February 07, 2007
Three Point Gay
In the latest example of news that's not really news, a former pro athlete -- in this case, former NBA journeyman John Amaechi -- has come out of the closet (in book form, no less) to reveal that he's gay. The idea that a professional athlete is gay and felt compelled to hide it is about as surprising as the idea that a Kennedy screws around. It's just not news anymore. We all know there are gay athletes. We all hear the stereotypes that the uber-macho world of athletics makes it even harder for a gay person to come out. This is just not noteworthy anymore.
I'm heartened somewhat by the reaction from much of the NBA -- from the crude type exemplified by Philadelphia center Steve Hunter ("As long as he don’t make any advances toward me I’m fine with it,” he said. “As long as he came to play basketball like a man and conducted himself like a good person, I’d be fine with it.”) to the classy type of reaction by Orlando's Grant Hill ("The fact that John has done this, maybe it will give others the comfort or confidence to come out as well, whether they are playing or retiring,” Hill said.) -- seems to be much along the line of "if you can play the game, then we don't care" and not "would he be looking at me in the locker room?".
But mostly I share the opinion of ESPN.com columnist LZ Granderson, who writes in frustration that coming out after one's playing career is easier on the player but merely perpetuates the problem of homophobia.
What I am suggesting is that by not living the truth you are supporting the lie. The lie that gay men are inherently weaker than straight men. We can go in circles about whether homosexuality is a sin, but that's not what this argument is about. It's about whether a gay athlete can perform on the field or on the court at the same level of excellence and intensity as a straight athlete. I've talked to a lot athletes over the years about having a gay teammate, and their top objection is they believe a gay dude won't be able to pull his own weight.
Granderson writes that real courage will be demonstrated only when a player who's still in the league comes out while his playing days are still, uh, in play. I think he's right. I wish Amaechi well, but it's hard to feel like his revelation is news or will change anything. Good luck, John, and God bless... but I wish you'd done this five years ago while you were still playing.
Posted by Christopher at 11:37 PM | Comments (0)January 21, 2007
Great Game
Congratulations, Peyton Manning. Look, you beat my Pats and so I'm not thrilled. But this was honestly was one of the best football games I have ever watched in my life. Classic football game, and nice to see class acts like Tony Dungy and Peyton Manning going to the Super Bowl.
Congratulations, gentlemen. You earned it.
Posted by Christopher at 10:17 PM | Comments (0)January 10, 2007
More Observations on the McGwire Hall of Fame Vote
1. Every single member of the BBWAA who voted against McGwire over perceived steroid use had better be ready to vote against Barry Bonds as well. Sosa too, and Palmeiro...but especially Bonds. Why do I say that? McGwire was always suspected, true... but there has never been confirmation of his alleged steroid use. No reporters were able to meticulously detail not only the specific steroids and drugs McGwire was taking, but the schedule on which he took them. McGwire was never called to a federal grand jury to testify about his steroid use. All we have on McGwire are strong suspicions and his shameful performance in front of the Congress in 2005.
By contrast, we have specifics on Bonds. Fainaru-Wade and Williams have meticulously crafted the complete picture of what Bonds took and when he took it. They've detailed his perjury to a federal grand jury. There are specifics to the Bond allegations that will likely stand up in court if the trial is ever held. And if you're playing the integrity card, Bonds has denied his usage to the cameras and media, as well as that grand jury... so he's no different than McGwire. Actually, he is; McGwire simply and famously refused to answer -- he didn't directly lie about it like Bonds has.
So, BBWAA voters... if you voted against McGwire because you think he juiced and you believe that having done so requires some sort of sanction or punishment... all based on vague if strong suspicions... then you had better vote against Barry Bonds ever making it to the Hall either -- because there's a lot more compelling evidence against Bonds than there is McGwire. Anyone who votes for Bonds after having voted against McGwire is a hypocrite and a phony.
2. Were you listening, Barry? The writers just sent a message. Your jacked up, pathetic, arogant, worthless ass isn't getting into Cooperstown unless you pay the admission fee for the tour, just like all the other non-enshrinees. So go on with your arrogant and self-serving belief that you're smarter than the system and have different rules from everybody else. Break the great Henry Aaron's record if you can without being all jacked up on the juice. You could hit 777 home runs... your pathetic ass isn't going to the Hall. You hear that, punk? You're out.
UPDATE: Well, well, well. Now it appears that Bonds failed an amphetamine test in 2006. And in the true form of his character (or lack thereof), when caught he tried to throw a teammate under the bus. Yeah, that's the kind of class act that you want on your team.
Posted by Christopher at 10:41 PM | Comments (0)December 28, 2006
Baseball Hall of Fame 2007: The Mudge Votes
With buzz on the sports Web sites turning to the upcoming Baseball Hall of Fame vote, I thought I'd share my choices this year.
First of all, here are the players who are on the ballot in 2007: Harold Baines, Albert Belle, Dante Bichette, Bert Blyleven, Bobby Bonilla, Scott Brosius, Jay Buhner, Ken Caminiti, Jose Canseco, Dave Concepcion, Eric Davis, Andre Dawson, Tony Fernandez, Steve Garvey, Rich Gossage, Tony Gwynn, Orel Hershiser, Tommy John, Wally Joyner, Don Mattingly, Mark McGwire, Jack Morris, Dale Murphy, Paul O'Neill, Dave Parker, Jim Rice, Cal Ripken, Jr., Bret Saberhagen, Lee Smith, Alan Trammell, Devon White, Bobby Witt.
I'll break these guys down into four categories: 1) Gets My Vote No Questions Asked; 2) No Chance In Hell; 3) Can Make a Case For and I'm On The Fence; 4) I See The Argument But He Doesn't Get My Vote.
Let's start with category #2 - the guys with no chance in hell of getting my vote. Immediately eliminated are Bichette, Bonilla (who could make the all asshat Hall of Fame!), Brosius, Buhner, Caminiti, Canseco (in my mind, every single accomplishment of his is tainted), Davis, Fernandez, Joyner, White, Witt. Okay... of the original 32 nominees, we've just eliminated 11 - about a third of the list who are on there as a courtesy and little more.
Next... category #4 - the guys who will get some votes, enough to keep them on the ballot for years... and while I see why they'll get support, I won't vote for them. In this category, I put:
-- Harold Baines (decent DH, decent career numbers... but never dominant)
-- Dave Concepcion (overshadowed by the superstars on the Big Red Machine, doesn't get enough credit... but not quite HoF)
-- Steve Garvey (there was a stretch of about four years where he was the best 1B in the NL... but tailed off fast)
-- Orel Hershiser (put the '88 Dodgers in the playoffs along with Kirk Gibson, but only had that one dominant year)
-- Don Mattingly (an injury-shortened career and a lack of power from a power position hurt him, despite all-time great defense)
-- Dale Murphy (two MVPs is impressive, but he played during a weak era for the NL and was only great for about 3 years)
-- Paul O'Neill (makes the all-Whiner HoF for all those moronic faces he used to make when a call didn't go his way... but even I'll concede he was clubhouse glue for the late 90s dynasty. Unfortunately, they don't put guys in the Hall for being clubhouse leaders.)
-- Dave Parker (was feared as anyone for a couple of years, and was an all-around player... but I think the whole coke trial thing just leaves a bad taste in my mouth over him)
-- Bret Saberhagen (all I can say is, the man did win two Cy Youngs... how many other two-time Cy winners are not in the Hall? and he was a WS MVP... but just doesn't have the career numbers to justify it)
-- Lee Smith (longevity man... for all those saves, he only led the league twice... and to my mind, was never feared like the great ones.)
So that elminates 10 more guys. Now we're down to just 11 candidates. Of those, for me there are four who absolutely get my vote, and seven who I see the case for and just am on the fence about, could be convinced either way. The four locks:
-- Rich Gossage The absolutely most dominant player at his position in his era; perhaps most feared reliever ever. That he's not in already is a total joke.
-- Tony Gwynn Best pure hitter since Ted Williams. Highest career BA of the past 40 years.
-- Jim Rice From 1977 through about 1984, he was the most feared and dominant power hitter in the AL; compared to his contemporaries, his numbers stand out -- and lack the taint of steroids.
-- Cal Ripken Jr. Sure, he was selfish and put the Streak above the needs of the Orioles (not to mention the whole separate hotels thing...) But selfish jerk or not, the man redefined the shortstop position forever, and the Streak was as impressive as it may have been selfish.
Which leaves seven guys who I could see myself voting for, and coul d just as easily see myself not voting for. Here's the debate to my mind, and my "verdict" for this year.
-- Albert Belle For a while there, Belle was as dominant a hitter as the AL had. Nine straight years of 100+ RBIs is amazing. He had ten seasons as a full time player, and hit 373 HRs in those ten years, with more than 35 in all but three of those. So his numbers say yes. But he was the biggest asshat in sports for that whole time -- a combined Barry Bonds/Terrell Owens of his day. And he was an unhinged psycho who only this past year got busted for using a GPS device to stalk his girlfriend. And I just have a bias against voting sociopaths into a place of honor. So I don't care what his numbers say, he doesn't get my vote. Verdict: Out
-- Bert Blyleven Never finished first or second for a Cy. Only made two all-star teams. So by my usual criteria -- how was the player in comparison to his peers, and was there a stretch of several years where he was among the 3 to 5 best in the game at his position? -- Blyleven fails the test. But 287 wins while playing for crappy teams is hard to sniff at. So are 3,701 strikeouts, the 5th most ever. As is his legendarily best curveball of his generation. But you know what cinches it for me? I quote you ESPN's Tim Kurkjian: Twenty-one pitchers in history have thrown 4,500 innings and had an ERA a half a run better than the league average. Seventeen of the 21 are in the Hall of Fame. Three others -- Roger Clemens, Greg Maddux and Glavine -- are going to the Hall. Then there's Blyleven. He should be in. Mudge sez: I agree. This year, at least. Verdict: In.
-- Andre Dawson He's got great numbers -- 438 HR, 2,774 hits, 314 SB, 8 Gold Gloves -- but the two things with Hawk are that a) he had lousy plate discipline and had a paltry .323 career OBP, which is measley; and he had only 1,591 RBI... while that is a lot, it's not a lot for a guy who played 21 years and had 2,774 hits. In those 21 years, he only had more than 100 RBI four times, and only finished in the top two for MVP twice. You know what that tells me? He was a rarely dominant compiler. Verdict: Out
-- Tommy John 288 wins. 3.34 career ERA with 162 games. Impressive. But that ERA is less impressive when you remember that he played during a pitcher's era. And while he was certainly very, very good... was he ever elite? Among the best handful in the game at his position? In 22 years, he made 4 all star teams; never finished in the top ten in strikeouts; only finished in the top 3 in wins three times; only finished in the top two for the Cy twice. Tommy John is a classic example, to me, of a very good player who was never quite elite, and thus doesn't get my vote. Verdict: Out
-- Mark McGwire There's a big part of me that wants to vote for McGwire. I really do. He most likely was 'roided up during the '98 home run chase and beyond... but that was baseball's Steroid Era and many players cheated -- including many of the pitchers McGwire was facing. And while those HR records should be wiped out IMHO if McGwire was 'roiding, and that 583 isn't as impressive when steroids are taken into account, the point still remains: in an era where a sizable percentage, if not a majority, of the league was on steroids, McGwire stood out from his peers. Everyone was taking them, but not everyone hit 583 home runs. Plus, the man did conduct himself with grace during the pressure of 1998. However, he conducted himself with shame during the 2003 Congressional hearings. And the bottom line is, if I vote for McGwire under the "everyone else was doing it, and he still stood out," theory... then to be consistent I have to also vote for Barry Bonds when his turn is up. And I will never, ever, EVER vote for that son of a bitch to get into anything but a federal prison for perjury. So for consistency's sake and to avoid a label of hypocrite in a few years when Bonds is on the ballot, I can't vote for McGwire. This year, anyway. Verdict: Out.
-- Jack Morris Detractors like to point out that Morris' 3.90 career ERA would be the highest in the Hall, and that Morris had "only" 254 wins in his career, far short of the once-magic number of 300. But guess what? The game changed during the 80s and 90s, and sub-4.00 ERAs usually get you on the all-star team now... and once Tom Glavine and Randy Johnson hit 300 wins (they're both about 20 short), we will never see another 300 win pitcher again, because the game's changed (pitchers were once expected to throw a complete game every time out, for example, as well). 250 wins in the post-1980 era seems pretty darn elite to me. True, Morris never won a Cy Young award, and only 5 times in his 18 seasons was he an all-star. But he won more games in the 1980s (162) than any other pitcher... and while some of that can be ascribed to the Tigers having a good team for most of that decade, you can also argue that they were that good in part due to Morris' presence. When judging HoF candidates, one of my first criteria is how the player stacked up against his contemporaries... and Morris won more in his decade than anyone else. He also has four World Series rings, at least one of which was earned with a performance for the ages. He's borderline, but I have to say I'm convinced this year. Verdict: In.
-- Alan Trammell You know, I have never voted for Trammell before. I looked at his career numbers and found them lacking. But I forgot my own rule about HoF votes: compare the player to his contemporaries. Compared to A-Rod, Jeter, Tejada, Nomar, Michael Young, and several others, Trammell is less impressive. But compared to Dick Schofield, Alfredo Griffin, Houston Jimenez, Scott Fletcher, Tony Phillips, Spike Owen, Jose Oquendo, Ivan DeJesus, Dale Berra, Garry Templeton, Craig Reynolds -- you know, his contemporaries at shortstop during the 80s -- Trammell stands out. Ozzie Smith, Cal Ripken, and Robin Yount were the only 80s shortstops who were definitively better than Tramell... and all three of them are in the Hall. So by the compare vs. peers standard, Trammell could be in. The thing is, though... he just was never elite. He was very, very good... but never elite. Like Tommy John, Alan Trammell is an example of a fine player who was very, very good for a long time... but never great. Not a Hall of Famer. Verdict: Out.
So to sum up, my Hall of Fame vote, if I had one, would this year go to: Blyleven, Gossage, Gwynn, Morris, Rice, Ripken. Let the counter-arguments begin.
Posted by Christopher at 02:03 PM | Comments (0)October 29, 2006
Wait Till Next Year
Baseball season officially ended Friday night, with the worst team in history ever to win a World Series -- the 83-win 2006 St. Louis Cardinals -- defeating the Detroit Tigers 4 games to 1. While I think the Cardinals were about the 8th best of the 8 teams to make the playoffs this year, they did catch fire at the right time, and they were the best team in October -- so congratulations to the Cardinals and their fans.
Now that the season is over, and there's only 108 days until pitchers and catchers report for 2007 spring training, it's time to cast my votes for the major 2006 awards -- MVP, Cy Young, Rookie of the Year, and Manager of the Year.
We'll start with the Most Valuable Player award.
In my mind, the MVP is not the "best" player in the league, but the most valuable -- in other words, if you took one man off of his team, which team would have done the most obviously worse without that guy? If a guy hits 45 HR and knocks in 130, but is in a lineup with two other guys with 35+ homers and 110+ RBI, then he had a great year, but wasn't the most valuable to his team. The award should go to the one guy who made the biggest impact. With that in mind...
AMERICAN LEAGUE: 1. Johan Santana, Minnesota. 2. Jermaine Dye, Chicago. 3. David Ortiz, Boston. 4. Ivan Rodriguez, Detroit. 5. Derek Jeter, New York. I'd love to vote for Big Papi, but the Sox didn't make the playoffs. Derek Jeter had his best statistical season, and did carry the Yankees while Matsui and Sheffield were hurt -- but let's face it, no Yankee should ever be the MVP because their monster payroll and fantasy baseball lineup mean that if they have even a teeny hole, Steinbrenner will just go buy whatever he needs; take one guy off the Yankees, and another team's purchased star will merely take his place. To be an MVP, you have to be irreplaceable for your team's success -- and no Yankee is ever irreplaceable. Denied. Pudge Rodriguez desevres consideration despite having average numbers, in my mind -- because he guided the Tigers' cadre of talented but very young pitchers through their AL pennant-winning season as their catcher and anchor.
That leaves Dye and Santana. Dye plays every day, it's true... but the White Sox didn't make the playoffs. Meanwhile, while the Twins admittedly had both Justin Morneau and Joe Mauer, there is a simple fact of record that cinches Santana's MVP year for me. The Twins had an .813 winning percentage in games Santana pitched, and had a .538 winning percentage in games anyone else pitched. The Twins went to the playoffs in large part because they had a stone cold lead pipe lock to win every fifth day. Morneau and Mauer emerged as superstars this year, and I take nothing away from them, but Johan Santana made the biggest difference between success and mediocrity for the Minnesota Twins. Santana pitched 34 games this year; apply that .538 winning percentage to those 34 games instead of .813, and the Twins win 10 fewer games this season -- which would have taken them out of the playoffs. Don't give me this crap about pitchers having their own award and how guys who play every five days can't be most valuable; Santana's your MVP.
NATIONAL LEAGUE MVP: 1. Ryan Howard, Philadelphia. 2. Albert Pujols, St. Louis. 3. Carlos Beltran, New York. 4. Miguel Cabrera, Florida. 5. vacant (statement vote). The fifth spot is vacant because -- World Series outcome as the exception -- the National League was baseball's equivalent of a kid in a bow tie, horn rim glasses, and a pocket protector in an elementary school lunchroom. Has there ever been a season in which worse baseball was played across the board by an entire league? The NL Central winners were two games away from being a .500 ball club. In a sixteen team league, there were only six winning teams; only three finished more than ten games over .500, and only one won more than 90 games (as opposed to six 90 game winners in the AL). The National League barely counted as baseball this year, and its players and organizations ought to be ashamed of their performance.
It speaks volumes about the NL that Miguel Cabrera can warrant consideration this year despite playing for a sub-.500 team. That said, Cabrera was the elder stateman -- at 24 -- in the Florida clubhouse this year, leading a team that was in playoff contention until September despite a $15 million payroll (the Yankees spent 14x more -- $208 million -- on their team for 19 more wins... approximately $10 million per win) and an average age of about 12 (actually, it was about 22). If Cabrera were any more mature a human being, imagine what he could do! Carlos Beltran had great numbers for the Mets, but he faded badly in September -- and taking any single player off the Mets in this year's NL would have had the equivalent effect of taking Colin Powell out of the Bush Administration.
That leaves Howard and Pujols. I am loathe to deny Pujols; he's my favorite player in the NL (and third overall behind Jason Varitek and Big Papi), I was thrilled to see him win a World Series title, and it's virtually impossible to not give the MVP to a guy who hit .331 with 49 HR and 137 RBI while leading his team to the playoffs. But Ryan Howard was nothing short of astounding this season. Philadelphia's management threw in the towel in July, trading Bobby Abreu to the Yankees for a used candy wrapper and a Pokemon Pog and acknowledging that the team was hopelessly mired below .500; Howard promptly put the team on his back and carried them into playoff contention until the season's final week. And honestly, he would have had 60 legitimate home runs had teams not stopped pitching to him somewhere around September 16. The man hit .313 with 58 HR and 149 RBI, and Philadelphia wouldn't have sniffed the undergarments of the playoffs without his monster season. He's your MVP.
AMERICAN LEAGUE CY YOUNG: 1. Johan Santana, Minnesota. 2. Johan Santana, Minnesota. 3. Johan Santana, Minnesota. 4. Chien Ming Wang, New York. 5. Roy Halladay, Toronto. Living in New York, I have heard the geniuses of local sports radio making their pitch for Wang. He had a good season, really he did; I'll give him that. But Santana won the pitching Triple Crown -- leading the league in wins (19), ERA (2.77), and strikeouts (245). He dominated this season and will deservedly win his second Cy Young in three years.
NATIONAL LEAGUE CY YOUNG: 1. Chris Carpenter, St. Louis. 2. Roy Oswalt, Houston. 3. Brandon Webb, Arizona. 4. Trevor Hoffman, San Diego. 5. Bronson Arroyo, Cincinnati. Arroyo gets consideration for having pitched well in the offensive paradise that is Great American Ballpark, going 14-11 with a 3.29 ERA and 184 Ks. Nice trade, Theo ButtMunch.
Hoffman was his usual intense, stellar self, but he is a closer and it's tough to see a closer winning the Cy. It comes down to Webb, Oswalt and Carpenter. Webb tied for the league lead in wins with 16 and was 3rd in ERA, but he faded down the stretch. That leaves Carpenter and Oswalt, who had identical 15-8 records; Oswalt had a better ERA (2.98 vs. 3.09), and Carpenter had more strikeouts (184 to 166). It's really a toss-up/flip-a-coin kind of thing; given that the Cardinals made the playoffs and the Astros did not, I'll give it to Carpenter for his second straight Cy.
AL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR: 1. Justin Verlander, Detroit. 2. Francisco Liriano, Minnesota. 3. Jonathan Papelbon, Boston. 4. Jered Weaver, Anaheim. 5. Joel Zumaya, Detroit. Liriano was dominant, but was hurt for the last third of the season; otherwise, this wouldn't even be a close race. But Verlander pitched 186 innings for a pennant-winning team -- a tough feat for a rookie. As much as I'd love to vote for Jonny Paps, he was a closer for a non-playoff team; I have to go with starters who helped their teams win. Verlander by a nose.
NL ROOKIE OF THE YEAR: 1. Hanley Ramirez, Florida. 2. Ryan Zimmerman, Washington. 3. Josh Johnson, Florida. 4. Cole Hamels, Philadelphia. 5. Dan Uggla, Florida. Uggla was a great story -- a nobody-turned-all-star... but this was an incredible year for rookies in MLB, and as good as he was he wasn't even in the top three. Hamels also pitched well and became a go-to guy for Philadelphia down the stretch... but Josh Johnson pitched better for more of the season. Zimmerman is everyone's fashionable pick; he plays highlight-reel defense at a tough position and is already becoming one of the top ten 3Bs in baseball. But I'm going to go with Hanley Ramirez, Florida's shortstop. He hit .292 (with a .353 OBP) as a shortstop, picking up 51 steals, and some decent pop with 17 HR. His defense needs to improve, but a shortstop who provides you speed, some decent power, and a pretty decent eye and pitch selection deserves the ROY award. Plus, voting for Ramirez gives me one more chance to snark at the idiotic Red Sox front office for their insipid moves since the 2004 championship.
MANAGERS OF THE YEAR: No breakdowns or 1-5 here, because in each league it is cut-and-dried obvious who the managers of the year are. American League: Jim Leyland. National League: Joe Girardi.
Posted by Christopher at 11:15 AM | Comments (1)October 11, 2006
R.I.P. Corey Lidle
Baseball is just about the most important thing in my world, but there are times when even baseball takes a back seat. Yankee pitcher Corey Lidle died today when his small plane crashed into an apartment building in Manhattan.
Like everyone else who heard the news, my thoughts go out to his wife, his six year old son, his parents and the rest of his family and friends. Rest in peace, Corey.
Posted by Christopher at 11:30 PM | Comments (0)September 29, 2006
Yet Another Reason To Hate Football
Cuzin Jose asked me to play fantasy football this year; so did friends from work. I declined in both cases. I declined because I am sick of football, sick of the NFL, sick of the kind of no-character idiots who are allowed to play the game now. And I'm not even talking about Terrell Owens yet.
Detroit Lions wide receiver Roy Williams is the latest NFL player who's made my "Will Somebody Please Put A Helmet In His Kidneys And Get Him The Hell Out Of Here" list. He's a stupid idiot who's got no concept of the sport and who really needs to be just clocked upside the head with, say, a diesel train.
The Lions' Roy Williams apparently doesn't play to win the game. He'd rather strike a pose.
Williams' celebration after his first catch of Sunday's game against the Bears drew ire from the Chicago crowd and had Detroit Free Press columnist Mitch Albom scratching his head. When Albom asked Williams why he celebrated a reception with his team already trailing by two scores, Williams responded, "I celebrate first downs all the time. I'm not gonna stop that. I'm an exciting player. If I do something exciting, I'm gonna show my actions."
Albom responded, "But you were losing, 10-0."
"What does that mean? ... That means nothing to me. The score means nothing," Williams told Albom.
I swear to you, this is why I hate football. This is what the NFL is now: a bunch of me-first spoiled punkz who don't care about the game, about winning, or about the fans... as long as they get to look good, show off, and get their bling, they're happy.
Punks like Williams are an insult to the integrity of the game. His teammates ought to shove his head down a used toilet and flush for 30 minutes straight... and then they should get out of the way and let men like Jim Brown, Joe Greene, and Mike Ditka have their shots at him to teach the little beeeotch something about professionalism, about team, and about what the sport is really about.
You want to know why I hate football and will never go back to being a football fan? It's punks like this jerk.
Posted by Christopher at 09:14 AM | Comments (3)September 22, 2006
Sour Grapes Make For Lousy Whine
Earlier this summer I wrote about the newfound respect I'd discovered for the Oklahoma University football program and its coach, Bob Stoops, for what I perceived as a surprising display of integrity. I thought I'd finally observed a coach and a program worthy of support, who understood the proper place of football in the college world and displayed uncommon valor in its conduct. I was wrong -- couldn't have been more wrong, actually -- and I take it all back.
Oklahoma lost a game at Oregon last weekend on what was, by all accounts, a horribly blown call by a Pac-10 official (for the uninitiated, the Pac-10 is Oregon's conference, so the appearance is that an official gave the benefit or a horrid call to the home team at the expense of the visitors.) Oklahoma and its fans have every right to be unhappy about losing a game they probably should have won simply because of a lousy referee's call.
But Oklahoma's reaction has gone beyond being unhappy. They're flat out whining like spoiled three year olds, throwing a tantrum for the ages remarkable for both its immaturity and its hypocrisy. Not only have there been the requisite death threats against the referee (which are inevitable when you combine brain dead rednecks, alcohol, and sports), but Oklahoma has so far: demanded a forfeit, sent letters to commissioners demanding that the loss not be placed on its record, threatened to cancel all of its scheduled games aganst Pac-10 teams. In other words, if you don't play the way we want to play and let us win, we're taking our ball and going home. Worse yet, many midwestern journalists are actually encouraging this pity-party whiny behavior with indignant columns.
Unfortunately, bad calls -- even ones that cost teams victories -- are part of sports. Ask St. Louis Cardinal fans about Don Denkinger some time. Or Atlanta Brave fans about Kent Hrbek's wrestle-tag of Ron Gant in the '91 World Series. Or Utah Jazz fans about Michael Jordan blatantly pushing off of Byron Russell in the '98 NBA finals. Or Baltimore Oriole fans about the hideous RIch Garcia/Jeffrey Maier call that allowed the Yankee$ to cheat their way out of the 1996 ALCS. Or English soccer fans about Maradona's "Hand of God" goal in the '86 World Cup. Or Minnesota Viking fans who remember Drew Pearson blatantly shoving Nate Wright to the ground in the '75 NFC Playoffs before catching a Hail Mary pass from Roger Staubach, without being called for interference.
Sometimes, Oklahoma sports' teams don't lose because of bad calls; they win games because of them. Referees screwed Texas Tech's basketball team out of a victory over Oklahoma a couple of years ago. No OU boosters were screaming about forfeits and the integrity of the game back then. I have never agreed with Bobby Knight about anything... but this week, when he rightfully reminded Sooner fans of their hypocrisy, I agreed with everything he said.
Bad calls happen in sports, you spoiled, whining children. Sometimes they even cost your team big games. But they're still part of the game -- every game -- and the OU reaction has been embarrassing at best and bordering on pathetic at worst. Even the OU president is in on the act, dashing off angry notes to Big 12 commissioners and acting as if a college president's biggest job is not the academic pursuits of its students, but protecting its football program. It's a blight on the state of colleges today, and the Oklahoma reaction is a reminder of everything that's wrong with college sports today. Oklahoma and its fans don't have the integrity I thought they did; instead, they're pathetic whiners -- and I hope they lose every remaining game.
Posted by Christopher at 06:49 AM | Comments (2)September 19, 2006
Just For Corey
I'll save my payroll comments for another time... tonight's a night to congratulate my friend Corey (and all the rest of my Met fan friends) on their division title win. It was a great game. I was there. In a skybox suite. Heh heh.
Congratulations, Met fans. (Sorry about the short vids... I only had my standard camera with me, the most I can take is about 20 seconds at a time.)
Posted by Christopher at 01:46 AM | Comments (2)September 13, 2006
Welcome Back Matsui
It might sound odd, me legitimately and unsarcastically welcoming back a Yankee to the ballfield. But I do so willingly and without reservation. Of all the players on that blasted, evil team, there's one who conducts himself on and off the field in such a way that I can't help but respect -- and even like! -- him. HIdeki Matsui returned to the playing field last night after four months off due to a broken wrist, and promptly got four hits in four at-bats.
Matsui pulled off probably the greatest piece of hitting I have ever seen in person. Back in 2004, Tim and I were lucky enough to get tickets to Game 1 of the ALCS. Schilling pitched that day (it was before they stitched his tendon to his skin in his ankle, so he was getting rocked). There were two on and two outs, and two strikes against Matsui. Schilling threw precisely the pitch he wanted to -- we had good seats with a decent view of the plate and could pick up the movement on the ball, and this was a breaking ball that started waist high and over the plate, then darted down and in on Matsui, crossing his bat plane at near shoetops level. Matsui simply altered his swing, and golfed a rope down the right field line off the wall for a bases-clearing double. I couldn't even be mad; a great hitter had just done some great hitting off a Hall of Fame pitcher who had thrown a good pitch, precisely what he wanted to throw. I was impressed then and remain impressed by him.
But more than his on-field exploits, it is the classy way Matsui carries himself off the field that has earned my respect. Eschewing the New York "all about me/look at me" attitude, he is humble and obviously respectful of the game of baseball. How many other star players, on any team, would have reacted to a second standing ovation in one game the way Matsui did after getting his fourth hit in a row?
“I really didn’t want to make a big deal out of it,” he said. “I don’t want to disrespect my teammates.”
Any other player could have been forgiven for soaking in the moment, maybe even playing it up for the crowd a little. Matsui respects his teammates -- and the game -- so much that he barely tipped his cap for fear of making the moment more about him than about his team winning a game.
That's why I like him. Humble, classy, and respectful of the game. And a damn good ballplayer as well. Welcome back, Godzilla. You might be a Yankee, but you're all right.
Posted by Christopher at 07:27 AM | Comments (2)September 12, 2006
Papi Pops Off
To David "Big Papi" Ortiz:
From: A Devoted Sox Fan Who Loves To Watch You Play
Subj: Politicking
Hello, Mr. Ortiz. You don't know me, but I am one of the millions of Red Sox fans whom you've reduced to giggling schoolkids about 30 times in the last two years. I love watching you hit; I love that I can always feel like the Sox have a chance if they're within four runs and you could come to the plate before the game is over. I love that you're always smiling, that you're a leader in the clubhouse not because of your contract or because you've got PR whizzes carefully cratfing your image and setting up VISA commercials for you... but because you genuinely love ths game, you're a natural leader, and men whose skills entitle them to lead will instead willingly follow you out of deference to what you've done on the field. You're a class act, Papi, and you're a great example for the kids of Red Sox Nation to follow.
All that said, this politicking you're doing for the American League MVP Award has got to stop. It doesn't become you.
Look, you will get no argument from me: you were robbed and jobbed last year. Alex Rodriguez was no more an MVP than OJ Simpson was husband of the year. He's more than proved that this season; he's a stats padder who has this really pathetic habit of gagging when his team needs him most, and runs his numbers up in 9-1 ballgames where his performance doesn't matter. He's a joke. You, on the other hand, are the best clutch hitter of your generation, having won more ballgames with 9th inning hits than any other player in baseball since 2003. You've kept it up in 2006 as well, with five walk-off home runs already (most teams don't even have that many as a combined unit). As the Joy of Sox Blog recounts:
Since the end of the 2004 regular season, Ortiz has come to the plate in a walk-off situations 19 times -- and reached base 16 times. He is 11-for-14 (.786), with 7 HR and 20 RBI. In 2005 and 2006, he is 8-for-9, with 5 HR and 15 RBI!
So you'll get no argument from me, Papi. You were the MVP in 2005, not that overrated prettyboy who currently draws his oversized paycheck in the Bronx. And you've got to be right there in the mix for 2006 as well, despite the Sox' rash of injuries and life-threatening illnesses (including your own heart palpitations) having caused them to fall out of contention for the playoffs. I'm your greatest defender, having spent the majority of the last ten months arguing passionately to the Yankee fans in my office that Pay-Rod jobbed you last season, and that 2006 proves it. You're my guy, Papi.
But it's beneath the dignity of a player of your stature to go campaigning for the award. In fact, it's downright embarrassing.
Yes, I know that there are still some idiot writers who simply refuse to consider a DH or a pitcher for an MVP vote at all, much less a first place vote. Those writers should be stripped of their votes for sheer stupidity (like it or not, Grandpa, the DH is part of the game and has been for 33 years... so punishing players who hit in that position simply because you don't like the rule is spiteful and ignorant). I agree that voters would do well to look at the overall importance of a player to his team. (Personally, I do not believe that the MVP award should go to the best player in the league; it should go to, as the name suggests, the most valuable player -- the guy whose team doesn't do nearly as well if he weren't in the lineup, the guy who's made the most dramatic impact on his team's success. That's why no player for a last place team should ever win it -- how can you be valuable if your team sucked? -- and why players with great individual seasons are not always MVPs in my eyes.)
But Papi? There's other players this season who've been qualified candidates. I don't place Derek Jeter among them -- it doesn't matter how good of a season he's having; take the male model out of the $208 million payroll, and the Yankee$ still win 90 games -- but there are others who've been absolutely imperative to their team's success in 2006. Jermaine Dye in Chicago is a case in point. So is Johan Santana in Minnesota. Either one of those men would be a deserving MVP. Santana in particular is a longshot, because of the same prejudices that lead some idiot voters to avoid voting for a DH... but you don't see him out there campaigning, do you?
Papi, you were jobbed last year. No question. And you are right up there with the top candidates in 2006. But going out and disparaging other players' performances -- even while claiming 'with all due respect' -- isn't standing up for yourself. It's whining.
"He's done a great job, he's having a great season, but Jeter is not a 40-homer hitter or an RBI guy. It doesn't matter how much you've done for your ball club, the bottom line is, the guy who hits 40 home runs and knocks in 100, that's the guy you know helped your team win games."
See, that's what I'm talking about, Papi. Your numbers should stand on their own, without you needing to knock Jeter in public. And if there's any campaigning to be done, it should be done by your manager Tito Francona, your GM and/or owner, and by Boston sportswriters. Not you. It's like going up to your best friend when he announces his engagement and saying "I should be your best man." It might be true, but it's ugly and awkward. And you're better than that.
So keep up the great work, big man. I'll continue to cheer you on and think that you are the 2005 MVP and the greatest clutch hitter of this generation. Just try to tone down the obvious politicking. It looks like sour grapes -- and sour grapes make for lousy whine.
Posted by Christopher at 08:22 AM | Comments (3)August 05, 2006
Big Mac Has No Sac
I fell 100% hook, line and sinker back in 1998 for the great McGwire/Sosa home run chase. I, like many other baseball fans and Major League Baseball itself, either was ignorant of the potential or symptoms of steroid abuse or simply remained willfully blind to it. Big Mac was making me fall in love with baseball again -- even though I'd never fallen out of love -- and I loved every second of that magical run.
Fast forward a few years. We know now what we know now. McGwire, with an opportunity to one more time be a hero, instead chooses to issue weak, cowardly non-denial denials to the House Committee when it investigated steroid use in MLB in March of 2005. "I'm not here to talk about the past," Big Mac said, and what we all understood that to mean was, "I'm as guilty as OJ, but I the 'roids seem to have shrunken my stones, and I don't have any left to actually be a man and own up to the mistakes I made and the wrongs I may have committed upon the game. My legacy is more important to me than my integrity."
McGwire may have been trying to protect the reputation of his 70 home run season in 1998, and the 583 he hit over his career, but he ironically did more to damage it than any needle or chemical. His "testimony" was widely seen as cowardice, and even those who'd up to that point been willing to cut him a break suddenly found themselves with far less sympathy for him than they'd had. McGwire's statement was ridiculed mercilessly for weeks, and what was left of his reputation quickly disintegrated.
You'd think McGwire would have learned from that PR debacle. Unfortunately, it appears that just like Barry Bonds, McGwire is too arrogant and too cowardly to simply admit the truth and own up to his own behavior. He's refusing to cooperate with the Mitchell investigation into baseball's steroid past. In fact, he's flat out avoiding them, like a deadbeat would avoid a bill collector.
"They're getting no cooperation from McGwire," the source told the newspaper. "He wants nothing to do with this. He doesn't want to talk to them. He doesn't want his people to talk to them."
You know, with McGwire coming up for his first Hall of Fame ballot in the next few months, there's been a lot of talk about whether Big Mac will make it to the Hall -- ever, much less on the first ballot. And there've been some compelling arguments from people like Buster Olney and Jayson Stark over at ESPN, who point out that a) steroid use was far more widespread than we naive fans realized, so taking them didn't give as distinct an advantage over everyone else as it might seem, and b) that Major League Baseball was complicit in the scandal, so it seems unfair to punish McGwire for his role in a practice that MLB tacitly, if not explicity encouraged. As Olney wrote, "The only difference between McGwire and many other stars from the generation is that McGwire hit more homers, and got the congressional subpoena."
Theoretically, he's right. But you know what? I will forever hold Barry Bonds' character -- or lack thereof -- against him; he would never, ever get my Hall of Fame vote, because he's arrogantly continued to act as if it is his divine right to cheat, and that no one had dare tell him otherwise; he's been a coward all along, refusing to simply acknowledge that he'd done wrong in pursuit of excellence... which could at least be understood if not condoned. Bonds' conduct disqualifies him from ever being a Hall of Famer, in my book -- not that he took steroids, but what he's done since the curtain was raised on his conduct.
Now Mark McGwire, with his continued avoidance of investigations and questioning, and his refusal to own up to what he did in the 90s, have begun to turn into simply a less prickish version of Bonds. I wanted to like Big Mac, I really did. I wanted to forgive him his transgressions and say everything was all right. All he had to do was admit to me what he'd done, and say "I'm sorry." That's all it would have taken. Instead, he chose to obfuscate and duck -- and even after getting absolutely pilloried for it, he's now doing it again. That tells me that he's either incredibly stupid, or incredibly arrogant; I believe the latter. I believe that there's something in his wiring that is telling him that somehow, some way, he's still going to find a way to get out of this, because he's Mark McGwire. He doesn't have to face consequences like everybody else. That's Bondsian levels of arrogance, intransigence, and cowardice.
And if I'm going to hold a lack of character against Barry Bonds, then I have to hold it against Mark McGwire, too. Bonds will never be a Hall of Famer to me; now, neither will McGwire. You've permanently lost my vote, Big Mac. Not because you took steroids, but because you're simply not man enough to admit it and say you're sorry. Real heroes -- and Hall of Famers -- are stand-up guys who own up to their mistakes. You're neither.
Posted by Christopher at 05:51 PM | Comments (2)August 03, 2006
A Reason To Pay Attention To College Football
As you know, I generally don't like college football. I don't like the pretension of putting guys in universities who have no interest in actually, you know, going to school; I don't like that there are kids who have the academic qualifications or skills or interest but who can't afford to go, while a bunch of spoiled 'ballers' who have treated academics like a joke since 6th grade and act as if the world owes them an ass-kissing get to skate in while still treating academics like a joke. I don't like that the athletes get away with infraction after infraction, while short-sighted, enabling alumni put pressure on coaches to forgive or ignore anti-social behavior.
But... I might just have to eat my words. I've certainly found a team -- and a coach -- that I am going to cheer like hell for in 2006. Oklahoma was considered a front runner for a national title this year; many pre-season rankings had them listed at #1. They were supposed to be led by a star quarterback named Rhett Bomar, among the better college quarterbacks in the game. It shouldn't shock you that a college football player was involved in unethical behavior and financial shenanigans. But it is rare to find a coach more committed to ethics and teaching the right thing than he is to kissing the tails of alumni and overlooking unethical behavior in order to win. When Rhett Bomar was revealed to be "working" at a car dealership in Oklahoma five hours a week -- for which he was paid $18,000 a year -- in violation of NCAA rules, coach Bob Stoops dismissed his star (and his offensive lineman roommate and kicked thm off the team ... even though doing so will likely cost his squad a shot at the national title.
“Both parties were aware that their actions were in violation of NCAA rules. They did it over a long and extended period of time,” Stoops said. “That’s conduct that we won’t tolerate here at the University of Oklahoma.”
You know what? Good for you, Coach Stoops. Good for you for having a sense of ethics that overrides your commitment to winning. You've earned my respect, and you've earned my fan-dom for the upcoming season. You've restored some of my faith in your sport and the NCAA.
Posted by Christopher at 07:39 PM | Comments (0)July 31, 2006
The Latest Yankee Rape
I don't know why it can still amaze me that the New York Yankee$ get away with rape every year. But every year, I still shake my head at the brazen-ness with which the Yankees attempt to merely purchase another division and World Series title. But while the shamelessness, classlessness and merecenary nature of the Yankee organization shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, the sheer stupidity of other baseball teams continues to astound.
The Philadelphia Phillies traded one of baseball's premier players, Bobby Abreu, along with a journeyman pitcher named Corey Lidle, to the Yankees for four minor leaguers (only one of whom will ever see a game as high up as even AAA), and an agreement that the Yankees would buy off incur the $23 million remaining on Abreu's and Lidle's contracts. Also in the deal, the Yankee$ gave the Phillies a bag of donuts (plain, not glazed or with sprinkles), an empty Baby Ruth wrapper, a 1999 Backstreet Boys desk calendar, one size 8 Doc Marten boot, and one prophylactic, soiled.
As ESPN's analyst put it, "The Yanks bartered in money (of which they have plenty), instead of key prospects (of which they have few) and made out like bandits, while the Phillies came away with some salary relief and not much more." In other words, yet again, the Yankee$ are just trying to arrogantly buy themselves what they are incapable of developing on their own: a championship team.
Of the Yankee$ roster, fully two thirds -- including their entire non-injured starting outfield (Damon, Matsui, Sheffield, Abreu), half their starting infield (Giambi, Rodriguez), and most of their starting rotation (Johnson, Mussina, Lidle, Ponson, Wright) came from other teams; the Yankee$ had to buy them away from somewhere else because they're incapable of developing their own talent. Yankee "fans" (many of whom have suspiciously migrated to Shea this season, now that the Yankee$ are struggling and the Met$ are winning... New York does love to be seen around winners, loyalty be damned) may whine about last millenium's titles and how they pretend to have the "best" organization in baseball, but the truth is, they don't. They only have the richest. A good organization would develop its own stars.
(And yes, Ramirez, Ortiz, and Varitek did not come from the Red Sox' organization. But all those young pitchers we have coming up -- Papelbon, Lester, Hansen, Delcarmen, Clay Buchholz, Edgar Martinez, Bryce Cox, Kris Johnson -- are all home grown. We may miss the playoffs this year -- then again, we may not -- but at least we're restocking from within. The Yankees have only two major-league potential prospects in their system. And inexplicably -- and infuriatingly -- the Phillies managed to not get either one of them.
A bag of donuts, an empty candy bar wrapper, a seven year old desk calendar, and a used condom. Nice trade, Philly.
Posted by Christopher at 08:41 PM | Comments (3)July 18, 2006
JokeVP
What was the ridiculous justification from Yankee fans last year for the game's biggest choke artist, Alex Rodriguez, being named American League MVP while the best clutch hitter of his generation, David Ortiz, was robbed of his rightful award? "Oh, A-Rod plays in the field," they said. "Papi is just a DH. A-Rod saves a dozen runs per week because of his defense. That's why he's more valuable than Ortiz."
Yeah. Uh huh. Yet again last night, the Choke Artist gagged again. "After making a career-worst three errors, Rodriguez was lifted in the eighth inning because of a sore left big toe... The three errors raised Rodriguez's season total in that category to 16, his highest single-season total since 2001."
Yeah. MVP because of his defense. Whatever. You Yankee$ fans can shut the hell up now and give Papi back his award.
Posted by Christopher at 06:56 AM | Comments (2)July 09, 2006
Using One's Head
Zinadine Zidane... you now go down in history with Woody Hayes and the coach of the team playing against the Bad News Bears as one of the worst sports in history. How's it feel to know that you trashed your decade-long legacy in one fell, petulent swoop? To know that your life's accomplishments have been reduced to a temper tantrum?
Chuckle-headed idiot.
Posted by Christopher at 10:39 PM | Comments (1)July 06, 2006
Take Me Out To The Ballgame - the NL
My selections for the National League all-star team...
1B: Albert Pujols, St. Louis This guy is only 26... and he is ungodly good. I mean, as in "when I am old and gray, I will be bragging to anyone who will listen that I once saw Albert Pujols play in person" good. He spent several weeks on the DL with a muscle injury, and he is still sitting at .314/28/73 for the season. This guy, barring injury, will not only be a Hall of Famer, he will be remembered as the best player of his generation, if not one of the five best ever. No getting around it; the man is a total stud. (Backups: Nomar Garciaparra, Los Angeles, .359/10/49; Ryan Howard, Philadelphia, .283/28/71)
2B: Chase Utley, Philadelphia Wow... the fans got one right. Utley, only 26, is the best player at his position in the game -- not just in the NL, either. He's hitting .305 with 16 HRs and 50 RBI, and has 9 steals as well. He'll be starting for years to come. (Backups: Dan Uggla, Florida, .314/13/49; Brandon Phillips, Cincinnati, .322/7/44 with 16 steals)
3B: David Wright, New York Man, did this position get loaded all of a sudden? There's a lot of really good third basemen in the NL, but Wright does stand out. .320/18/68, with 11 steals? And he's only 23? It's scary to think of how good this kid's going to be when he gets some seasoning behind him. (Backups: Miguel Cabrera, Florida, .346/13/56, 7 steals; Freddy Sanchez, Pittsburgh, .362/5/47 with 27 doubles)
SS: Jose Reyes, New York This one's a toss-up, and it was a tough choice between Reyes and Milwaukee's Bill Hall. But I'll go with Reyes as an on-base threat and the fastest player in the NL. He's batting .299 with 8 home runs, 39 RBI, 37 steals and 12 triples. Don't look now, but the Mets could have a legitimate stranglehold on the left side of the NL all-star infield for the rest of the decade. (Backups: Bill Hall, .274/17/41; Edgar Renteria, Atlanta -- god,I hate to give props to the decade's biggest slug of a Red Sox... what a forkin' bum! -- batting .313/9/35 with 9 steals)
C: Johnny Estrada, Arizona This position is where the fans messed up the worst. Paul freaking LoDuca???? Please. Playing anywhere but New York, LoDuca wouldn't have sniffed the underwear of the top three. However, it's a weak position in the NL and LoDuca was able to ride the tide of NY homers to the starting position. In reality, the best of a weak lot is probably Johnny Estrada, who's batting .318/6/45. (Backups: Mike Piazza, San Diego, .282/11/35; Michael Barrett, Chicago, .310/9/31)
OF: Matt Holliday, Colorado; Alfonso Soriano, Washington; Carlos Lee, Milwaukee. Of these three, the fans only picked one -- Soriano. And while I hate to vote for the SOB given the childish little "I don't wanna play outfield" stunt he pulled in spring training, I have to admit that at .274/26/55, Soriano belongs in this game. Holliday leads all NL outfielders with a .340 average; and while he benefits from playing in Coors Field, he's also hitting .315 away from home, with virtually half of his home runs coming on the road as well. As for Lee, how it is that a guy with 25 home runs and 70 RBI at the break can't break the starting all-star lineup... well, that's beyond me and indicative of how stupid the fans can be. (Backups: Jason Bay, Pittsburgh, .282/20/62; Carlos Beltran, New York, .283/24.65; Andruw Jones, Atlanta, .273/18/68) Yes, I know that I picked the same six as who made the squad. But the fans voted the wrong two into the starting lineup.
Starting Pitcher: Brad Penny, Los Angeles There's a lot of good pitchers in the NL this year, but Penny is combining wins, ERA and strikeouts very well, and I think is having the strongest season in the NL at 10-2, with a 2.92 ERA and 82 Ks. (Backups: Tom Glavine, NY, 11-2/3.43/78; Bronson Arroyo, CIncinnati, 9-5/2.79/95; Brandon Webb, Arizona, 9-3/2.72/97; Carlos Zambrano, Chicago, 7-3/3.33/118; Chris Young, San Diego, 7-4/3.13/95)
Relievers: Trevor Hoffman, San Diego Jason Isringhausen has more saves, but Izzy benefits from pitching for a team that wins a lot. Hoffman has 21 saves in San Diego, plus a microscopic 1.13 ERA and a WHIP under 1.00. Benefit of the doubt goes to the guy who's actually keeping runners off the bases and getting guys out. (Backups: Billy Wagner, New York, 16 saves/2.33 ERA/49 Ks; Brian Fuentes, Colorado, 16 saves/2.36 ERA/46 Ks; Tom Gordon, Philadelphia, 21 saves/2.23 ERA/45 Ks)
Posted by Christopher at 01:19 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBackJune 30, 2006
Take Me Out To The Ballgame
With the holiday weekend approaching and major league baseball about to enter it's ridiculous, silly, pander-to-New York interleague play (tell me that anyone outside of the tri-state area gives a rat's tuckus about any of the games this weekend? The only reason MLB engages in this ridiculous exercise is so that New York can salivate all over itself and mess its diapers over their precious "subway series."), I thought it appropriate to share my selections for the starters in the all-star game.
Fan voting -- which is the second biggest debacle in baseball, next to interleague play -- is silly, childish, and need to be eliminated; MLB actually encourages ballot-stuffing for the home-ers by sending out e-mails reminding fans that their local nine need their votes... never mind if the starting 3b is the game's biggest choke artist, or the home team's catcher is batting .253. Fan voting is little more than a prom queen popularity contest for grown men, and it goes beyond insipidness. If you play in a large city -- say, New York, Boston, maybe L.A. or Chicago -- you're going to get a boatload of votes, whether you're batting .330 or .230. Or, alternately, if you have good marketing consultants working for you and you've picked up a national reputation, you get votes based on people liking your commercials... or identifying with the country you're from... or thinking your butt looks good in those baseball pants. They should be calling this game "The Popularity Exhibition," because that's really all it is.
But that said, if they're gonna let fans vote, I'm gonna vote. Someone has to try and keep the balloting honest and vote for actual deserving players. So without further ado, here are my choices for the real all-star teams -- AL today, NL later this weekend:
American League:
1B: Justin Morneau, Minnesota Twins Quietly batting .288 with 19 home runs and 64 RBI on one of the game's hottest teams. Doesn't get enough attention playing in small-market Minnesota. The fans have voted for my boy, Big Papi David Ortiz... don't get me wrong, I love Papi; he's the best clutch hitter in a generation and was the true AL MVP last season (Alex Rodriguez somehow winning the award over Papi goes down as one of the five greatest MVP ripoffs in baseball history). But Papi doesn't play first base unless he has to. Voting for him at 1B is like voting for RuPaul as Best Actor. Sure, technically he's a he... but he hasn't played that position in years. Same with Papi (sorry, big man... if it's any consolation, my first son may well be named Ortiz). Morneau gets the nod. (Backups: Ortiz -- have to get his bat in there somewhere; Paul Konerko, Chicago White Sox -- .316/19/61)
2B: Tadahito Iguchi, Chicago White Sox. More RBI than any other second baseman, and only one AL second baseman has more home runs. Plus, he's batting .296 -- which ain't bad. The fans have voted for the Yankees' Robinson Cano, based in part on his .325 average and his playing for the Yankees. They can be forgiven for one half of that. But the all-star is Iguchi. (Backups: Cano; Ronnie Belliard, Cleveland -- .288/5/34)
3B: Joe Crede, Chicago White Sox. Anyone who thinks that choke artist extraordinaire Alex Rodriguez belongs in this spot probably thinks there were really WMD in Iraq. Crede has hit only two fewer HRs than Pay-Rod, has 54 RBI to Rodriguez' 55, and is batting .302 to A-Rod's .279. Plus, Crede actually hits when his team needs him to. He's the all-star; Rodriguez is an overpaid fraud. The fans are jackassed idiots for voting for that smarmy, choking piece of garbage. (Backups: Mike Lowell, Boston -- .307/9/40; Hank Blalock, Texas -- .290/11/54)
SS: Derek Jeter, New York Yankees. I hate to give any Yankee any credit for anything -- especially Jeter. But, Jeter is one of two Yankees whom Red Sox fans actually respect (the other being Hideki Matsui), and let's face it: he's having a great season. Batting .331 with 5 HR, 46 RBI and 15 SB. It burns like acid to have to say this, but he's the starting SS this year. (Backups: Miguel Tejada, Baltimore -- .321/16/57; Orlando Cabrera, LA Angels -- .305/5/44/12 SB)
Catcher: Joe Mauer, Minnesota Twins. My favorite baseball player is the Red Sox' Jason Varitek, and I really want to vote for him here. But there is no way that any sane baseball fan can do anything here but vote for the guy batting .392 (leading the league and chasing a 65 year old record!), which is hard enough for any player to do... but a catcher leading the league in batting and chasing .400??? Amazing season from a 23 year old kid who's only going to get better. (Backups: Ramon Hernandez, Baltimore -- .287/15/59; Ivan Rodriguez, Detroit -- .301/7/38, but who gets my vote for how he's handling a very young pitching staff in Detroit)
OF: Manny Ramirez, Boston; Ichiro Suzuki, Seattle; Vernon Wells, Toronto. Manny being Manny means 40 home runs and 120 RBI every year; he'll do it again this year. Ichiro is the most amazing pure hitter of this generation... he's batting .358 again this year, has 25 steals, and is one of the best defensive outfielders in the game. Wells is enjoying a breakout season in Toronto, batting .313 with 20 HRs and 62 RBI. He's keeping Toronto in the playoff hunt. There are others whom you can make a case for, but my votes go to these three. (Backups: Magglio Ordonez, Detroit -- .313/15/57; Jermaine Dye, Chicago -- .306/20/54; Alex Rios, Toronto -- .330/15/53.)
Starting pitcher: Johan Santana, Minnesota. 9-4, 2.59 ERA, 124 strikeouts... and this guy's notoriously better in the second half??? Freaking scary, how good this kid is. (Backups: Justin Verlander, Detroit, 10-4/3.13/65 Ks; Curt Schilling, Boston, 10-2/3.54/102 Ks; Scott Kazmir, Tampa Bay, 9-5/3.59/108 Ks; Roy Halladay, Toronto, 10-2/3.22/62 Ks; Mike Mussina, New York Yankees, 9-3/3.28/100 Ks; Barry Zito, Oakland, 8-4/3.46/85 Ks.)
Reliever: Jonathan Papelbon, Boston. The runaway Roookie of the Year in the American League has 23 saves in 25 chances, a miniscule 0.46 ERA, and has 41 strikeouts in 39 innings. He's become a monster, and is a major reason the Red Sox are in first place. Not even a question here. (Backups: Bobby Jenks, Chicago -- 24 saves/2.48 ERA/42 Ks; BJ Ryan, Toronto -- 21 saves/0.47 ERA/45 Ks; Mariano Rivera, New York Yankees -- 17 saves/1.88 ERA/32 Ks; Joe Nathan, Minnesota -- 13 saves/1.91 ERA/47 Ks.)
Coming soon... the National League.
Posted by Christopher at 07:58 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBackJune 28, 2006
Get Well, Peter Gammons
Peter Gammons, baseball reporter for ESPN and who has been elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame Writers' Wing, is recovering in a Boston hospital after suffering a brain aneurysm on Tuesday. The 61 year old Gammons is expected to be in the hospital for another couple of weeks.
Gammons is the best known baseball writer of his generation, as the article points out, and is one of the main reasons to watch ESPN's "Baseball Tonight"; he's one of the most insightful reporters in sports, and is so well connected in the game that he has insider information in almost every report. He's an extraordinarily talented reporter who successfully made the switch from newspapers to TV, but never lost his brilliance behind a keyboard. If I had followed another of my muses and become a sportswriter, I'd want to write like Peter Gammons. And 61 is too soon to lose him.
Get well soon, Peter.
Posted by Christopher at 06:05 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBackDammit, Spain!
Of course it would happen like this. Of course, when I finally start watching soccer and actually caring what happens in it, I would pick the team that has a long history of futility and never living up to expectations. It fits with my sporting character, being a Red Sox fan and all.
I quickly learned while in Europe last week that Spain has a history of, how shall I put this... gagging like a White House intern on the World Cup stage. They've got one of the most well reputed and competitive regular season leagues, one of the sport's glory franchises in Real Madrid, and some of the best players on the planet.... but for whatever reason, Spain haven't even been to the semi-finals in 76 years. They're always good, and they always find a way to lose when they shouldn't. They're famous for it.
Ah, but this year, maybe it would be different. This year, Spain was looking strong. They dominated Ukraine 4-0 in their opener, looked very good against Tunisia in winning 3-1... maybe this was going to be the year that things were different. Especially when Spain drew for their first match in the round of 16 a struggling France team that had to stretch to even reach the round, it seemed like this might be Spain's year to make a run. And having fallen so hard for Spain as a country and the Spaniards as a people, I embraced the team fully, started cheering for them to win, and even made plans to buy a Spain jersey if I ever found one while shopping there (I didn't).
So of course, Spain went into yesterday's game looking like the stronger side, and of course they lost to France, 3-1. And my adopted team is now out of the World Cup. Dammit.
Go England!
Posted by Christopher at 05:11 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBackJune 02, 2006
So Let's Root, Root, Root Against The Rockies
My least favorite baseball team has always been the Yankees... whether when I was growing up as a Twins fan (guess what, New York? the rest of the country doesn't like the Yankee$, and it has nothing to do with the alleged "jealousy" you chalk it up to, and everything to do with attitude), or especially as an adult Red Sox fan. I never thought I'd see anything that would ever displace the Yankees as the team I disdain the most. But of course, something has.
My new least favorite team -- the one I will cheer hardest against and wish many popped hamstrings and 12-1 drubbings upon, is the Colorado Rockies. After this article in USA Today the other day, I have no choice but to consider the Rockies Satan's spawn. And in the unlikely event that they're ever in the World Series against the Yankees, I'll cheer for the Yankees.
Why? What would drive me to such a drastic step? "Behind the scenes, they quietly have become an organization guided by Christianity — open to other religious beliefs but embracing a Christian-based code of conduct they believe will bring them focus and success." That's right, kids -- they are picking players specifically because they're "Christians" and trying to assemble a squad of unthinking, religious automatons who are signed less for their baseball abilities and more for their religious beliefs.
I'm all for trying to build teams on character. Character counts. But more in the sense of what behavior will not be tolerated, as opposed to forcing a religion or specific belief set on employees of the organization. And the Rockies have not only gone fundie, they actually have adopted the smug, arrogant, born-again belief that they are better than you because of their beliefs, and that God is helping them win baseball games.
Just what we need: the Christian Taliban in baseball. Tell you what: I'll be cheering for a rash of plagues (and a plague of rashes) against the Rockies. I hope the damn fundies go 57-105 for the next ten years.
Posted by Christopher at 07:01 AM | Comments (11) | TrackBackMay 29, 2006
Home Run King
With all the hype this weekend about Juicy Juice hiting number 715, I thought it would be judicious to post a reminder of what a real home run king looks like. So for you baseball fans, and for anyone who appreciates actual class, here is Henry Aaron's 715th home run. (Video clip linked along the right hand side.)
Oh - and notice that when Aaron hits it, he... runs. None of this stand there and admire yourself, show-up-the-pitcher, show off to the world and for the ESPN cameras garbage. Aaron respected the game, and he ran the bases after hitting the ball. It's not just Bonds who's guilty of this modern posturing and preening, but it's all the more galling when he does it. Back in the day, Bob Gibson or Don Drysdale would have put a fastball on Bonds' chin for the chickenspit stunts he pulls when he hits the ball. Henry Aaron had too much class to behave like Bonds does. Henry Aaron was a home run king. Henry Aaron was a man.
"There's a drive into left-centerfield! That ball is gonna be-e-e-e-e.... OUTTA HERE! IT'S GONE! IT'S 715! There's a new home run king of all time -- and it's Henry Aaron!"
Posted by Christopher at 11:37 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBackMay 07, 2006
Photos of Joe Morgan
... I figure Barry Bonds ("Juicy Juice") must have some. Maybe like with Morgan and a goat or something. That'd be about the only rational explanation for the Hall of Famer and ESPN broadcaster's pathetic and embarrassing performance on Sunday night while doing color commentary for the Giants-Phillies game. Every time Morgan opened his mouth, he was delivering Bonds a big, wet, sloppy kiss. You couldn't get Morgan to even say the word "steroid;" he all but proclaimed that Babe Ruth calls Barry Bonds daddy. He made the ridiculous and laughable suggestion that the reason fans outside of San Francisco greet Bonds with boos and derision is simply because Babe Ruth is beloved, and anyone approaching a Ruth record -- be they Roger Maris, Hank Aaron or Barry Bonds -- is going to face a hostile public for doing so.
Hey, Joe??? Since you clearly haven't been paying attention, I'll spell it out for you. Babe Ruth's last game was in 1935; no one under the age of 75 has a conscious memory of Babe Ruth. He may be an icon of the game, but fans today don't feel a connection to Ruth so strong that they'd reject anyone who approaches him. The fans are rejecting Barry Bonds because he's a cheat, because he took steroids, lied about it, perjured himself in front of a grand jury over it; because he cheated. He doesn't belong this close to the Babe or Aaron, and everybody knows it. Fans are smart, fans can spot a fraud, and fans reject cheaters. That's why the fans are rejecting Juicy Juice -- that and his prickish personality. It has nothing to do with Babe Ruth.
And you, Joe Morgan, are an embarrassing sycophant suckup, the baseball equiavalent of that little yipping dog in the cartoons, walking down the street with the big bulldog and yelling "We're tough, ain't we Spike?" If the best you can do is repeatedly kiss Bonds' repeatedly injected backside, then please get off the air. Your performance degrades the game and your own reputation.
Posted by Christopher at 10:57 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBackMay 06, 2006
Poor Baby
Barry Bonds finally left the protection of his sheltered life on the west coast and came to the east yesterday. Philadelpha fans once booed Santa Claus; what did you think they were going to do to Juicy Juice?
Philly fans booed the cheating SOB mercilessly yesterday, doing what thousands of fish-taco eating, white wine sipping San Francisco fans should have been doing for the past couple of years at least. They let him have it, and never let him forget that no matter his numbers, he will never be accepted by the fans who love the game as the home run champion. A few even booed him when he was checking on an injured teammate, which I love (never take your foot off the throat when you have it), something Giants manager Felipe Alou whined about to the press.
"Barry went over there as a teammate and two or three fans booed him. I believe that was really cheap, very cheap," the manager said.
Well you know what, Felipe? We believe that it was 'really cheap, very cheap' of Bonds to juice up like a Florida orange in order to achieve numbers he doesn't deserve. We believe it was 'really cheap, very cheap' of Bonds to take an undeserving place next to Aaron, Ruth and Mays in the record books. We believe that it was 'really cheap, very cheap' of Bonds to perjure himself in front of a grand jury about all the juice he put into his system. And we're never going to let the cheating bastard forget it, either -- so you better get used to it.
In the meantime, this sign from Philly last night says it all.
April 15, 2006
Shocker
Gee, I am stunned. Barry Bonds is under heavier scrutiny than ever for steroid use this season... and he's gone the first two weeks of the year without a single home run. What a shocking coincidence.
And now, as the news breaks that 'Roid Rage is under investigation by a federal grand jury for perjury, he has suddenly developed a chronic injury in his elbow; all of a sudden, Barry has bone chips and might retire.
Getting a little warm in the kitchen, Juicy Juice?
April 14, 2006
Burn, Barry, Burn
Tick... tick... tick...
Hear that sound? It's the sound of Barry Bonds' miserable existence and his blight on Major League Baseball coming to an end.
Steroid Man, his deception and cheating revealed by recent books, is being investigated by a federal grand jury for perjury.
The whole world already knew that Bonds lied on the stand regarding his steroid use. Now, the legal system is working on confirming it. And please, please, please... for the love of god and for the sake of all that is holy in baseball... don't just indict the SOB.
If Barry Bonds goes to jail for perjury, it will be the best thing that's happened in baseball since the Red Sox won the World Series.
April 02, 2006
When We Were Kings
The first Saturday in April means only one thing: the rotisserie baseball draft for our league, FLAKS. (We're all communications and PR people... trust me, it makes sense.) In 2004, I did an extended write-up on this blog after the draft... and I won the league. I skipped it in 2005 because it felt wildly self-indulgent, and besides I wasn't blogging then anyway... and I came in dead last out of 15. In the interest of superstition and tradtion, and in the hopes that I will recover 2004's magic, I'm doing it again. (For those of you who don't care about baseball, this is your hint: the rest of this post is not going to interest you. Feel free to tune out if you wish.)
I rechristened my franchise this year; "Kings" is the short version of the full name. If you know my real last name, you'll figure out why it's a good name. If not, trust me... there's a decent little pop culture reference involved.
I have been in one of my patented moods all week, but it had the curious effect of focusing me yesterday at the draft. I'm well known in the league for being easy to rattle from my planned strategy (someone else gets a player I really wanted by paying more than I thought he was worth, and suddenly my whole plan is messed up and I get frustrated and thrown off), but yesterday I was more focused and determined than I was even the year I won the league. I got 8 of the 9 offensive starters I planned on getting, and 3 of my 5 starting pitchers. Nothing like irrational rage at the world to keep me centered on a goal and the plan to get there, I guess. All in all, while we do have a few weaknesses, I am generally thrilled with this year's team - I feel as good coming out of the draft this year as I ever have, including 2004. And when I look at the other franchises' drafts, I feel like we can really compete this year. No more first to worst for this franchise... we're going to be in it this year. I can feel it.
So, cue this year's theme song, "Click Click Boom" by Saliva... dim the house lights and fire up the spotlight... use your imaginations to hear me doing my best Michael Buffer impression (he's that boxing announcer who does "Let's get ready to rrrrrrrrrummbllllllllllllllle!")... and here we go. Llllladies and gentlemen, here they are..... YOUR Kings!
Starting for your Kings... at first base, the 2005 National League Rookie of the Year and 2006 Grapefruit League home run leader, from the Philadelphia Phillies, Ryan Howard! At second base, the most highly rated player at his position in either league, also from the Phillies, Chase Utley! At third base, former World Series MVP and slugger, from the Toronto Blue Jays, Troy Glaus! At shortstop, one of the best up and coming young shortstops in the game, from the Cleveland Indians, Jhonny Peralta (and yes, that's how you spell his name, no typo there)!! At catcher, one of the heroes of last year's post-season and well-known agitator (and a personal favorite), from the world champion Chicago White Sox, AJ Pierzynski!!
In the outfield, a five tool stud who has the honor of representing my beloved Red Sox on this year's fantasy team... and owner of the best name outside of breakfast cereal, from Red Sox Nation, outfielder Coco Crisp! Also in the outfield, from the Toronto Blue Jays, a guy who's shown flashes of greatness in the past, is better protected in the lineup this year, and is turning the magic age of 27 this year, outfielder Vernon Wells! And rounding out your outfield will be a platoon of promising young guys who each have a ton of potential: Chicago Cubs' rookie left fielder Matt Murton, Tampa Bay Devil Rays' rookie speedster Joey Gathright, Houston Astros' spark plug Willy Taveras, and Minnesota Twins' sleeper candidate for AL Rookie of the Year, Jason Kubel.
On the mound... your #1 starter is last year's NLCS MVP, Houston Astros' Roy Oswalt! Your #2 starter is the wily veteran and future Hall of Famer, from the Atlanta Braves, John Smoltz! Your #3 starter is a promising youngster with tons of upside and poised for a breakout year, from the Los Angeles Angels, Ervin Santana! Your #4 starter: the Toronto Blue Jays' Gustavo Chacin! And rounding out the rotation at #5, an emerging star from Philadelphia, promising young Phillies right-hander Ryan Madson! In the bullpen, one of the most consistent relievers in baseball, from the Seattle Mariners, "Every Day Eddie" Guardado! And finally, Atlanta Braves' closer Chris Reitsma!
Rounding out the roster on the bench: Arizona first baseman and potential NL Rookie of the Year Conor Jackson... the Angels' second baseman Adam Kennedy... Milwaukee Brewers up and coming shortstop phenom JJ Hardy... the Cincinnati third baseman coming a scorching hot spring, Edwin Encarnacion... young Braves' catcher Brian McCann... and two young pitchers who might emerge, Florida's Jason Vargas and Boston Red Sox youngster Jonathan Papelbon.
I'm shocked, actually...being totally and completely honest with you, this is virtually the lineup -- including some of the bench -- that I planned. With the exception of that platoon at the third OF position, this is the exact lineup I wanted on offense. I also really wanted Jackson, Hardy and Encarnacion for my bench. The only "accidents" on offense were Adam Kennedy (I wanted Placido Polanco as my backup 2b, but knew I wouldn't get him for $1 and had to save the money to get Madson and Encarnacion), and the platoon in the OF (and honestly, I had wanted to get two of the threesome of Gathright and Murton and Kubel for my bench -- I just was hoping to land Detroit's Curtis Granderson as my third starter. So on offense I have almost exactly the team I expected.
Pitching... Oswalt was non-negotiable, he was the #1 starter I wanted. I expected to get Oakland's Rich Harden as my #2, but my friend Tim jacked his price up to $35 -- which, though Harden is really good, would have been too much to pay -- so I grabbed John Smoltz instead. But he was still rated at #10 overall among pitchers in my book, so I accomplished my goal of grabbing two of the top dozen starters. At #3 I wanted the Angels' John Lackey (who I think is a sleeper candidate for the AL Cy Young Award this year), and wanted Ervin Santana at #4. But Lackey's price escalated, and I had spent a little more ($29) for Chase Utley than I expected, so I wasn't able to go up to get Lackey. Gustavo Chacin is a decent replacement at #4. And Ryan Madson has emerged as a potential stud in Philadelphia -- winning a slot in the rotation as a starter -- and could end up being a hero as a late round pickup.
We're going to do well in most of the offensive categories; Howard, Utley, Peralta, Glaus and Wells will all hit home runs and drive in at least 75 RBI each, Gathright, Taveras, Crisp and Utley will give me plenty of speed and will score runs... we might come up a bit short in batting average, because I don't have a natural .300 hitter in the lineup -- but it's a small price to pay for an offense that's well rounded in every other way. Our pitching will be solid; I'll stack my 1-3 up with almost anyone in the league, and if Madson emerges I could have a very promising full rotation. If Papelbon becomes a starter with the Sox it gives me another really good option. The glaring weakness in pitching is my bullpen. It sucks. Guardado is 97 years old and plays on a lousy team, and Reitsma is both injury-prone and inconsistent; I don't expect him to be closing by Memorial Day. I usually consider relievers an afterthought in the draft, because saves is one category and I feel okay about punting that category... but I outdid myself on that score this year. And even if it's only sacrificing 7-10 points in the saves category, those are points that could be critical in the stretch.
But all in all, I feel really good about this team. We're going to be competitive, at the very least... and if a few things break right (i.e., Madson emerges as a star, Santana has the breakout year I expect he will, and either Murton, Gathright or Kubel turn into stars this season), I think it's even possible for me to return to the winner's circle in October. I really do feel that good about the Kings.
So I'll keep you posted... if I can figure out how to do it without incurring storage charges on my blog, I may even experiment with doing a short weekly podcast for the league and putting it up here (because yes, I am that creative, and yes, I am that geeky), so you may hear even more frequently about the league and the Kings. In the meantime, the season starts tonight. Click, Click, Boom.
Posted by Christopher at 10:23 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBackMarch 26, 2006
All Aboard The Bandwagon
Hope they inflated the tires up real good, because the George Mason bandwagon is gonna pick up about another 25 million riders this week. I'll happily be among them. My NCAA pool hopes died with Duke (lesson learned: never again side with the devil, even when you think it can win you money), so I am more than happy to start cheering for the greatest underdog story in 20 years in college basketball.
There have been underdogs before; in fact, every year, a few of them make it into the Sweet 16. But very rarely do underdogs reach this level, the Final Four. As the entire world will point out with nauseating frequency this week, the most direct comparisons are North Carolina State in 1983, Villnova in 1985, and Kansas in 1988. Maybe LSU in 1986 belongs in the conversation, the last 11 seed to get to the Final Fout. Yes, Kansas won it all in 1988, as did 'Nova in '85 and Jimmy Valvano's NC State in '83. But every single program on that list was from a major conference where even surviving to the NCAA tournament level means having gone at least .500 in one of the premier competitive environments college basketball offers. George Mason is the first mid-major to make the Final Four since the NCAA tournament became the "March Madness" mass marketing machine that it is today.
And Mason did it the hard way -- as Dick Vitale and others have noted this afternoon, their road to Indianapolis ran through three of the last six national champions, half of last year's Final Four, and three Hall of Fame coaches. This isn't just some fluke, friends. These are some kids playing out of their heads and hitting an incredible streak, yes. But they're playing damn good basketball. Better than Michigan State. Better than North Carolina. And better than UConn. If they can play better than Florida next Saturday, they will have taken their Disney movie in the making all the way to the national championship game. And you'll be able to hear me rooting for them all the way from Italy.
Move over, Rudy. Take a seat, Hoosiers. Grab some bench, The Rookie. The next okay-for-men-to-cry-at-the-end sports movie is being scripted right now, only in real life. Because if George Mason wins two more games... Cinderella's gonna look like a trailer park floozy in comparison.
Posted by Christopher at 11:52 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBackMarch 19, 2006
On Any Given Payday...
The World Baseball Classic is coming to a dramatic and successful close, with Monday's final between Cuba and Japan at San Diego's Petco Park. If you're a baseball die-hard, it's been a fun tournament, with thrilling finishes and the Korean team's surprise run to the semi-finals. But casual fans -- at least in America -- aren't paying much attention; the United States was eliminated in the quarterfinal round.
The WBC flop follows similar disappointments for the United States in other sports. The US men's basketball team laid an egg in Athens at the 2004 Summer Olympics, settling for a bronze medal. (This came after the humiliating debacle at the 2002 World Championships, in which the US lost three of its last four games and finished sixth.) More recently, the US Olympic Men's Hockey team went to Torino as medal favorites, and promptly defecated in the sleeping area and was bounced from the tournament without looking like a remote threat for even the bronze.
What gives? The United States is home to the major sporting leagues of the world, the most developed college athletics system anywhere on the globe, and has a wealth of resources to throw at sports. How come all of a sudden we can't win in international team competition? Actually, we don't just "not win;" we tend to crash and burn like the Six Million Dollar Man's spaceship. What the heck's the problem?
In a word, it's money.
Sports in the United States have become carictature. Be it baseball, basketball, hockey, football, soccer, or any other sport, sport has strayed far from the spirit of team competition and become business -- a simple chase of money. Be it in the nominally "professional" leagues (whose players rarely behave "professionally"), or in the college ranks where we still keep up the ridiculous facade that the players are "amateurs," sport in the United States is all about the Benjamins. Fans, owners, and especially players care not for the game, but for themselves -- if we love home run chases, who cares if the players are cheating? If butts are in the seats of the stadiums our owners have built, who cares if the players cheat to deliver? And players... they live in a me-me-me world more suited to two year olds in day care than alleged professionals.
Want a couple of prime examples? The baseball season starts in two weeks. New York Yankee Gary Sheffield is already giving interviews from spring training complaining about the pressure he feels before the season begins. Is the pressure because the Yankees haven't won a World Series since 2000, and he as one of the team's leaders is expected to return the trophy to his team and city? Nah. Sheffield feels pressure because he "only" has one more year remaining on his contract, and despite making $13 million this year and being a 39 year old player with durability questions, he's unhappy that the Yankees haven't yet signed him to a longer contract.
“I'm still not comfortable. The thing is, I'm not allowed to be comfortable," he said before the Yankees played the Florida Marlins in a spring training game. "And that's the reality of my situation. I always have to play with my back against the wall."
Here's another. After the US hockey team whimpered out or Torino, you'd think that team "leader" Mike Modano would have been most upset about the fact that his heaviliy favored team lost badly, playing uninspired hockey. Instead, he complained loudly about his travel accomodations.
"You'd think USA Hockey would be a well-oiled machine, but it's not," he said. "Basically we were on our own for hotels, tickets, flights, stuff like that. Normally we wouldn't have to worry about stuff like that."
Hey, Mike, guess what? The fans who buy tickets to see you play -- whether in Torino or Dallas or anywhere else -- are on their own for hotels, tickets, flights, and stuff like that. They manage to do their jobs every day.
Frankly, sports in the United States today can't be bothered with something if it doesn't involve major amounts of money directly to the players and owners. The World Baseball Classic? It's an exhibition; it distracts from the business of spring training. The Olympics? The NHL grumbles its way through a two week break in the season every four years to begrudgingly accomodate them. The biggest question about the US basketball teams most often is whether Nike or Reebok will sponsor the team and get their logo on the uniforms.
Believe it or not, as much as I may sound like it, I am not writing this post to complain about the state of sports today and how it was purer when I was a kid. Nor am I trying to place blame on Mike Modano for US hockey's flop or Gary Sheffield for the US performance in the WBC. Sports as a business and not a game has given us thrilling wild card races and rotisserie leagues in baseball (the FLAKS league draft is now less than two weeks away, and my binders and magazines full of notations sit in the Do Not Lose This Place of Honor on my desk, so I fully admit to enjoying the fruits of the system here). The current set up has given us March Madness, the spectacle that is the Super Bowl, and has ingrained ESPN so deeply in our culture that having a cable system without it is literally unthinkable for 96% of American males. I watch Sports Center from the treadmill on those mornings I actually make it to the treadmill. I'm not pretending to be above it all... I'm a part of it.
I am, however, trying to explain why a US sports team has not won a major international competition since 1999 (and even then it was the Women's World Cup soccer team -- a team from an environment not yet driven by and obsessed with money).
American sports fans must wake up to the fact that our system -- our athletes, our organizing committees, even ourselves as fans -- simply is not about winning any longer; it is about money. Where winning abets the bottom line, so much the better, but our system does not value winning for winning's sake. International competitions like the World Baseball Classic or the Olympics, for as much money is behind them, are still about competing, and about winning. If you don't think so, observe the passion and excitement that players -- not just fans, but players -- on the teams from the Dominican Republic or Korea have shown for winning games in this tournament. Even though many of the Latin players in particular also play in Major League Baseball, they're still from a culture not as dominated by money and individual payout. Winning, even without a massive payday to serve as motivation, still matters to them, for its own sake. And so they've won. And so the US has lost. And as long as the system remains as it is, it's hard for me to imagine the US not losing. The days of the US dominating international competition are over. We simply don't care enough. Winning for its own sake is no longer what American sports are about, unless there's a big check involved. Without the money, we just don't care. And without change, it's going to be a long time before the US wins another major sport international competition.
The United States has more resources to throw into athletics than any other nation, resources designed to build supertrained, highly tuned athletes and the very best programs on earth. It's ironic that it is the very abundance of those resources that keeps us from doing the very thing that sports were supposed to be about all this time: winning.
Posted by Christopher at 11:37 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBackMarch 16, 2006
Mudge Madness
Basketball thoughts of the day:
This is why I hate basketball. And by the way, "Starbury," you and your selfish, useless little punk ass can go lay down in rush hour traffic any second now. If you're so damn good, being the "best point guard in the league" and all, then how come the team your bitch-ass punk self leads is the worst team in basketball, at 18-45? If you were really any good, wouldn't you have led your team to even an 8 seed by now, instead of missing the playoffs for years on end? I realize -- and Corey will be the first to tell me -- that I don't see any NBA players close up, and that most are good men whose attitudes aren't reflected by disgraces like Stephon Marbury, Allen "Practice" Iverson, Latrell "Feed My Family" Spreewell, or Sam "Whine" Cassell. Fine. What I do see/read about all the time are selfish, me-first, immature jerk players like Stephon Marbury. And it's not a media conspiracy that puts words in Marbury's mouth (or AI's, or Spree's, or Cassell's); these guys are only too happy to share their selfish thoughts. And so I despise the NBA on character issues.
This is why, despite hating basketball, I do truly enjoy March Madness every year. I had Winthrop picked on one of my boards, and there were a bunch of us with adrenalin rushes this afternoon watching the last few seconds of this game. For the record, I thought that Lofton travelled. (In case you haven't figured out by now, if a call goes against a team when I am cheering for them, it is a bad call no matter how the rules might suggest it should be called; similarly, if a non-call might have been called, if the team I am rooting for would have benefitted, then the ref is blind. That's just the way it is. Deal.)
If I win the pool I am in... well, let's just say that I would be able to enjoy one very extravagant evening out at dinner or in post-dinner socializing. So you might want to be cheering for me, just in case I decide to have a "Help Mudge Spend His Pool Winnings" reader contest.
Posted by Christopher at 11:02 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBackMarch 08, 2006
Bonds' Stock Drops
Regarding Barry Bonds, I damn told ya. Over and over again. Barry, get your 'roided up, bigoted ass out of the game. My game. You've been a disgrace to it for years, but at this point I agree with this guy: your contibued presence in the game is no longer just an embarrassment, but now represents a challenge to the game's ongoing integrity; every day that you keep playing is a day that MLB is less credible and less honorable. Get. The. Hell. Out.
Oh - and I also agree with this guy: you were tainted before, but now your "records" are completely useless and meaningless. You're a fraud. You're not a Hall of Famer, Barry. You don't count. Screw the asterisks, what baseball needs for you is an eraser. If Pete Rose's transgressions keep him out of the Hall (in my opinion, they should), then yours not only keep you out of the Hall, but ought to keep the Giants from retiring your number, and ought to get everything you did after 1998 out of the books. Strip the MVPs, invalidate the HRs and RBIs and walks... get you completely out of the record books. Remember in the old Soviet Union, when someone ran afoul of Stalin how all of a sudden all mentions of that person not only ceased, but the person was completely erased from photos as well, as if to deny that the person had ever even existed? That's what baseball ought to be doing with you. You're not even in team photos as a bat boy now, punk.
Oh... and if any of you reading are still actually so naive as to think that Barry's an innocent victim of yet another witch hunt by an angry and jealous media, I present to you Exhibit A, courtesy of Sports Illustrated. Men fill out from age 20 into their late 30s. I know this. I am a prime example. But no one "fills out" like Bonds has from 1998-2005. It defies physical nature. As someone on ESPN said, Barry is the Un-Natural. And if you look at these 12 photos and don't see clear and incontrovertible evidence of steroid use, then I own this really great bridge in New York that my wife Jessica Alba and I would love to sell you.
The biggest tragedy of all is that Bonds is mentioned in the same breath as a great man like Henry Aaron. Aaron overcame tremendous racism; Bonds is a racist. He started juicing up because he was angry that Mark McGwire was "allowed" to use andro "because he was white," and remains on his quest to surpass Babe Ruth because Ruth was white. (He's noted Ruth's race many times.) How sad it is that Aaron -- who overcame racism and hatred at its ugliest and did so with a quiet dignity that still serves as an example of how to be a man, during his pursuit of the record -- has to be in the same sentence as a man whose attitudes toward race are apparently not much different than those who hated Aaron.
(Imagine a white running back in the NFL 'roiding up and saying that he's staying in the game to beat Walter Payton and Emmitt Smith's records because they were black. Think that David Duke cracker would be allowed to stay in th game for long? But somehow, we're supposed to accept garbage like that from Bonds.)
Hnery Aaron was and remains a gia