year. Mac throws batting practice at the Ballpark. Tejeda walks the world. The combination of Wright, Loe, Chen, etc, can't start more than 10 starts apiece because they are flat out terrible.
BCS #2. The offense hits like the early aughts that the late aughts. The reputation of this team is all offense, no pitching. Not the case last year. But this year, with a healthy Brad Wilkerson, a focused Hank Blalock, a ready Nelson Cruz, and Sammy being Sammy of old the Rangers learn how to hit away from the Ballpark and starts to butcher a bunch of pitchers.
WCS #2. They can't hit a lefty to save their lives and Blalock slugs about .350. Wilkerson become Wifferson again. Cruz is sent down and Sosa cracks open a corked bat.
BCS #3. Buck Showalter is gone.
WCS #3. There is no worse case scenario in regards to Buck. In fact, that he is no longer here is enough karma to push the Rangers to World Series if history has anything to say about it.
Actually, as I read all this, I realize it all comes down to a bunch of ifs....
If McCarthy and Tejeda can solidify the third and forth spots in the rotation.
If Gagne is healthy and the bullpen falls into place.
If the Blalock can break out of his malaise.
If Cruz and Kinsler are as good as advertised.
If the offense can get it done.
If Sosa doesn't become too big of a distraction.
There are a number of others, but there are alot less "ifs" than there have been in past years. The Rangers are due some breaks. Right?
Opening Day is almost here, so it's about time for my baseball predictions for 2007. All the standard fare is here, including division winners, wild cards, MVPs and Cy Young winners, and of course, the World Series outcome. But anyone can give you that: here, you'll also get the dirt, the MLB gloss & glam, you know, the really interesting stuff.
The dull stuff:
American League
East: Boston Red Sox
Central: Minnesota Twins
West: Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim
Wild Card: New York Yankees
MVP: Vladimir Guerrero, LA Angels
Cy Young: Johan Santana, Minnesota
Rookie of the Year: Daisuke Matsuzaka, Boston
Manager of the Year: Mike Scioscia, LA Angels
National League
East: New York Mets
Central: St Louis Cardinals
West: San Diego Padres
Wild Card: Philadelphia Phillies
MVP: Albert Pujols, St Louis
Cy Young: Roy Oswalt, Houston
Rookie of the Year: Chris Young, Arizona
Manager of the Year: Willie Randolph, New York
World Series: Mets over Angels in seven
The interesting stuff:
Start with an easy one. A-Rod will say something (else) dumb to the media about his contract status and his relationship with Jeter.
The Pirates are forced to forfeit a game when the entire team, including the manager, refuse to take the field wearing their new red vests.
The San Francisco Giants will undergo yet another ballpark sponsorship change, this time choosing a business with more stability and staying power: after the All Star Game, they begin play at the newly renamed BALCO field.
The Devil Rays and Nationals both begin tanking games by June in a race for ping pong balls in the Oden/Durant lottery before remembering they don't compete in the NBA.
MLB celebrates Sunshine Kids Day in a belated response to the Biggio hat pin backlash, including placing Sunshine Kids logos on the bases. This instigates another fan backlash, a la the Spiderman 2 Controversy of 2004.
Roger Clemens re-signs with the Astros, with his contract stipulating that, in addition to preferential travel arrangements and generous time off, he will be carried to and from the mound by a batboy.
Texas Ranger Mark Teixeira wins the All Star Game MVP, becoming the third Rangers to do so in four years, handing home field advantage in the World Series to division rivals Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. However, their unstable name will be too much to overcome as they lose Game 7 at home.
Barry Bonds will break Hank Aaron's career home run record, causing the biggest uncomfortable and bitter 'celebration' sports has ever seen.
Ken Griffey Jr.'s left arm will come detached during his follow through on a home run, landing him on the 60 day DL and effectively ending his season.
Pete Rose admits on ESPN's Budweiser Hot Seat to betting on his fantasy baseball team.
I love this time of year and what it brings to the senses: the crack of the bat, sunlight in your eyes, the smell of the grass.
Baseball? No, cricket. Opening day is almost here, but down in the Caribbean, sixteen countries are vying for the Cricket World Cup. These two games share a common origin, but each have developed a following in different parts of the world. Typically, baseball fans know little of cricket and think their game is superior, and vice versa. You can read Wikipedia's comparison between cricket and baseball for all the details, but we are here today to decide once and for all which game is better. There are ten categories worth ten points each, plus a bonus category worth up to five points. Play ball.
Best current player
You could easily substitute one of a handful of other players here, but Albert Pujols serves as a good representative. He has a career .332 batting average and has 250 home runs in six seasons. In his career, he has been named Rookie of the Year and MVP, and last year won the World Series with the St Louis Cardinals.
Ricky Ponting is currently the number one ranked batsman in the world, so this choice is a little easier to make. He has a 59.29 batting average (his average runs scored per batting appearance) and 58.95 strike rate (runs per 100 balls). If you look at just the past five years, his batting average jumps to 74. Putting it bluntly: he already ranks as the number three batsman of all time.
Best historical player
Most of Babe Ruth's records have fallen to various players over time, but none of them had the complete package the Babe did. He is known for his batting, but remember, he was a pretty good pitcher in his time with the Red Sox as well.
99.94. Any cricket fan in the world recognizes that number as Don Bradman's career batting average. Second place is a full twenty runs less; the rest of the pack tops out at 61. And these aren't just the Australians—we're talking worldwide, all-time players. Statistical analysis by Charles Davis in The Best of the Best reveals Bradman as the most dominant player in any major sport. He says by comparison, a baseball player would need a career .392 average to equal Sir Don's dominance.
Best rivalryYankees/Red Sox: Love 'em or hate 'em, this is the best rivalry in the game. This intense rivalry stems from proximity, civic pride, divisional competition and the Curse of the Bambino. Fairly lopsided in the Yankees favor, but intense nonetheless, and more competitive of late.Australia/England: This rivalry dates to 1882, when Australia beat England on an English pitch for the first time, shocking the hosts and creating the legend of the ashes. It wouldn't be the last time. This rivalry is also rather lopsided, but both sides, and much of the cricket world, closely follow the Ashes Series.
Best venueThis is another one that is up for debate, but I'll go with Wrigley Field. It's got ivy, day games and tons of history.
Lords is considered the home of cricket. Many of cricket's greatest moments, particularly in the Ashes Series, took place here. It might be iconic, but I don't care for the look of the Media Centre.
Game lengthThree hours is a fairly standard time for the completion of a game in most major sports, and baseball fits the bill.
There are variations of the game, but the most popular is test cricket, which lasts for five days. Even one day cricket lasts (surprise!) a day, or about six hours of playing time, plus lunch and tea breaks. Only the new (and often maligned) Twenty20 fits within the three hour window.
OutcomesYou win. Or you lose. Short of a rainout, that's it.
You win. Or you lose. Or, if you score the same number of runs, you could tie, although this is very unlikely. Or you could draw (which is different than a tie) if the game is not complete after the alloted time has expired. Yes, it is possible to play a game for five days and basically get no result.
Despite last year's World Baseball Classic, baseball is primarily limited to the US, the Caribbean, and parts of East Asia. And the WBC had to get a little creative to find sixteen teams—even Australia qualified.Cricket's strongest players are mostly within England and the Commonwealth. According to the International Cricket Council, there are ten full members, 32 associate members (cricket firmly established) and 55 affiliate members (cricket is played). By the way, the US is an associate member, but did not qualify for the Cricket World Cup.Baseball is notorious for the phrase 'if you aren't cheating, you aren't trying'. Corked bats, pine tar and of course steroids are all issues in the game today. Players and managers arguing with umps is also common, and a player would never correct a call to his own detriment. The redeeming factor is the unwritten code of respect that requires teams to stop stealing bases with a big lead or not show up a pitcher after a home run.Cricket players often police themselves during a game and arguing calls is rare. About the worst you get is sledging, the cricket equivalent of 'we need a pitcher, not a belly itcher'.
World Series Trophy—My little league trophies were cooler than this.The Ashes—Now this little urn tells a story, and you can read a little about it here.
UniformsPersonally, I like the simplicity of the home whites/road grays. But I hate the softball team look of the alternate colored jerseys.Test cricket looks great with the whites. One Day and Twenty20 looks ridiculous with the pajamas.
Bonus: Kooky TraditionsMore than a few baseball players don't step on lines, always step on bases or some variation when running onto the field.
Cricket has the Nelson, representing a run score of 111. Named for Lord Horatio Nelson, supposedly for a missing eye, arm and leg, the score is thought to be unlucky. Umpires are often seen standing on one leg while a batter is on this score.
Well, the numbers don't lie: Cricket wins 83-78. Neither game is flawless, but you can't go wrong with either one. The good news is this: you don't have to choose. So enjoy the start of the baseball season, but make an effort to catch some of the Cricket World Cup action over the next few weeks, even if they are playing in their pajamas.
After many years of problems, Major League Baseball has finally taken control over it's game. For too long baseball has allowed escalating salaries, greater and greater distance between the players and the fans, ever more rampant steroids, competitive imbalance, a moronic idea of tieing the All-Star game outcome to home field advantage in the World Series, a decline in interest among African- Americans, and any number of other issues to divert fan attention from a quality product on the field. But no longer! It takes a strong leader to step into those kinds of issues and show some real courage. Bud Selig and his band of brothers have finally stood their ground and taken a stand for the eternal betterment of baseball. There is no doubt in my mind that this commitment to excellence will cause baseball to reach greater and greater heights of quality and connection between the game and it's fans. A game as hallowed as baseball can have no other commitment!
Perhaps you haven't heard about this courageous stand against out of control player behavior. Well, it's about time you did because it's been happening for over 20 years. In fact, I was 13 when this travesty started and I think you would agree with me that the decline of baseball began about that time. Twenty years ago, one of the most deplorable players in MLB history, Craig Biggio of the Houston Astros, began wearing a yellow pin on his hat during spring training games promoting the Sunshine Kids, a non-profit group helping kids with cancer. This travesty has finally been put to a halt by the powers of MLB. And let me tell you, it's about time! I believe that this is what fans of baseball have been crying for over the last several years. Biggio cannot be allowed to flaunt his support of children stricken with cancer.
Bravo, I say. Bravo, Major League Baseball! Who cares about steroids or competitive imbalance? The real villain in baseball has finally been brought to justice.
Yet again, comments have prompted a new post. Heather tried to get me to write about women in sports when I originally wrote the Sabathia post but I resisted because I don't see that as being the same issue. It gets its own mention here.
Sabathia was saying that African Americans are choosing not to play baseball for various reasons and that baseball would eventually suffer because of the shrinking talent pool. For the most part, this is not the problem faced by female athletes. Their issue is a glass ceiling.
There are few opportunities for excellence in women's athletics. Golf, tennis and the WNBA are the only major sporting venues available, and each of these are female-only competitions. Generally speaking, I don't have a problem with a woman attempting to compete on the men's tour. I had no problem with Annika Sörenstam playing Colonial in 2003 and would have no issue if she tried again. She may not have made the cut, but she didn't come in last, either—she finished as good as or better than fifteen men. Should those fifteen be banned from future PGA events? Annika has proven herself on the LPGA tour and deserved the chance. But Vijay Singh shot his mouth off and others with their 'maybe I should play a LPGA event' comments acted the fool, too. Quick reminder, Vijay et al, it's not the MPGA—the lady can play.
But past record and accomplishments is why I do have a minor issue with Michelle Wie playing men's events. I think she would be better served (and would have more credibility) if she proved herself a winner on the LPGA before attempting men's events.
Danica Patrick is another female athlete who has broken into an individual sport. While it is not hard to find references to the fact that she has never won an IRL race, it is not as often mentioned that she finished twelfth in the points standings her rookie year and improved on that her second year, finishing ninth. Not too shabby.
In team sports, however, is where the real problems arise because of a lack of legitimate leagues for women. If a female athlete wants to play, she has to break down that barrier. It's one thing for Sörenstam, Wie or Patrick to compete against men; it is quite another for a female to compete as a teammate.
There are levels of resistance to female athletes competing with men. The first is a gentle nudge. If a female, particularly a young girl, shows an interest in playing a 'boys' sport, they are encouraged to play softball instead, or join the cheerleading squad, or some other 'safe' viable alternative. The next step is resistance. Girls are told that locker room facilities aren't available, or that a proper uniform can't be ordered. Or even worse, they are put through a sham 'tryout' process to weed them out. The next step is outright denial: 'No you can't play. Go away.'
But if the athlete perseveres through all of that and actually make the team, there is one final step: harassment. They can be bullied by their coaches, their teammates, their opponents and their fans. Case in point: Katie Hnida, the Colorado kicker. Charges have never been filed, but allegations of sexual abuse and rape remain. Her former coach Gary Barnett made statements on the record that cannot be denied.
See, it doesn't begin at the pro level. Just as Sabathia implied with African Americans in baseball, it starts with the kids. A kid from the projects who never plays ball won't play ball in MLB. And a girl in the suburbs who is never allowed to play with the boys at the local park, on the playground or on a middle school team is effectively denied the chance to play as a professional.
Please don't misunderstand: I don't think women should be given a free pass to play football or any other sport in a traditionally mens league. But I do think these leagues should represent the best athletes in the game, regardless of gender, and that women deserve a fair opportunity to compete. If she can play, she's only going to make your team better. But this is a deeply rooted barrier in our society that is going to take time to overcome. It's going to take more than Wie making the cut and Patrick winning an IRL title. It's going to take more than Manon Rhéaume playing a couple preseason NHL games. It's going to take more than Billy Jean King beating Bobby Riggs in the 'Battle of the Sexes'. Throughout our history, various women have proved themselves capable of competing on the brightest stages. Hopefully one day, it won't be such a novelty act.
I wanted to start a new list (along the lines of "Thing I Love") called Funny Things My Wife Has Said About Sports. My wife is the greatest in the world, but she didn't doesn't really care about sports. In fact, at times, she'll say some things that are really funny.
In response to the Belmont (her alma mater) losing to Georgetown in NCAA tournament, she said, "Why do have to pick the one that's going to win? Why can't we pick the one that we like?"
There's more where this came from.
So, I didn't have a chance to write about this yet, but Mike Modano scored his 500th goal on Tuesday March 13th, becoming only the second US born player to reach that milestone. It also brings him within 3 goals (well, 2 goals now, but I'll get there) of the all-time US born player record (Some may be thinking that Brett Hull had more than 502 goals - and they'd be right, but he was actually born in Canada. He has dual-citizenship). I've watched Modano play for a long time and I always enjoy seeing what he will do with the puck. His goal to get 500 was typical Modano of being in the right place at the right time.
Watching Modano shift from a pure-scorer to a complete two-way player was what changed my mind about him from when he first arrived in Dallas. He was often the best player on the team before, but that usually only showed up in the score sheet. After his transition, there were nights that he was the best player even when held scoreless. Although that didn't happen often. Modano has fallen off of his career point-per-game average, but only slightly and unless he decides to retire before next season, he'll soon own the all time US born player record for goals (could come in the next few games) and points. (He's only seventeen away now).
Through a very lucky set of circumstances, I was able to go to the game against the Flames last night. Not only did they win, but Modano scores his 501st goal and grabs an assist too. He's not as speedy as he once was, but he's still incredibly quick and fun to watch. So, congrats to Modano and I'm sure I'll be writing another post in a few games to crown another of his accomplishments.
espn.com posted an article headlined 'Sabathia pitches for more African Americans in game' that has drawn a very strong response judging by the comments posted about it. Basically, Sabathia said that the number of African Americans is baseball is declining and that this is bad.
Unfortunately, about 90% of those commenting missed Sabathia’s point. The vast majority were quick to accuse Sabathia of reverse racism (whatever that means—something is either racist or it isn’t). Let’s detail Sabathia’s statements and the typical overractions to it.
The biggest issue centers around where the blame lies. Most were quick to accuse Sabathia of blaming baseball, which he does not. Quite the opposite, actually; he says that African Americans themselves have chosen to play other sports, notably football and basketball. He feels that MLB needs to find a way to build interest in baseball to attract some of these athletes that are slipping away to other sports.
A few recognized this—they ripped Sabathia for putting the responsibility of bridging the gap on MLB and said he should shut up and do something himself. If you read the article, Sabathia says that the programs MLB currently has in place are good but are still coming up short and that he sponsors a program that supports 175 kids in his community.
Some people argued that if African Americans choose to play basketball or football rather than baseball then so be it. That baseball is not obligated to let in some inferior players who happen to be black in order to boost the percentages. Again, Sabathia never proposed such a thing. What he suggested is that in the near future, the quality of the game will suffer because African Americans who had the potential to be star ballplayers would have never realized their talent—in other words, the talent pool is shrinking, and that's why MLB should be concerned.
And I can't tell you how many people regurgitated the 'there are no whites in the NBA' argument. While this may be true (although the numbers are not as bad as they would have you believe), it is not because of a lack of opportunity or exposure. Just a lack of talent.
And it didn't get any better when I moved onto other pages. While researching some of the figures and percentages quoted, I found out there is someone out there who plays 'Spot the Black' when they watch commercials on TV. Someone else plays a game he calls 'Bullshit' when he watches TV with his wife: they try to be the first to say 'bullshit' when they see three or more people of different races hanging out together in a commercial. Oh, but don't worry—they said they don't play it in front of the kids. (Somehow, I think they are still going to pick up on that attitude.) Their point is that people from different races don’t go to the movies, eat at restaurants or go bowling together. I'll be sure to mention that at dinner tonight, where, depending on who shows up, up to four races from six or seven countries will be represented.
When you read through the comments, a pattern emerges—there is a correlation between racist comments and spelling and grammar mistakes and cursing. It is a nearly flawless connection. This would seem to indicate, to no surprise, that the problem is a lack of education. People who are educated tend to be more tolerant of those who are different; those who are uneducated feel threatened. Some people were even threatened by the way Sabathia wears his hat. This reveals an irrational insecurity and deeply rooted fear of anyone or anything different. With education comes the knowledge that our differences should be embraced and celebrated, not covered up and forgotten. With education comes the knowledge that quality is improved when more people are in the talent pool. And with education comes the knowledge that sometimes we need to step out of our comfort zone and lend others a hand. If the youth today, no matter their race, don't want to play baseball that is their choice. But they at least should have the opportunity to play before they make that decision.
The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery in 1865 and the Civil Rights Act passed in 1964, but sadly we still have a long way to go.
I had no intention of watching the Mavs/ Suns game last night for two reasons. First, I had just gotten back from a one day trip to Washington, D.C. for business and I was exhausted. Second, I didn't think my wife would let me after being away the night before. But because it was a late game and Jeanette went to bed, I got sucked in and watch the overtimes.
Before I rant and rave, let me say this. I know it's just the regular season and if they had won this game and lost in the playoffs, it would be a failed season. Only the playoffs matter. Blah Blah Blah.
I AM PISSED!!!!!! The Mavericks were outscored by 15 in the fourth!!!! At home!!!! Against that piss ant Steve Nash. Dirk choked down the stretch, missed a wide open pull up jumper, two free throws that would have iced the game, and two game winning shots, both barely drawing iron. They refused to play defense in the overtimes and spent more time crying about fouls. You could say the technical on Dirk cost them the game.
This game looked way too much like last years finals against the Heat. Missing free throws, crying about officiating, missing the big rebound, settling for jump shots, choking down the stretch of games. Hopefully, this is just a little blip on a dominating year when the Mavs dominated from start to finish and Mark Cuban ends up crying like a baby when he takes the Larry O'Brien trophy from a grimacing David Stern, but they can't play like that and expect it to happen.
By the way, I hate Steve Nash. My hatred of Steve Nash is reaching Derek Jeter like proportions. How was he so spare here (especially during the playoffs) and so great over there. How has he not been thrown into the third row on some of those out of control drives to the basket? He is probably going to win another MVP and, compared to Dirk last night, he deserves, I guess, because that lose lays at the feet of Dirk. No other way to put it.
