the 08 midsummer classic was a thoroughly entertaining game, regardless of the problems it faced (ie running out of players). so now we're ready for the second half or the remaining 70 games or so. four games are already in the books and the mets have gone from 7.5 games back to tied for the nl east lead in a matter of a couple of weeks. i'll list my predictions for the rest of the season below:
American League:
East: Tampa Bay Rays - they have the starting pitching, the bullpen and defense to compete. even though they had a rough stretch right before the all-star break, they have more than enough prospects to make a move before the trade deadline for another bat to help their inconsistent offense. plus, they have the best minor league pitcher waiting to be this year's version of joba chamberlain (in david price). (runner-up, the red sox who with the injury concerns of ortiz and the likely regression of matsuzaka will fall a game or two short)
Central: Chicago White Sox - they have a 6.5 game lead over the only other team i can see winning the division (tigers). their offense is good and they have decent starting pitching. it really comes down to the fact that i don't have any faith in the twins and the tigers are too far back and need some serious pitching help. (runner-up, the tigers who will beat out the twins, but still trail the sox by about 5 games)
West: Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim - their good record does not reflect their poor run differential, but they have the talent to overcome that in the second half. they also have some prospects in case they want to add a bat. the A's are selling off their parts and have played above their heads in the first half anyway. and the rangers are the rangers, with or without josh hamilton, at least for 2008. (runner-up, the athletics who have probably the deepest farm system in the majors after their trades of harden and blanton)
Wild-Card: Boston Red Sox - the team is too good and too deep to lose a 5 and 6 game lead over their two biggest threats, the A's and Yanks, respectively. the plethora of young pitchers will help their bullpen and starting pitching depth and the return of ortiz next week should be a big lift to the team, as long as he comes back healthy. now if only jason varitek didn't suck so much. (runner-up, the Yankees, who will miss the playoffs for the first time in god-knows-how-long; maybe the number of pastel Yankee caps will start their decline this year)
Playoffs: Red Sox over the Angels; Rays over the White Sox
AL Champ: Red Sox - their the best run organization in american team sports.
National League:
East: New York Mets - they have some holes, esp in corner outfield, but they have arguably the best starting pitching in baseball. they also have the win-now attitude to make a trade toward the deadline for a lethal leftfield bat (barry bonds anyone?). also, the marlins are not for real, the braves are in limbo and the phillies, regardless of joe blanton, have terrible starting pitching and no chips to trade for any sort of difference-maker. (runner-up, the phillies who have the offense to still win a bunch of games; the mets won't let their five game lead in september disappear this year)
Central: Chicago Cubs - they have the most complete team in the national league and with or without a healthy rich harden, they have a 5 game lead over the brewers. cc sabathia makes the brewers legit contenders, but enough to overcome a 5 game head-start? i wouldn't bet on it. (runner-up, the brewers, who now have the offense and starting pitching to win the world series)
West: Los Angeles Dodgers - the Dbacks were once considered the darlings of baseball, the young up and coming team, the next dynasty perhaps. it's somewhat apparent, however, that star prospects who don't show up in their first couple of years usually don't EVER live up to expectations (see Stephen Drew, Conor Jackson, Chris Young AND delmon young, alex gordon, et al). anyway, the dodgers have the talent, the balanced offense, starting pitching to win a terrible division (runner-up, the dbacks by default)
Wild-Card: Milwaukee Brewers - Ben Sheets and CC Sabathia and a stacked line-up. (runner-up, the phillies, whose fans should stop talking trash and think about how long it's been since they've even sniffed a championship)
Playoffs: Mets over Brewers; Cubs over Dodgers
NL Champ: the Mets (it's called loyalty in the Manuel-era)
WORLD SERIES: it's all about new york beating up on boston this year - METS OVER SOX IN 6
AL mvp: Ian Kinsler. I love Josh Hamiton also, but 150 runs? 100 rbis? 330/400/550 with 25 home runs and 45 stolen bases? WOW
AL cy young: Roy Halladay. He's the most consistent and least-pubbed pitchers in baseball... and maybe the best to boot.
NL mvp: does 305/395/540, with 30 hr/130 rbis/25 steals win the mvp this year? i think so, especially when that player is on a winning team: David Wright wins the mvp award he so deserved last year
NL cy young: Brandon Webb. he's got 13 wins. 22-6? with santana and peavy having sub-par seasons and injuries to other up and coming stars and the eventual decline of edinson volquez. it's his to lose.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Thursday, July 10, 2008
to sign or not to sign... BARRY BONDS
his name has been thrown around for the past week or so... as it was earlier this year. the dbacks were rumored to be interested just by saying that they were not not interested. i've heard the yankees and mets both rumored as well, at least by analysts, if not by team officials. i think this question is one of the more intriguing stories of the year thus far.
who is barry bonds? well, ped (performance enhancing drugs) use aside, he's arguably the greatest baseball player of all-time. he holds records in career homeruns, single season home runs, season on-base percentage, season slugging percentage, is about a career 300 hitter, has close to double digit gold gloves and hundreds of stolen bases, although the gold gloves and stolen bases are a thing of the past.
barry bonds is also a bad teammate, a clubhouse "cancer" and distraction, a widely accepted former steroid and growth hormone user, 43 years old, and incapable of playing defense with his bad knees. he was all of this last year as well, when he had an on-base percentage close to 500 and a slugging percentage close to 600. to put this in perspective, great players like a-rod, pujols, vlad, ortiz, etc. would be mvp candidates in any year where they had an obp of 400 and a slugging of 600.
so what's stopping teams from signing mr. bonds? that should be obvious enough to sports' fans, but are the arguments against bonds really strong enough to stop a gm from taking a chance? personally, i think not. and furthermore, i would love to see bonds play for a contending team... especially my own.
it's really a three-part question: first, is barry bonds able to continue his offensive prowess at the age of 43? second, even if barry bonds continues to be a stellar offensive player, do his defensive liabilities hurt your team more than his offensive power? and third, even if barry bonds is a productive baseball player, are his distractions in the clubhouse with the media worth the risk?
first, i see no reason why his offensive numbers would decline. he's gotten lots of rest and although maybe he's not in game-shape, he's shown to be a player that ages well (even post-steroid use). i would expect an obp of over 400 and a slugging percentage of over 500 at the very least.
second, it's obvious that he's best suited to be a dh for some american league team. playing leftfield lowers his value to a ballclub, not solely cuz of his defensive limitations but also because he probably wouldn't be able to play everyday or at least every inning.
third, this depends on the make-up of your team and also whether you believe that these distractions are really all that important to whether a team wins or loses.
if i were a contending team in the american league with a dh opportunity (rays, a's, possibly the tigers, yanks and sox) i'd jump all over this opportunity. the al is so stacked this year (and most years recently) that any advantage would be huge. you don't have to give up anything to get bonds (except money) and you can slot him in the dh spot without worrying too much about fatigue and dropped fly balls. you can talk as much as you want about distractions, but teams have always signed trouble-makers like sheffield and bradley or drug-users like mota and sosa and none of these players ever had the ability that bonds has.
if i were a team in the national league, i'd be a little more wary. however, i would still probably take a chance. teams are quick to take little risk, but in a sport where only four teams make the playoffs and it's essentially a crap-shoot when you get there, i'd push in my chips for a player like bonds, who could make all the difference. let's see if the mets would be a good fit.
the mets have two corner outfielders, in alou and church, who are both very productive players and who both may not play again this year. so should they sign bonds? well, everyone knows that in new york, this would be a gigantic story. and especially after the debacle that's been their first half, with the firing of willie and the constant criticism of this team, maybe the team would be better suited to avoid such a media blitz. i disagree.
the mets bench includes players like easley, tatis, chavez, anderson and some random guys we brought up from the minors... none of them will ever approach numbers like bonds'. if church and/or alou are out for the rest of the season then our options are either to play chavez/anderson/easley everyday or trade for someone like nady or dunn. well, still none of those players can match bonds' output.
the mets are a good fit for bonds because they don't have to play him all the time. chavez is a great defensive player who can come in for bonds late in games as a defensive sub. if alou and church or either or come back then you can always platoon bonds a little bit to keep him fresh. if the mets ever make it to the world series, bonds can be your dh option.
then what really matters is the issue of distractions. i'm of the opinion that distractions are overrated. the yankees won when they had lots of distractions in the 70s. bonds, himself, was on maybe good teams and made it to the world series with the giants. i'm not going to say that distractions have no influence b/c i'm sure they do, but who's to say what sort of influence they have... maybe certain distractions can be a good thing, like taking the spotlight off other problems and putting them on one player (like in this circumstance).
this is just my opinion of course and it's hard to say either way what would happen. but as it stands today, the mets are just a very good team in a not so good league where it seems that the two best teams, by far, are the cubs and brewers. the mets are no better (or worse) than the phillies, braves, cards, dodgers or any other contending team... esp without church and alou everyday. if the mets want to take the safer route and hope that church/alou come back, i can't fault them for that, but i'm a risk-taker and i think that with bonds, the mets are in a much better position to put themselves into the class of the cubs and brewers in terms of talent. the mets needs to move past last year's disappointment and signing the best player of the last 25 years would be one way of doing just that.
who is barry bonds? well, ped (performance enhancing drugs) use aside, he's arguably the greatest baseball player of all-time. he holds records in career homeruns, single season home runs, season on-base percentage, season slugging percentage, is about a career 300 hitter, has close to double digit gold gloves and hundreds of stolen bases, although the gold gloves and stolen bases are a thing of the past.
barry bonds is also a bad teammate, a clubhouse "cancer" and distraction, a widely accepted former steroid and growth hormone user, 43 years old, and incapable of playing defense with his bad knees. he was all of this last year as well, when he had an on-base percentage close to 500 and a slugging percentage close to 600. to put this in perspective, great players like a-rod, pujols, vlad, ortiz, etc. would be mvp candidates in any year where they had an obp of 400 and a slugging of 600.
so what's stopping teams from signing mr. bonds? that should be obvious enough to sports' fans, but are the arguments against bonds really strong enough to stop a gm from taking a chance? personally, i think not. and furthermore, i would love to see bonds play for a contending team... especially my own.
it's really a three-part question: first, is barry bonds able to continue his offensive prowess at the age of 43? second, even if barry bonds continues to be a stellar offensive player, do his defensive liabilities hurt your team more than his offensive power? and third, even if barry bonds is a productive baseball player, are his distractions in the clubhouse with the media worth the risk?
first, i see no reason why his offensive numbers would decline. he's gotten lots of rest and although maybe he's not in game-shape, he's shown to be a player that ages well (even post-steroid use). i would expect an obp of over 400 and a slugging percentage of over 500 at the very least.
second, it's obvious that he's best suited to be a dh for some american league team. playing leftfield lowers his value to a ballclub, not solely cuz of his defensive limitations but also because he probably wouldn't be able to play everyday or at least every inning.
third, this depends on the make-up of your team and also whether you believe that these distractions are really all that important to whether a team wins or loses.
if i were a contending team in the american league with a dh opportunity (rays, a's, possibly the tigers, yanks and sox) i'd jump all over this opportunity. the al is so stacked this year (and most years recently) that any advantage would be huge. you don't have to give up anything to get bonds (except money) and you can slot him in the dh spot without worrying too much about fatigue and dropped fly balls. you can talk as much as you want about distractions, but teams have always signed trouble-makers like sheffield and bradley or drug-users like mota and sosa and none of these players ever had the ability that bonds has.
if i were a team in the national league, i'd be a little more wary. however, i would still probably take a chance. teams are quick to take little risk, but in a sport where only four teams make the playoffs and it's essentially a crap-shoot when you get there, i'd push in my chips for a player like bonds, who could make all the difference. let's see if the mets would be a good fit.
the mets have two corner outfielders, in alou and church, who are both very productive players and who both may not play again this year. so should they sign bonds? well, everyone knows that in new york, this would be a gigantic story. and especially after the debacle that's been their first half, with the firing of willie and the constant criticism of this team, maybe the team would be better suited to avoid such a media blitz. i disagree.
the mets bench includes players like easley, tatis, chavez, anderson and some random guys we brought up from the minors... none of them will ever approach numbers like bonds'. if church and/or alou are out for the rest of the season then our options are either to play chavez/anderson/easley everyday or trade for someone like nady or dunn. well, still none of those players can match bonds' output.
the mets are a good fit for bonds because they don't have to play him all the time. chavez is a great defensive player who can come in for bonds late in games as a defensive sub. if alou and church or either or come back then you can always platoon bonds a little bit to keep him fresh. if the mets ever make it to the world series, bonds can be your dh option.
then what really matters is the issue of distractions. i'm of the opinion that distractions are overrated. the yankees won when they had lots of distractions in the 70s. bonds, himself, was on maybe good teams and made it to the world series with the giants. i'm not going to say that distractions have no influence b/c i'm sure they do, but who's to say what sort of influence they have... maybe certain distractions can be a good thing, like taking the spotlight off other problems and putting them on one player (like in this circumstance).
this is just my opinion of course and it's hard to say either way what would happen. but as it stands today, the mets are just a very good team in a not so good league where it seems that the two best teams, by far, are the cubs and brewers. the mets are no better (or worse) than the phillies, braves, cards, dodgers or any other contending team... esp without church and alou everyday. if the mets want to take the safer route and hope that church/alou come back, i can't fault them for that, but i'm a risk-taker and i think that with bonds, the mets are in a much better position to put themselves into the class of the cubs and brewers in terms of talent. the mets needs to move past last year's disappointment and signing the best player of the last 25 years would be one way of doing just that.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
joe morgan versus howard cosell
on mike and mike this morning i heard an audio clip from curt schilling where he said that he doesn't care about getting into the hall of fame because he doesn't care what people who never played the game think about his career.
who gets into the hall of fame is determined by the baseball writers of america. i would say it's safe to assume that most, if not all of these writers have never played baseball, at least on the major league level. that being said, i wonder about schilling's comments. i feel as though this is a common sentiment in general about writers, although i doubt if players don't care about getting into the hall of fame or receiving any other accolades that writers can bestow upon them.
his comments bring up two sentiments i've heard over the years. the first one that comes to mind is joe morgan's comments about sabermetric geeks or statisticians and how easily he dismisses their kind, once alleging that billy beane himself ghostwrote moneyball. the basic point was that these people have never played the game and thus do not understand what truly makes a great ballplayer. this job should be left to scouts and those who have an intrinsic knowledge of the nuances of the sport.
well, although i don't completely disagree with this concept, i do think that it is overblown. are there things that statisticians can't or at least don't understand? i'm sure. but, as a counter-point i'm sure that there are things that they are not blinded by as well. for example, scouts or people who once played the game can easily be shaped by their own experiences which leads them to see other players with a bias towards their own positive and/or negative attributes. statisticians, on the other hand, use mostly neutral numbers to come to their conclusions, although these numbers may tell an incomplete story.
howard cosell, on the other hand, used to talk about the skills necessary to be a sports reporter, announcer, etc. he would say that being a former athlete does not necessarily give you the gift to be able to dissect the game or speak intelligently about it. his points are of a little different substance than schilling's or morgan's, but there is some comparisons that can be made. i think he was obviously speaking to some extent about journalistic skill and oratory skill. but, at the same time, he was making a point that being able to comment on something is vastly different than being able to do something.
disliking critics is commonplace. for the most part, they are there to tear down. and although i agree that those who do not enter the arena shouldn't blast those that do, it doesn't mean that they are wrong with their opinions when they do, especially when those opinions are based on something concrete (like baseball stats). you don't have to be picasso to appreciate his art nor do you have to be scorsese to say that ed wood films are terrible (yet hilarious at the same time).
schilling is saying that he doesn't care what the baseball writers say about him and that's cool. i don't think he should care. but underlying those comments is a concept that i firmly stand against. moreover, i wonder whether schilling would care more about the writers if his entrance into the hall were more guaranteed than it is (i would say he's borderline, closer to in than out). it's easy to dismiss other's opinions when your fearful that they are negative... and easy to accept them when they are receptive.
who gets into the hall of fame is determined by the baseball writers of america. i would say it's safe to assume that most, if not all of these writers have never played baseball, at least on the major league level. that being said, i wonder about schilling's comments. i feel as though this is a common sentiment in general about writers, although i doubt if players don't care about getting into the hall of fame or receiving any other accolades that writers can bestow upon them.
his comments bring up two sentiments i've heard over the years. the first one that comes to mind is joe morgan's comments about sabermetric geeks or statisticians and how easily he dismisses their kind, once alleging that billy beane himself ghostwrote moneyball. the basic point was that these people have never played the game and thus do not understand what truly makes a great ballplayer. this job should be left to scouts and those who have an intrinsic knowledge of the nuances of the sport.
well, although i don't completely disagree with this concept, i do think that it is overblown. are there things that statisticians can't or at least don't understand? i'm sure. but, as a counter-point i'm sure that there are things that they are not blinded by as well. for example, scouts or people who once played the game can easily be shaped by their own experiences which leads them to see other players with a bias towards their own positive and/or negative attributes. statisticians, on the other hand, use mostly neutral numbers to come to their conclusions, although these numbers may tell an incomplete story.
howard cosell, on the other hand, used to talk about the skills necessary to be a sports reporter, announcer, etc. he would say that being a former athlete does not necessarily give you the gift to be able to dissect the game or speak intelligently about it. his points are of a little different substance than schilling's or morgan's, but there is some comparisons that can be made. i think he was obviously speaking to some extent about journalistic skill and oratory skill. but, at the same time, he was making a point that being able to comment on something is vastly different than being able to do something.
disliking critics is commonplace. for the most part, they are there to tear down. and although i agree that those who do not enter the arena shouldn't blast those that do, it doesn't mean that they are wrong with their opinions when they do, especially when those opinions are based on something concrete (like baseball stats). you don't have to be picasso to appreciate his art nor do you have to be scorsese to say that ed wood films are terrible (yet hilarious at the same time).
schilling is saying that he doesn't care what the baseball writers say about him and that's cool. i don't think he should care. but underlying those comments is a concept that i firmly stand against. moreover, i wonder whether schilling would care more about the writers if his entrance into the hall were more guaranteed than it is (i would say he's borderline, closer to in than out). it's easy to dismiss other's opinions when your fearful that they are negative... and easy to accept them when they are receptive.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
the new mets
so we're a couple of days removed from the media-fueled debacle that was the firing of willie randolph. since then we've heard the nonsensical ramblings of omar, seen a temper tantrum from reyes, witnessed the managerial quote of the year, "i'm a gangster" from new mets' manager jerry manuel and saw an improbable comeback win against k-rod, which may have been the best win so far this season.
first, let me say that the circumstances involving randolph's firing have been way overblown. new york reporters were just pissed that they didn't receive the news until 3:15 am et. what they fail to realize is that the world doesn't work around new york time. when willie was fired, he was fired in california which i believe works on pacific time. it was 12:15 when the email was sent out saying willie was fired, which means that he was probably fired before that. the game ended around 10:30 so it's safe to assume that willie was fired as soon as he returned to the hotel.
the whole episode was not handled as well as it could have been, that's without argument here. however, to make this out to be some indictment on the entire mets organization is just foolish. omar should have fired him way back when, but he was going to get fired sometime and somewhere. WILLIE RANDOLPH GOT FIRED AFTER A GAME IN CALIFORNIA. that's it. he didn't hear it from the media first. he didn't get fired right before the game. he didn't get fired on father's day or in uniform. everyone needs to relax and that includes almost every major baseball writer in america.
onto something actually important. i like jerry manuel he has this levity about him that i believe is going to be important in this clubhouse especially after all the drama that has ensued. do i think that his presence was a factor in last nite's comeback win? perhaps, but i doubt it. or rather, it has the same influence as the temperature of last nite's game, which is to say that i'm sure it has some influence but to what degree, either positive or negative is indeterminable.
there are two things i will proclaim right here and now. first, i think that the new coaches will have a positive influence on the team, if not solely for the fact that they're not the old coaches. the constant cloud hanging over willie will be gone. hopefully it will be a less stressful environment.
second, and more importantly, the mets will be in serious contention for both the wild card and division come late september. to say that they will win either would be a stretch as you never can foresee injuries or bad luck. but i can say that i have little or no faith in most of the teams above the mets in the standings.
the phillies have terrible starting pitching, save hammels. the braves are done, let's face it. the marlins? please.
the cubs are without soriano and possibly zambrano although i still believe they are the best team in the nl at the end of the season. the cardinals have outdone themselves, but i don't see that lasting. the brewers are talented but no more so than the mets and have just as many question marks.
the dbacks have been slipping and maybe last year's performance (getting outscored) is an indication of things to come. and the dodgers, who i picked to win the division, are playing terribly.
so who am i supposed to be afraid of? the cubs yes, but i assume they'll win their division. so in our division, we got the phils who are definitely playing above their talent level and will come back down to earth at least enough to give us a shot. for the wild card, we got the cards, brew crew, braves, marlins, dodgers and possibly the dbacks if they can't hold onto their huge lead. i couldn't be less afraid of any of those teams.
the problem is two-fold. one, i've named a lot of teams that we have to leap over or at least hold at bay. that's not an easy task. second, we actually have to win some games... no one is going to fold b/c they're afraid of us. but i believe we're going to do just that. by the all-star break we'll be no more than 4 games back of the phillies, if that. and by the last week of september, we'll be at least within a game or two of both the divison and wild card. you heard it here first.
first, let me say that the circumstances involving randolph's firing have been way overblown. new york reporters were just pissed that they didn't receive the news until 3:15 am et. what they fail to realize is that the world doesn't work around new york time. when willie was fired, he was fired in california which i believe works on pacific time. it was 12:15 when the email was sent out saying willie was fired, which means that he was probably fired before that. the game ended around 10:30 so it's safe to assume that willie was fired as soon as he returned to the hotel.
the whole episode was not handled as well as it could have been, that's without argument here. however, to make this out to be some indictment on the entire mets organization is just foolish. omar should have fired him way back when, but he was going to get fired sometime and somewhere. WILLIE RANDOLPH GOT FIRED AFTER A GAME IN CALIFORNIA. that's it. he didn't hear it from the media first. he didn't get fired right before the game. he didn't get fired on father's day or in uniform. everyone needs to relax and that includes almost every major baseball writer in america.
onto something actually important. i like jerry manuel he has this levity about him that i believe is going to be important in this clubhouse especially after all the drama that has ensued. do i think that his presence was a factor in last nite's comeback win? perhaps, but i doubt it. or rather, it has the same influence as the temperature of last nite's game, which is to say that i'm sure it has some influence but to what degree, either positive or negative is indeterminable.
there are two things i will proclaim right here and now. first, i think that the new coaches will have a positive influence on the team, if not solely for the fact that they're not the old coaches. the constant cloud hanging over willie will be gone. hopefully it will be a less stressful environment.
second, and more importantly, the mets will be in serious contention for both the wild card and division come late september. to say that they will win either would be a stretch as you never can foresee injuries or bad luck. but i can say that i have little or no faith in most of the teams above the mets in the standings.
the phillies have terrible starting pitching, save hammels. the braves are done, let's face it. the marlins? please.
the cubs are without soriano and possibly zambrano although i still believe they are the best team in the nl at the end of the season. the cardinals have outdone themselves, but i don't see that lasting. the brewers are talented but no more so than the mets and have just as many question marks.
the dbacks have been slipping and maybe last year's performance (getting outscored) is an indication of things to come. and the dodgers, who i picked to win the division, are playing terribly.
so who am i supposed to be afraid of? the cubs yes, but i assume they'll win their division. so in our division, we got the phils who are definitely playing above their talent level and will come back down to earth at least enough to give us a shot. for the wild card, we got the cards, brew crew, braves, marlins, dodgers and possibly the dbacks if they can't hold onto their huge lead. i couldn't be less afraid of any of those teams.
the problem is two-fold. one, i've named a lot of teams that we have to leap over or at least hold at bay. that's not an easy task. second, we actually have to win some games... no one is going to fold b/c they're afraid of us. but i believe we're going to do just that. by the all-star break we'll be no more than 4 games back of the phillies, if that. and by the last week of september, we'll be at least within a game or two of both the divison and wild card. you heard it here first.
Monday, June 16, 2008
what makes tiger clutch?
have you seen that tiger commercial? the one where his father is explaining how he made tiger tough. how he used to make noises during his backswing to disrupt his concentration. how tiger used to step back, recompose himself and proceed to hit a monster shot, as to rub it in his dad's face. the one where his father says to him, 'no one is going to be tougher than you.'
that toughness was on display during the 108th us open at torrey pines in s. california over the weekend. mere minutes ago, tiger parred the first hole of a sudden death playoff (the 7th hole) to win his 14th major championship at age 32. i repeat... his fourteenth. jack nicklaus won 18, his 18th coming at age 46. tiger is at 14 in his prime.
tiger is in class of his own, in any sport, in any era. his achievements are singular. but what makes him so great? people throw out words like clutch, but i'm not sure what that means. i do know this... tiger is 14-0 now when at least sharing a lead after 54 holes in a major. he has, however, never won a major when trailing after 54 holes.
you know that feeling when you're at the foul line with 1 second left on the clock down by 1 with one shot left. having a 8 foot putt on the 18th that breaks 2 inches left to force a playoff and being able to sink that putt like you would at any other time. some people, when the pressure is on, only make it 50% of the time and some people make it 99%. that's clutch.
i define clutch as the ability to NOT fold under pressure. the ability to be who you are when all eyes are on you.
tiger is clutch. he had so many putts and shots these past two days that could have ended his dominance at majors with a lead. but he always made the ones he needed to make. the 8 foot putts he always makes on a normal day? he made them on sunday and today when millions of eyes were on him. that's clutch... that's the toughness that makes him tiger. without it, he'd merely be the best golfer in the world, not the greatest golfer ever.
every professional athlete has talent. the superstars are fortunate enough to have immense talent. but what defines a truly great player is not always talent above and beyond... it is that ability to come through when it counts, not because of luck or chance, but because your ability dictates that you succeed and your mind follows suit. for anyone who was lucky enough to watch tiger play this weekend, it was surely a treat... one of the greatest performances we've ever seen by one of the greatest athletes this world has ever known.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
griffey or bonds?
let me start out by saying that i'm a griffey jr. fan. not a huge fan, but a fan nonetheless. he's been one of the best players of my generation and has still, to me, the prettiest swing i have ever seen in any sport.
let me follow up by saying that i am not a barry bonds fan. he, as well, has been one of the best players of my generation and is probably the most feared hitter at the plate i have ever seen (steroid use aside).
it should be pretty obvious by now that i'm going to choose bonds. granted it is fairly reasonable to assume that he has done steroids and/or hgh. and although you can never be sure with griffey, i have a feeling that he has not used those substances (at least to the same degree as bonds) or maybe we would have seen him less frequently on the dl.
regardless of bonds' alleged use of peds (which supposedly started around 1999), i still would argue that he's better than griffey. if you include the steroid years and ignore the effect of peds, then it's not even close.
griffey is a great player. great. but not as great as ruth, mantle, williams or mays. his career numbers are around .285, .375 and .550 (ba, obp, slugg) without considering park effect or anything else. those are fine numbers especially when considering he's one of the top few defensive outfielders ever. but so was bonds and that's where he gets the edge.
if bonds were a bad outfielder or even an average one, i could see the argument. even though centerfield is a more important defensive position, bonds was the best in lf, possibly ever. bonds' career numbers are .298, .444, .607 playing primarily in a pitcher's park. add in the large discrepancy in steals between the two and i don't know if there's an argument.
people will obviously argue about his use of peds, but listen to this. prior to 1999, barry bonds had 9 consecutive years with an obp over 400. prior to 1999, bonds had five years with a slugging percentage over 600.
in griffey's entire career, he's only had two seasons with an obp over 400 and five seasons with a slugg percentage over 600.
take, on top of all of this, that bill james rated barry bonds as the best player in baseball every single year from 1990 to i believe 2004 with the exception of 1999. bill james took into consideration defense, offense and baserunning. you would think that if griffey was even close, he would have snuck in their one of those years.
things may, and i repeat may, have been different without bonds' ped use or griffey's injuries, but i doubt it. by the time griffey had reached cincy, he was already past his prime (age 25-30) and bonds had already established himself as the preeminent player in baseball.
why won't you just go away
i hate curt schilling. no, i mean i despise curt schilling. he was at the lakers-celtics game on sunday nite and surprise surprise had some things to say about kobe bryant. basically he said that all kobe does is yell at his teammates in a non-constructive way, etc. etc. etc. this all may be true, but shut the fuck up. this guy might be the worst teammate in the known universe (curt, not kobe). all anyone talks about is how much his teammates have hated him from philly to phoenix to boston. and he has the balls to talk shit about kobe? give me a fucking break. i hope curt schilling falls into a black hole.
A GIANT AMONG MEN
michael strahan retired yesterday. 15 years in the nfl. one team. superbowl champion. that's how he wanted to go out and i guess i can't blame him.
a lot of people, including myself, didn't think he would retire. he went through a messy divorce last year and was forced to give up a huge chunk of his fortune. everyone just assumed he would string us along until after training camp just like he did last year. i wouldn't have had a problem with that.
but he didn't. instead, he's decided to hand in his helmet, hang up his shoulder pads, for what most likely will be a television job. i still haven't quite come to grips with it. i'm hoping that he'll change his mind in a month or two, but i don't think that'll happen.
strahan was a giant. drafted in the second round fifteen years ago, he played his entire career for new york, which is a feat unto itself. he finished with 141 1/2 sacks (5th all time). he holds the single season sack record with 22 1/2. he was relentless in the pass rush, but equally dominating when stopping the run game. he controlled the line of scrimmage like few players i can remember. and he's been the face of this team for as long as i can remember. he's seen great giant players come and go on this team and all the while, he's been the best of the best.
i'm not sure what the public's perception of him is outside of new york. he obviously had the chunky soup commercials, but also had the public feud with tiki and his coach. in my opinion, though, he was just a great football player. often times he would speak his mind after a game and you'd shake your head. maybe you didn't agree with his "ballin'" fadeaway after every sack even if it was hilarious. but still, he always did it with a quiet dignity and a little bit of child-like silliness. my lasting memory of him will be his gapped-tooth smile and the display of his massive biceps after making a great play in the opposing team's backfield.... oh and let's not forget the superbowl win over the pats.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
the end of matt hughes?
ufc 85 saw the rise of thiago alves and possibly the end of matt hughes. i didn't watch this fight and i couldn't be more upset about it. alves ended the match with 1:02 left in the second round after landing a knee to the face of mr. hughes.
matt hughes, a former welterweight champion and bitter rival to georges st. pierre and matt serra, has effectively ended his reign as one of the most feared fighters in his weight class. he states that he has at least one more great fight in him (with the aforementioned serra).
alves, on the other hand, seems to have many more great fights in him. possibly, and hopefully, with the champion st. pierre. a brasilian muay thai fighter, his dangerous knees were surely the reason for hughes' downfall. as you can tell from his picture above, he sure looks the part of a champion and is further evidence that the welterweight division in the ufc may be the best in the world.
lessons learned
saturday came and went and we still haven't had a triple crown winner since 1978. what's the lesson to be learned from this? i'd have to say that the lesson is don't by into the hype. big brown had two great races in the derby and preakness and was coming into this race 5-0, never being defeated. the 6 horse that won lost to big brown by 23 lengths in their first ever meeting months ago. well, things have certainly changed.
you could say that it was the heat. you could say that it was the mile and a half length of belmont. you could say that it was the cracked hoof or the lack of preparation due to the cracked hoof. maybe the pressure got to the horse. who knows.
i'm happy that kent desormeaux, the jockey, pulled up towards the end of the race so not to risk any further injury to big brown (leg injuries are quite serious to horses and usually lead to euthanasia). but looking back on the race, i'm embarrassed i didn't see it earlier.
big brown entered the race at 1-4 odds. that's quite high. but is that an accurate reflection of his chances? no. like vegas odds, it merely reflects perception and tries to create equality on both sides of the betting world. the line was at 1-4 because the line makers knew that people would still bet huge on big brown. so the line, is in some sense, a fabrication.
also, take into consideration that big brown's numbers (times) weren't historically that impressive and that he was suffering from an injury that limited his preparation and you get a horse that I probably shouldn't have taken at 1-4. obviously this is all easy to say in hindsight.
you could say that it was the heat. you could say that it was the mile and a half length of belmont. you could say that it was the cracked hoof or the lack of preparation due to the cracked hoof. maybe the pressure got to the horse. who knows.
i'm happy that kent desormeaux, the jockey, pulled up towards the end of the race so not to risk any further injury to big brown (leg injuries are quite serious to horses and usually lead to euthanasia). but looking back on the race, i'm embarrassed i didn't see it earlier.
big brown entered the race at 1-4 odds. that's quite high. but is that an accurate reflection of his chances? no. like vegas odds, it merely reflects perception and tries to create equality on both sides of the betting world. the line was at 1-4 because the line makers knew that people would still bet huge on big brown. so the line, is in some sense, a fabrication.
also, take into consideration that big brown's numbers (times) weren't historically that impressive and that he was suffering from an injury that limited his preparation and you get a horse that I probably shouldn't have taken at 1-4. obviously this is all easy to say in hindsight.
Friday, June 6, 2008
youkilis being manny?
apparently the red sox love to fight. they fight the opposing team and they fight each other. last night, reports are that manny ramirez and kevin youkilis got into it and had to be pulled apart. supposedly manny took a swing at youk. understandably this happens in sports... there's a lot of testosterone involved and emotions/competitiveness are high.
what makes this story interesting to me, however, is why the fight supposedly started. apparently, the red sox had a team meeting some time ago where the players complained that youk's behavior was selfish and didn't reflect team unity. youk? really? youk is known for throwing his bat, helmet and whatever else he can get his hands on after he has a bad at-bat. well, this doesn't sit well with his teammates. especially not with manny it seems, who approached him after youk displayed such behavior in last night's game.
the question, and i hope it's obvious, is in what universe does manny ramirez think he has the right to opine on someone else's baseball habits? i have no hatred for manny, i actually find him quite amusing. but we're talking about one of the more flashy, arrogant ballplayers in the game. talk about selfishness! this is a guy who catches a ball and then jumps on a wall to slap some guy's hand (i loved it too!). this is a guy who takes bathroom breaks in the middle of a game... IN THE LEFT FIELD WALL!!!!!
don't get me wrong... i love manny. and many people will probably defend him by saying that it's manny being manny and that he's not selfish or arrogant, he's just clueless. i disagree. his actions (and i'm not saying i don't support it) are very selfish. it draws attention to yourself and draws attention away from your team. isn't that exactly what he's complaining about with youkilis? granted that youk's actions are quite different than manny's, but don't they come from the same basic place inside (your brain that is)? i would say yes.
i don't think this is that big of a deal of course. i just found the story amusing is all. i don't normally make big deals out of such things, but i do ask for some consistency... and this screams inconsistent.
what can big brown do for you?
the kentucky derby has got mint juleps and big hats; the preakness stakes has beer and big boobs; And the belmont stakes has.... well, this year, it's finally got another triple crown candidate.
the kentucky derby is always a big event, the first race of the triple crown series. the preakness almost always features the kentucky derby winner so inherently the excitement is there for a triple crown winner. but the belmont stakes? well, it's fun when a horse like big brown is vying for a place in history, but it's like a big 'who cares?' when the triple crown threat is absent.
big brown (pictured above at the derby; #20) is trying to become the 12th horse to claim horse racing's most prestigious title. however, since 1978's 'affirmed', he'll be the 10th horse to try and accomplish this feat. the last 9 have all failed (last one was smarty jones in 04).
what makes big brown different? well, most people say that his competition is fairly weak. and the one horse they brought in (from japan) is now injured and may not even race. that would have been an interesting matchup as casino drive (ridden by edgar prado) has been bred to run a mile and half (the length of the belmont stakes, significantly longer than the derby and slightly longer than the preakness).
now with the second favorite (morning line of 7-2) possibly out of the picture or at least somewhat subdued, who will be there to stop big brown? the answer to that question may be the track itself, famous for its length and difficulty. the winning horse will have to pace itself and position itself much more so than in the other two races. usually in horse races, you can spot the winner going into the final turn. the horse that was in the middle of the pack right before the final turn and has made his final strong move to the outside and to the lead pack is usually the one that pulls it through. that's what big brown did at the derby, with a very difficult #20 pole position (far outside).
in this race, he'll be positioned at #1, which is historically a good position for the stakes (which has far fewer horses than the derby; 10 v. 20 this year). however, he will have to either hold back for the first half and give himself a chance to make his move outside or will have to get off to a strong start. if not, he runs the risk of being caught against the rail on any of the turns, which could slow his momentum and spell disaster for his chances.
at 2-5, big brown is surely the favorite to win this race. the third favorite is at a distant 12-1 and then it is all longshots. if i were a betting man (which i am), i'd take a long hard look at the 8,9 and 10 horses, all of whom have the luxuries of either experience, great trainers or great jockeys. in a race like this, that may make all the difference.
i personally will be attendance and hope for nothing less than history. my pick: superfecta of 1, 10, 5, 9 (assuming casino races).
Crisp v. Shields I
"I charged the mound. I feigned it like I was going to go to first base, just to get Navarro off me a little bit, and just charged the mound. He tried to hit me with a haymaker. He missed. I threw a punch. I pretty much missed. And the rest, went down to the ground� like the scratches on my face were people trying to scratch like we were playing football or something, like little girls, trying to scratch out my eyes. I move one hand down, scratch me right here [points to scratch to the right of his nose].
After that, people were trying to pull my hair like little girls. Instead of throwing some real punches or something like that. I'm down on the ground, I mean the fight's pretty much over baseball-term wise. You wanna come in late, and throw some extra blows and get your little blows in, that's cool. I'll cover up. It's all good, trying to pull some hair. It's all right. It was between me and Shields that time and everybody tried to get their little blows in I think even more he was unsure if he really wanted to hit me or not it seemed like, but cause he didn't really hit me hard.
Big dude, what's his name Jonny Gomes, he tried to come in, a hefty dude, tried to throw some blows but I think Navarro, I credit him. And actually I credit Shields, too cause, even though we went at it, he hit me in the leg. He didn't try to hit me in the head so that's good. He didn't like try to kill me. Then I ran out there, then he tried to hit me in the head, so that's the way to go [laughing]. It is what it is now. I say tit for tat, I think I got the worst of it because I'm running out there and they can get to me before our guys can get to me to help."
These were the words of Coco Crisp after the brawl at Fenway last night. It was actually an amazing fight. Shields throws a haymaker that missed and Crisp tried to counter but missed as well. I must say that Shields did not attempt to run away or even duck... he went right after Crisp and I like that. Then Navarro (rays' catcher) tackles Crisp and Gomes tries to jump on him and throws repeated right hands at his head. It was all entertaining. I highly recommend at least three viewings today.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
get ready to temper your expectations
tim beckham (picture left) is set to be drafted by the rays at #1. so where does that leave buster posey? is he going to drop to #3? #5? out of the top ten? i know these are the questions that have been keeping you up at night right? probably not i guess.
today at 2pm, baseball's rule 4 draft (this is the first year player draft, rule 5 draft is in december) begins. it's essentially the same as the nba draft in june and the nfl draft in april except who even knows who tim beckham or buster posey are? i couldn't pick them out of a lineup of one.
we get excited for the nfl draft cuz most people follow college sports, the bcs bs and for the fact that mel kiper is on espn almost every two minutes. we also know all the best college basketball players; we watched derrick rose light it up in the championship game, watched beasley dominate all year and even watched the mid-level prospects like hansborough scrap it out for high-profile programs.
but college baseball is a second-rate spectator sport. the college world series is fun to watch but when do we ever get a chance to see long beach state play cal state-fullerton during the season? but even beyond that, the mlb draft is so heavily laden with high school players who we never get a chance to watch play (we even saw lebron james' high school team play on espn).
maybe the biggest detriment to being able to follow the draft is that pro baseball is so different than amateur ball. the game doesn't translate as well as in the other sports. drafts, even to a greater degree than in other sports, is built on promise and potential. how will a batter progress when facing high level breaking balls using a wood bat for the first time? will a pitcher be able to get by, like he did in high school, using his mid-90s fastball? doubtful. it's almost impossible to use a college (or hs) players numbers and then translate them into professional success. and the ability of scouts to determine potential is such a crapshoot that sometimes we find the mike piazzas drafted past the 50th round (realize that tom brady was drafted in the 6th round).
finally, let's not forget to mention the importance of a team's developmental program. every team has organizational philosophies on how to approach a player's development. do we emphasize the slider rather than other breaking pitches? do we allow slow development and success early on or do we push a player in order to make him struggle? these are just a few of the variables that go into the draft.
the mlb draft is a great time to get excited for your team, but it's also dangerous. the mets could draft player X and i'd have no idea whether or not he was better than player A that fell ten spots lower. i've never watched any of them play and thus have no ability to form any opinion on my own.
this is the first year that the mlb draft will be televised (on espn 2) and to prepare i've been reading scouting reports for the past three months on the top 50 or so prospects. but truth be told, when the mets make their picks, i'll be enthusiastic and optimistic, but i'll remember one thing: more than half of these players will never even make it to the show.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
primetime kimbo, a review
mr. slice, as i'd prefer to address him, was introduced to a whole new audience on saturday night, when he defeated james "colossus" thompson on cbs in the first ever broadcast of mixed-martial arts on major network television. although the fight failed to live up to most people's expectations, this event was nothing short of historic. let's rewind.more than a decade ago the first ultimate fighting championship premiered. the gracie family, in order to display the dominance of their family's brazilian jiu-jitsu, helped organize a martial arts contest between many different styles. and as planned, the young royce gracie took home the championship. the event became a cult hit and mixed martial arts was born (at least in its modern format).
eventually, in response to protests about its violence, the ufc and other mma leagues developed rules, such as weight classes and no elbows to the back of the head. and with these new rules, mma started going mainstream. the ultimate fighter reality show became one of spike tv's biggest hits and today you can watch several mma leagues (ufc, pride, ifl, and elite xc-kimbo slice's league) all across the cable universe (hdnet, showtime, fsn, cw11).
the last few years have proved especially fruitful as mma has surpassed boxing in the minds and hearts of most viewers, save some old timers. as pay-per view requests for boxing have steadily decreased, those for mma have been increasing. even floyd mayweather has toyed with the idea of jumping into the octagon (before he chose to go into the wrestling ring instead). this past saturday night was a culmination of the growing fascination with this sport. it was an inevitability.
detractors will say that the sport is too violent, too dangerous, too bloody, too uncivilized. but where are those detractors when people get paralyzed on the football field or when hockey players lose teeth in nhl-sanctioned fights or when dale earnhart dies at the daytona 500. as the evidence shows, mma has proven to be a safer sport than boxing, football and hockey. because most fights end up on the ground requiring some sort of grappling or wrestling skills, there is less of a chance for head injury through blunt trauma force.
but i'm being too analytical. most people don't want boxing to watch the footwork or counter punch jab. they watch to see mike tyson knock someone out cold. the same goes for mma. by now, everyone's heard of kimbo slice (on the cover of espn the mag) and his street brawling rep. he's the perfect face for mma.
the question was, however, 'Is Kimbo For Real?'
in kimbo's two previous fights, he essentially ended the fight before they even got started. his jiu-jitsu was never tested and neither were his grappling skills. perhaps even more importantly, we didn't even know if he could go for the full 15 minutes.
well, saturday night's fight provided many answers to those questions. kimbo showed that he has no stamina and no ground game, but that when it comes to pure punching ability and strength, he's right up there with anyone in the sport. if it wasn't for thompson's ear practically falling off in the third round due to a slice right hook, kimbo probably would have lost the fight (he was losing on two of the three scorecards and tied on the other one when the ref called the fight due to excessive damage to thompson's ear).
thompson, an average fighter at best, went at kimbo all night long and was completely dominating using the ground and pound attack (you basically sit on someone, immobilize them and proceed to throw elbows, fists and forearms at the now unprotected face). kimbo looked clueless when not engaged in a striking match (although to be fair, thompson was no match for him when standing up).
all-in-all the fight was pretty entertaining. although neither fighter was that impressive, the fight was evenly matched and there was plenty of blood. however, for the purists, this fight was nothing but fluff and hype. it's apparent that kimbo slice, for all his gold teeth and youtube videos (and trust me, i love mr. slice) is not even one of the top 100 fighters in the world. when georges st. pierres moves up to fight "the spider" anderson silva, that'll be a fight to remember.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
what's wrong with johan santana?
recently buster olney (espn contributor and yankees fan) blogged that last year was possibly the beginning of the decline of johan santana. and it may possibly be. this year, in ten starts, he's 5-3 with a 3.36 era, 1.18 whip, 2.48 baa, 7.8 k/9, 11 hr, and a k/bb ratio of 4:1. let's rewind a bit. here are his numbers in april and may since 2004 which is when he became a full time starter.
2007: 11 starts, 6-4, 3.21 era, 1.08 whip, .223 baa, 10.7 k/9, 12 hr, 4.5:1 k/bb ratio
2006: 11 starts, 4-4, 3.48 era, 1.13 whip, .245 baa, 9.6 k/9, 9 hr, 5:1 k/bb ratio (CY YOUNG)
2005: 11 starts, 6-2, 3.72 era, 0.97 whip, .223 baa, 10.9 k/9, 8 hr, 9:1 k/bb ratio
2004: 11 starts, 2-3, 5.70 ear, 1.49 whip, .294 baa, 8.0 k/9, 11 hr, 3:1 k/bb ratio (CY YOUNG)
AVG: 4.5-3.25, 4.03 era, 1.17 whip, .246 baa, 9.8 k/9, 10 hr, 5:1 k/bb ratio
2008: 10 starts, 5-3, 3.36 era, 1.18 whip, .248 baa, 7.8 k/9, 11 hr, 4:1 k/bb ratio
i know he plays in the nl now, but i would argue that the nl is just as good as the al these days (see cubs, dbacks, chase utley, albert pujols, peavy and webb). johan has always been a notoriously slow starter. his underlying numbers this year are slightly worse than his career averages in the months of may/april but not by that much even when factoring in the nl. as much as hitters have to adjust to him, he has to adjust to the hitters. and in arguably his worst two april/mays (04 and 06) he won the cy young awards. so let's just jump to any early season conclusions and let's see how it plays out. he deserves at least one full season in new york before we can say that he's more carlos zambrano than sandy koufax.
2007: 11 starts, 6-4, 3.21 era, 1.08 whip, .223 baa, 10.7 k/9, 12 hr, 4.5:1 k/bb ratio
2006: 11 starts, 4-4, 3.48 era, 1.13 whip, .245 baa, 9.6 k/9, 9 hr, 5:1 k/bb ratio (CY YOUNG)
2005: 11 starts, 6-2, 3.72 era, 0.97 whip, .223 baa, 10.9 k/9, 8 hr, 9:1 k/bb ratio
2004: 11 starts, 2-3, 5.70 ear, 1.49 whip, .294 baa, 8.0 k/9, 11 hr, 3:1 k/bb ratio (CY YOUNG)
AVG: 4.5-3.25, 4.03 era, 1.17 whip, .246 baa, 9.8 k/9, 10 hr, 5:1 k/bb ratio
2008: 10 starts, 5-3, 3.36 era, 1.18 whip, .248 baa, 7.8 k/9, 11 hr, 4:1 k/bb ratio
i know he plays in the nl now, but i would argue that the nl is just as good as the al these days (see cubs, dbacks, chase utley, albert pujols, peavy and webb). johan has always been a notoriously slow starter. his underlying numbers this year are slightly worse than his career averages in the months of may/april but not by that much even when factoring in the nl. as much as hitters have to adjust to him, he has to adjust to the hitters. and in arguably his worst two april/mays (04 and 06) he won the cy young awards. so let's just jump to any early season conclusions and let's see how it plays out. he deserves at least one full season in new york before we can say that he's more carlos zambrano than sandy koufax.
Friday, May 23, 2008
my weekend and yours
lots of college sports on this weekend... ncaa championships across the board. nba conference finals... baseball season is underway... sydney crosby finals, i mean nhl of course. the indy 500 features 11 rookies out of the 31 drivers (due to the merger between whatever the two open wheel organizations were called).
i will be foregoing it all for 27 holes of golf (18 on saturday, 9 on sunday) and some sun, beach and bbq... the traditional memorial day weekend activities. for anyone who lives in the metropolitan ny area, the red course at bethpage state park golf course is a helluva challenge and hella fun (cali slang). the black course was famously the site of the us open several years back (tiger was the only player under par for the weekend... two guesses who won). there are five courses at bethpage, with red being the second most difficult. you might think that i'm good at golf, but if i break 105 i'll consider it one of my finest achievements on the golf course... but as my friend always likes to point out, a bad day of golf is always better than a good day at work... i'm not sure what he says when it's a saturday... i'll get back to you on that.
here's my take on the mets
fire willie... tell omar to stop trading away talent for non-talent (see jeff keppinger, heath bell, brian bannister) or else you'll never see the inside of the jackie robinson rotunda... stop following mlb slotting guidelines and draft top talent... don't give four year contracts to 30-plus yr old second basemen with bad knees... sell the team to owners who aren't morons... cut damion easley cuz he stinks (no offense but he does)... tell rick peterson to stop talking biomechanics and start talking pitching... tell jose reyes that you don't always have to swing at the first pitch... tell carlos delgado that with two strikes, they are going to pitch you a high and tight fastball so you may as well lay off of it for once... AND BRING BACK BOBBY VALENTINE
his name is pronounced DAN TONY....
will people stop referring to knicks coach mike d'antoni as mike DAN ITONIO... first it was knicks gm donnie walsh so maybe he's to blame. but its gotta stop because it's not a difficult name to pronounce. take away the apostrophe and it reads, DANTONI. then split up the DAN and the TONI and you get two of the easiest words to pronounce. now just put it together. it's actually quite simple.
Save Now
Save Now
america's game
http://sports.espn.go.com/extra/lacrosse/index
Quint Kessenich, a lynbrook high school alum (my alma mater), an espn college sports analyst and one of the greatest lacrosse players of all time (along with nfl hall of famer and fellow long islander Jim Brown), gives you an introduction to the sport of lacrosse on the page referenced above. i highly recommend you to the check it out. knowing the rules, positions and strategies involved in a sport is the first step to becoming a fan.
lacrosse is considered the oldest american sport, first played by native american indians hundreds of years ago, partly to settle disputes through sport instead of war. today, lacrosse finds its hotbeds in states like new york and maryland, although it's popularity is steadily growing. and although the perception is that it's played by mostly white, upper class kids, the diversity of its athletes is definitely growing along with its popularity.
tomorrow, on saturday the 24th, espn 2 will be airing the national semifinals for the ncaa division 1 championship. two perennial powerhouses in #2 virginia and #3 syracuse will face each other at 12 noon and then at 2pm, #1 duke plays #5 johns hopkins (rematch of last year's finals, hopkins won 12-11). if you like big hits, shots that reach 100 mph and really one of the best, untainted collegiate sports in america then it's a can't miss event.
one final thing: as many of you remember, duke was wrapped up in a scandal like none other a few years ago that cost them their season when they were ranked #1. at the time, three players were accused of raping a stripper, a black female from a nearby college. these three players, all white and from affluent families (one kid was from long island, one went to delbarton high in jersey) were accused of some awful things and issues of racism and eliticism were brought up. i am sad to admit that even in a society like ours, which is supposed to stand for innocent until proven guilty, it is rarely the case when it comes to public perception. and i, for one, am definitely guilty of that. i definitely believed that something terribly wrong occurred in that duke lacrosse house, and although we'll never know the truth, we can be sure that these three kids, along with the entire duke lacrosse team, were never treated fairly by the media and by me.
all that being said, i'm glad that the duke lacrosse program is sitting atop the rankings once again and playing for a chance at the national championship. it's definitely a little bit of redemption for that program (even though the three kids no longer are on the team and the coach got fired) and it makes for a great story, albeit a relatively untalked about one
mike d'antoni already making an impact
According to a person with knowledge of the situation, the Warriors' Baron Davis has made inquiries into the interest of certain teams around the league, including the Knicks. Davis, 29, has an opt-out clause for this summer that could make him a free agent, but the Warriors don't believe he would walk away from the final year and $17.8 million, which is money the dynamic but oft-injured guard likely wouldn't make on the open market. So Davis' only other play is to see if another team would pursue a sign-and-trade for him. According to the source, his representation, after a preliminary discussion with the Warriors, has put out feelers to gauge the interest of teams in need of an upgrade at point guard. -- Newsday
the question is whether baron davis would have made such an inquiry last year or three years ago? probably not. this is not to say that mike d'antoni is the reason he is inquiring into the knicks situation. i'm sure his dissatisfaction with don nelson plays a part as does the lure of playing in new york in general, but the fact remains that players seem to love playing for mike d'antoni or at least his perceived up and down system.
this is the major reason why i believe this hiring was a great move by walsh. i'm not sure if d'antoni is ever going to bring a championship ring to new york, but i know that players are going to be more comfortable coming to play for this franchise, especially after the fiasco that was isiah thomas.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
new jersey tries to ruin giants' glory
"Whether you or a football fan or not, I'm sure you found yourself caught up in the hype this past winter with the success of the New Jersey Giants," said Sen. Paul Sarlo, D-Bergen. "I emphasize the New Jersey Giants."
i'll first concede by saying that i'm partly embarrassed with the fact that the new york giants play in the swampy wastelands we refer to as new jersey. but the fact remains that many teams don't play in the city they represent. the bills play in orchard park, the angels play in anaheim, the pistons play in auburn hills.
if the giants played on long island or in westchester, they would still be called the new york giants. regardless of what city or state they play in, the giants represent new york city. no one can deny that north jersey is merely a suburb of this great city. the name new york means the city, not the state of new york. if you could find a reasonable place for the giants to play in the city limits, they would i'm sure, but that's unreasonable. so instead they play ten miles west of city limits.
i won't continue to rant... bottom line, it's the new york giants. they will never be the new jersey giants, but god bless these silly senators for trying. why don't they hold some congressional hearings!
i'll first concede by saying that i'm partly embarrassed with the fact that the new york giants play in the swampy wastelands we refer to as new jersey. but the fact remains that many teams don't play in the city they represent. the bills play in orchard park, the angels play in anaheim, the pistons play in auburn hills.
if the giants played on long island or in westchester, they would still be called the new york giants. regardless of what city or state they play in, the giants represent new york city. no one can deny that north jersey is merely a suburb of this great city. the name new york means the city, not the state of new york. if you could find a reasonable place for the giants to play in the city limits, they would i'm sure, but that's unreasonable. so instead they play ten miles west of city limits.
i won't continue to rant... bottom line, it's the new york giants. they will never be the new jersey giants, but god bless these silly senators for trying. why don't they hold some congressional hearings!
"it's an a bomb from a-rod"... or maybe not
a-rod was the third person this week to be victimized by errant calls from the umpires regarding home runs. i was at the mets/yankees game this past sunday night when carlos delgado lost a 3-run hr to a blown call. it took my fifteen seconds to phone a friend and have him tell me that the replay showed it was a home run. it took the umps over five minutes to make the call, reverse the call, bring all the players back on the field, listen to willie randolph bitch and then proceed to throw out the mets bench coach.
the arguments have been made... human error is part of the game, it takes too long, it slows down the game, it's not perfect, etc. etc. they're all pretty dumb if you ask me.
human error is only part of the game because we had no choice. we rely on humans to ref a game or ump a game because back in 1932 we had no other option. today, we do. let's name the sports that have implemented some form of instant replay: football (both nfl and college), nhl (on goals scored), nba (on quarter ending plays), tennis (on line calls). i'm sure there are more. what's common among all these sports is that instant replay has actually benefited the game. and with the exception of the nfl, instant replay doesn't make the game unbearably longer.
it's insane to me that people don't want to make progress. we have the technology to get calls right and to make the game more fair. the rules state that a ball that clears the outfield fence should be called a homerun. the umpires are the ones who should enforce the rules not decide them. it won't take any longer and the ONLY thing it will do is make sure we get fair outcomes. who really doesn't want that?
the arguments have been made... human error is part of the game, it takes too long, it slows down the game, it's not perfect, etc. etc. they're all pretty dumb if you ask me.
human error is only part of the game because we had no choice. we rely on humans to ref a game or ump a game because back in 1932 we had no other option. today, we do. let's name the sports that have implemented some form of instant replay: football (both nfl and college), nhl (on goals scored), nba (on quarter ending plays), tennis (on line calls). i'm sure there are more. what's common among all these sports is that instant replay has actually benefited the game. and with the exception of the nfl, instant replay doesn't make the game unbearably longer.
it's insane to me that people don't want to make progress. we have the technology to get calls right and to make the game more fair. the rules state that a ball that clears the outfield fence should be called a homerun. the umpires are the ones who should enforce the rules not decide them. it won't take any longer and the ONLY thing it will do is make sure we get fair outcomes. who really doesn't want that?
jeter robbin the proverbial craddle?
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1310368/
the new york post reports that jeter has been seen hanging out with this hottie, who plays a senior in high school, on the show 'Friday Night Lights'. i'm going to assume she's of age and if so, i feel perfectly fine saying that she is absolutely gorgeous.
friday night lights is a great show (bill simmons calls it the best show of all time) and ms. minka kelly adds a great deal of aesthetic prowess to the show. she's hot. apparently, jeter is still the man and if i were a jealous man, i'd be extremely jealous. all i can say is congrats and i hope you fuck it up so the rest of us can dream of having a chance.
breaking news: home run derby to decide the world series
just as ridiculous as this headline would be is the headline that reads:
i'm not the world's biggest soccer fan, but i know it's ridiculous to have the European Champions League title decided by penalty shoots. It's true that they could have legitimately played another 90 minutes without scoring another goal, but it seems like a cop-out to decide such an important game this way. the nhl started having shootouts to decide regular season games but they don't do that come playoff time because it's not a true measure of talent. it's gimmicky; nothing less.
i didn't watch the game yesterday due to a prior engagement (namely work) so maybe i'm misguided. i'm sure it was exciting as hell. but i'm also sure that it would have been equally exciting, if not much more, if the teams were to battle it out playing the actual game, not just one facet of the game.
i know that both teams were in the same position so i don't think that the outcome was bullshit or anything... it's just that shootouts seem like a terribly poor way to decide championships. kind of like having each football team start at the opposing team's twenty yard line (here's to you ncaa).
Manchester United wins Champions League final on penalty shootout
penalty shootout? so like the stanley cup being decided on a shootout or the nba finals being decided on a 3pt shooting contest. "ray allens hits 18 of 20 from 3pt land to win celtics 17th championship!" i mean, c'mon.i'm not the world's biggest soccer fan, but i know it's ridiculous to have the European Champions League title decided by penalty shoots. It's true that they could have legitimately played another 90 minutes without scoring another goal, but it seems like a cop-out to decide such an important game this way. the nhl started having shootouts to decide regular season games but they don't do that come playoff time because it's not a true measure of talent. it's gimmicky; nothing less.
i didn't watch the game yesterday due to a prior engagement (namely work) so maybe i'm misguided. i'm sure it was exciting as hell. but i'm also sure that it would have been equally exciting, if not much more, if the teams were to battle it out playing the actual game, not just one facet of the game.
i know that both teams were in the same position so i don't think that the outcome was bullshit or anything... it's just that shootouts seem like a terribly poor way to decide championships. kind of like having each football team start at the opposing team's twenty yard line (here's to you ncaa).
willie's getting the silent treatment
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3407930
mets owners apparently aren't speaking to willie. i don't know where the brash talk from beltran and jeff wilpon went but it's not there anymore. it's easy to talk big when things look promising on paper or when you're on top... but silence when you're in a heap of trouble speaks much louder than words ever could.
let's just say that i see trouble on the horizon for mr. randolph and i, for one, am not averse to this sort of trouble.
mets owners apparently aren't speaking to willie. i don't know where the brash talk from beltran and jeff wilpon went but it's not there anymore. it's easy to talk big when things look promising on paper or when you're on top... but silence when you're in a heap of trouble speaks much louder than words ever could.
let's just say that i see trouble on the horizon for mr. randolph and i, for one, am not averse to this sort of trouble.
mlb slotting guidelines: should we be listening?
mlb slotting guidelines deal with the first-year player mlb draft (which starts in june). similar to football and basketball, the slotting guidelines recommend the bonuses that clubs should be offering to their players based on what draft pick they were (1st pick should get higher bonuses than 2nd, etc.). the guidelines are designed to stop higher revenue clubs from getting the best players in the draft even with worse draft picks. this occurs because high profile players (some represented by scott boras) want big bonuses and small market clubs realize this and are unwilling to spend high picks on these players due to the fear that they will be unable to sign them. think jd drew, who went back into the draft after the phillies drafted him (he was later drafted by the cardinals the following year).
we're going to start with the simple supposition that baseball teams are better served by putting a greater portion of their revenue into the draft, scouting and development rather than signing mediocre free agents. as it stands today, most teams do not follow this approach (see pittsburgh pirates, new york mets, kansas city royals). but teams like the tampa bay devil rays, the boston red sox and the new york yankees have started to see the light when it comes to this philosophy.
and so we have the slotting guidelines. the problem is that there are just that... guidelines, nothing more. mlb has no power to control how much money teams give to their players as bonuses. they can just try and convince the 30 teams that it's in their collective best interest to follow them. and that's true. if all 30 teams followed the guidelines then bonuses would be driven down and teams would obviously save some money. but for teams like the red sox and yankees, they have no incentive to follow suit. relatively speaking, it would hurt them while helping out the smaller market teams that never gave out the big bonuses in the first place.
so why do most teams continue to follow this practice? well, for most teams it is still their hope that teams will fall in line and will help drive down prices. and second, most of these teams have no choice as they are not financially in the position (or are not smart enough) to put a higher percentage of their revenue into the draft.
if teams started putting more money into the draft it would either 1) make the red sox and yankees (and tigers) spend even more in the draft to get the big time players thus pushing the bonuses up even higher (which would lead to the same situation as before) or 2) it would create equal bargaining power with draftees. it is still the fear that option 1 would occur and therefore teams are reluctant to bypass the guidelines especially if it is going to drive up the prices anyway with a higher bottom line.
then we have the mets, who don't have financial difficulty (forbes values them as the second most expensive ballclub) yet are not willing to go against the mlb slotting guidelines. we can see the ramifications of their choices in the last couple of years. they have drafted many college relief pitchers (players who don't normally get big bonuses and are quick to get to the majors) and now their farm system is almost completely devoid of any top level prospects (some of that is due to the santana trade). so why do the mets continue to do this? i wish i knew.... it is complete insanity. it is understandable that small or mid market teams believe they have no real choice, but almost all big market teams have forgone the guidelines in lieu of their traditional spending habits. the mets have not (and i'm sure one or two other big market teams as well). for now, the red sox, yankees and tigers are taking advantage of a big competitive edge that will most likely show up in the next two to five years in terms of their major league competitiveness.
so the answer to the question is no. the mlb has shown that they lack either the power or desire to enforce any restrictions on bonuses given to first year players. and in doing so, the power structure in the draft has moved back to what it once was, with the yanks and sox on top. some teams like the royals believe that they have no choice but to follow and some teams like the mets are just stupid to follow.
if baseball is serious in trying to create a balance of power in the draft, they have to concern themselves with the general state of baseball financial equality that will filter it's way down to draft bargaining power. without doing so, teams will always have the incentive to bypass the guidelines to gain a competitive edge. (it is true, however, that the luxury tax and some revenue sharing has led to much greater financial equality in baseball, but it's still far from that of the nfl)
to be honest, the teams could easily rectify this themselves. if they were smart enough they'd put more money into the draft and the royals would never spend 10 mill a year on gill meche. but we'll save that for another day.
we're going to start with the simple supposition that baseball teams are better served by putting a greater portion of their revenue into the draft, scouting and development rather than signing mediocre free agents. as it stands today, most teams do not follow this approach (see pittsburgh pirates, new york mets, kansas city royals). but teams like the tampa bay devil rays, the boston red sox and the new york yankees have started to see the light when it comes to this philosophy.
and so we have the slotting guidelines. the problem is that there are just that... guidelines, nothing more. mlb has no power to control how much money teams give to their players as bonuses. they can just try and convince the 30 teams that it's in their collective best interest to follow them. and that's true. if all 30 teams followed the guidelines then bonuses would be driven down and teams would obviously save some money. but for teams like the red sox and yankees, they have no incentive to follow suit. relatively speaking, it would hurt them while helping out the smaller market teams that never gave out the big bonuses in the first place.
so why do most teams continue to follow this practice? well, for most teams it is still their hope that teams will fall in line and will help drive down prices. and second, most of these teams have no choice as they are not financially in the position (or are not smart enough) to put a higher percentage of their revenue into the draft.
if teams started putting more money into the draft it would either 1) make the red sox and yankees (and tigers) spend even more in the draft to get the big time players thus pushing the bonuses up even higher (which would lead to the same situation as before) or 2) it would create equal bargaining power with draftees. it is still the fear that option 1 would occur and therefore teams are reluctant to bypass the guidelines especially if it is going to drive up the prices anyway with a higher bottom line.
then we have the mets, who don't have financial difficulty (forbes values them as the second most expensive ballclub) yet are not willing to go against the mlb slotting guidelines. we can see the ramifications of their choices in the last couple of years. they have drafted many college relief pitchers (players who don't normally get big bonuses and are quick to get to the majors) and now their farm system is almost completely devoid of any top level prospects (some of that is due to the santana trade). so why do the mets continue to do this? i wish i knew.... it is complete insanity. it is understandable that small or mid market teams believe they have no real choice, but almost all big market teams have forgone the guidelines in lieu of their traditional spending habits. the mets have not (and i'm sure one or two other big market teams as well). for now, the red sox, yankees and tigers are taking advantage of a big competitive edge that will most likely show up in the next two to five years in terms of their major league competitiveness.
so the answer to the question is no. the mlb has shown that they lack either the power or desire to enforce any restrictions on bonuses given to first year players. and in doing so, the power structure in the draft has moved back to what it once was, with the yanks and sox on top. some teams like the royals believe that they have no choice but to follow and some teams like the mets are just stupid to follow.
if baseball is serious in trying to create a balance of power in the draft, they have to concern themselves with the general state of baseball financial equality that will filter it's way down to draft bargaining power. without doing so, teams will always have the incentive to bypass the guidelines to gain a competitive edge. (it is true, however, that the luxury tax and some revenue sharing has led to much greater financial equality in baseball, but it's still far from that of the nfl)
to be honest, the teams could easily rectify this themselves. if they were smart enough they'd put more money into the draft and the royals would never spend 10 mill a year on gill meche. but we'll save that for another day.
for those who hate joe morgan as much as me
this blog is designed to be an intelligent exchange of ideas on a variety of sports topics. we'll discuss anything from the economics side of sports to the jessica simpson side of sports. but we'll always try to keep it fun, simple and most importantly, smart. obviously many people will have differing opinions and comments are always welcome. so let's start this process they call blogging and see if we can come up with something at least a bit unique.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
