Sports Central | Articles and Columns

« May 2010 | Main | July 2010 »

June 30, 2010

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 17

Note: The quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson muscled past Kurt Busch with two laps to go at New Hampshire and held on to secure his fifth win this season, effectively ending any talk of a so-called slump. Five laps earlier, Busch has bumped Johnson up the track for the lead, but Johnson recovered to position the No. 48 Lowe's Chevy for the race-winning pass. Johnson celebrated his win with the traditional burnouts, and dedicated the victory to his pregnant wife Chandra, who is expecting the couple's first child in a month.

"Trust me, I wanted badly to retaliate against Busch," Johnson said. "Luckily, Chad Knaus calmed me, which I believe makes me the first driver to be served with a 'restraining' order since Jeremy Mayfield."

"It's readily apparent that Busch used a lot more force moving me out of the way that I did on him. Kurt knew I had the better car, which is why it didn't take much to get by him for the lead. Call it a 'baby' bump, if you will."

"Had I wrecked Busch in retaliation, that would have made me no better than him, and we all know that's not true."

2. Kevin Harvick — Harvick recorded his Sprint Cup series-best 12th top-10 finish this year, driving to a fifth in the Lenox Industrial Tools 301. In his amazing run of consistency this year, Harvick has only one result outside the top 20 and no DNFs. He leads the point standings by 105 over the hard-charging Jimmie Johnson.

"In this sport," Harvick said, "consistency often precludes greatness. If you're going to use the word 'consistent' to describe me, please call me 'consistently ornery.' And tell Joey Logano that such a categorization 'suits' me just fine."

"Usually, the points leader after 26 races does not eventually win the Sprint Cup title. I want to change that. Ideally, I'd like to retain the points lead, pick up a few wins before the Chase, and upend Jimmie Johnson's four-year reign, thus becoming the 'exception to the rule.'"

3. Kyle Busch — Busch had a top-five run ruined when Jeff Burton got loose on lap 289 and slid into Busch, sending the No. 18 Interstate Batteries Toyota spinning up the track. Busch kept his car off of the wall, but track position was compromised, and after pitting for repairs, restarted 14th. He eventually finished 11th, and remained third in the point standings, 161 behind Kevin Harvick.

"The 'new Kyle Busch' simply gets angry," Busch explained. "The 'old Kyle Busch' would have got even. Despite his flaws, I think everyone prefers 'old Kyle.' I know Burton was on old tires and meant no harm, but 'Old Kyle' would have 'O.K.-ed' retaliation anyway."

"'New Kyle?' He's content to tolerate perceived injustices, sarcastically comment on them, and let them simmer until 'Old Kyle' engulfs 'New Kyle.'"

4. Denny Hamlin — Hamlin struggled with handling issues at Loudon, falling a lap down midway through the race after being lapped by race-leader Jeff Burton. Benefitting from the "Lucky Dog" free pass on lap 238, Hamlin returned to the lead lap and recorded a respectable 14th. He is still fourth in the Sprint Cup point standings, and now trails Kevin Harvick by 185.

"We tinkered with a new setup for this race," Hamlin said, "hoping to find an edge. Obviously, it didn't work as we planned, which would seem to indicate that my strength lies more in 'tweaking' Kyle Busch than it does in tweaking my car."

"Now that Jimmie Johnson has matched my five wins and reclaimed the role as Cup favorite, it's imperative that Joe Gibbs Racing step up its game. That means Kyle and I need to work together. And believe me, nothing says 'teamwork' better than a death threat."

5. Jeff Gordon — Gordon finished fourth at New Hampshire, posting his eighth top-five result of the year, as Hendrick Motorsports teammate Jimmie Johnson took the win. Gordon, still winless this year, is fifth in the point standings, 187 out of first.

"What do you get when you cross a 46-race winless streak with the mounting pressures to break that streak?" Gordon said. "A 'dry hump,' of course."

"I guess Martin Truex, Jr.'s revenge never materialized. After admittedly 'driving through' the field at Sonoma, I was surely expecting, and prepared for, a 'drive through' penalty at New Hampshire. It never came."

"Now, it seems I'm on Juan Pablo Montoya's hit list, as well. And he's not alone in his desire for payback. Everybody wants a piece of me, so it would only make sense that I drive the Target car at Talladega."

6. Kurt Busch — Busch nudged Jimmie Johnson for a short-lived lead with seven laps to go at New Hampshire, moving Johnson's No. 48 Lowe's Chevrolet up the track. Unfortunately, that left Johnson ample time to regroup, which he did, calmly passing Busch with two laps remaining and pulling away for his fifth win of the year. Busch held on for third place, and maintained the sixth spot in the Sprint Cup point standings, 201 behind Kevin Harvick.

"I think this is exemplary of NASCAR's 'have at it, boys' policy," Busch said. "And Johnson played it perfectly. When you get 'Busch-ed,' you should 'Busch' back."

"But I have to tip my hat to Johnson. He won, fair and square, and did so without wrecking me, which I'm sure would have been applauded as much as his win. Dedicating a win to your pregnant wife is such a touching gesture. The Johnson's are expecting a 'bundle of joy,' as opposed to a 'bundle of LaJoie,' which I believe is a bag of marijuana."

7. Tony Stewart — Stewart claimed his fourth-consecutive top-10 finish, and fifth of the last six races, with a third in the Lenox Industrial Tools 301 in New Hampshire. He slipped underneath Kurt Busch with a lap to go to claim the runner-up spot. Stewart moved up one spot to ninth in the point standings, 331 out of first and 138 ahead of 12th.

"Busch and I have clashed on numerous occasions," Stewart said. "This time, I got the upper hand. The last time, Busch got the back hand."

"I have to credit Busch for his pass on Jimmie Johnson. It was a bold one, but I'm sure Kurt Busch knew he was a sitting duck after bumping Johnson for the lead. As you know, there's a lot of pregnant wives of drivers, and I'm sure Busch could himself relate to the pains of his labors, because he had to have a 'gut feeling' that Jimmie would come back."

8. Jeff Burton — Leading during the final caution in the Lenox Industrial Tools 301, Burton was the only lead lap car to remain on the track, while others pitted for tires. The decision quickly proved costly and wrong, as Jimmie Johnson easily overtook Burton's No. 31 Lenox Industrial Tools Chevy. Then Burton got loose battling Kyle Busch for second and made contact with the No. 18, sending both spinning and out of contention for the win. Burton finished 12th, and held on to eighth in the point standings.

"My fall from race leader to has-been was swift," Burton said. "And I take full responsibility for the chain of events that sent me from 'somebody' to 'nobody' in a hurry. I guess that would be called 'contrition of anonymity.'"

9. Dale Earnhardt, Jr. — Earnhardt finished eighth at New Hampshire, and solid finishes in his last three races have put him on the cusp of the top 12 in the Sprint Cup point standings. Earnhardt is only three points behind Carl Edwards in 12th, and has momentum heading to Daytona on Saturday.

"I would be extremely satisfied to crack the top 12 in points," Earnhardt said. "At this point, moral victories are just as good as actual ones."

"We need to continue building momentum, but it will take time before anyone will be calling me a threat to win the Sprint Cup. Remember, Rome wasn't built in a day, nor was Junior Nation. But Junior Nation was conceived in a day."

10. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth, with new crew chief Jimmy Fennig at the helm, finished a lap down in 17th at New Hampshire, continuing a slump that has seen Kenseth post only two top-10 finishes in the last 10 races. Kenseth, however, is still seventh in the Sprint Cup point standings, 285 out of first.

"That's my third crew chief this year," Kenseth said. "Carl Edwards may threaten it, but this No. 17 Crown Royal actually backs it up when we say we plan to 'rearrange faces.'"

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 10:01 AM | Comments (0)

June 29, 2010

Underlying Questions of Free Agency

When the gaudiest free agency period in NBA history opens on Thursday at 12:01 AM, there will 171 free agents, nearly six per team. Most of those are unrestricted free agents, meaning that player turnover could reach an all-time high. LeBron James, Dwyane Wade, and Chris Bosh have been talked about on end, so it's nearly redundant to say that much about them. I'll address three important questions that have not been raised too often in the buildup to early Thursday morning.

What about Dirk?

Of all the All-NBA players that will become free agents on Thursday, just one has made 10 All-NBA teams in a row. Amazingly, he has only been the fourth or fifth most-talked about free agent behind LeBron, Wade, Bosh, and possibly Amar'e Stoudemire. Yes, it's possible that Dirk Nowitzki will be the first big-name free agent to re-sign with his current team Thursday. It's probable that Nowitzki will re-sign with the Mavericks in due time after the window opens. If you're Nowitzki, though, you owe it to yourself to explore your options, especially after you've declined a $21.5 million option for yourself.

Nowitzki must have a sour taste in his mouth after his performance, coupled with his team's effort, in the playoffs against San Antonio. Nowitzki shot 55% from the field, 57% from three-point range, and 95% from the line in the Mavs' six-game crash-out as the second seed in the West, all career playoff bests for the German.

Having just turned 32, Nowitzki still has a year or two at or very close to his prime. After that, it's easy to see someone like Dirk becoming a role player for a contending team.

If Bosh is right in his speculation about the free agency period, the LeBron and Wade pieces of the puzzle will help dictate where the other major dominoes fall. If Dirk waits in free agency, he may find himself with an opportunity to go to a team with a better chance of contending than the aging Mavs, whose nucleus has no contracted players under age 30.

How will the possibility of labor unrest in a year affect the free agent market?

The NBA's Collective Bargaining Agreement expires at the end of next season. Revenue is down league-wide, and David Stern says that the league lost $400 million last season. Owners seemingly have no choice than to undergo a new era of austerity. However, in the face of the oncoming free agent bonanza, frugality may lead to uncompetitiveness and further losses in revenue.

From the players' side, a reduction in contract length and salaries are certainties with the next CBA. Players with early opt-outs and restricted free agents are surely being told by their agents to sign contracts and lock in as much of a pay day as possible this summer in lieu of the possibility of a work stoppage or no season in 2011-2012.

As much movement as was promised by the names in this free agent class may be augmented by an impasse between the owners and the labor union.

What about the non-superstars?

This past Sunday, a report came out that LeBron was destined for Chicago, along with Bosh. If that ends up being true, Chicago would still have just seven players under contract for next season: LeBron, Bosh, Derrick Rose, Joakim Noah, Luol Deng, James Johnson, and Taj Gibson. Now, that's not a bad seven players in the least bit, but there obviously needs more than seven players to make up a team.

Teams that have put a lot their eggs in the summer 2010 basket are in similar circumstances: the Knicks have just five definitively contracted for next season, the Nets five, the Heat two, the Clippers five. The five above teams, without accounting for LeBron and Bosh on Chicago, have an average of just $21 million committed to their teams for next season, or less than 40% of the 2009-10 salary cap. That number, in practicality, is less when counting for cap exceptions for rookies, the mid-level exception, and others.

What teams that do land big-name free agents do with the extra cap space and cap exceptions they do have will be crucial to the NBA sea change that is likely to result from the next month.

Some of the most valuable names below the top echelon of free agents include Rudy Gay, John Salmons, Luis Scola, and Brendan Haywood. Even deeper down most people's list are players like Anthony Morrow, Kyle Lowry, and Roger Mason, Jr., who all could become productive role players for teams with star players.

Getting LeBron, Wade, or Bosh would be a coup should any change teams, and especially if LeBron and Bosh go as a package deal. However, how a team complements a big acquisition, and how it plays the labor struggle, may be just as important to a club's success.

Posted by Ross Lancaster at 5:13 PM | Comments (0)

Why I Don't Love Soccer

Football is the world's most popular sport. Soccer, to us heathen North Americans. Why has the beautiful game, something easy both to play and to understand, failed to make headway against baseball and basketball and American football?

I like soccer. I played for over a decade, starting when I was a little kid and continuing into high school. I wasn't great, but I was good, and I enjoyed the game. I've always enjoyed the World Cup, and I even like MLS. I lived in Washington, DC, during the Marco Etcheverry years, when DC United was the best team in the country. I have great memories of watching DC pound Newcastle United during the summer of 2000, and I usually get to at least one MLS game a year. I always thought of myself as one of those Americans who "got" soccer, and appreciated its under-appreciation.

This year, however, I seem to have misplaced my enthusiasm. I've been following World Cup results, but I've hardly watched any of the games. Over the weekend, I chose track and field over Argentina/Mexico*. I probably won't get to an MLS match this year. What gives? How did I go from being a soccer fan to something bordering on indifference?

* Please forgive me for stealing Joe Posnanski's format, which I actually find annoying in the first place, but I don't know how else to do this. To put this in some context, (1) I love track and field. Fine, I don't usually pay much attention outside of the Olympics, but if it was on tv more, I'd watch it all the time. Apart from the NFL, there's no sport I prefer. (2) Argentina was already winning 2-0. That's borderline insurmountable in soccer.

I've been wondering recently why I'm not more excited about the World Cup. This is the least enthusiastic I've been in my adult life. What's missing that I like about other sports? I think part of the answer is above, when I mention a two-goal lead being "borderline insurmountable." Every goal is huge in soccer. That's a good thing on some level, but with scoring at such a premium, one flukey play or bad call can turn a match. I always rooted for the underdog when I was growing up, but these days, I often just root for good games and fair results. More often than not, I want the better team to win. Low scoring in soccer facilitates upsets, and I know that's a good thing in some ways, part of what makes the sport exciting. It just seems a little random to me sometimes. How meaningful is a single-elimination tournament in this kind of sport, really?

I hate to be the stereotypical American, but I'm also starting to understand why some fans criticize the game as boring. I don't agree with them, but there are very few explicit rewards in soccer. Other sports with higher scoring, or even more definite "good plays" — like a hit in baseball or a first down on the gridiron — offer fans more opportunities for celebration. And not to put too fine a point on it, but celebration is fun.

Soccer aficionados sometimes complain that popular American sports are dull and slow-paced. I understand that kind of criticism, but I also appreciate the downtime in those games. It offers a brief break to reflect on what has just happened as well as what might happen next. I think that makes the game more enjoyable. In soccer, there's constant action, and it can be a little much at times. Even an instant replay could cause you to miss something.

Perhaps my biggest and least surprising complaint with soccer is the officiating. I'm not talking about any of the various wrong calls in South Africa — though let's dispense with "controversial" and admit that several of these were blatantly and undeniably wrong — though that's certainly an issue. I'm speaking more generally. The officiating sucks, and it always has. The biggest problem, in my mind, is diving. Players faking or exaggerating injuries is undignified and infantile. It's what your little sister did to get you in trouble when you were a kid, and it always worked then, too. It's incredibly ugly to watch, and it makes it hard to respect the players or acknowledge the results. If there's a phantom foul called every three minutes, how can an honest team even be competitive? Why bother watching grown men fake injuries? I could get that from WWE if it's what I wanted.

I don't intend this column as a screed against soccer. I retain great affection for the sport, and I'm getting more interested in the World Cup as the tournament progresses. But I've also begun to understand some of the criticisms against the world's most popular game, and I'd be lying if I said I weren't already looking forward to that "other" football season beginning in autumn.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 4:33 PM | Comments (5)

June 28, 2010

Will the Nats Spoil Stephen Strasburg?

It tells you something that Stephen Strasburg has provoked a debate as to whether or not he should be part of the all-star proceedings despite (at this writing) four dazzling major league starts and the kind of public acclaim earned once upon a time by a comparably-dazzling sprout named Dwight Gooden.

For the record, I'm a little on the fence about the all-star berth. No question Strasburg is a fan magnet and, thus far, he's got the performance papers to back it up despite not having thrown his first major league pitch until this month. I'm not all that enticeable into endorsing that fresh a sprout for the All-Star Game, never mind the foibles of the game itself, as against others having sterling full first halves, but neither am I all that enticeable into opposing it.

I've got more important things on my brain when it comes to Stephen Strasburg. Such things as what it should tell you that only a very, very few — Jeff Pearlman comes to mind at once — are debating a far more grave question on the periphery of which Strasburg again may compare to Gooden:

Are the Washington Nationals going to ruin the prodigy before his time? Forget about whether he was rushed to the Show. He's proving well enough that he belongs. The question is whether, now that he's here, someone in his own organization is going to decide that it just isn't good enough to go out there and pitch as though he's got 10 years, 120 wins, and near 2,000 strikeouts on his jacket already.

Ponder this, if you dare: the Nats' brain trust is already making the kind of noise that should have been taken as a dire warning in the wake of the Gooden story, a warning that reads: if it isn't broken, don't call the repairmen. Strasburg was barely two stupefying, dominating starts into his major league career when the whisperings turned to full-volume talking out of the Nats' camp.

"Don't expect to see double-digit strikeouts too often," manager Jim Riggleman told reporters. "He's going to be more of a ground ball pitcher, like Ubaldo Jimenez, than a strikeout pitcher like Roger Clemens or Kerry Wood. It's better to get three outs on 12 pitches than three strikeouts on 18."

On the one hand, maybe Riggleman was smart in expressing that kind of knotty tinker-happiness early enough that it can't fracture Strasburg's confidence too greatly. But it still isn't a smart idea, and you have only to remember Dwight Gooden's sad story to know why.

For his first two seasons, Gooden owned the National League and maybe the game. A fastball to which not even the Thunderbirds could catch up. A curve ball that was maybe the most curvaceous such pitch anyone had seen since Sandy Koufax's big, voluptuous deuce. It was all he had and all he needed, and you needed no evidence further than a 43-8 won-lost record, a 2.04 ERA, and 544 strikeouts those first two campaigns.

Then the Mets decided, in spring training 1986, that Gooden, who wasn't broken, needed to be fixed up a little bit. Needed more pitches, never mind whether he could actually throw them well enough.

Jeff Pearlman couldn't help remembering the precedent. He got Ed Hearn, who spoke well enough of the dilemma in The Bad Guys Won (Pearlman's excellent and rather sad review of the 1986 Mets), to speak up once more for Sports Illustrated.

"They want to make him more 'efficient'," Pearlman tells Hearn of the Nats viz Strasburg. "So he doesn't waste pitches."

"Dwight Gooden," Hearn replies. "They said the same thing about Doc way back when. The exact same thing."

The Mets, influenced powerfully enough by otherwise becalmed and farsighted pitching coach Mel Stottlemyre, decided that the child prodigy with the least hittable four-seam fastball and the least knowable curve ball in the business needed more. They decided he needed to learn a changeup for which he could never quite get the hang or the grip. They decided he needed to add a two-seam fastball to the repertoire, the better to get the grounders that might or might not turn into base hits along the way. Allow for the fact that Gooden did have a rather weighty workload his first two seasons, then throw in that he didn't seem any worse off for it.

Now, remember Gooden in spring 1986 and throughout the Mets' otherwise stupefying run to the postseason. The kid who went out to the mound in 1984 and 1985 looking for all the world as though behind that composed exterior lurked the mind and heart of an absolute assassin who knew what he was doing on the mound now resembled a kid who didn't know which end was up by comparison.

He had about six or seven different landing points as opposed to the one or two on which he lived previously. "There were four catchers with the team [in spring training] — [Gary] Carter, Ed Hearn, Barry Lyons, and John Gibbons — who had handled Gooden at one point or another. All four agreed that Stottlemyre's plan was poorly thought out. 'I remember catching him one day in the bullpen, and they were working with him on the two-seam,' says Hearn. 'I'm thinking, What the hell is this? He was a power pitcher with tons of movement, and they're trying to teach him movement? What the hell for?"

It didn't stop with Stottlemyre. General manager Frank Cashen prodded the prodigy to shorten that striding leg kick of his the better to keep the other guys from running on him. Another Met executive, Joe McIlvaine, began beating the drums against striking out all those hitters. Still others suggested this and that, and the pliant Gooden made a tragic mistake to compound it all. He listened to every last one of them.

And he became ordinary good. The Mets got what they wanted in 1986 — Gooden struck out a mere 200. But he also won only 17 games and, except for one magnificent duel against Nolan Ryan in the National League Championship Series, he didn't pitch well during the Mets' surreal postseason run. And he may also have ramped what had begun as a mere occasional recreation into a full-time, full-blown habit, the one that got him into rehab for the first time to open 1987.

He also damaged his shoulder. Dwight Gooden's career became as notable for his shoulder trouble as for all those occasional laments of what might have been. We'll never really know whether the substance abuse issues that finally brought him to the brink of suicide all those years later were launched in earnest by an unspoken frustration (Gooden was never the type to blow his own horn in the first place) that he had been sent from off-the-chart greatness to mere workability and that, eager to please soul that he was, he had helped punch the ticket.

Gooden himself had a sad precedent. When Joe Black knocked the National League on its ear in 1952 (Rookie of the Year, and the first black pitcher to start and win a World Series game), Brooklyn Dodgers manager Charlie Dressen, too, decided Black needed more. He forced Black to learn to throw a different kind of curve ball than the one he'd used so effectively. The problem was that Black was, physically, incapable of throwing the pitch in the first place. But determined to please his manager, Black kept at it. By season's end, he was a mess, in his statistics and in his head. He went from 15-4/2.15 in 1952 to 20-10/6.51 for the rest of his career, which ended in 1957.

Here's who the Nationals ought to listen to: John McGraw.

McGraw latched onto a prodigy who wasn't a pitcher, but who could hit about 10 tons. The Little Napoleon was bigtime petrified that some manager or coach down on the farm would get one look at this kid's magnificent — and weird — swing (he was a left-handed hitter who strode into the pitch about the way Dwight Gooden strode toward the plate: with a high leg kick and big stride forward) and do to him precisely as Dressen would do with Black, the Mets would do with Gooden, and the Nationals are threatening to do with Strasburg.

Managers being just a little more powerful in those years than they are now, McGraw prevailed. He kept the kid right next to him on the bench for two years, teaching the boy everything there was to teach about the game, letting him into a few games to loosen him up and build up his confidence, and then turned him loose once and for all.

The kid merely became an eleven-time all-star, a six-time home run champion, a three-time World Series competitor with one ring to show for the three, and got to retire as the National League's home run king until another Giant — a fellow named Mays — ambled along and drove him out of the record book.

The kid's name was Mel Ott.

If the Washington Nationals want Stephen Strasburg to last as long as possible and pitch as well as possible, they'll ignore such precedents as the 1986 Mets or the 1953 Dodgers. They'll hark back instead to the 1926-27 Giants, to John McGraw and his prodigy Mel Ott, who probably would have had one hell of a time hitting Strasburg no matter how magnificent was his unorthodox swing.

Then just leave Strasburg alone and tell him to strike out as many hitters as he sees fit. (And forget the Clemens precedent, unless you want this kid to fall into ugly questions about actual or alleged performance-enhancing substances. Point to Nolan Ryan. He pitched 27 seasons and became a Hall of Famer by trying to strike out as many hitters as he could. Just don't let his software get as stunted as Ryan's was, where a typical game becomes a ton of strikeouts and a ton of walks. The kid's already got it over Ryan in that department.)

Because they're not pondering Strasburg for a possibly premature All-Star Game appearance because he's getting the hitters to beat so many balls into the ground they're turning Nationals Park into an oil field.

Posted by Jeff Kallman at 6:26 PM | Comments (0)

Tradition is the Winner at Wimbledon 2010

As I write this, we are down to the final 16 men and women at the greatest sports championship in the world, the Wimbledon tennis championships. On the men's side and women's side, there are no great surprises. With the exception of Samantha Stosur's early exit, everything else has been moving along, with the favorites playing well, as is traditional.

Tradition. Probably the biggest winner here. The granddaddy of all professional sports championships, The Championships Wimbledon played at the All England Lawn Tennis Club is steeped in tradition. The AELTC has stood firm for over a century in not giving up the traditions.

At Wimbledon, you must wear predominantly white outfits. They serve strawberries and cream at the concessions. There is no play on the middle Sunday. There is still a royal box. Best of all, they do not have a tie-breaker in the fifth and final set. This is all why tradition has been the biggest winner so far.

Had this been the U.S. Open or any number of tournaments, there would not have been a John Isner/Nicolas Mahut classic match. There would not be the longest match in tennis history. There would not have been the longest set in tennis history. There would not have been one of the most amazing matches of all-time.

The invention of the tie-breaker by Jimmy Van Alen in the 1970s made tennis more television-friendly, and its universal adoption changed the way tennis was played. While there is nothing more stressful than being in a sudden-death tie-breaker in a major tournament, you are guaranteed that at some point the match will end with a score of 7-6. Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe played an epic fourth set tiebreak at Wimbledon 30 years ago, and up to this point may have been the most talked about set of tennis ever, but I'm not sure it could stand up now to the amazing three days we were all just witness to.

Wimbledon has seen its share of incredible matches in the open era. It is hard to forget Tim Henman's and Goran Ivanisovic's three-day semifinal match in 2001 that ended maybe the Brit's best chance at a championship at home and gave a last time, wild card, former champion his first and only Wimbledon championship. Like John Isner and Nicholas Mahut, that match was completed over three days, however it was born out of three days of rain and bad weather.

Tennis fans still talk about aged veteran Pancho Gonzalez and young Charlie Pasarell going toe-to-toe, server for serve, here in 1969 that ended with Gonzalez winning in five hours and 12 minutes. At the time, it was the longest match ever and contained the most games played (22-24, 1-6, 16-14, 6-3, 11-9). What we saw this week with Isner and Mahut makes Gonzalez and Pasarell look like a walk in the park.

The 70-68 fifth set alone crushed the total 112 games Gonzalez played. The fifth set itself stretched nearly nine hours. At 11 hours and six minutes, it was double what the aged lion Pancho and Pasarell put on the grass. More amazingly, the two players managed to bang service ace after ace, setting match records for aces (113 for Isner, 103 for Mahut, and a whopping total 216). The scoreboards on the court were only programmed to reach 47-47, and failed at 48-47. The mere fact that Isner and Mahut managed to play on three consecutive days and come out seemingly fresh on each day was monumental. It is surprising that either of the big-servers actually had any shoulder left to serve anything. At one point, the net actually failed, seeming to signal that even the court was tired.

The dejection on Mahut's face after losing this epic battle showed it all. After three days, after 11 hours of playing tennis full out, someone had to lose, and neither wanted to be that guy. After the match, Mahut tried to run quickly to the locker room, but unfortunately the AELTC decided to immediately give both players a special recognition to commemorate the historic event. Mahut clearly did not want to have his picture taken smiling next to the scoreboard with the umpire and Isner. He just wanted to have some solitude. He muddled through better than any champion would and was finally allowed to run away. Isner rejoiced, as he should, and had the opportunity to be a special part of tennis history.

Sadly, Isner had nothing left the next day and fell to Thiemo de Bakker 6-0, 6-3, 6-2 in under 75 minutes. It was a far cry from the previous three days.

For the first time in 33 years, the Queen appeared in the Royal Box at Centre Court to cheer on UK favorite Andy Murray. Maybe she knew this would be a tournament to remember. Or maybe not, but it still will be, no matter who winds up winning; but then again, tradition and tennis already have.

Posted by Tom Kosinski at 4:39 PM | Comments (0)

June 25, 2010

Why Does World Cup End Badly For Women?

What is it with soccer that makes people want to hit women? In the last Sports Gospel, I detailed England's problem of beating women after World Cup losses. Then, after team USA's epic win over Algeria, an Algerian player slapped an Algerian lady journalist.

It caused a media brouhaha in the states, and by brouhaha, I mean that several blogs posted notes about it and it may have made it into a newspaper or two. Not for any real outrage, but more from a mocking point of view, like "hey, look at how poorly they handle that loss we gave them, aren't they jokers?"

At least on the English front, the Brits haven't lost yet. If you see an English woman with a messed out face, rest assured that it's only the result of inbreeding and not due to sports-related spousal abuse. Case closed.

But for Algerian ladies, what can they do to avoid such humiliating acts in the future? One, get out of Algeria. Two, don't report facts.

That's all it took for Asma Halimi (don't even try, you can't find anything on a Google image search) to get slapped by Algerian striker Rafik Saifi. Her was still upset over a story she wrote a year ago because it involved a quote from another interview he did that he didn't want many people to know about.

Right now, a lot of people wearing University of Kentucky sweatshirts are knodding their heads. "Yep, the bitch did sumtim she waddn't supposda do, and that's how you learn 'em."

But most civilized people realize how egregious this whole episode is. They also respect me for using a word like egregious.

Apparently, Halimi didn't even say anything, which makes this even more ridiculous. It's not like he got caught up in the heat of the moment after the she-reporter asked a tough question, he just went up to her and slapped her.

What I want to know is how long he has been sitting on this plan. It's clear his ax to grind is a year old, so he had to come to South Africa with some sort of gameplan to exact his revenge.

I have a hard time believing he was just wandering around the media area, thinking, "I feel like I'm forgetting something ... hmm ... oh yeah, there's that reporter I hate. I was gonna smack her. Hold on, brain, let me take care of this."

Maybe he was waiting until his team was officially eliminated so he couldn't get disqualified by FIFA from further games. If this is the case, what went through Rafiki's head after the U.S. scored?

"Welp, that settles it ... that lady is definitely getting slapped today."

What makes this story even better is that Halimi slapped him right back and bloodied his lip. Not only did he act like a bitch by slapping a woman (West Virginia is laughing at you, Rafiki ... a slap? Where's your right cross?), but then he got beat even worse.

Not only is he a loser on the pitch, he can't even win a slapping contest with a lady. In fairness to Rafiki (whose real name is close enough to the "Lion King" character that I'm going to keep calling him Rafiki, because a soccer-playing baboon is a funnier image than some foreign doofus), they probably should've gone best two out of three, but they were playing best slap wins, and Rafiki slaps with all the impotence of an Algerian soccer player (see what I did there?).

And my favorite part of this is that he's 35-years-old. This is his last World Cup. His legacy as a professional athlete will be defined as the dude that slapped a journalist. His legacy is being the biggest bitch on a team of losers.

I don't care if he played in a hundred charity games to raise the money to build 10 children's hospitals with his own bare hands or if he uses his car to drive old ladies to church, everyone will remember this guy as the douchebag that started a slapfight with a female journalist.

Even in terms of journalist slapping showdowns, he still doesn't win the honor for most memorable slap. If you don't believe me, Google "wrestler slaps reporter."

Thank goodness the World Cup is over in a few weeks. If this thing stretched until August, we'd probably have to deal with headlines like "Soccer player celebrates goal by lighting women on fire" or "Disgraced soccer ref gives ex-girlfriend red-card from life."

Posted by Mark Chalifoux at 3:33 PM | Comments (0)

June 24, 2010

Sports Q&A: France's World Cup "De"-Bacle

France's 2-1 loss to South Africa mercifully ended arguably the most disgraceful performance in the history of the World Cup. How did the 1998 champions and 2006 finalists fall so stunningly from the top of international soccer?

To say the French played like cowards would be an insult to the stereotypical stigma of the French as cowards. But right now the French squad deserves nothing but insults.

It could be argued that the French downfall began after a opening match tie, in which France failed to capitalize in the latter stages against a man-short Uruguay team. It was a frustrating performance for the French, and that frustration later led to a much higher level of degeneration in a 2-0 loss to Mexico.

In that game, French striker Nicolas Anelka insulted head coach Raymond Domenech after the coach criticized Anelka's first-half effort. Allegedly, Anelka called Domenech a "dirty son of a whore." With apologies to Domenech's mother, it was a heinous thing to say.

Instead of responding to such an insult in true French soccer fashion — with a malicious head-butt — Domenech chose simply to kick Anelka off the team. At that moment, any semblance of respect and faith in leadership left for Domenech was gone, and France's fate was virtually sealed.

Anelka's teammates revolted against his treatment, and refused to practice at one point. No one has ever praised them for their fighting, but in this case, the French must be commended for the tenacity of their infighting.

In the end, France didn't even win a game, and scored only one goal while giving up four tallies. And that has to be a sore subject for the French, going winless while "surrendering."

In addition, Domenech himself stooped to the depths of poor sportsmanship after France's 2-1 loss in their elimination-clinching game, adamantly rebuffing the handshake of South African head coach Carlos Alberto Parreira. Parreira tried repeatedly to offer his hand, only to be turned away by Domenech. So I'm guessing the blowjob was out of the question, too.

The moment capped France's incredible fall from grace, and left the entire country reeling with embarrassment.

Unlike some other teams in the 2010 Cup, the French can't blame questionable officiating for their World Cup catastrophe. Ironically, though, questionable officiating is why France made it to South Africa in the first place.

In November of 2009 against Ireland, an uncalled handball by Thierry Henry set up the goal that qualified France for the 2010 Cup, an Irish "spring" to the World Cup, if you will. It was a malodorous call, and in the light of the reputation of the French as smelly, it was likely the first time ‘French' and ‘Irish Spring' had ever been used in a sentence before.

Replays clearly showed Henry touch the ball twice, once with his hand and again with his arm, before winking and sending a perfect bounce pass to teammate William Gallas, who scored. Henry chose not to take the noble route and admit the handball then and there, which could have resulted in the referees disallowing the goal. Instead, Henry admitted his infraction well after the fact, and argued that similar passes are made all the time ... in the NBA.

There's a name for players like Henry. No, not a cheater, but a "goalie."

Was France's miserable performance in the World Cup merely an example of karma at work, leveling the playing field, so to speak, against the French after November's unfair display of French entitlement? Possibly, and likely, if you believe that the "hand of God" can truly manifest itself in the game of soccer.

Heretofore, the "hand of God" has been used to describe illegal goals, such as that of Henry's, as well as Diego Maradona's controversial goal in Argentina's 2-1 1986 World Cup quarterfinal win over England. I find it hard to believe that God would purposely impose his will in a soccer game; I find it even harder to believe that if God did actually play favorites, he would do so for the Argentinians or the French. Heck, they're not even mentioned in the Bible. Surely, God is a fan of the Israeli's.

God is a miracle worker, but He surely hates being credited with the miraculous plays that give underserving teams wins over teams that play by the rules. Probably as much as He despises seeing an athlete point skyward after a home run, touchdown, ace, or submission-inducing arm bar.

Maybe, where soccer is concerned, God's "hand" would be better served touching not the ball, but the eyes of an incompetent referee.

If God did, in fact, impact Henry's role in the disputed goal against Ireland, then God should be compelled to correct His mistake, and avenge the Irish. A just God would do so, an "eye for an eye" in biblical terms, an "equalizer" in soccer terms.

This is obviously what happened to the French in the World Cup, their cause derailed by divine intervention, which lurched them into increasing degrees of disrepair, spiraling further out of control with every game. This time, the "hand of God" was wearing of glove, and the French were dealt their comeuppance with a slap across the face.

Now, Irish eyes are smiling, and Irish livers are processing.

And the world is better for it. Isn't that proof of God's presence?

Yes, God works in mysterious ways. And it is certainly "mysterious" that God put his devilish plan into motion when his almighty power caused the words "dirty son of a whore" to be spoken. No one, least not the French, would even suspect a higher power of working in such a fashion. Not only is God omnipotent, he's a crafty son of a gun when it comes to covering his tracks.

With the French situation resolved, God's work in the 2010 World Cup is complete, right? No, not at all. God may have worked quickly to rectify the French situation, but it's been 24 years since the Maradona "hand of God" goal sullied the 1986 Cup. Well, it's payback time. And no, the Argentinians don't have hell to pay; they have God to pay, since He took the fall in 1986.

Argentina has lived a charmed World Cup so far, easily winning their group with three convincing victories. And guess who's coaching the team? Diego Maradona himself, a man with the audacity to say God helped him score a World Cup goal, and the same man who offered God no credit whatsoever for helping him overcome a cocaine habit. Is it reasonable to believe that God would offer his "hand" to aid with a goal, yet refuse to extend his "foot" to kick a drug addiction?

Like the Rapture, God's wrath against Argentinian soccer is long overdue.

We can't be sure when, or where, but at some point, God will impose his will, and Argentina, like France, will fall at the "hand" of God.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 1:38 PM | Comments (3)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 16

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Denny Hamlin — Hamlin's run of two-straight wins came to an abrupt halt at Infineon Raceway, where an early accident set him back and caused ongoing problems. At one point, the hood pins on Hamlin's No. 11 FedEx Toyota broke, causing the hood to cover his windshield. He eventually finished 34th, his worst finish of the year, and fell one spot in the points to fourth, 151 out of first.

"I won't back off on my statements about 'phantom' debris cautions," Hamlin said, "but I will obviously have to yield on any insinuation that I can win 'blindfolded.'"

"Despite my troubles at Infineon and Jimmie Johnson's win, I still feel that the No. 11 FedEx Toyota is the car to beat. Sure, I'm biased towards FedEx, but that doesn't necessarily make me a 'mail' chauvinist."

2. Kevin Harvick — Harvick finished third at Sonoma, posting his Sprint Cup-best 11th top-10 finish of the year, and extended his points lead to 140. Harvick dueled with Robby Gordon for several laps, but was unable to overtake Gordon before the finish.

"As everyone knows," Harvick said, "Gordon is a volatile person. I wouldn't think of spinning him, much less bother getting to know him. I may be willing to 'slice bread' with Joey Logano, but I wouldn't dare 'break bread' with Gordon."

"As for anyone who may be critical of me, all I have to say is 'take a look at who's leading the Sprint Cup point standings.' I've basically been on top all year. My wife DeLana may wear the firesuit, but where the points lead is concerned, I'm the one wearing the strong suit."

3. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson captured his first career Sprint Cup road course win, capitalizing on Marcos Ambrose's glaring error to take the Toyota/Save Mart 350 at Infineon Raceway. Ambrose, in an effort to save fuel, cut his engine while under a late caution. When his engine didn't immediately re-fire, Ambrose was passed by seven cars as he sat idly on the track. Johnson, previously in second, assumed the lead and never looked back.

"Ironically," Johnson said, "this should put to rest all the speculation about my championship reign 'coming to a stop.' It's unfortunate that Ambrose wasn't able to re-fire his engine; I think we would have had a classic duel to the end. As it is, though, there hasn't been this much talk about 're-firing' since the subject of Casey Mears' career arose."

"I'm not sure why Ambrose felt he needed to conserve fuel. Apparently, though, he didn't save enough, because he wasn't able to make it to victory lane. As a native of Tasmania, Ambrose must be feeling Tasmanian 'bedevil-ed.'"

"Would Ambrose have won had he not stalled his engine? The question is moot. Any such debate on the matter is simply 'idle' chatter."

4. Kyle Busch — Trouble struck early for Busch at Sonoma, as a lap 10 pileup led to contact with the rear of Jamie McMurray's No. 1 car. With significant front-end damage, the No. 18 Pedigree Toyota head to the garage for repairs. Busch returned to the mix 33 laps down and finished 39th, dropping one spot in the points to third, 141 behind Kevin Harvick.

"I guess it's unfortunately fitting," Busch said, "that in a car sponsored by dog food, we suffered damage when we went 'nose-to-tail.' Had we rear-ended the No. 47 car of Marcos Ambrose sponsored by Clorox and Kleenex, I think our chances of keeping our 'nose clean' would have been much better."

"Obviously, with no finish better than 33rd, it was a tough day for Joe Gibbs Racing cars. And we've all got the incompetence of others to thank for it. Apparently, Kevin Harvick isn't the only driver adept at driving into the side of a Gibbs Toyota."

5. Jeff Gordon — Gordon stormed to a fifth-place finish in the Toyota Save Mart 350, but his actions in doing so raised the hackles of several competitors, including Martin Truex, Jr., Elliott Sadler, and Kurt Busch. Gordon apologized, for the most part, and said he deserved the criticism. He improved two spots in the point standings to fifth, and is 192 out of first.

"A lot of drivers said I was a bit too aggressive out there," Gordon said. "That may be so, but for a driver who once was considered a road course ace now mired in a road course drought, I'll try anything to get a win, even patience."

"But my apologies are a lot like the incidents that spawn them — I don't mean them. That should temper Kurt Busch's displeasure at not getting one."

"And I guess congratulations are in order for Jimmie Johnson. Jimmie wanted this win for himself alone, and I could tell he was extremely proud of his first road course win. That was evident in Victory Circle as he was photographed with the Sonoma trophy, sporting an ear-to-ear smile. In the land of 'wine and cheese,' it was a 'mine and say cheese' moment."

6. Greg Biffle — Biffle was the lone bright spot for Roush Fenway Racing at Sonoma, charging to a hard-fought seventh-place finish while his teammates struggled. Biffle battled back from an early pit road speeding penalty to collect his 10th top-10 finish of the year. He remained ninth in the point standings, 79 ahead of Carl Edwards in 12th.

"I was able to avoid the spins that cost my teammates Matt Kenseth and Carl Edwards," Biffle said. "It's just another example of the unpredictable nature of road course racing. Unless you're Jimmie Johnson, there are no 'givens.'"

"As in any debate, there are two schools of thought on NASCAR's decision to penalize Ambrose. Was NASCAR too harsh or too lenient? Parallels can be made with Edwards' wreck of Brad Keselowski at Atlanta. That was likely a case of NASCAR going to easy, because Edwards made a clean getaway. In Ambrose's case, maybe NASCAR acted too harshly, because Jimmie Johnson was recipient of a 'clear giveaway.'"

7. Tony Stewart — Stewart battled Boris Said down the stretch at Sonoma, with Stewart finishing ninth, one spot behind Said. Right after the race ended, Stewart plowed into Said's No. 26 Ford, apparently in retaliation for what Stewart deemed was unfairly aggressive racing on Said's part. Stewart improved one spot in the Sprint Cup standings to 10th, 351 out of first.

"I'll respond to the No. 26 team's criticisms in due time," said Stewart. "And when I do, you can best believe it will be another Tony Stewart quotable moment. Call it a 'road course zinger' for a 'road course ringer.'"

"Of course, what else would one expect when me and my sizable ego clash with Said, who's known nearly as much for his afro as for his driving ability? Nothing less than the situation coming to a 'head.'"

8. Kurt Busch — Busch's No. 2 Miller Lite Dodge was tagged from behind by Jeff Gordon on the race's final restart, and the impact cut the right-rear tire of the No. 2. A likely top-five finish evaporated, replaced by Busch's eventual finish of 32nd, and the Penske driver tumbled two places in the point standings to sixth, 216 out of first.

"Sadly," Busch said, "I saw my chances for a top-10 finish go down faster than Miller Lite out of the vortex bottle. And, in keeping with the theme of beer, I'm 'hopping' mad."

9. Jeff Burton — Burton, in his 500th Sprint Cup start, saw a sure top-10 finish when the No. 31 Caterpillar Chevy was spun by Marcos Ambrose No. 47 on the race's final restart. A disappointed Burton finished 27th, and maintained the eighth spot in the Sprint Cup point standings, where he trails Kevin Harvick by 307.

"I'm not too happy with Ambrose," Burton said. "With me, as opposed to his engine, he had a little more success 'starting' something."

10. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth limped home in 30th in the Toyota/Save Mart 350, seeing a promising finish derailed by a last lap spin, the result of a merciless scramble typical of the final laps on road courses. Kenseth fell two notches in the Sprint Cup point standings to seventh, and trails Kevin Harvick by 242.

"I'm disappointed," Kenseth said, "as are my legions of fans. And by 'legions,' I mean Crown Royal drinkers. That segment of my fan base are crazy about liquor in a purple bag, so crazy that I call them the 'Insane Crown Posse.' I feel truly blessed to have Crown Royal as a sponsor. Otherwise, I might not have any fans at all."

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 11:44 AM | Comments (2)

June 23, 2010

How Many Can Ubaldo Jimenez Win?

At the beginning of the season, many analysts were predicting Roy Halladay would be able to win 25 games in the National League with the Phillies. Halladay has pitched well, and when I say well, I mean he threw a perfect game for God's sake. His ERA is only 2.43 and he has 98 strikeouts, but his beloved Phillies have been letting him down and that 2.43 ERA, which ranks seventh in the NL has only earned him a record of 8-6. He has gained half of those losses in his last three starts. But while the Phillies struggle to provide run support to Halladay, he still has the most innings pitched in all of baseball. He has done his part well enough.

Despite that, Halladay trails the previously relatively unknown Ubaldo Jimenez in the win category by 5.

Jimenez has been a machine and at 13-1 is making people question not if he can win 25, but if he can win 30. His ERA is barely visible at 1.15. He threw the season's first no-hitter on April 17 and didn't allow a run the rest of the month.

He has recorded a decision in every outing thus far, with his only loss coming on an outing on the road against the Dodgers where he went 7 innings, gave up 2 hits, and 1 earned run, a game that by other pitcher's standards may have been their best outing of the season.

If Ubaldo keeps up this pace, he may be looking at a season of 30-3 or 31-2, which would be basically unheard of in this day and age.
So can he do it? No.

I'm not saying this guy isn't an amazing pitcher, or that he won't win the Cy Young in the NL. I think he will run away with it, but don't expect 30 wins out of him.

I'm not an advocate for looking at pitch count as a reason to take a guy out of a game, but Ubaldo's biggest weakness (if you had to find one) is that he walks a lot of batters. Even in his no-hitter, he walked 6 batters. His WHIP of 1.00 is still fantastic, but walking batters unnecessarily drives up his pitch count. He has thrown 90 or more pitches in every game and over 100 in 11 out of 14 starts, reaching 120 pitches four times.

His pitch totals are fairly comparable to Halladay's, but we know Halladay has proven he can do this before. In 2009, Halladay threw 100 pitches in all but five games (one an injury-ended outing).

Ubaldo was just as durable in 2009 when he threw 100 pitches in all but four games, topping 120 twice all season. The only difference is that in 2010, he is allowing fewer runs and fewer hits and therefore winning more games.

In 2008 and 2009, it took Ubaldo a while to get going. In 2008, his best month was July, in which he went 5-1 in six starts with an ERA of 1.74. In August 2009, he went 5-1 in six starts with an ERA of 1.77, both very good months.

In 2010, he looks more like he's slowing down as the season wears on. In April, he went 5-0 with an ERA of 0.79. In May, he went 5-1 with an ERA of 0.78. I don't see him having a July or August that could possibly be much better than those two months, considering his June currently shows him at 3-0 with an ERA of 2.57.

The man is human and he is going to allow more hits and more runs as the season progresses, which unfortunately means he's going to collect a few losses along the way, even some no-decisions.

My prediction is Ubaldo ends the season 24-5 with an ERA of 2.03 and is the unanimous Cy Young award winner.

Posted by Andrew Jones at 6:41 PM | Comments (0)

June 22, 2010

The Greatest Rivalries in Sports

Last week, the Los Angeles Lakers defeated the Boston Celtics to win the NBA championship. The two teams have combined to win each of the last three titles, twice against each other. Altogether, the Celtics and Lakers have won a combined 33 NBA championships, compared to 31 for every other team in the league combined. They've faced each other in the Finals 12 times, about one out of every five. No other team has even been to the NBA Finals 12 times.

Celtics/Lakers is a legendary rivalry. It captures the interest of fans regardless of where they live or who their favorite team is. Which are the other great rivalries in major North American sports?

Major League Baseball

Yankees vs. Red Sox

This is also the most overblown rivalry in the sports, the one ESPN repeatedly tells you how much you care about, to the point that you kind of don't any more. That said, this really is a classic rivalry, from the Curse of the Bambino on through a decade of American League dominance and free agency competition. These are both easy teams to hate, but everyone who follows baseball even a little has a preference when these two meet.

Giants vs. Dodgers

A rivalry with tradition, it survived moves from New York to California. Also, Bobby Thomson. Come on.

Honorable Mention

Cardinals/Cubs: two storied franchises that have been around forever, they're close geographically and share a general classiness. My favorite aspect of this rivalry is the strong mutual respect that accompanies the necessary hatred of a rival.

National Basketball Association

Celtics vs. Lakers

These two are so good that no other team is good enough to merit a serious rivalry. The other great NBA rivalries are individual: Magic vs. Bird and Russell vs. Chamberlain.

Honorable Mentions

I already told you, Magic vs. Bird and Russell vs. Chamberlain. If you don't love those, you either aren't a basketball fan, or you're 12.

National Football League

Bears vs. Packers

The league's oldest rivalry also features two of its most historically successful franchises. The Bears and Packers combined to win 17 NFL titles before the Super Bowl even existed. The Packers have won more NFL titles (12) than any other team in the league; the Bears are second (9).

Washington vs. Dallas

Maybe an even better-known rivalry than Green Bay/Chicago, this one has lost a little of its luster during the past decade, with Dallas enduring a championship drought and Washington seldom even competitive during the Daniel Snyder era. That said, this rivalry's legacy is safe, with enough memorable games and historical animosity to carry it through another decade of Jerry Jones and Snyder.

The glory days for Dallas/Washington were the '70s and '80s, when both teams were good, but the roots of this rivalry go back to before the Cowboys were even an official team, and their eventual owner, Clint Murchison Jr., acquired the rights to "Hail to the Redskins." Washington got the name back, and owner George Preston Marshall unexpectedly reversed his opposition to the expansion franchise in Dallas.

Honorable Mentions

Steelers/Browns doesn't carry much weight right now, but it will if the Browns ever get good again. Lest I be accused of East Coast bias, Chiefs/Raiders is a pretty big deal. Really, any AFC West team vs. the Raiders. Patriots/Colts is the most relevant and intriguing rivalry in the league today.

National Hockey League

Canadiens vs. Maple Leafs

Not only is it the oldest rivalry in league history, it's got a ton of history, some of which even goes beyond the rink, including the tension between English-speaking Toronto and French-speaking Montreal.

Honorable Mentions

From a purely historical standpoint, Oilers/Stars might be second on the list, but in the late 1990s and early 2000s, no rivalry was bigger than Red Wings/Avalanche. On an individual level, Wayne Gretzky/Mario Lemieux is fascinating less because of their head-to-head matchups than their dominance in general, and Sidney Crosby/Alex Ovechkin is quickly becoming a compelling league-wide attraction.

Boxing

Muhammad Ali vs. Joe Frazier

For modern fans, it can be difficult to comprehend how significant boxing used to be on the sporting landscape, and this is its greatest rivalry. Ali and Frazier were very different men — Ali opinionated and boisterous, Frazier reserved and conservative. Together, they staged three classic fights, including two of the most famous contests of all-time, the Fight of the Century (Ali-Frazier I) and the Thrilla in Manila (Ali-Frazier III).

Golf

I'm told that Jack Nicklaus vs. Arnold Palmer was a huge rivalry, but I don't follow golf closely enough to write on the matter with any authority, and I'm not entirely convinced that golf is a sport in the first place, so let's just acknowledge that I've mentioned it, and move on.

Tennis

Chris Evert vs. Martina Navratilova

With all due respect to the men's game, this is easily the most storied rivalry in tennis. Borg and McEnroe met 14 times. McEnroe and Connors, 34. Federer and Nadal stand at 21. Martina and Chrissy played each other in singles 80 times, more than the other three rivalries combined. Navratilova led the series by a narrow margin of 43 matches to 37, including 14 Grand Slam Finals as singles players. They met in the final of the French Open for the first time in 1975 and the last time in 1986, with a competitive rivalry spanning over a decade.

Roger Federer vs. Rafael Nadal

Nadal holds a substantial head-to-head advantage (14-7 as of this writing) because so many of their matches have been played on clay, but their legendary contests with one another are only half the story here. Other than a brief period following Nadal's injury last year, these players have held the top two ATP rankings for nearly five years in a row.

Honorable Mentions

John McEnroe vs. Björn Borg and McEnroe vs. Jimmy Connors. Classic matches in both rivalries, plus a clear contrast in personalities. Johnny Mac was colorful and obnoxious, Borg calm and reserved. Connors was ornery, but in a different way than Johnny Mac. I'd argue for Steffi Graf and Monica Seles here, as well. From 1991-93, Seles won seven slams, Graf five, and everyone else a combined total of zero. They were not just each other's greatest rival; they were effectively each other's only rival. Both Graf and Seles are perceived as kind, classy competitors, but this rivalry was not without its share of heat, highlighted by Seles' 1992 declaration that "Steffi will never be No. 1 again."

College Football

Army vs. Navy

I know there are about a thousand compelling CFB rivalries, and most of them are more significant in today's game than Army/Navy. Call me old-fashioned.

Michigan vs. Ohio State

Fine, Michigan is going through a down period right now. This is a legendary rivalry that is consistently competitive.

Alabama vs. Auburn

The SEC is so competitive these days that there are lots of choices in that conference, but nothing else with the historical animosity of the Iron Bowl.

Notre Dame vs. USC

Notre Dame leads the series, with a 42-34-5 record, but both teams have produced 11 national champions — to the extent those really exist in college football — and seven Heisman Trophy winners. They're storied programs with a long and competitive rivalry stretching back to the 1920s.

Honorable Mentions

Among many worthy choices, I'd single out Oklahoma/Nebraska and Oklahoma/Texas. The Red River Rivalry is probably the biggest in college football today.

Men's College Basketball

Duke vs. North Carolina

This is a no-brainer, right?

Women's College Basketball

Connecticut vs. Tennessee

By far the two most successful programs in the history of the women's game, they have combined for 15 NCAA tournament wins in the 29 years it has been held. UConn is 4-0 against Tennessee in the finals of the tournament.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 5:15 PM | Comments (1)

Pistons For Sale, But Not Memories

The Detroit Pistons have a long history of stability and leadership, but lately, the organization is better known as hosting a fire sale for its team and suing the crosstown owners of the Red Wings and Tigers for stealing trade secrets.

The team, once known as the "Bad Boys" of the NBA on the court, is suddenly alleging being victimized by the bad boy behavior of its previous longtime front office team. The memories that Bill Davidson's Pistons have given fans, however, will endure and remain as great moments in Detroit sports history.

Before a trip down memory lane, the current troubles of the Pistons should be noted. Less than a year after the sad passing of Bill Davidson, rumors started that the Pistons were for sale. Recently, USA Today reported that the Pistons are bringing in Citi Private Bank's Sports Finance and Advisory team to help with the potential sale of the team.

Karen Davidson, Bill's widow, announced she is looking at the possibility of selling the Pistons by itself or as part of a package with Palace Sports and Entertainment, which includes entertainment venues the Palace (where the Pistons play), DTE Energy Music Theater, and Meadow Brook Music Festival.

The word "potential" has been used for months regarding the sale and the "bundling" of the team and entertainment venues has been the preferred mantra of Karen Davidson. Unfortunately, this has essentially left the Pistons in limbo.

It isn't clear if Joe Dumars, President of Basketball Operations, is a lame duck or if he is empowered to make decisions. Generally, sports teams don't sign new contracts or extend contracts to players during transition to new ownership. Teams generally try to reduce costs during a sale to appear more attractive to potential buyers.

With the draft looming and this being one of the biggest free agency periods in recent years, it isn't clear if the Pistons can consider making any kind of deal. Signing Ben Gordon and Charlie Villanueva last year severely hampered the team's chances of hauling in a big free agent, but Dumars has some decisions to make this offseason.

Will Bynum is a restricted free agent, and although he is not a starter, he showed flashes of being a solid player when the Pistons were hampered by injuries. The Pistons are slightly below the salary cap and Dumars would like to use the mid-level exception. There are also rumors that Rip Hamilton, Tayshaun Prince, and Jason Maxiell are possible trade bait. The draft, managing the salary cap during this free agency period, and possible trades is a lot of a "possible" activity for a team that could be sold soon.

The Pistons have also initiated a lawsuit against Illitch Holdings. Illitch Holdings (Mike Illitch) owns the NHL's Detroit Red Wings, MLB's Detroit Tigers, and several entertainment venues in the city of Detroit, including the Fox Theater and Comerica Park (where the Tigers play). Recently, Tom Wilson, who ran Palace Sports and Entertainment (owners of the Pistons) left to join Illitch Holdings (the Red Wings and Tigers). He resigned from Palace Sports and Entertainment in February and was hired shortly after by Illitch Holdings. The Associated Press reported that at least nine ex-employees of Palace Sports and Entertainment have joined Tom Wilson at Illitch Holdings.

Palace Sports and Entertainment says that those employees (Tom Wilson is not a defendant in the suit) took information with them that could be used to attract sponsors, ticket buyers, and vendors. Olympia Entertainment, a division of Illitch Holdings, is claiming the lawsuit is sour grapes. But in a downtrodden economy such as Detroit's, those sour grapes could be turned into some sweet wine.

According to ArenaDigest.com, two employees have already admitted they took account lists with them to Olympia Entertainment (a division of Illitch Holdings). All nine employees signed confidentiality agreements during their employment with Palace Sports and Entertainment.

Perhaps the most interesting part of this lawsuit is that according to CrainsDetroit.com, the Red Wings' lease with Joe Louis Arena is about to expire, leaving the Red Wings without home ice for the upcoming season. It was rumored that one of the reasons Tom Wilson was brought to Illitch Holdings was to assist the Red Wings build a new arena. Because of his relationship with Palace Sports and Entertainment, it was expected he would negotiate a lease for the Red Wings to temporarily play at the Palace until a new arena was built.

There is a history of hockey in the Palace, as it was home to the Detroit Vipers hockey team a few years ago. Recently, it was revealed that Illitch Holdings had purchased large tracts of land in Detroit in order to build a new hockey arena, which would mean the Red Wings will need a temporary home or an extension to their current Joe Louis Arena lease.

If it is proven that former employees have taken trade secrets with them, it will in all likelihood drop the value of the Pistons. Sponsors lists, ticket buyer lists, and vendor contracts are critical to operating a team. Essentially, the new owner's biggest competitor in the marketplace, Illitch Holdings, could have a blueprint to how Palace Sports and Entertainment does business, and that is a tough way to begin ownership of any franchise.

Selling the franchise, having the team in limbo, and the possible theft of trade secrets, however, cannot erase the memories of several outstanding seasons.

Beating the Lakers for the 1989-1990 NBA championship is tough to forget. The Lakers entered the Finals undefeated in the playoffs and having won back-to-back titles. Pat Riley had the highest winning percentage for both the regular and postseason. Detroit's Joe Dumars proceeded to average 27.3 points in the Finals and was the declared the MVP. Detroit's Bad Boys defense held the Showtime Lakers to 92.9 points per game, which was the lowest Finals scoring average in the shot-clock era. Magic Johnson, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and James Worthy ran, but couldn't score and the Pistons were champions.

The Pistons followed their first championship season with a second after losing Rick Mahorn in the expansion draft. Isiah Thomas took over the Finals and averaged 27.6 points per game. The Pistons went through Michael Jordan and the Bulls en route to beating the Portland Trailblazers. Vinnie Johnson delivered the game-winning shot with .07 seconds left to seal the championship.

Fast forward to the 2000s, when the Detroit Pistons showed the NBA how a team wins a championship in the 2003-2004 season. There were no stars on that team in a league that emphasized big names and big contracts. Richard Hamilton, Chauncey Billups, Tayshaun Prince, and Ben Wallace played defense, were balanced, and they rebounded. They wore a striking resemblance to past Pistons championship teams. Detroit once again faced the Lakers in the Finals. In that series, the Pistons brought the team concept and Los Angeles brought the star power in Shaquille O'Neal and Kobe Bryant, but Detroit prevailed.

The memories of the Pistons franchise are many and go beyond three championships. Detroit played in the highest scoring game in NBA history (Pistons 186, Nuggets 184) and led the league in attendance for many years. Among those who have worn the uniform include Dave Bing, Bob Lanier, Dennis Rodman, and Grant Hill.

As the team possibly changes ownership, it should not be forgotten that the Pistons started in Fort Wayne, Indiana. According to DetroitPistons.com, Fred Zollner originally owned the team and it played in the industrial leagues. Companies used to assemble the best talent they could find to win bragging rights. Zollner owned a company that made pistons and after several league mergers, the Pistons found themselves in the NBA.

Although the team is currently for sale, and in a court that does not have a hoop and a net, the memories will endure.

Posted by Vito Curcuru at 3:12 PM | Comments (3)

June 21, 2010

Lessons From Baseball's First Half

At nearly the half-way point of the Major League Baseball season, we have a pretty good idea now of who is going to be what. With the exception of a few big trades in the possible offing (Cliff Lee, Roy Oswalt, Ozzie Guillen's Twitter account) teams are going to have to win or lose the race based on the parts already under the hood.

So, with that in mind, let's take a look around baseball, see what we've learned.

Baltimore Orioles — Hey, Peter Angelos, it's you! You could hire Phil Jackson to manage this club with the ghost of Vince Lombardi as his bench coach and they still wouldn't crack .500. Angelos' ownership reign hangs on the city of Baltimore like a White Castle fart in a car with no windows. And until he goes/sells/dies, nothing else matters.

Boston Red Sox — Remember when David Ortiz was just another aging fat guy? Then he hit .363 with a .788 slugging percentage in May. Sooooo ... either Ortiz is immune from the laws of physical nature dealing with fat old guys, or he's found a way around them (wink wink nudge nudge). Either way, the Sox will have a say in how October unfolds.

St. Louis Cardinals — The expectations game in St. Louis is creating a skewed view of this team. Chris Carpenter is giving up too many home runs — but he's 8-1 with a 2.83 ERA. Albert Pujols is striking out too much, but he's seventh in the NL is batting average, and fourth in homers and RBI. The bottom line is this is the best team in the NL Central and should have no time losing to the Dodgers in the NLDS again this year.

San Diego Padres — Great bullpen. Decent pitching. Turrrrrible offense. They're already starting to fade (9-9 in June) and that's before playing four of the final six first-half series on the road. If you've got to lay bets on one first-place team collapsing in the second half, the Padres have to be 1 or 1a (the Braves' home/road split is cause for concern).

Atlanta Braves — 24-7 at home, 18-21 on the road. The good news is that the rest of their schedule has more home games than road games. The bad news is that they're unlikely to carry a .774 winning percentage at home through the rest of the year. They need to win more on the road to hold off Philly and the Mets (if they make the big pitching move they need).

Philadelphia Phillies — So maybe they should have just hung on to Cliff Lee after all. They will doubly regret the move if the Mets can somehow land Lee from the Mariners. That would suck.

New York Mets — Jose Reyes is only going to get better. Carlos Beltran is on his way back. And I fully expect Omar Minaya to add some starting pitching in a trade market that's going to have some very decent arms on the block. Translation: this is going to be a team to be reckoned with.

Florida Marlins — Small budget teams need two things to be able to make a serious run to the playoffs: good pitching and good chemistry. The Marlins have a stud ace in Josh Johnson, but the rest of the staff is a mess. And no team with a schmuck like Hanley Ramirez as its best player is going to have great team chemistry.

Toronto Blue Jays — You know how some girls are hot because of the context in which we know them? That's the Blue Jays. In any other division, they're a hot cheerleader. In this one, they're somewhere between Ugly Betty and Amy Winehouse.

Pittsburgh Pirates — Yeah, whatever.

Los Angeles Dodgers — If I'm an NL team right now, this is the one squad I don't want to see in the playoffs. The starting pitching is there. The bullpen is there. The offense is there. The divorce lawyers are there. It's going to take a team firing on all cylinders to send them on vacation.

Arizona Diamondbacks — I hate to see them start the fire sale this early because I still think they have the raw talent to be a much better club than they are right now. But something isn't clicking with this club, and so you have to change the players or the coaches. I'd start with the coaches, but that doesn't seem to be the direction they're taking. And so some lucky club is going to reap the spoils.

Colorado Rockies — Despite Ubaldo Jimenez' incredible start, there are too many holes to overcome the Dodgers. Missing Troy Tulowitzki for the next two months certainly isn't going to help.

Washington Nationals — I want to blast them for holding back on Stephen Strasburg, but even old-school Hall of Famers started slow. Bob Gibson didn't top 150 innings until he was in his third season at age 25. Nolan Ryan was 24 in his fifth season. Roger Clemens was 24 in his third season. Strasburg is in his first season of pro ball and just 21 years old (22 next month). The Nats are doing the right thing, even if it's going to suck to see him shut down in early September.

Chicago Cubs — The injury to Aramis Ramirez has been a huge blow to this team. Without top-flight pitching and an offense that is very hit-or-miss, it's hard to see Lou Pinella getting this club near the post season.

San Francisco Giants — Tim Lincecum's return to humanity, with a 4.60 ERA in his last five starts, has to be of concern. He's the magic ingredient they need to contend.

Houston Astros — Holy cow this team turned to suck quick. The only real reason to pay attention to them now is to see how they bolster another playoff team by trading Roy Oswalt and/or Carlos Lee.

Los Angeles Angels — They might get to the playoffs on experience and guile, but the offense is liable to get shutdown by top opposing pitchers, and the pitching is liable to get beat-up against top opposing offenses. If they get matched against an AL East team in the playoffs, they're getting beat.

Tampa Bay Rays — Their pitching is still somewhat of a worry, but they have the lineup to hang with the Crips and Bloods. I just hope to God they don't find themselves having to dump Carl Crawford and Carlos Pena for money reasons while they're still in the hunt.

Kansas City Royals — Rick Ankiel, you are one of the top five greatest baseball disappointments of my life. Also, Zack Greinke is the reason you don't spend a high-round fantasy draft pick on starters from crappy teams. A 2-8 record with a 3.94 ERA and sub-1.2 WHIP? Are you kidding me?

Detroit Tigers — The pitching isn't there and there's a brewing fire sale on the horizon. Law or no law, Jim Leyland is going to be chain smoking like a mo-fo.

Milwaukee Brewers — I don't care where they are in the standings, you don't trade Prince Fielder this season when you have the nucleus to compete in 2011. That's just dumb.

Chicago White Sox — Hey President Obama, shove Ozzie Guillen and his massive ego in that pipe in the gulf and everything will be fine.

New York Yankees — Best record in the majors yet again. If they don't end up in the ALCS, I'll be absolutely shocked. Like BP-really-gives-a-crap shocked. They're just too solid.

Minnesota Twins — Don't look now, but Delmon Young is hitting .387 in June with 16 RBI in 17 games. If he can be a steady contributor, and Ron Gardenhire gives him regular ABs, he could be the key in getting the Twins to the next level.

Cincinnati Reds — With Johnny Cueto regressing (7.15 ERA in his last four starts), it's going to be more important than ever for the Reds to get second-half contributions from Edinson Volquez and Aroldis Chapman. That's what you call putting your last dollar on a long shot.

Cleveland Indians — When your city's biggest sports story of the summer is whether a basketball player will stay or go, your baseball team is no damn good.

Oakland Athletics — Typical A's ... a lot of good young players mixed in with a few old guys who are about to be traded for some more good young players.

Seattle Mariners — What did you expect when you signed Milton Bradley? You didn't think he made it on to his eighth team in 11 years by being a critical part of winning franchises, did you?

Texas Rangers — The Rangers are no joke. They have the highest AL run differential outside the AL East, the fourth-best team ERA in the AL, and the third-highest team batting average in the AL. Don't expect Texas to fade anytime soon.

Of course, these are just snapshots in time, and there is certainly plenty of time left, but it's no stretch to think what we see now is a fairly close approximation to what we'll end up with in the dying days of September. So if you've got bets on a Dodgers/Yankees World Series, keep those betting slips in a safe place.

Posted by Joshua Duffy at 3:46 PM | Comments (2)

Long-Gone-Horns?

In 1833, General Santa Anna came to power in Mexico on a platform focused on consolidating power and uniting his constituency, which included the settlement of Texas. A few years later, Texans asserted and eventually gained their independence.

Over the past few weeks, Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe saved his position on a platform of consolidated power and conference unity. And in the next few years, Texas football should declare its own independence from conference affiliation.

At the risk of causing mass casket-rollovers in South Bend, Indiana, Texas is what Notre Dame once was, a brand far bigger than any conference. The Longhorn athletic department dwarfs every other school in terms of revenue. UT juggles the largest university crown with a few others, but its growth is unparalleled. Rust belt dinosaurs like Ohio State and Michigan are seeing their geographic fan bases dwindle proportionally to the rest of the country. The SEC powers are too clustered and lack reach into major metropolises. But Texas' large fandom enclaves are growing.

With the seeds of an all-Texas cable network sprouting, the revenue streams are only just beginning to trickle down the mountain. Why couldn't the 'Horns mix their cable station with FOX or ABC/ESPN in the same way the Big Ten network mixes with cable and network coverage? For the diehard UT fans who just have to see their team obliterate Rice or Sam Houston State, the cable package with TV-UT will be the only way to go. And when Texas ends up in the BCS most years, there won't be hands in Manhattan, Kansas, or Ames, Iowa, reaching for a cut.

But what about rivalries, you ask? Take a look at Notre Dame's schedule. The Irish may as well belong to the Big Ten with perennial games against Michigan, Michigan State, and Purdue, and the Irish maintain the most geographically improbable rivalry in sports USC. If Texas really wanted to, it could keep Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Baylor, and Texas A&M on the schedule in the same way. Throw in a few service academy teams, one or two 1-AA cupcakes, a Texas-based Mountain West or C-USA team, and that's the better part of a schedule.

But what about Texas' influence outside its state borders, you ask? Take a look at the 'Horns roster. There's a reason they never have to start a player from outside the state unless Mack Brown wants to. Texas is so fertile for recruiting and the UT brand is so dominant in the state that the Longhorns get no benefit from making appearances in Kansas, Oklahoma, or Nebraska. In fact, I would argue that an independent Texas should take the opposite approach to Notre Dame's scheduling philosophy. While the Irish have begun to embrace a road-show mentality to increase awareness, a conference-less Texas would be best served by scheduling as many in-state games as possible. Annual trips to Dallas and Houston would serve the purpose of rallying the local base.

Of course, this is a completely impossible scenario for more reasons than can be counted. First, Texas' commitments to the Big 12 over the past few weeks probably place contractual barriers in the way of this even popping into any burnt orange minds. Additionally, the Longhorns would want to keep their non-football teams in a conference close to home. Notre Dame was able to swing this with the Big East by going from independent to affiliated; for Texas to achieve this standing in the reverse order would be unimaginable, because the conference would probably insist on keeping all of UT's teams or none of them.

Texas really is alone in college football outer space, the only gridiron gas giant unaffected by the gravity of a local foil. Ohio State and Michigan are binary stars that pull and are pulled by the gravity of Notre Dame. The SEC is a constellation of dwarf stars that keep themselves separated from other galaxies. The Pac-10's brightest star just went sanction-supernova, and all of its neighbors are feeding off that expelled energy and matter. And the ACC and Big East are college football black holes from which matter and national relevance no longer escape.

But Texas sits essentially alone, orbited by small planets handcuffed to its immense gravity. Nothing in that conference happens without a burnt orange signature.

Is it even remotely probable? Nope. But if Texans are stereotyped for their independent streak, why should their college football team be any different?

Posted by Corrie Trouw at 2:48 PM | Comments (0)

June 17, 2010

Slant Pattern's 2010 CFL Primer

I'm not sure why exactly, but this offseason I miss football more than ever, more than I did in past summers. How great would Saints/Vikings (the first NFL game of the season) or Pitt at Utah (the first big college game of the year) sound right now? And yet all that is still over two months away.

Happily, the Canadian Football League season is just two weeks away, and it sates my appetite far more than Arena ball does or NFL Europa did.

There's quite a few rule differences between the NFL and CFL, but the major ones are:

1. Three downs instead of four in the CFL.
2. Twelve players on the field for each team rather than 11.
3. Longer and wider fields, with end zones 20 yards deep. The goal posts are on the goal line.
4. You surrender a point if you down the ball in your own end zone.
5. Virtually no limits on offensive players in motion before the snap.
6. The defense must line up a yard off the ball (it's 11 inches in the NFL)

The last rule means teams going for it on third and less than a yard almost always make it. If teams are forced to punt from their own end zone, they almost always take the safety because it's very hard to punt the ball out of your opponent's field goal range. But the biggest difference is the first three rules highlighted above make the CFL much more "open" and pass-heavy. In fact, after a summer of the CFL, American football can seem downright conservative and slow.

Besides, the CFL is the first and best choice for players a cut below the NFL (no pun intended), so there are a lot of college stars and "I remember that guy!" moments.

So now you know the game, what about the teams?

MONTREAL ALOUETTES

The Alouettes are reigning Grey Cup champions, after appearing in four of the previous six Grey Cups and losing them all. They have been led for many years by Anthony Calvillo, the Utah State product that is a shoo-in HOFer when he retires. At 37, he shows little sign of slowing down. The Alouettes haven't changed drastically from last year, so will be favorites again.

You may remember: RB Avon Cobourne, RB Dahrran Diedrick, QB Chris Leak, QB Adrian McPherson

HAMILTON TIGER-CATS

After many years of being the CFL doormat, the Ti-Cats showed some signs of life last season, making the playoffs for the first time since 2004 (which is really a long drought when you consider six out of eight teams make the playoffs, although there were nine teams until the Ottawa Renegades folded in 2006). Their stadium announcer, whomever he is, sounds like Randy "Macho Man" Savage.

You may remember: QB Quinton Porter, DB Will Poole

TORONTO ARGONAUTS

Not unlike the Toronto Maple Leafs, the Argonauts struggle to bring Canada's premiere city much in the way of athletic dominance. They did have a nice run in the early 2000s with Damon Allen under center. He's Marcus' brother and played a ridiculous 23 years in the CFL (1985-2007), but now the Argonauts are in disarray.

You may remember: QB Ken Dorsey, QB Cleo Lemon

WINNIPEG BLUE BOMBERS

This is the team that frequently has to switch between the Eastern and Western Divisions, depending on whether or not there is an Ottawa franchise, which will be coming back in 2012. They are one year removed from the retirement of Milt Stegall, who is sort of the CFL's Jerry Rice. They are the CFL's perennial middle-of-the-pack team, with a record between 7-11 and 10-8 each of the last four seasons.

You may remember: QB Adam DiMichele, RB Yvenson Bernard

BRITISH COLUMBIA LIONS

They've fallen back a notch the last couple years, but the Lions were for several seasons the class of the Western Division. They are the only team in the CFL to play in a dome, BC Place, but this year they will play outdoors while BC Place's dome is made retractable.

You may remember: QB Jarious Jackson, QB Casey Printers

SASKATCHEWAN ROUGHRIDERS

Yes, even though the CFL for most of its history has never had more than 10 teams, they've had two with the same nickname (although the Ottawa version, the Rough Riders [1876-1996] is spelled as two words ... important distinction). Saskatchewan is solid, winning the CFL title in 2007 and playing .500 or better ball every year since 2003. I like how, in the "famous fans" section of their Wikipedia page, they list the mayor of the city they play in. Shocker, there.

You may remember: QB Ryan Dinwiddie, QB Darrian Durant, RB Dominic Dorsey, RB Marcus Thigpen

CALGARY STAMPEDERS

The Stamps' quarterback for many years now has been ex-Temple QB and brief Chicago Bear Henry Burris, whom they have been mostly successful with, having won the Grey Cup two years ago. He is the face of the franchise. This is also where Doug Flutie spent the biggest chunk of his CFL career.

You may remember: WR Ken-Yon Rambo, WR Ryan Thelwell

EDMONTON ESKIMOS

Perhaps the most storied franchise in the CFL, the Esks are led by Ricky Ray, who is the second-most heralded QB in the league behind Calvillo. Like the other three Western Conference teams, the Esks are part of a glut that has seen the best and worst teams finish within three games of each other each of the last two seasons.

You may remember: QB Jared Zabransky, WR Skyler Green

Posted by Kevin Beane at 6:32 PM | Comments (0)

June 16, 2010

2010 U.S. Open: Site of a Golf Jubilee?

In the Catholic faith, every 50 years is a jubilee year for the Church. The year marks a renewal of the faith community. It allows for the cleansing of sins of any believer that walks through the pathways to sacred places, like cathedrals. The jubilee is an opportunity to rejuvenate and refocus.

For the sport of golf — particularly in the American national championship — Pebble Beach represents that sacred tradition. The United States Golf Association has made a commitment to the Monterey seaside links since it first was site to the US Open in 1972. Jack Nicklaus took the title that year in what would be his next-to-last U.S. Open. Ten years later, the national championship returned. Nicklaus' form did, too, but fell short to arch-nemesis of that epoch Tom Watson, who won his lone U.S. Open on familiar ground. Another decade passed before Tom Kite survived to win the '92 Open.

Were it not for millennial symmetry, the U.S. Open would have been at Pebble next in 2002. Instead, the USGA selected Pebble to host the 100th U.S. Open to launch into a new millennium — in a true jubilee year. The timing was fortunate for the sport. Tiger Woods was playing the best stretch of golf in his career. Facing mostly benevolent conditions, unlike much of the field, Woods won the national title by 15 clear of second place. His staggering -12 finishing total is quickly growing in stature as the greatest four days of golf ever played.

Ten years later, a new era in golf may be ushered in this outdoor jubilee of a tournament.

Woods, hanging onto the official number ranking by a thread, is no longer the obvious favorite. After having his life ravaged since last November at his own doing, Woods' game and form are in no position to win an Open for the fourth time. Observers say that Woods is all over the links in his early practice, indicating that his neck nor his swing have recovered from the sure stress that consumes his personal and professional life.

Yet still, this is an opportunity for Woods to walk through the door into a new era of his career. The conditions at Pebble are so firm that Woods said yesterday that he may be able to avoid the driver that is frankly untrustworthy in major conditions. If the course continues to play as it does, Woods could use the 3-wood and the 2-iron he inserted into the bag this week off of the tee. Having won majors on multiple occasions by playing a very controlled style, Woods may be a sneaky contender if the weather is as helpful to him this time as it was a decade ago.

Were Woods to win the 110th edition of this championship, he would reach not only his fourth Open, but his 15th major title. It would almost surely silence the critics that wonder aloud — alongside his competition — if Woods' game and stamina have dropped off a cliff as steep at the ones that many of Pebble's iconic holes rest upon.

For perhaps only the second time in his career, Phil Mickelson may be the clear favorite at the Open. Having had success at Pebble in the past, the reigning Masters champion also has the mental edge over the field that Woods lacks. Like Woods, though, Mickelson is errant off the tee — best evidenced by having to hit off of a cart path in Ohio in his last PGA Tour start. He was able to overcome that wayward tee ball at Augusta National, a much more forgiving venue with crevices in which Mickelson can hide his flaws.

Mickelson turns 40-years-old today. In a sense, that birthday will mark the next — and likely final — stage of his career. Now boasting four major championships, Mickelson has cemented his legacy as the second best golfer of this generation. It is his goal and his charge in the final decade of productive years that he may have remaining to gain on the all-time greats of the sport. He could get close to the company of Lee Trevino, Arnold Palmer, and Tom Watson were he able to continue a run of majors by winning here. Unfortunately, karma seems to bully Mickelson at this tournament. He holds the record for most runner-up finishes with five. It would seem that someone like the left hander could bust down the door after weakening the latch so many times.

Even for a guy like Lee Westwood, the jubilee comparison is an apt one. Casual observers may mistake Westwood as the beneficiary of a catastrophic meltdown in Memphis last weekend, but Westwood is the real deal. Having lost out on the Masters in April because he was bested by someone else, the Englishman could easily be called the favorite. No player has gone back-to-back with the Open as the tail end, but it seems most plausible for Westwood. He is a transformed player from the man that first broke through 12 years ago in New Orleans. In fact, how appropriate that his first domestic win came in a city so different and ravaged since then. Westwood, too, underwent a disturbing period in his professional life where nothing went right. But, through determination, hard work, and a physical transformation that may only be mirrored by Tiger Woods, Lee Westwood is now truly at the top of the world class.

Westwood looks at his missed opportunities and failures with the same perspective that the other two best in the world do. They are lessons to be appreciated, not misgivings to be magnified. He could well draw upon fellow favorite Mickelson's hard luck road to a major breakthrough in 2004 as a blueprint for what is possible with diligence and a positive attitude. To break through all by itself would be a game changer for the sport. It would be Westwood's first major title, yes, but he would also become the first European-born player since Tony Jacklin to win the U.S. Open. He did that 40years ago in 1960. We'll blame the metric system for the lack of symmetry with the jubilee theme to this piece.

Though these three men are far and away the favorites to take the trophy this weekend in California, there are still other men who could truly transform the sport were they to win. Could Camilo Villegas or Sergio Garcia finally cash in on their potential greatness? Will a new American, like Dustin Johnson, discover what it takes to become a major champion? Were Angel Cabrera to win, he could continue to revive golf in South America — just in time for the 2016 Olympics. Will an Asian player break through again? Perhaps an absolute nobody could survive and win the Open. University of Georgia amateur Russell Henley hired a 13-year-old spectator to caddy for him in a practice round. Not quite Ouimet is Henley, but the mimicry of the gesture harkens back to another transformative event in the sport.

Regardless of who hoists the championship trophy, it is with sound mind that we know Pebble will crown a most worthy champion. In all four instances in which the U.S. Open has been contested here, a great player has won. It is all but guaranteed that the combination of course, field, and setup will ensure that happens again on the Monterey on Sunday evening.

Posted by Ryan Ballengee at 1:25 PM | Comments (0)

June 15, 2010

Albert Pujols, Ken Griffey, Jr., and Greatness

Years have passed since I've written about Ken Griffey Jr., who retired on June 2nd. Over the last decade, Griffey's career was defined more often than not by injuries and age, but in his prime, he was a joy, an exceptional player on both offense and defense. He had a thousand-watt smile, was never tainted by serious accusation of steroid use, and was probably the most popular player in the sport at one time.

About a year ago at this time, I collaborated with three of my colleagues in a friendly-but-competitive all-time MLB draft. Griffey was chosen 45th, which sounds about right to me. None of us chose Albert Pujols, though we were all raving about him afterwards, in unanimous agreement that he'd eventually be a sensational choice.

That time may be approaching even faster than we had expected. This is Albert's 10th season in the majors. He has a huge lead in the all-star voting and is a lock to make his ninth all-star team. The one year he wasn't an all-star, Pujols finished second in the NL MVP voting. The greatest thing I've ever read about Pujols, and I forget where I saw this, was that if you took the worst year of his career, and he had that year every season, he would still be a first-ballot Hall of Famer.

In fact, I'm ready to argue Pujols as a better player than Griffey. I say this not to down Junior, but to praise Pujols, whom I think already ranks among the 50 greatest players in history. I don't have anything negative to say about Griffey; I simply have a lot of good stuff to say about Albert. At first glance, this is kind of ridiculous. Griffey played 20 seasons, while Pujols hasn't yet finished his 10th. Junior retired with 630 home runs, compared to 380 for Pujols. Griffey earned 10 Gold Gloves, whereas Albert has one Gold Glove at a much less demanding position. Where's the comparison, even?

Griffey played his first 11 seasons for the Seattle Mariners, and all his greatest accomplishments came during those years. During that time, The Kid amassed 1,000 runs, 1,000 RBI, and 398 homers, plus all of his Gold Gloves. He hit .299/.380/.569, with an OPS+ of 149. In the 11 seasons since, Griffey totaled about 600 each of runs and RBI, 232 HR, and no major defensive honors. His line is .262/.355/.493, with an OPS+ of 116. That's damn good for most players, but it's nothing special for an outfielder, certainly not legendary. His final season before leaving Seattle was the last time Griffey ever got 150 hits. It was the last time he topped 40 home runs or 300 total bases, the last time he won a Gold Glove, or finished among the top 10 in MVP voting. It was his last great year. Junior was so skilled that he hung on for another 10 seasons, and when he was healthy, contributed. But he was just hanging on. Griffey's legacy is 1989-99.

Pujols, from 2001-10, has been better than Griffey was in Seattle. Junior was .299/.380/.569, with an OPS+ of 149. That's phenomenal. Pujols is (through Monday) .332/.426/.624, and has an unbelievable OPS+ of 171. Pujols has more hits (1,786), more runs (1,106), more RBI (1,159), and more total bases (3,355). He has more walks and fewer strikeouts, both by a wide margin. Griffey has his own advantages, of course. He was a better baserunner, with many more steals than Pujols, and he grounded into far fewer double plays. Most notably, Griffey won 10 Gold Gloves in center field. Pujols is a Gold Glove first baseman, and not of the Rafael Palmeiro variety. He's a stellar defensive player at his position. But one GG at first isn't even in the same galaxy as 10 in center.

Pujols was a far better offensive player, and Griffey a far better defensive player. If you're a particular fan of either player, that probably strikes you as unfair. Griffey was tremendous at the plate; how can anyone be "far better" offensively? Pujols is a great first baseman, and he wasn't bad at third; it's not fair to call Junior "far better" defensively. Sorry. In both cases, it is totally fair. Griffey was a great offensive player. Pujols has been better, and not by a little. Albert is solid defensively. He's not in Griffey's league.

No one questions the value of Griffey's defensive contributions, but it's not remotely plausible that Griffey saved as many runs with his defense as Pujols created at the plate. The formulae for Runs Created vary according to the system you prefer, but Pujols has created about 150 more runs (1,429 according to the most basic formula) than Griffey did in his first stint with the Mariners (1,260). Does anyone believe Junior's defense saved 150 more runs than Albert's? Pujols is also a much more accomplished postseason player.

It doesn't take a sabermetrician to see that Pujols is ahead. He's finished in the top 10 of MVP voting every season of his career, with three wins and three second-place finishes. Griffey, over his whole career, won a single MVP and was runner-up only once. Junior led the AL in a major offensive category nine times, and the majors once (147 RBI in his 1997 MVP campaign). Pujols has led the NL in a major offensive category 19 times, including four years leading the majors in runs, four in total bases, and three in OPS. He has also led the majors in doubles (51), HR (47), batting average (.359), and slugging (three times).

Compared to Griffey, Pujols already has more 200-hit seasons, 100-run seasons, 100-RBI seasons, 100-BB seasons, .300 batting seasons, .400 OBP seasons, .600 slugging seasons, and 300 total base seasons. In fact, Pujols has never finished a season under. 300 at the plate or without 100 RBI. The one year he didn't make 100 runs, he scored 99. He's walked more than he struck out every year since his rookie season. He has never had an OPS+ under 150. And he shows no sign of slowing down.

The argument for Griffey, then, rests on his years in Cincinnati, those sad 10½ seasons when the Kid couldn't stay healthy and the game gradually passed him by. Look, 10 seasons and 232 dingers is nothing to sneeze at. But Pujols has had a better prime than Junior, and all Junior really has is his prime. Barring something like a catastrophic injury, there's no reason Pujols can't hang around until he's 40 and stay in the lineup by jacking homers and taking walks. There's every reason to believe he can do a lot more than just hang around.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 6:22 PM | Comments (1)

June 14, 2010

Celtics/Lakers, on to the Final Act

So we have ourselves a compelling little NBA Finals going into Game 6, don't we? Here are the two biggest rivals in the sport with a high-percentage chance of a Game 7 in the wings so long as the home Lakers hold serve Tuesday night. For the first time in four years, no one has a clue who's winning this thing. What could be better?

Perhaps some close games. While we've had some entertaining ones, none of them have come down to the wire in the final minute, although only Game 1 was a true rout throughout. It's great to see two evenly-matched teams trade haymakers back and forth, but can you remember the last time you watched an NBA Finals go for five games without a truly thrilling finish?

Every Finals has to have at least one game that has you biting your nails with the decimals showing on the line score. Even the dreary sweeps of 2007 and 2002 had compelling Game 3s that went down to the final buzzer if you can bare to remember them, or you can just trust me on this one. So here's hoping that the best finish of the 2010 NBA Finals has yet to happen.

That's not to say we haven't been entertained through five games. We saw Ray Allen knock down seven threes in a row in Game 2, setting a new record for three-pointers in a half and in a game after he knocked down his eighth. Then we saw Ray Allen disappear from the series as he missed his flight to Boston and never showed up for the middle three games of the series. Luckily for the Celtics, he will be waiting to pick them up at the airport when they return to Los Angeles.

Going back to the end of Game 2, Allen, the man known as perhaps the best pure shooter of his generation, has missed his last 18 consecutive threes. Must be a horrifying idea to think that such a terrible streak could begin during the same game that such a great record-breaking streak was going on for most of the game.

We've seen Derek Fisher take over the fourth quarter of a game the way Robert Horry used to do for the Lakers and Spurs. Not exactly a go-to guy in your fantasy league, Fish still manages to show up every so often in big spots to save the day. In Game 3, he scored 11 of his 16 points in the fourth quarter. His full-throttle lay-up and-the-foul over three Celtics stands as the game's signature moment. After their three humiliating losses in Boston two Finals prior, Fisher got choked up discussing their big win during the postgame interview.

Game 4 gave us a (Shrek and) Donkey show you could bring your kids to, seriously. Glen Davis and Nate Robinson off the bench saved the offensively-challenged Celtics on a night when none of the starters could make a simple lay-up. The drool flowed from the Big Baby's chin with no remorse after his and-one putback put Boston up by 6. Climbing up on his back in that moment of glorious spontaneity was Nate Robinson, who had scored 12 points and making a pair of threes in 17 minutes off the bench. It was in the postgame press conference that Robinson noted that they must have looked like Shrek and Donkey.

For years, it appeared the only thing Robinson would ever win in the NBA was slam dunk titles. After winning his third with the Knicks this year, he was traded to the Celtics, where his Kryptonite gimmick that beat Dwight Howard in the '09 contest was given a new dimension with the green Boston jersey. As fun as he had been to watch with the Knicks, its hard to determine the substance of a player when he's playing meaningful minutes in meaningless games. In this year's playoffs, he's been playing a scant few minutes each game, but still continually getting big results and showing a fiery winner's will to win that if Knicks fans had seen, they might have noticed a little John Starks in him.

The reason Robinson gets so few minutes is because of the play of Rajon Rondo version 2.0. It's worth noting that the Lakers could not beat the Celtics with Rondo 1.0 as their point guard. Rajon may be the only Celtics starter who has played consistently up to his standards for all five games, even pulling off a 19-12-10 triple-double in Game 2.

Finally, we've seen Kobe Bryant's masterful 38-point performance in Game 5, one of the great individual efforts in recent years in the Finals. I know no one's ever made this comparison before, but it may have perhaps reminded some of Michael Jordan. His 19-point third quarter included some absurd shots, and yet one by one, they were negated by the team play of Boston (and lack of Laker defense) at the other end.

Paul Pierce could not answer Kobe with his 27, but that proved more than enough with the rest of the Big Four in double figures with him, whereas Kobe's disciples could not muster double figures except for Pau Gasol, who had 12. This led to the cutaway of Kobe walking frustrated into the locker room after the game, which looked just like the end of Game 6 in 2008, just without any confetti.

So here we are heading into Game 6 on Tuesday. The settings ideal for a seven-game thriller if only one of these meaningful games is finally due for a sweet buzzer-beater. Maybe Ray Allen needs to stop thinking and just fire a desperation heave from half-court in the dying seconds of one of these games to end his three-point drought. Maybe Kobe Bryant can get back into that zone again for Game 6, only when applied at home the crowd goes crazy, which leads to confidence for the role players, who start knocking down shots, too. Generally, this leads to your team winning.

The last question I'll pose before leaving you and concluding this scattered Finals column is this: if L.A. wins, we know who will get Finals MVP, but if Boston wins, does anyone have any idea who gets it? Pierce made a bid for it after Game 5, but it took him until Game 4 to show any life. Kevin Garnett has been quiet to ordinary for much of the series and Allen has been cold for the past three games. Rondo has been good, but not a standout and as far as I know, you cannot award a Finals MVP to a team's entire bench.

If I were Kobe, though, I would make sure that question never gets answered. Lakers in seven.

Posted by Bill Hazell at 2:45 PM | Comments (0)

Stanley Cup Champs Face Difficult Cap Questions

Here's the good news for the Chicago Blackhawks (outside of that whole "winning the Stanley Cup" thing) — the NHL salary cap won't drop as many predicted when the season started; in fact, it'll either stay static or go up by about 5%. Here's the bad news for the Chicago Blackhawks — that's not nearly enough to actually allow them to keep their team together.

Just like the 2004 Tampa Bay Lightning, the Blackhawks face a huge dilemma coming off their Stanley Cup championship: trying to make it all work under the cap. For Tampa, the solution was jettisoning key veterans (Nikolai Khabibulin, Fredrick Modin) and expensive cornerstones (Brad Richards). Will the Blackhawks have to do the same thing? Put it this way; as it stands, the Hawks are already at around the cap number, and that's with only 14 players signed.

Chicago essentially has their top three lines and top two defensive pairs signed. However, goaltending hero Antti Niemi is unsigned, and the other roster spots don't come in for free. Even at the league minimum, the skaters would need about $3 million in cap space to roll a starting lineup — and that's without re-signing Niemi. A logicial projection is that Chicago would need to clear about $8 million in cap space to handle all of its issues while maintaining a shred of flexibility for later on. Something's gotta give, but what will it be?

Patrick Kane, Jonathan Toews, and Duncan Keith are the key building blocks. That won't change. However, the support players will shift around them. Here's the situation by position:

Forwards

Patrick Sharp — A key penalty killer, Sharp's cap hit of $3.9 million is good for two more seasons. That's a large chunk to take out should the Hawks move him, and his role can be replaced by Dave Bolland, who is four years younger.

Kris Versteeg — Versteeg signed a long deal that goes two more years at $3.1 million. Is he worth it at that cap number or will the Hawks get more trade value back from a team looking for scoring punch?

Dustin Byfuglien — The Stanley Cup hero is coming into his own at age 24 and has a rough-and-tumble mix that is hard to duplicate. Big Buff goes to restricted free agency after next season. His trade value is probably at an all-time high should the Hawks decide to clear his $3 million cap hit.

Dave Bolland — Perhaps Bolland's a bit overpaid for a two-way forward at $3.375 million. The length of his contract (four more years left) is questionable, though Bolland is a strong penalty killer that can play in any situation. His highlights against the San Jose Sharks can increase his trade value.

Marian Hossa — Hossa's lifetime contract comes with a reasonable $5.2 million cap hit, but a span that no team would want to touch ... or would they? For a team desperate for scoring, it could be worth a gamble on a regular point-per-game guy. And with Hossa's strong two-way play, he'll still be a valuable forward as his scoring declines.

Defense

Brian Campbell — No one would dare pick up Campbell's bloated $7.1 million contract, would they? If they were desperate enough and the Hawks were willing to accept lesser value on the trade market for the cap space, moving Campbell could fix a lot of problems really fast. Note that Campbell has a limited no-movement clause.

Brent Seabrook — Chicago's other Team Canada blueliner has one year left at $3.5 million and he'll be due a hefty raise. Should the Hawks move him before he hits restricted free agency or will that hurt their blueline too much?

Goaltending

Cristobal Huet — Has Huet played his last NHL game? There's no doubt that Huet's contract is at the top of Chicago's least-wanted list. Given his performance, it's unlikely that anyone will take a chance on Huet, which means that he'll either be bought out or buried in the minors to alleviate cap space.

Posted by Mike Chen at 11:41 AM | Comments (2)

June 13, 2010

The Big Break Up

It's now become official. With a wave of the hand and the ink of a stamp, Colorado has decided to venture westward into the college athletic vastness of the Pacific. The Buffaloes won't have to worry about their annual Day after Thanksgiving tilt with Nebraska or trips to college towns such as Ames and Manhattan. Their journey to the Pac-10 Conference is complete, and the Pac-10's journey has just begun.

Throughout this week of collegiate football upheaval, the main talk has been focused on the Cornhuskers and the team I still root for above all others, Missouri. The Tigers might actually be one of the original villains in this whole ordeal. When Big Ten commissioner Jim Delaney opened up the floor to possibilities of the conference's expansion recently, Mizzou was the first in line to voice their willingness to jump ship and their displeasure with the Big 12 status quo.

I actually have to thank Nebraska and Colorado. The folks from Lincoln have pretty much taken the heat off of MU by getting to the 98% mark of bolting the Plains states organization. Doesn't make up for the Fleakicker, but thanks just the same. Now everyone in Boulder is taking a dip into the Pacific's "green" waters. Not saying that will reverse the Fifth Down, but I still appreciate the gesture.

Whether the end result got kick-started in Lincoln, Boulder, or Columbia, one thing was for certain ... the Big 12 was the main target. Now, not even 15 years after its inception, the conference may be on its last breath. And for me, sad would be a slight understatement.

I feel that this whole process is one of bittersweet proportions. If the Tigers do get invited to (is that still on the table?) and accepted into the Big Ten, I don't deny that there would be some intrigue. But at the same time, some athletic departments are the equivalent of cigarette butts being thrown out the car window, left to roll helplessly on the pavement until they're flattened.

One such program I have familiarity with ... my alma mater, Iowa State. Another, I should have nothing but disdain for ... Rock Chalk Kansas. However, the affection I have for the Cyclones and the contempt I feel for the Jayhawks have melded together into compassionate sympathy for both sides.

I was at ISU when the baseball program was dropped because of budget cuts. There were quite a few people on campus that weren't pleased with that outcome. Now, magnify that by "12." To get dropped from their status as Big 12 member, through no fault or doing of their own, makes my heart break.

As I've said before, growing up in Kansas City, you're really either on the side of blue and crimson or the side of black and gold. But being tilted one way doesn't define you. Each group needs the other to function. It's a way of life. How would the Yankees do if they had no Red Sox? What about the Packers without any Bears? Heck, you're seeing it now with the Lakers and the Celtics playing for the NBA title.

I watched some of Mike & Mike on ESPN today, and Greenberg brought up the fact that he'll miss the tilts between Oklahoma and Nebraska. How about no KU/MU? A rivalry that literally goes back to the Civil War could be lost in a heartbeat. To many Tiger fans, it would be surreal and unthinkable.

Let me digress from the rivalry talk, though. As much as I can and do chide the Jayhawks and their fans, I know that KU is getting a raw deal (as Dick Vitale might put it). To have the history that this school has overall, and to be slighted because their not up to "football" standards is a crime.

But that's the way college business works in 2010. And as I noted earlier, it's sad. You see, I'm not a son of the Big 12, I'm actually a son of the Big Eight. I remember when the conference football champion was sent to the Orange Bowl every New Years' Night. I remember when Kemper Arena hosted the conference's basketball tournament each March. I have memories of downright animosity between the Huskers, Buffaloes, Jayhawks, Tigers, Sooners, Cyclones, Wildcats, and Cowboys. Three of these institutions have been there since the beginning (1907), and all but Colorado and Oklahoma State formed the Big Six back in 1928. When ties run 80 years deep, there's going to be some separation anxiety.

And that's where I sit today. I sit with empathy for enemies, in a stupor for my mentor, and in bewilderment for my roots. As Ralphie roams toward the coast and Herbie Husker eyes the Great Lakes, there's nothing but a foggy haze that may never settle in my mind. Truth is this only starts to kick up the dust of what could be a complete restructuring of college athletics as we know it. Even though football is the catalyst, all of your university's sports programs will feel the effects.

But that's a discussion for another day.

Posted by Jonathan Lowe at 12:20 PM | Comments (1)

June 11, 2010

English Ladies, Keep Your Hands Up, it's World Cup Time

The World Cup starts this weekend and England is preparing for the possibility of failure by telling women how to avoid the inevitable spousal abuse that comes with an English loss. Because that's normal.

A professor at the University of London is released a report as to what women could do to plan for the abuse that comes with the World Cup. Apparently, in 2006, government statistics show a 25-percent increase in abuse reports on the days England played in the 2006 World Cup. The lady professor had this to suggest to women:

"For some women, it may be a case of staying out with friends of family members on England game nights or arranging for their children to go to a friend's house for a sleepover," says Professor Paula Nicolson. "If that is not possible, it is crucial that women have relevant phone numbers to hand, and should know where to get help. Simple things like knowing where your mobile phone and car keys are could make all the difference. Many women feel the stigma of domestic abuse, so don't feel able to talk to friends or family about the situation. But if they can overcome these feelings, it might be advisable to get their friends or family to call them to check up on them during or after a game."

How is that phone call supposed to go?

"Hey, Charlotte? This is Grace. England is playing a soccer game on Saturday and I was just wanted to see if you could give me a call after the game to make sure Oliver hasn't beaten the shit out of me. Cool?"

What ... the ... hell? If you're in a relationship where you get your ass beat when your husband's favorite sports team loses, why not end the freaking relationship? Is that okay across the pond? Is that why chicks in England aren't as hot, because of their prolonged soccer failure and the systemic spousal abuse that comes with it?

I'm sorry, but there needs to be a better warning system than "hey, the World Cup is coming up, ladies, please make sure you have some bandages handy for when your husband celebrates/mourns by unloading a wicked left cross."

How about "hey, if you guy gets crazy, remember to buy a gun and if he tries to get fresh with you, shoot him in the dick!"

Good lord, it just seems like they are okay with this. Can you imagine the uproar in this country if we just accepted as fact that sports fans would react to major losses by smacking around the old lady?

People joke about NASCAR fans being hillbillies, but if there was a report like this out about NASCAR races, people would go crazy. They wouldn't just be like "yep, it's NASCAR time, you gotta do what you gotta do."

I love how one of the suggestions, too, is to send the kids to a sleepover so they don't have to be there when daddy starts using mommy's face as a heavy bag. It's like, "well, it's going to happen, but at least make sure the kids don't have to see it."

That way, the family's little girl can be kept in the dark and she can learn that surprise for herself during her first World Cup as a married woman.

Can you believe it? Spousal abuse just accepted as the norm during a huge sporting event? We finally now have an answer to the age-old question of: what would it be like if Kentucky was its own country?

Posted by Mark Chalifoux at 1:41 PM | Comments (1)

Sports Q&A: MLB's "Perfect" Conspiracy

Major League Baseball umpire Jim Joyce's blown call on a play at first cost Detroit Tigers pitcher Armando Galarraga a perfect game. Joyce's mistake, for which he apologized, opened the floodgates on the debate of expanding instant replay in MLB. Was it an honest mistake, or all part of an intricate conspiracy plotted by MLB? And will these events lead to more instant replay in baseball?

"Honest mistake?" Baseball umpires don't make those; baseball players do, in front of Congress.

But let's be serious about the role of the now cult hero Jim Joyce in the instant replay debate. He's no hero. But that's not his fault. Joyce is merely a pawn in an MLB conspiracy to preserve the sanctity of the perfect game in baseball. Yes, it was a conspiracy, albeit a yet-to-be-uncovered one.

Why would MLB feel the need to rob a deserving player of a perfect game, while pinning the backlash on a compassionate umpire? The answer is simple: with two perfect games already this year, one by Oakland's Dallas Braeden and one by Philadelphia's Roy Halladay, MLB felt that such gems were becoming all too commonplace. That's hallowed ground being stepped upon much too often. And MLB had to put a stop to it.

Does the conspiracy theory sound far-fetched? Of course it does, but don't all conspiracy theories? Look at the replay. Not convinced. Look at it again, with Oliver Stone beside you. You'll see that Galarraga took the throw and stepped on first base well before Cleveland base-runner Jason Donald reached the bag. This wasn't a "bang-bang" play; this was a play that a blind man could have made correctly, blindfolded.

Sure, Joyce was "blinded," by his duty to deny Galarraga a perfect game, a mandate obviously subliminally supplied by the MLB powers that be, probably through the drone-like voice of Joe Buck. How do I know MLB "got to" Joyce? I don't. If I did, they'd have to kill me.

Understand this, though: MLB's cold-heartedness was matched only by its brilliance in executing this nefarious scheme. Even though Galarraga had the defining moment of his career stolen, and Joyce's bungled call made him the biggest scapegoat in major league history, they both still emerged as winners. Sure, Galarraga's name won't be in the record book, but everybody knows he pitched a perfect game. Any emptiness Galarraga feels can best be cured with a tattoo commemorating his accomplishment.

MLB just won't recognize it, thus maintaining the integrity of the perfect game at the expense of the integrity of its own umpires.

Heretofore, no one viewed umpires as sympathetic figures. Now, thanks to Joyce's screw-up, apology, and tears, there is a new-found love for the men whose emotions have so often been limited to anger and defiance. Umpires are human! And at least one of them is loved. Former Yankees umpire antagonist Billy Martin is probably stirring more dirt spinning in his grave than he did kicking it on an enemy umpire.

Is Joyce's example the "human element" that purists long for? No way. Crying should never, under any circumstances, be seen on the field of play. Crying, in baseball, should be exclusively reserved for admissions of the illegal use of performance-enhancing drugs.

It's all part of MLB's elaborate scheme to discredit umpires, while simultaneously garnering them sympathy in anticipation of expanded instant replay talks, which will undoubtedly center around inadequacies in the umpiring profession. MLB has cleverly directed blame on the umpires for the sudden spate of perfect games, and they have done this while, at the same time, welcoming redemption for one of the most egregious officiating blunders in the history of sports.

Are umpires to blame for the unusually high number of perfect games? Absolutely. Combine an ever-expanding strike zone with an already inconsistent one and you've got the makings of perfection. MLB knew it had to step in, and by any means necessary, create a smokescreen that would eventually lead to instant replay talks, and indirectly lead to a narrower, more well-defined strike zone. And a labyrinthine chain of events involving a malleable umpire and an impeccably-pitched game seemed the only logical manner in which to accomplish it.

Somewhere, someone code-named "Deep Throat" is waiting on a park bench.

Now that instant replay is the hot topic, is there a chance that its expansion is imminent?

As with anything, except the argument as to whether Joyce's call was correct, there are two sides to every story.

In theory, expanding instant replay in baseball would favor all parties, particularly pitchers who would otherwise have perfect games ripped from their beings. Calls, for the most part, would be correct, and a new era of statistical accuracy would be welcomed.

In addition, instant replay would spare us tearful apologies from umpires. Joyce gave us two things that should never be seen or heard from MLB umpires: an admission of error, and tears.

Of course, many would like to see no change to the instant replay rules. Baseball traditionalists, and their extremist brethren, also known as the "Status Quo Fo's," love to preach about the "human element" in baseball. And it's possible that expanding instant replay would rob the game, and these purists, of their precious "human element."

Of course, when people speak of this "human element," they are essentially referring to umpiring "mistakes." Of course, these mistakes often lead to entertaining arguments between umpires and managers. Baseball absolutely can't live without these, just as hockey can't live without fighting.

Will we ever see expanded instant replay in baseball? It's hard to imagine baseball owners agreeing to something that's been a huge success for their counterparts in football. Can you imagine baseball managers equipped with a challenge flag? Does it seem feasible that owners would agree to give Lou Piniella something else that he could throw? Probably not.

And can we honestly expect Bobby Cox to last more than two innings with only three challenges? It won't happen.

There's only one way expanded instant replay would be approved, and that's if advertisers were allowed to "sponsor" instant replays. For example, "This instant replay review brought to you by Budweiser."

In actuality, the chances of expanded instant replay are as likely as uncovering the truth behind MLB's "perfect conspiracy." I say leave instant replay alone, and leave the conspiracy explanation to baseball's greatest storyteller and investigative reporter, Jose Canseco.

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 12:16 PM | Comments (0)

June 10, 2010

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 14

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Kyle Busch — Unable to catch teammate Denny Hamlin, Busch settled for second at Pocono, his fifth top-five finish of the year and fourth in the last five races. Busch inched closer to the Sprint Cup points lead, chipping 10 points from Kevin Harvick's leading margin, and now trails by only 19.

"If I was any closer to Harvick," Busch said, "I'd be Joey Logano. Joe Gibbs must be extremely proud. Just weeks after one of his drivers threatened to kill someone, Logano went out and nearly did."

"I'm glad to see Joey sticking up for himself. Apparently, too many run-ins with Harvick have changed Joey. I should know. People have speculated about the 'new Kyle' and the 'old Kyle.' In this case, however, the 'new Logano' is Joey, and the 'old Logano' is his psychotic father."

"Now, finishing second to Hamlin really irks me. So it's really Denny's fault, and no fault of mine, that I'm so irksome."

2. Denny Hamlin — Hamlin led 88 laps on his way to victory in the Fusion ProGlide 500 at Pocono, his fourth win this year, tops in the Sprint Cup series, and his fourth career win at the Long Pond, Pennsylvania tri-oval. Hamlin had a huge lead wiped out when a crash behind him necessitated a green-white-checkered finish, but a solid restart gave the No. 11 the jump on teammate Kyle Busch and preserved the win. Hamlin vaulted two places in the Sprint Cup point standings to third, 136 behind Kevin Harvick.

"There was bad news behind me," Hamlin said, "then there was the crash. It's really no big deal outrunning Kyle. I just tell myself, 'If he catches me, he'll kill me.'"

"But how about our teammate Joey Logano? He's feuding with Kevin Harvick. Throw in Logano's dad, Tom, and Harvick's wife, DeLana, and you've got yourself a 'family feud' that Richard Dawson would be proud of. Survey says: 'Joey is the most mature one of the bunch.'"

"In this business, it's important to know your enemy. Joey does. Personally, I feel it's important to know your enemy as well as you know your teammate. And I know Kyle better than anyone."

3. Kevin Harvick — Harvick made contact with Joey Logano on lap 198 as the two were battling for the fourth position, sending the No. 20 Home Depot Toyota sliding out of control, while Harvick's No. 29 Shell/Pennzoil Chevy continued no worse for wear. Harvick eventually finished fourth, while Logano's near top-five turned into a 13th-place result. Afterwards, a furious Logano confronted Harvick.

"So, Logano says my wife wears the fire suit in this family," Harvick said. "That's just little Joey's inexperience showing. It's no surprise he can recognize a fully-clothed woman; he's probably never seen anything else."

"Now, TNT pit road reporter Phil Parson's obviously doesn't 'wear the pants' in a journalistic sense, because he did nothing but 'skirt' the issue in his post-race interview with me."

4. Jimmie Johnson — Johnson scored his first top-five finish since Texas on April 19th with a fifth in the Fusion ProGlide 500. After a mediocre qualifying effort of 25th, Johnson and the No. 48 Lowe's Chevy team bounced back with two of the fastest times in practice sessions. Johnson improved one spot in the point standings to sixth, but is still winless in the last nine races.

"Considering our recent slide," Johnson said, "I consider a fifth a 'fantastic finish.' And speaking of 'fantastic finishes,' the last-lap wreck and the Kevin Harvick-Joey Logano incident added excitement to an otherwise boring affair. That wreck wiped out Jeff Gordon and Mark Martin, two of my Hendrick Motorsports teammates. That's a change. Gordon insists I'm usually the one responsible for taking out two HMS drivers."

"As for Logano, I haven't seen that much 'smoke' come out of the No. 20 Home Depot car since Tony Stewart left to run his own team."

"But I'm glad my skid is over, as it only fueled the notion that I was losing my edge and there would soon be an end to my four-year reign as champion. As in most cases, you can't have a 'dethroning' without skid 'marks.'"

5. Kurt Busch — An early mishap on pit road put Busch in 41st after 18 laps, and he soon thereafter found himself a lap down after race leader Clint Bowyer passed him. But Busch and the No. 2 Miller Lite/Vortex Dodge team battled back, regaining the lead lap by the mid-way point of the race. He eventually finished sixth, his eighth top-10 of the year, and moved up one spot to fifth, 182 out of first.

"That's called 'doing a lot with a little," Busch said. "As opposed to 'doing a little with a lot,' which is how my cosmetic ear surgery of 2006 would be described."

6. Jeff Burton — Burton finished seventh at Pocono, his sixth top-10 effort of the year, despite running the final laps with a broken left-front shock. Burton remained eighth in the point standings, and trails Richard Childress teammate Kevin Harvick by 260.

"Am I surprised that Kevin Harvick has another enemy?" Burton asked. "To answer that, I'll tell you the same thing I told my team after the Pocono race: 'I'm not shocked.'"

"As for Harvick's emerging feud with Joey Logano, I see it getting more explosive in the future. Luckily for Joey, Harvick's pit crew didn't allow Logano to get close. I think Kevin showed great restraint by not trying to get at Logano. I believe that would be called a choke 'hold.'"

8. Matt Kenseth — After a pit road speeding penalty put him a lap down after 47 laps, Kenseth spent the remainder of his day vying for track position, a tall order on Pocono's 2.5-mile tri-oval. Kenseth eventually finished 17th, avoiding the wreckage in a last-lap pileup that collected several cars, including Roush Fenway teammate Greg Biffle's No. 16. Kenseth fell one spot to fourth in the point standings, and trails Kevin Harvick by 170.

"Hey, a pit road speeding penalty isn't all bad news," Kenseth said. "Even though it's a NASCAR official, at least someone's saying a Ford is going too fast. I think if Henry Ford himself were alive today, he'd even be amazed at how slow the Fords are."

8. Jeff Gordon — Gordon struggled with handling issues at Pocono, running most of the day outside the top 20, before being terminated in a final lap crash triggered when A.J. Allmendinger blocked Kasy Kahne. Kahne's No. 9 Budweiser Ford, forced into the infield grass, slid up the track and into and nearly over the outside wall. The No. 24 DuPont Chevy smashed Kahne's car, as wreckage from several other cars littered the scene. Gordon finished 32nd, and tumbled three places in the point standings to seventh, 236 out of first.

"A.J. certainly puts the 'ding' in 'Allmendinger,'" Gordon said. "Football training camps must be fast approaching, because the first 'blocking dummy' of the year just made an appearance."

9. Tony Stewart — Stewart used a bold fuel mileage gamble, topping off his tank under caution on lap 160, to post a third in the Fusion ProGlide 500. Stewart was able to go the distance on fuel and survived a hectic finish, then harshly criticized some of the racing, which he categorized as some of the "worse driving" he's seen in a professional series.

"Trust me," Stewart said. "You can count on me to up the ante in the upcoming weeks, when I plan to exact my vengeance on these no-driving clowns with my own form of irresponsible driving. I guess that would make my current criticisms of them a 'Prelude to a Ream.'"

10. Carl Edwards — Edwards finished 12th at Pocono, leading the charge for Ford and Roush Fenway Racing. He jumped two places in the Sprint Cup point standings to ninth, 334 out of first.

"I know from experience that it's hard to get at Kevin Harvick without his goons stepping in," Edwards said. "If the Shell/Pennzoil pit crew tended to the No. 29 car as fast as they tend to Harvick himself, they'd be masters of the 3.7-second, four-tire pit stop."

"NASCAR is willing to let the boys 'have at it.' Harvick's pit crew, on the other hand, are unwilling to let their boy 'have at it.'"

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 10:04 AM | Comments (0)

June 9, 2010

NBA Finals: Keys to Victory

How great is the Lakers/Celtics rivalry? After the Finals end this year, the two teams will have combined to win more than half of the championships in NBA history.

This year, perhaps more than any other, the two teams have clear-cut strengths and weaknesses that can make or break their chances of adding another trophy to the case.

Boston Celtics

They've obviously still got the "Big Three" of Paul Pierce, Ray Allen, and Kevin Garnett, and despite an undeserved label of being dried-up from age, they're still the best core of players in the game today. But despite still being a good player, K.G. has not been one of three most important pieces to the puzzle for Boston. Rajon Rondo has been.

So let's take a quick look at the three most important keys to success for the Celtics:

1. Paul Pierce getting open for three-point shots

Pierce is the most talented of the three, at least overall, although this is fairly common knowledge by now. His ability to dominate every facet of a game makes him an integral part of any success they hope to have moving forward. In the Celtics' losses this postseason, he has made only 18% of three-point attempts; in wins, he's made 49% of such shots.

2. Ray Allen getting open for three-point shots

Allen is the best pure-shooter on the team (and possibly in the league), and this has never been more clear than in Game 2, in which Allen wowed everyone with a nearly perfect performance from beyond the arc. It's been the story of his career, and it's no different now — if you want to beat Ray Allen's team, you have to keep somebody near him to make contact on every shot attempt. When you don't, he can, and usually does, make shots at will.

3. Rajon Rondo consistently contributing in every facet of the game

How good has Rondo been? He's averaging a double-double in postseason play this year, and he led the dominating Celtics performance in Game 2 with a triple-double in Staples Center. Along with Ray Allen, he completely changed the complexion of the latest installment of the biggest rivalry in the NBA in a single game by sending his Celtics back home for three games with a series tied at a game apiece.

So how confident should the Celtics be now that they're back in Boston? I'd say really confident, especially considering that they're 7-1 at home this postseason when Rondo scores 10 or more points, and because the Lakers have proven they can't keep him from producing at least that many points.

Los Angeles Lakers

But the Lakers do have some hope of defeating the Celtics, and possibly in doing so in the final two games of this series.

Obviously, they've got Kobe Bryant, who is either the best or second-best player in the world, depending on who you ask, and is almost indisputably the best closer in the game since Michael Jordan. In a series that has a history of close games, you have to like his chance to impact the outcome of at least one more before this series is over. But he's not the only important piece the puzzle for Los Angeles, even if he is the most important.

Let's take a look at the keys to the Lakers' success:

1. Getting the ball to Kobe Bryant in the fourth quarter.

This one seems almost too obvious, but for some reason, the Lakers have failed to do this in some of their postseason losses. The guy is simply clutch, and as was previously mentioned, the Lakers' chance of winning is significantly higher when he takes more shots late in games.

2. Getting Rajon Rondo in foul trouble.

On the statistical side of things, the Lakers can feel confident by looking at the Celtics' 4-5 record this postseason when Rajon Rondo commits more than three fouls. They've certainly got enough tough, physical players to bump Rondo up-and-down the floor and force a few fouls. If they can do so, they should have a better-than-average chance of winning.

What does winning Game 3 mean to the Lakers? Besides the fact that they're now guaranteed to go back home to Staples Center, they also proved that they can overcome any momentum the Celtics might gain at any point in the remaining Finals games.

Based on what we've seen so far, I'm not going to even try to predict a series winner, but I'd be surprised if the series doesn't go seven games. Regardless of who wins, this year's Finals matchup will make history, and that's more than enough reason to tune in no matter how long it lasts.

Posted by Paul Foeller at 1:47 PM | Comments (1)

What's Next For French Open Finalists?

The two participants in the women's final at Roland Garros were somewhat of a surprise. Samantha Stosur was supposed to be knocked out by Justine Henin, and then she was supposed to lose to Serena Williams. Neither expectation was met. Stosur would book her place in the final, one year after faltering at the semi-final stage.

Francesca Schiavone, on the other hand, was supposed to be out of the tournament in the first week. In 39 attempts at trying to win a major title, her challenge has been halted the first or second round on 17 occasions, so one could be forgiven for expecting an early exit by the Italian.

The final itself failed to capture the imagination of some people, but Schiavone will not be bothered by that. At 29-years-old, she became the second oldest first-time Slam winner in the Open era, but what lies in store for her now.

What's Next For Francesca Schiavone?

Schiavone entered the French Open at No. 17 in the world, the same kind of position that she had occupied for a number of years. Forever fluctuating between the top 10 and 30 positions, she remained a stalwart on the WTA Tour that the big names wouldn't have been pleased to be drawn against, yet they would've known they had enough to beat the battling Italian.

It wasn't until 2007 that she finally won her first singles title, having previously been a runner-up eight times prior to her initial triumph. Since that victory, Schiavone had only gone on to win a further two titles, one of which was earlier this year on the clay in Barcelona. All three of her titles had come in tier three events, giving us no real indication that she was capable of winning a major title.

In her run to the French Open title, she defeated very respectable opposition, including Na Li, Maria Kirilenko, and Caroline Wozniacki. She also took the first set off the highly-fancied Elena Dementieva before the Russian inexplicably retired.

Despite this impressive run, it was, undoubtedly, the final where she impressed the most. She wasn't intimidated by the occasion and played a tactically astute game. For nearly the entire duration of the match, Schiavone had Stosur on the run and never let the Australian play her game.

Schiavone imposed herself on Stosur at any opportunity, often returning very aggressively during Stosur's service games. Schiavone employed this tactic early on in Stosur's service games in order to lay down her marker for the rest of the game, thus forcing Stosur to try and do a little bit extra with her serve.

Schiavone's tactics were superb; her aggression was well-tempered and fruitful; and having played exceptionally well in the second set tie-break, she became the deserved winner.

The future for the game's newest major winner is uncertain. She turns 30 on the third day of Wimbledon, so time isn't on her side, but, then again, it wasn't two weeks ago, either.

Her game has always been solid and quite unspectacular, despite possessing one of the most elegant backhands in the game. In fact, her backhand slice is a weapon she uses extremely well when she is about to approach the net. She often gets good spin on a ball that lands inches from the baseline and in the women's game, there may be nobody better at that type of shot.

Clay is certainly Schiavone's favorite surface, so the transition onto grass and hard courts will not fill her with too much excitement. Last year, however, she did reach the quarterfinals at Wimbledon, despite her previous best result there being the third-round.

Her game may not suit the surfaces that the Tour hits next, but her French Open victory must surely give her added confidence and belief, as well as now being ranked No. 6 in the world, which should, in theory, give her a more favorable draw.

It would be easy to predict that Schiavone will slip back into the realms of mediocrity and third and fourth-round exits will be commonplace, but, two weeks ago, it was easy to predict a mediocre performance by her at this year's French Open.

What's Next For Samantha Stosur?

Stosur went into the final as favorite, a tag that she hadn't had earlier in the tournament when playing the likes of Henin and Williams. Perhaps, that weight of expectation proved too much for her. Nevertheless, she was out-played and out-classed on the day. It's as simple as that.

Mentally she may never recover, but she would do well to remember that she defeated Williams, Henin and Jelena Jankovic en route to the final, all of whom have occupied the world's No. 1 spot.

On her best day, she can beat anyone, especially given that she possesses one of the best forehands in women's tennis. Her forehand hit with heavy topspin causes problems for pretty much anyone on the WTA Tour. Coupled with this is a very good kick serve, which, similar to her forehand, many of the players struggle to cope with.

Historically, the Australian hasn't performed on grass. She has never been further than the third-round at Wimbledon, though one would expect her game to produce better results on the grass. Stosur has had a very successful doubles career, winning four major titles, and has developed a good serve-and-volley game that could be utilized on the grass, but perhaps her failure on the surface has more to do with the development of the game rather than her inability to execute a solid game plan.

Stosur's best chance of winning a Slam on her own may have gone, but at 26-years-old, she still has time to make an impact according to Schiavone, who is more than qualified to judge.

... And What About the Women's Game?

The women's final was being chastised by journalists before a ball had even been hit. Mark Hodgkinson, a journalist for The Telegraph in the UK, claimed that the final was a "TV turn-off" because of a lack of big-name players. Sadly, he was probably right. It would be naïve to think that this final ranked highly in terms of TV ratings.

Those that did watch the match, in spite of the "superstars" not being present, were treated to a great display of tennis. The women's game has been stagnant for some time now with the prize often going to the most powerful. Well, Schiavone and Stosur proved that the women are more than capable of playing a cerebral match with variety and an abundance of delightful winners.

And above all else, the 2010 French Open may be best remembered for demonstrating the unpredictability of the women's game, something which many tennis fans will embrace with open arms.

Posted by Luke Broadbent at 11:15 AM | Comments (7)

June 8, 2010

Are Perfect Games Being De-valued?

Something weird is happening.

From 1900-2008, there were 15 perfect games in Major League Baseball, about one every seven or eight years. In the last 320 days, there have been four. Before this season, there had never, throughout baseball's modern era, been more than one perfect game thrown in a single year. We just had three in one month.

The perfect game — defined as a game which ends with one team allowing no baserunners — was an especially rare feat in the early 20th century, with only one official perfect game from 1909-1955. Since then, they've become slightly more common, with fans seeing one about every five years, on average. This remains an incredibly rare event, the sort of thing destined to pass into history. When Mark Buehrle blanked the defending American League champions on July 23 of last year, it was the first time in more than five years that a pitcher had thrown a perfect game, and Buehrle's accomplishment was the top story on every sports page in the country. So monumental was this deed that substantial coverage was also given to backup outfielder Dewayne Wise, a ninth-inning defensive replacement who helped secure the victory.

On May 9th of this season, A's left-hander Dallas Braden completed a perfect game, the first time in the modern era that two perfect games had been completed within a year of each other. Shockingly, Philadelphia's Roy Halladay threw his own perfect game less than three weeks later, the first time two pitchers had reached perfection in the same season. Exactly four days after Halladay's accomplishment, the Detroit Tigers' Armando Galarraga hurled a perfect game. Galaragga's accomplishment is unofficial due to an umpiring error acknowledged by all parties, but he did the same thing to opposing batters that Buehrle, Braden, and Halladay did.

This article is not about Galarraga's stolen perfect game. A great deal has already been written on that subject, and I don't have anything to add. What interests me is that the perfect game — which used to be literally a once-in-a-lifetime event — has been almost commonplace over the last year. Buehrle's perfect game was something to celebrate. We were due for a dose of 27 up, 27 down. Braden's game less than a year later was a fluke, Halladay's a coincidence. Galaragga's makes this a trend. Prior to 2010, we'd never had two perfect games in less than a year, and now we've had not just two, but four? Something is happening.

I'll be up front about this: I don't know what. In fact, I have no idea. Some have suggested that diminished offense and dominant pitching performances signal the end of MLB's steroid era. I don't buy that as an explanation, or at least not entirely. Offense has diminished in recent years, and the home run explosion of the late '90s and early 2000s appears to be over. From 1997-2002, the heart of the steroid era, we saw 12 seasons of at least 50 home runs. In the 7½ years since, only three, with none in the last two seasons. But that doesn't explain Buehrle, Braden, Halladay, and Galarraga.

If this was just about the end of the steroid era, perfect games would return to a normal pace: approximately one every five years. This is a swing in the other direction, domination by defense. Besides, it's ludicrous to imagine that batters were the only ones juicing up. With so many players — even middle infielders — swinging for the fences these days, it makes sense for averages to be down, but in the post-Moneyball era, walks are up.

So, I don't know why we've seen so many dominating pitching performances in the last year. I'm confident, though, that it's not a coincidence. Does the perfect game mean as much as it once did? Twenty years from now, will Braden and Halladay's accomplishments be viewed with the same reverence as those of Sandy Koufax and Randy Johnson?

Something else strange, which may or may not be related, is that another extremely rare baseball feat has become more common recently, this one on the offensive side. Last season, a single-season record eight players hit for the cycle, tying the mark set in 1933, when stadiums with huge outfields accommodated more doubles and triples. Think of the rarest feats in baseball: perfect games, natural cycles, unassisted triple plays ... they've all been weirdly common recently. From 1968-92, we went more than 24 years without an unassisted triple play. As of 2009, there's been one for three seasons in a row. Prior to that, there had never been two seasons in a row to feature unassisted triple plays.

That's an awful lot of "first time" and "only time," in every phase of the game: pitching, batting, and fielding. Are great accomplishments being cheapened? Are today's fans simply being spoiled by an incredible streak of rare performances? I don't know what, but something weird is happening. Enjoy it while you can, baseball fans.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 6:12 PM | Comments (0)

Expansion Talk Sweeping the Nation

Seriously, this is more fun than any reality show.

The war of conference realignment has reached full-scale, as the major conferences are all carefully plotting their next moves. What happens over the next few months could definitely change the landscape of college football (imagine the bowl realignments with 16-team conferences). But before we take a glimpse at the possibilities out there, let's definitely get one thing straight.

The expansion talk is completely football-centered. If this was about basketball, Kansas and Iowa State wouldn't be in the sticky situations they are in right now. If the Pac-10 takes six teams, and the Big 10 grabs Nebraska and Missouri, then Kansas, Kansas State, Iowa State, and either Baylor/Colorado (we'll get to that later) are out of the loop with no place to go.

Okay, now on to the guessing games.

The latest from the Pac-10 is that they are inviting Colorado, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech Oklahoma, and Oklahoma State. While this would be a huge move for the Pac-10, it does lead to a few questions. How will Texas fans like potential kickoffs starting at 9 PM Central time? The travel issues are definitely out there for the Texas schools. Secondly, it also seems that Texas A&M, if given a choice, would much rather join the SEC than the Pac-10.

The third issue is the potential power struggle, as Texas legislators are pushing for Baylor to replace Colorado in the Pac-10's expansion ideas. Colorado is the much better fit for the conference, but this is part of what could be a tug-of-war for political clout for the new Pac-10. The state of Texas, having a large population base and a lot of economic clout, is used to getting their way conference-wise. No question, the Big 12 is dominated politically by the Texas schools, along with some clout from Oklahoma. However, the West Coast schools, especially those in California, are not going to let Texas completely run the show. The same goes if Texas were to head to the Big 10 or SEC, which is why Texas would like best if the Big 12 stayed together.

Meanwhile, the Big 10 would love to reach way down south and grab Texas, but chances are they'll go with Missouri and Nebraska, along with a raid of the Big East. Missouri is a great move in terms of grabbing a new Midwest fan base, and Nebraska brings additional football credibility. Teams like Rutgers and Syracuse would provide a larger East Coast influence that would really put the conference in more televisions across the country.

While the politics of expansion are much more toned down in the Big 10, the interesting wild cards in the picture could be Iowa State and Kansas. Kansas would carry the Kansas City area more than Missouri, so there is a metro fan base there, and the Jayhawks would fit in well in the Big Ten's basketball hotbed. Iowa State doesn't bring much of a fan base, but pressure from the powers that be in Iowa might help the Cyclones find a new home. After all, the ACC wasn't looking at Virginia Tech at the start of their most recent expansion, but Virginia politicians carried the day.

The next steps come from the SEC, who is not going to sit and do nothing, and the ACC, who could throw a deeper dent into the Big East if the SEC comes in and snags Clemson and Florida State. I seriously wouldn't be surprised if Baylor ended up grabbing a Pac-10 slot, but not from Colorado, rather from Texas A&M, who'd join the SEC. And, if the Big 12 collapses completely, the Mountain West is sure to jump and pick the pieces. Regardless, this has definitely brought some excitement to the collegiate summer!

Posted by Jean Neuberger at 11:16 AM | Comments (1)

June 7, 2010

NBA Finals: Making Sense of it All

All right. It's been about 90 hours since the tip-off to the NBA Finals. Everyone was excited to see a rematch of the 2008 championship round between the Celtics and Lakers. Nostalgia bubbled up from the classic clashes of the '60s and '80s. But with all the anticipation, there were several conflicting things that I couldn't wrap my mind around ... and they started well before the Finals were set.

I've been confused by the Celtic run throughout the postseason. While others expected a fantastic showing, I thought the luck and youth of the Leprechauns were fading. Now we know it was less the age catching up to the Big Three than it was Doc Rivers being a quasi-genius. Kevin Garnett averaged 14.9 points and 8.2 rebounds per game during the Eastern Conference playoffs. Paul Pierce regained his scoring touch with 19.1 ppg and seven 20-plus point tallies during that same time.

I was confused on how L.A. went away from their big men for stretches of time. That does have something to do with the opposing defense, and this issue has been a theme in the past with the Lakers. But with a healthier Andrew Bynum than was the case in past seasons, and Pau Gasol's 20-point, 11-rebound efforts, it still puzzles me that Kobe and D. Fish don't force-feed the post a little more.

Game 1 came and went Thursday night, with the Lakers pulling ahead for an early series lead. This should put a comfort level on which team might win the series. I mean, Phil Jackson is 47-0 as a coach when his squad's take the first salvo in a series. But the outcome still had me puzzled.

There was confusion about the hosts, who seemed to have learned from the 2008 Finals. They punched and kicked and scrapped, out-fighting the Celtics ... out-"toughing" them. Sure, Kobe got his groove on in the third quarter, ending with a game-high 30 points to accompany 7 boards and 6 dimes. However, it was Gasol's numbers (23 and 14) and domination of K.G. that made the difference. His skill and physicality was too much for Boston's lane dwellers to deal with.

The was confusion about the visitors and their crash back down to Earth. After showing the form of a champion against Miami, Cleveland, and Orlando, the Celtics didn't look like they took advantage of their five-day rest. They couldn't keep up with the Lake Show and appeared more old than wise. Rajon Rondo had little impact on the outcome, as he had throughout this postseason surge and the 2008 trophy chase.

Boston very well might have been in a must-win scenario Sunday night. You figure that if the team couldn't win this game on the left coast, how could they take advantage of any opportunity in Games 6 or 7? Turns out that the Celts were able to steal home-court advantage with a late fourth-quarter push. If you thought I was confused before, my brain is just fried now.

How did the East Coasters hold the Lakers down under 100 points for the second time since April 27th (14 games)? Three Lakers scored more than 20 in the contest, including the oft-injured Bynum. The easy answer to the question would be that those three Lakers (Bryant and Gasol included) were the only ones to hit double-digits. But can they hold the role players down again in L.A.? Can they even pull that trick multiple times in Boston?

How did Ray Allen go nuts from the field? Sure, he's one of the best sharpshooters of the generation. He's made a career out of lighting fools up like Christmas trees ... and has even done it at times over the last few weeks. He went a step further Sunday. His 8-of-11 beyond the arc (which included hitting his first seven attempts) conjured up images of Air Jordan against Portland in the 1992 Finals. All it needed was an incredulous shrug. Is Jesus Shuttlesworth due for another swish show? If he doesn't, will either of the other Big Three lead the way?

How did the Lakers bench not show up on their home floor? For the second game in a row, they were held to 15 points and outscored by Boston's reserves (a total of 40-30 in the series). Rasheed Wallace has doubled the scoring output of Lamar Odom, and "Big Baby" Davis has outscored the Lakers' sixth man. Will this get worse in Boston? Can the Lakers survive a series without significant help for the starters?

As the Finals shift to the Fleet Center, so many issues are up in the air. Maybe the Celtics keep the hot shooting up and take control of the series. Could be that Kobe Bryant brings out his unnecessary scowl as a dagger to the Beantown faithful. There might even be a tweak or pull that shifts the series one way or the other. Only one thing in this whole argument is certain. Any reception that I usually receive to make sense of things has gone on the fritz.

Posted by Jonathan Lowe at 11:33 AM | Comments (0)

Why Tennis Media Needs a Reality Check

During the Roland Garros men's final match, I heard John McEnroe describe all the improvements that Rafael Nadal has made to his game. Let me first assure everyone that I find McEnroe to be an excellent color commentator. He is entertaining and fun, and obviously reads the game very well. Therefore, even when the best in business get caught up in the moment and make a "far out there" remark, it shows that everyone is prey to the seduction of exaggeration.

But to list the areas where Nadal has improved and to include in that list something absurd like "one can make a solid case that he is a better volleyer than Roger Federer" is simply beyond common sense. Okay, Johnny Mac, take a deep breath.

Then it got me thinking: when he makes that assertion, most casual tennis fans probably believe it. What else have exaggerations made people believe? What legends and myths have actually crossed the line between reality and fantasy?

Let's start with another McEnroe comment that I have heard many other announcers repeat also (especially the male announcers): Justine Henin's one-handed backhand is the best shot in women's tennis. Sorry, but no! Yes, it is a beautiful-looking shot with solid fundamentals; yes, she can use it to add variety, but gentlemen, come on! Just because a WTA player hits a one-handed backhand, it does not make it a sensation, certainly not the best shot in women's tennis. It is not even Henin's own best shot, albeit a fantastic one.

Henin will often run around her backhand to hit her real number one weapon (her forehand) to finish the point. She will rely more on her forehand to hit winners from the back of the court than her backhand, because she trusts in her forehand more to hit a winner. Finally, on faster surfaces, more powerful players have hit hard to Henin's backhand to break her game down; the Williams sisters used that tactic successfully many times at Wimbledon.

So this love affair that male announcers have with female tennis players who hit a one-handed backhand needs to end. Yes, the latest Roland Garros winner, Francesca Schiavone, has a one-handed backhand, Amelie Mauresmo had a nice one-handed backhand, and Henin may have the best one-handed backhand in recent years, but let's leave it there and not blow it out of proportions please. There are several players in the last decade in WTA who have better backhands than these players, but who happen to hit it with two hands. And because of it, they can hit better angles, can handle power better, and can return better. Fascination with a female tennis player hitting a one-handed backhand should not lead to unwarranted emotional exaggeration.

Another exaggeration is the impression sometimes created that, back in the 1970s and '80s, everybody played serve-and-volley. While it is true that Wimbledon's grass and the different pressured balls during those days favored the serve-and-volley style player more than today's Wimbledon, the ATP tour was by no means dominated by serve-and-volleyers like you would hear in the tall tales of today. There were plenty of Guillermo Vilas, Corrado Barrazzutti, Bjorn Borg, Jimmy Connors, Mats Wilander, and Ivan Lendl types of players since the beginning of the Open Era in 1968. Even before these guys above, Ken Rosewall dominated Roland Garros and many other clay court tournaments for many years by emulating a backboard from the baseline.

While a general observation that the number of serve-and-volley style players have declined in the last two decades is very accurate, to say that everybody rushed to the net after their serve prior to that period, or that the game was dominated completely by serve-and-volley style, is nothing short of an extreme exaggeration and mostly inaccurate.

The last exaggeration that I will mention is a total creation of the American media led by Bud Collins; their relentless campaign during the last several years to make the number of Slam tournaments won the single most important record in tennis, and one that should be the main tool for measuring the greatest player of all-time. Isn't it funny that until the '90s, it was rarely mentioned, and the calendar Grand Slam was rather held at the highest esteem? The big question was who will be the next one to win the Grand Slam since Rod Laver, or who will even get close to Borg's record of five Wimbledon titles in a row?

Then, all of a sudden, Pete Sampras started winning a large number of Slam tournaments. When he reached his 12th and surpassed Laver and Borg, it was the perfect opportunity to all of a sudden exaggerate the Slam number and basically declare it, out of nowhere, as the number one tool for determining the greatest player of all-time. Sampras was an American and the timing was perfect. That is all that Collins, the McEnroe brothers, Brad Gilbert, and Cliff Drysdale talked about for many years ... until Roger Federer ruined the party.

But they tried hard to hold on to Sampras, by exaggerating the importance given to the number of Slam titles. They held on to it for dear life when Federer began to break all the other records one-by-one, the number "14" became all that they talked about; it was the only thing that was left for them to talk about. Never mind that by the time Federer had his 12th and 13th Slam titles, he was more accomplished than Sampras in many categories, never mind that on clay, one of the three major surfaces on the tour, Sampras was never a top-five player during his career (and many years, quite mediocre), never mind that Federer had winning streaks that Sampras never saw in his dreams. All that mattered was that Sampras had 14 Slam titles, so he was the greatest player of all-time, period.

Let me pause here and reaffirm that number of Slams won is indeed an extremely important number in the discussion of who is the best player of all times. But it's only one of several records. How about the distribution of your success on every surface? Or how about the following records:

* Winning Wimbledon record five times in a row like Federer and Borg?
* Winning U.S. Open five times in a row (Federer)?
* Winning Roland Garros four times in a row (Nadal, Borg)?
* Winning the Grand Slam (Laver)?
* Playing 23 Slam semifinals in a row (Federer)?
* Most weeks at number one (Sampras ahead of Federer by one week)?
* Winning a Slam title without losing a set (Borg three times, Nadal twice)?
* Winning all four slams (Laver, Agassi, Federer)?
* 96% winning record in one season (J. McEnroe in 1984)?
* 81 clay court matches won in a row (Nadal 2005-2007)?
* Only one single match lost on grass from 2002-to-present (Federer)?

These are just some of many that come to my mind immediately. I am sure there are more, but the relentless efforts of the American media in trying to reduce the measure of greatness into one single number in order to keep Sampras floating above everyone else, even though he lagged behind in most other categories, was not only unfair, but downright silly. After all, how else can you call a player who won one European clay court title his whole career and a total of three on clay the greatest of all-time? But Federer spoiled that, too, by passing Sampras' record by two more Slams.

One thing that they did succeed is to blow up the importance of Slam titles, although it was not their main goal. Now we hear constantly that Federer has 16, Sampras has 14, and Nadal has just won his seventh, will he reach that level? Let's say that Nadal wins two more Roland Garros titles and reaches nine, and then he stops there; shall we consider him better than Andre Agassi in the history of the game just based on that number since Agassi has only eight? Shall we not consider the fact that Agassi won the career Grand Slam, and that his career lasted close to 20 years?

Or let's say that Nadal wins another six Slam titles in upcoming years, including the U.S. Open, to have 13 Slam titles. Are we to say that Nadal is still behind Sampras, who never reached the finals of Roland Garros and never established any type of remote dominance on clay over the rest of the field, only because Nadal has 13 titles, while Sampras has 14? Finally, if Nadal win three more Slams, including the U.S. Open and has 10 Slam titles, does he still remain behind Borg who has 11, but has never won the U.S. Open or the Australian Open?

The American media who has focused on that number so much during the 2005-to-now period for the reasons mentioned above, and convinced the somewhat casual fan I might add, that it is the only number that determines greatness, would like you to believe that it's how it works. Sorry, Bud Collins and the rest of your crew, but come on, stop exaggerating.

If any readers have noticed other exaggerations gain momentum in the tennis world, feel free to share them. Until next time!

Posted by Mert Ertunga at 11:00 AM | Comments (15)

June 3, 2010

Slant Pattern's 2010 World Cup Preview

It's that time of the decade, where half of you (Americans) will take an interest in soccer for three weeks and then put it to bed for four years, and the other half will revel in your prideful ignorance. This preview is for the former.

GROUP A PREDICTED ORDER OF FINISH

URUGUAY
MEXICO
FRANCE
SOUTH AFRICA

This is a tough group to call because none of them are playing spectacular. Mexico was struggling enough in qualification to fire their coach in the middle of it, France only barely and controversially qualified, and recently lost to Nigeria. Uruguay had to win a play-in series against Costa Rica to get in. South Africa is home, of course, but they are reeling, failing to even qualify for the 16-team 2010 African Cup of Nations.

Uruguay's present form is the best, having recently hammered Switzerland in Switzerland, and a blowout over Israel is well. Mexico is once again coached by a Mexican and always seem to make it into the second round.

GROUP B PREDICTED ORDER OF FINISH

NIGERIA
SOUTH KOREA
ARGENTINA
GREECE

This is another group where the ones from the less heralded continents are playing better right now. Nigeria has that win over France, and South Korea won comfortably in their rival's (Japan) den. Greece just drew with North Korea, the consensus worst team in this tournament, and Argentina, so used to being 1-2 (in any order) with Brazil, limped into the World Cup fourth in qualifying. Diego Maradona as coach just seems like a distraction.

GROUP C PREDICTED ORDER OF FINISH

ENGLAND
SLOVENIA
USA
ALGERIA

I want the USA to win it all, of course, but it just seems to easy for this team to slip against teams they are fairly evenly matched with, or slightly better than. Algeria, like France, only barely and controversially qualified. Slovenia upset a tough Russian team, not to mention Poland and Czech Republic in the group stage, to qualify. England should cruise.

GROUP D PREDICTED ORDER OF FINISH

GERMANY
SERBIA
AUSTRALIA
GHANA

Germany could win this group with their "B" team. Serbia and Australia should be neck and neck for runner-up, with Ghana just a step behind.

GROUP E PREDICTED ORDER OF FINISH

NETHERLANDS
DENMARK
CAMEROON
JAPAN

Netherlands could win this group with their "C" team. Not so much because of their superior talent (though there's that), but because the other teams are reeling, having managed to muster just two wins between the three of them in March-May World Cup tuneups. Japan especially is in dreadful form, and Samuel Eto'o is unhappy with his Cameroonian bosses, so Denmark gets the nod for second.

GROUP F PREDICTED ORDER OF FINISH

PARAGUAY
ITALY
NEW ZEALAND
SLOVAKIA

This is actually a pretty tough group, with two European group winners and two other teams punching above their weight. Expect a lot ties. I mean, draws. Paraguay finished tied for second in South American qualifying, just a point behind Brazil. New Zealand has beaten Serbia and came within a second of drawing with Australia in Australia.

GROUP G PREDICTED ORDER OF FINISH

BRAZIL
PORTUGAL
IVORY COAST
NORTH KOREA

This has been hailed by the media as "The Group of Death," and rightly so. Brazil vs. Portugal is the best first round matchup on the docket, besides the whole Brasilia vs. The Motherland angle. Ivory Coast has the best player in Africa, Didier Drogba, and are a sexy upset pick. Even North Korea has strung together some decent tuneup results.

GROUP H PREDICTED ORDER OF FINISH

SPAIN
CHILE
SWITZERLAND
HONDURAS

The Swiss team might want to take some Spanish lessons. Spain is the clear favorite here, but Chile is the team Paraguay tied with as the South American runnerup. Switzerland is a pace behind, but will push Chile for second place. Honduras may not get a point out of this group.

ROUND OF 16 PREDICTIONS

Uruguay over South Korea
Mexico over Nigeria
Germany over Slovenia
England over Serbia
Paraguay over Denmark
Netherlands over Italy
Spain over Portugal
Brazil over Chile

QUARTERFINALS PREDICTIONS

England over Uruguay
Netherlands over Brazil
Germany over Mexico
Spain over Paraguay

SEMIFINALS PREDICTIONS

Netherlands over England
Germany over Spain

FINALS PREDICTION

Germany over Netherlands

Posted by Kevin Beane at 6:41 PM | Comments (5)

NASCAR Top 10 Power Rankings: Week 13

Note: the quotes in this article are fictional.

1. Kyle Busch — Busch survived an adventurous day at Charlotte to finish third in the Coca-Cola 600 and inch closer to the lead in the Sprint Cup point standings. Contact with Brad Keselowski on pit road midway through the race caused right-front damage to the No. 18 M&Ms Pretzel Toyota, and contact with Jeff Burton on a hectic late restart infuriated Burton, who confronted Busch after the race.

"And to think," Busch said, "just a week ago I was the one wanting to 'kill' someone. Turnabout is fair play, I suppose. But I really don't think I did anything wrong. I think Burton saw a pretzel on my car and felt it was his right to get 'bent out of shape.'"

"Now, Joe Gibbs has his hands full with Denny Hamlin and I. This is a far cry from his days with the Washington Redskins, when keeping everyone happy involved little more than a six pack in John Riggins' locker. Of course, Denny and I will never be mistaken for the 'Fun Bunch.'"

2. Jeff Gordon — Handling issues plagued Gordon throughout most of Sunday's Coca-Cola 600, but a late surge, buoyed by astute pit calls, moved him to the front late in the race. Gordon stayed on the track during a late caution as most others pitted, and inherited the lead for three laps. He was eventually tracked down by cars with fresher tires, but his sixth was his sixth top-10 finish of the year, and he advanced two places in the point standings to fourth.

"Once again," Gordon said, "it's a case of 'close, but no cigar.' One would think Nicorette should be my primary sponsor, because I seem to have 'quit smoking.'"

"And with abstinence comes dry spells. And Hendrick drivers are suffering. Jimmie Johnson is mired in an eight-race winless streak, while I'm enduring a nine-year Cup-less streak. Then there's Mark Martin and Dale Earnhardt, Jr. Talk about 'going without.'"

3. Kevin Harvick — Harvick finished 11th at Charlotte, fighting back from a lap down, and saw his lead in the Sprint Cup point standings dwindle to 29 over Kyle Busch.

"The margin may be small," Harvick said, "but I'm still the man in the lead. Like many of my fans, I'm a 'front-runner.' Honestly, I don't see anyone knocking the No. 29 Shell/Pennzoil Chevrolet from this stoop. As with BP, 'top-kill' will be a failure in regards to Shell, as well. In addition, again as with BP, that will leave me 'gushing.'"

4. Kurt Busch — Busch was unstoppable at Charlotte, winning the All-Star Race last week and leading 252 of 400 laps in his way to the win in the Coca Cola 600. Busch, in the No. 2 Miller Lite Vortex Dodge, held off the No. 1 car of Jamie McMurray down the stretch. It was Busch's second win this year, and he jumped three places in the point standings to sixth, 172 behind Kevin Harvick.

"With three wins in the last four races," Busch said, "the Busch brothers are the hottest thing in NASCAR. And that's reason to celebrate, as least for Kyle and I. Call it 'sibling revelry.' McMurray, like others who have fallen to the Busch brothers, found out that '2' is better than '1.'"

5. Denny Hamlin — To avoid the out-of-shape car of Jimmie Johnson on lap 166, Hamlin swerved into the infield grass, an act which damaged the left-front splitter. Swift repairs kept Hamlin on the lead lap, but with his handling compromised, he fell a lap down before regaining it with a Lucky Dog free pass. He finished 18th, his first result out of the top four in four races, and remained fifth in the point standings, 166 out of first.

"I have no problem swerving to avoid a four-time champion," Hamlin said, "but I do have a problem 'going out of my way' to avoid Kyle Busch. It's apparent that incidents with Johnson and Busch both lead to 'sparks flying.'"

"Joe Gibbs may have to dig deep into his play book to keep the peace between Busch and I. Our relationship, much like the handling of the No. 11 Toyota after a ride through the grass, is shaky, at best."

6. Matt Kenseth — Kenseth posted his eighth top-10 finish of the year, leading seven laps on his way to a 10th in the Coca-Cola 600. He kept the third position in the Sprint Cup point standings, and trails Kevin Harvick by 117.

"As you may well know," Kenseth said, "my No. 17 Ford sported sponsorship by Jeremiah Weed Southern Style Sweet Tea Vodka. While I've yet to record a 'DNF' this year, that had to be my first 'WTF?' of the year. Their slogan should be, 'It's more than a mouthful.'"

7. Jimmie Johnson — Usually dominant at Charlotte Motor Speedway, Johnson looked out of sorts in this year's version of the Coca-Cola 600. He slapped the wall on lap 166, then, on lap 272, got loose and slammed the inside wall. Johnson visited the infield care center, was released, and returned to finish 37th, 36 laps down. He tumbled three spots in the point standings to seventh, 204 out of first.

"The No. 48 Lowe's Chevrolet has been dominant at Charlotte Motor Speedway," Johnson said. "With six victories there, you can call it 'home.' But, after the last two wreck-filled weeks, so much for 'home-field advantage.' As the retaining walls at Charlotte can surely attest, my recent trouble there have really 'hit home.'"

"It's been a year of ups and downs. You know it's tough when your visits to the infield care center outnumber those to victory lane."

8. Jeff Burton — Starting eighth on the race's final restart, Burton's No. 31 Caterpillar made contact with Kyle Busch's No. 18, contact of which sliced Burton's left-rear tire. Burton drifted quickly backwards, eventually finishing 25th, then confronted Busch on pit road.

"I'm known as the most diplomatic and level-headed driver in NASCAR," Burton said. "And Busch may be the most brash and hot-headed driver on the circuit. However, I would never think of going so far as to say I would 'kill' him, although I'd be perfectly happy to kill him with kindness."

9. Mark Martin — Martin finished fourth in the Coca-Cola 600, his fifth top-five of the year, as the No. 5 Carquest/GoDaddy.com Chevrolet scored the highest finish for Hendrick Motorsports. Martin is tenth in the point standings, 263 out of first.

"I really feel like this team is rounding into form," Martin said. "A breakthrough is imminent, and I think Pocono is the place. We need a win, and it's make-or-break time, so I expect us to 'pool' our resources and fully come together as a team. This is 'it.' So, please, when I say 'Mark-o,' you say 'Pocono.'"

10. Ryan Newman — Newman started on the pole at Charlotte, his 46th pole in his Sprint Cup career, and raced to his fifth top-10 finish this year, taking ninth in the Coca-Cola 600. Newman improved one place in the point standings to 12th, 351 out of first.

"As you know," Newman said, "Tony Stewart hit one of Greg Biffle's crew members during a pit stop in Sunday's race. I can certainly sympathize with that crewman. I'm with Tony on a day-to-day basis, so I totally understand the perils of being in the 'next stall.'"

Posted by Jeffrey Boswell at 10:29 AM | Comments (0)

June 1, 2010

Can L.A. and Boston Just Get a Room Already?

The Western Conference finals opened in Los Angeles to chants of "We want Boston" even before the Lakers notched their first win against the Phoenix Suns. Five days later, when the Eastern Conference finals shifted to Boston, the trademark battle cry, "Beat LA," rippled through the TD Garden crowd while the Orlando Magic still had the court. Throughout the season these two cities have been like Meredith Grey and Dr. McDreamy for each other, even as their teams had someone else in town. Well, the tension was cut over the Memorial Day weekend as each got their invitation to the Finals.

Welcome to senior prom, NBA style.

These first two weeks of June have been circled on the calendar since Christmas break, and the angst of getting to the Finals with the one they've been ogling has built to a crescendo in both L.A. and Boston all spring. It's meant a little pain as they've had to date through each other's ugly friends throughout the endless postseason, but with the dirty work done, they now have only each other. Even Kobe Bryant admits, “It's a sexy matchup.”

Phoenix and Orlando: a polite tip of the cap. It was a great fortnight. So what if your dates looked to dump you from the opening tipoff of their conference finals? You got the chance to be seen on the same court with the NBA's hotties, and that will only bolster your reputation next year. Utah, OKC, Cleveland, Miami: feel no shame. Like the football captain and varsity cheerleader, the Lakers and C's are out of your league. Beautiful teams attract, and both are much better looking than you.

A good friend of mine has a theory that we're all attracted to those who resemble us, but what of this case of Los Angeles and Boston? They both look the part of prominent celebrities — this will be a record 25th Finals appearance for the Lakers since moving to Los Angeles, and the 21st for Boston — but differences quickly emerge. With their pretty front man, supporting players that keep a good beat, and the beautiful people who pack Staples Center every night, the Lakers are the NBA's version of the Rolling Stones, while the Celtics are more of the Metallica mold: raw vocals accompanied by a churning rhythm line, grinding out every performance and leaving their audience drenched in perspiration.

Yet, here they are, attracted despite their differences, together for the 12th time as franchises, the 11th as competing cities. Over the NBA's storied life, no two have met for the championship more. A quick aside: there is no love triangle here involving the city of Minneapolis. Los Angeleans, you are playing for your 11th championship. Stop this foolishness about 15 banners. Yours is supposed to be a proud NBA city, too proud to usurp another's titles. Taking what was not earned is very unchampion-like. You have no more claim of ownership on Minneapolis' five titles than does Pamela Anderson on her two breasts.

Nor is this NBA Finals just for the left- and right-coasters. Everyone in between has wanted it all year as well. Make that two years, ever since the 2008 Finals cast us all into a nostalgic yearning for bygone days. Between Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Russell, Larry Bird and Magic Johnson, Kobe Bryant and Paul Pierce, vernal confrontations between L.A. and Boston have coursed through our veins and given us our greatest memories as fans, notwithstanding those of our own home teams. Like that first St. Pauli Girl, we'll never forget our first Lakers/Celtics Finals. Mine was 1984.

The Lakers were the cherry atop that year's NBA season, but the C's had the best record and were trying to reclaim lost glory. I was only vaguely aware of the showdown brewing. As the Lakers were departing the West Coast for Game 1 in Boston, some CBS analyst remarked how the two best teams in the NBA were getting onto that one plane, so deep was the L.A. bench. Series over, I remember thinking. Yet, curiosity pulled me in.

That championship wasn't as memorable for how it turned out as for how it played out. It was Woodstock, the end of a different era. Fans wore their emotions on their sleeves as they do now, but they expressed it more notoriously back then. So much so, in fact, that they were part of the show. Jack Nicholson with his choke sign to the Boston crowd in Game 2, and the Garden getting the last laugh after Gerald Henderson stole James Worthy's inbound pass long after Nicholson left. M.L. Carr taking a beer in the face after Game 6 at the Forum, prompting him to play in a pair of ridiculous goggles in mockery of Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. Larry Bird stepping away from the free throw line as fans poured onto the court. And Celtics players doubling as security along the baseline, warding off fans for another 26 seconds that separated them from their 15th title.

That kind of emotion, of intense hatred for the enemy and total euphoria when he is annihilated, no longer exists outside the European continent. Buckeyes/Wolverines doesn't bring it, nor does Red Sox/Yankees, nor even Conan/Leno. Conflicts are resolved on a more politically-correct landscape now than in 1984, but that's not to say L.A. and Boston can't heat things up again this June.

Lakers fans, for one, have a chip on their shoulder. The 2008 Finals were essentially a six-game sweep for Boston as the Celtics toyed with their team and forced them into playing the Andrew Bynum injury card as a last-ditch effort to save face. Then came the Sasha Vujacic towel tirade and bus-stoning incidents that reduced the Lakers to a punch line and sent them heads hung low out of Boston. This year, they'll have a healthier Bynum, along with a broken-in Pau Gasol and evangelized Ron Artest, but their postseason romp through a Western Conference perennially struggling to find an identity not garbed in purple was nevertheless discounted as a fait accompli even before the playoffs began.

The Celtics fan's story, on the other hand, has been grittier. After suffering through a pedestrian 50-32 regular season, their team was left for dead. Skepticism of the much-ballyhooed switch that their veterans would flip come postseason ran high. Yet, even as that switch did flip, their team's age and ability to go up against the NBA's elite in Dwyane Wade, LeBron James, and Dwight Howard was always questioned. It's been a case of playing with house money until now, but that's all changed. Bostonians are all-in against the Lakers.

For L.A. and Boston, the action starts Thursday night at the Staples Center. For cities and fans around the rest of the NBA, it's time to clasp hands and form a large circle around them. This is their dance. They've wanted it for a long time, and admit it: you have, too.

Posted by Bob Ekstrom at 7:26 PM | Comments (0)

The NFL's Best Receiving Duos Ever

Earlier this month, I compiled a list of the 10 best NFL receiving tandems of the past decade. It's time to go big picture: the best pass-catching partnerships in the history of the league.

A quick discussion of eligibility and methodology, then the list:

1) Modern Era only. This column only includes receiving duos from 1946-present. That means the league was racially integrated, there was no dip in performance because of wartime service, and statistics are pretty reliable. Also, this helps us avoid "Don Hutson and Anybody."

2) Players are judged by their partnership, not individually or on their whole careers. Lance Alworth played with Bob Hayes when they were both past their primes. They were great players, but I'm only interested in what they did together. Same thing for Jerry Rice and Tim Brown, or any number of other pairs. Perhaps most notably, Cliff Branch and Fred Biletnikoff didn't make the cut. Both were great receivers, and they played seven years together, but Biletnikoff's best years came in the '60s, while Branch's were in the '70s. Great receiving tandems are great at the same time, terrifying defenses who don't know who to cover. I tried to balance peak performance and total productivity, but the list definitely tilts toward longer partnerships. I think that's appropriate. Without further ado:

1. Raymond Berry and Lenny Moore, Baltimore Colts, 1956-67
981 receptions, 15,109 yards, 116 touchdowns

At the time of their retirement, Berry and Moore held the records for most combined receptions, receiving yards, and receiving touchdowns. For 25 years, they were the only duo with 15,000 receiving yards together, giving up the record only long after the schedule had increased to 16 games and new rules had opened up the passing game. Both players were voted to the NFL's 50th Anniversary Team. The teammates also combined to win two championships, including The Greatest Game Ever Played.

Berry and Moore have a lot of things going for them: both are Hall of Famers, they played together for 12 seasons, and their primes overlapped almost exactly. From 1957-60, no other receiving duo was close. Over those four seasons, Berry led the NFL in receptions, receiving yards, and receiving touchdowns. Moore ranked second in catches and yards, and third in TDs. The Colts had by far the two best receivers of the day. Imagine Steve Largent and James Lofton as teammates in the '80s, or Jerry Rice and Michael Irvin in the early '90s, even Marvin Harrison and Randy Moss in the early 2000s, and that's still not as dominant as Berry and Moore.

Best season: 1960 — 74 rec, 1,298 yds, 10 TD (Berry); 45 rec, 936 yds, 9 TD (Moore)

In 1960, Berry and Moore combined for 119 catches, 2,234 receiving yards, and 19 receiving touchdowns. The second-best NFL receiving tandem was Tommy McDonald and Pete Retzlaff, who combined for 85 catches, 1,627 yards, and 18 TDs, more than 600 yards behind the Baltimore duo. Pretty much the same thing happened in 1959. (When you look at the stats, bear in mind that these were 12-game seasons.)

2. Torry Holt and Isaac Bruce, St. Louis Rams, 1999-06
1,287 receptions, 19,388 yards, 115 touchdowns

No receiving tandem in history has combined for more yards than Bruce and Holt. That alone earns them a high spot on the list, but this pairing is particularly distinguished by how dominant it was. Few receiving groups have actually earned nicknames, but this was one of them: the Greatest Show on Turf. In 2000, they became only the second duo in history to top 3,000 yards, helping the Rams set a single-season passing record that still stands and has never been seriously challenged. Not including Bruce's injury-shortened 2005 campaign, these two combined to average over 1,250 yards for eight seasons in a row.

Best season: 2000 — 82 rec, 1,635 yds, 6 TD (Holt); 87 rec, 1,471 yds, 9 TD (Bruce)

This is one of only three times in history that teammates have both gained over 1,400 receiving yards in a season. You probably cannot guess both of the other two, but the answer is at the bottom of the column.

3. Art Monk and Gary Clark, Washington Redskins, 1985-92
1,094 receptions, 16,114 yards, 99 touchdowns

What Monk and Clark accomplished with a series of mostly mediocre quarterbacks is phenomenal, unmatched. Of the top 10 combos on this list, all the others but one played with a Hall of Fame-caliber quarterback. Monk and Clark excelled no matter who was throwing the ball. In 1985, with Joe Theismann, they led the NFL in receptions. The next year, with Jay Schroeder, they were second in yards. In 1988, with Doug Williams, Monk and Ricky Sanders led all teammates in combined receiving yards, while Clark and Sanders led in touchdowns. In 1991, with Mark Rypien, Monk and Clark led all NFL tandems in receiving yards.

Best season: 1989 — 79 rec, 1,229 yds, 9 TD (Clark); 86 rec, 1,186 yds, 8 TD (Monk)

In 1989, the top three pass-catching combos in the NFL were Monk and Sanders (166), Monk and Clark (165), and Clark and Sanders (159). All three had over 1,000 yards. Sanders didn't make this list, but this trio — nicknamed the Posse — is the best in NFL history.

4. Jerry Rice and John Taylor, San Francisco 49ers, 1987-95
1,154 receptions, 18,224 yards, 171 touchdowns

I know, Jerry Rice and anyone. He had successful partnerships with Dwight Clark, Roger Craig, Brent Jones, Terrell Owens, and Tim Brown. But none of them complemented Rice, in his prime, like John Taylor. This pairing combined to win three Super Bowls and holds the record for most receiving TDs of any teammates in history (Rice and Jones are next, at 170, and no one else is within 30 of that). Rice was obviously the star of the show, but Taylor was no joke, going over 1,000 yards twice during his time with Rice.

Best season: 1989 — 82 rec, 1,483 yds, 17 TD (Rice); 60 rec, 1,077 yds, 10 TD (Taylor)

This is the same best season as I chose for Monk and Clark. I think the 49ers were better that year, but what set the Washington pairing apart were balance (Monk and Clark were both great, whereas Rice was the best and Taylor merely good), consistency (Monk and Clark were great every year), quarterbacking (the Niners had Montana and Young), and system (Washington played a ball control offense, while San Francisco was running a pass-oriented West Coast Offense).

5. Jimmy Smith and Keenan McCardell, Jacksonville Jaguars, 1996-2001
1,061 receptions, 14,365 yards, 71 touchdowns

I don't think there's much room for argument with the first four choices, but this could be controversial. In fact, I've probably lost most Steelers fans already. They're at the bottom of the page, writing nasty comments about why Lynn Swann and John Stallworth are the best ever. What I like about Smith and McCardell is dominance. They were only together for six seasons, but all six seasons were high-quality. Every year, they were over 2,000 yards. Only once were they under 150 catches or double-digit TDs. Four times, they were both over 1,100 yards receiving. This is another pairing that maintained success without an elite quarterback. Mark Brunell was a nice player, but he's no one's Hall of Famer.

Best season: 2001 — 112 rec, 1,373 yds, 8 TD (Smith); 93 rec, 1,110 yds, 6 TD (McCardell)

This is one of only eight seasons in history in which teammates combined for over 200 catches. The others are: Cris Carter and Jake Reed (1994), Herman Moore and Brett Perriman (1995), Rod Smith and Ed McCaffrey (2000), Larry Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin (2005), Randy Moss and Wes Welker (2007), Chad Johnson and T.J. Houshmandzadeh (2007), Wes Welker and Randy Moss (2009).

6. Tom Fears and Crazy Legs Hirsch, Los Angeles Rams, 1949-56
660 receptions, 10,521 yards, 81 touchdowns

Hall of Fame teammates who would be top-three on this list if their best seasons had come at the same time. Fears was the best in the NFL in 1949, when the Rams were still trying Hirsch as a running back. Hirsch was still a good receiver when Fears retired in '56. In 1950, Fears set a single-season record with 84 receptions. No one else had more than 50. That's like getting 168 catches when the other leaders are all below 100. The next season, Hirsch had what is very probably the greatest season by any receiver in history: he led the league in catches and set records for yards (1,495) and TDs (17). No NFL player topped either mark for more than 30 years, when the schedule had grown from 12 games to 16.

Best season: 1950 — 84 rec, 1,116 yds, 7 TD (Fears); 42 rec, 687 yds, 7 TD (Hirsch)

Forty-two catches and 687 yards might not sound like much, but that was great in 1950. That season, Hirsch ranked seventh in yards, tied for sixth in receptions, and tied for fourth in receiving TDs. That's about the same as Brandon Marshall the last two years.

7. Mark Clayton and Mark Duper, Miami Dolphins, 1983-92
1,061 receptions, 17,512 yards, 140 touchdowns

Am I putting too much faith in statistics? Sure, the Marks Brothers have the most combined TDs of anyone not involving Jerry Rice, and they rank fourth in combined receiving yardage, but they played on an offense that threw all the time, and they had the privilege of catching passes from Dan Marino. Well, plenty of players have been with high-octane passing offenses, and there are a couple dozen QBs in the Hall of Fame, but only a handful of WR duos have accomplished what Clayton and Duper did. Marino could make anyone look good, but these receivers helped him look great.

Best season: 1984 — 73 rec, 1,389 yds, 18 TD (Clayton); 71 rec, 1,306 yds, 8 TD (Duper)

The Marks Brothers easily led the NFL in combined receiving yards and TDs this season, but they actually finished second in combined catches, behind Art Monk (106) and Calvin Muhammad (42) of Washington. Monk and Muhammad combined for 2,101 yards and 11 touchdowns.

8. Kellen Winslow and Charlie Joiner, San Diego Chargers, 1979-86
956 receptions, 13,220 yards, 75 touchdowns

The Air Coryell teams of the early '80s are the greatest passing offense in NFL history, leading the league in passing yards for four years in a row. The air attack was successful with both John Jefferson and Wes Chandler, but the constants were Winslow and Joiner. I mentioned earlier that Art Monk, Gary Clark, and Ricky Sanders is the greatest pass-catching trio in history. Winslow, Joiner, and Chandler would probably be second.

Best season: 1980 — 89 rec, 1,290 yds, 9 TD (Winslow); 71 rec, 1,132 yds, 4 TD (Joiner)

Joiner and Winslow were probably the best tandem in the league in '81 and '83, but this was their best joint effort. Unfortunately, they were outdone by an even stronger pairing: Winslow and Jefferson (82 rec, 1,340 yds, 13 TD).

9. Lynn Swann and John Stallworth, Pittsburgh Steelers, 1974-82
635 receptions, 10,766 yards, 95 touchdowns

If a poll were taken of NFL fans, asking them to name the greatest receiving tandem in history, I suspect this would come in at the top of the list, or at least very close. Everyone already knows that Swann and Stallworth are great, so I'm going to devote this space to explaining why they're not ranked higher.

The biggest problem was Stallworth's injury issues. Teammates are ranked on their success together, not individually, and Stallworth was often hurt while Swann was in his prime. Similarly, Swann was already retired when Stallworth had his best season. From 1977-79, this was the best receiving duo in the NFL. Other than those three years, there's not much to speak of. Neither player started in 1974, and they combined for just 27 catches. Swann was already a star in '75, but Stallworth was still coming into his own, averaging less than 1.5 catches per game. Stallworth was injured in '76, and caught only nine passes. Evaluating them as a duo, the years from 74-76 are virtually worthless, Swann's MVP performance in Super Bowl X notwithstanding. Stallworth couldn't keep up; this was "Lynn Swann and anyone." Franco Harris had more catches (74) than Stallworth (45) from '74 to '76.

After three fine seasons together, in 1980 Stallworth was hurt again. He had a breakout year in '81, but by then Swann was already slowing down. In the strike-shortened '82 season, Swann had just 18 catches and no TDs, and he retired following the season. Stallworth had two more 1,000-yard seasons afterwards, which helped punch his ballot to Canton. Evaluated solely on his time with Swann, Stallworth wouldn't have been a serious HOF candidate. Are three great seasons and basically nothing else enough to merit top-10 inclusion on this list? Honestly, I'm not sure. I think this ranking is generous, and I'd be more inclined to move them down than up.

Best season: 1978 — 61 rec, 880 yds, 11 TD (Swann); 41 rec, 798 yds, 9 TD (Stallworth)

Their best regular season probably was 1977, but including postseason contributions, this is the better choice. They were almost as good during the season, and they were awesome in Super Bowl XIII: a combined 239 yards and 3 TDs, with both players topping the century mark and finding the end zone.

10. Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne, Indianapolis Colts, 2001-08
1,265 receptions, 17,155 yards, 134 touchdowns

Similar to Swann and Stallworth, they're great players whose best seasons don't have much overlap. Harrison was the best receiver in the league from 1999-2002, when Wayne was in college or still learning the pro game. Wayne has been terrific the last three seasons, with Harrison gimpy (2007), washed-up (2008), or retired (2009). Five times, though, they combined for 2,000 yards, and they were positively fantastic for about three years.

Best season: 2006 — 95 rec, 1,366 yds, 12 TD (Harrison); 86 rec, 1,310 yds, 9 TD (Wayne)

Even with Peyton Manning throwing the passes, both players over 1,300 yards is special. There has never, ever, been a duo as good as these two at making a catch on the sideline or in the corner of the end zone. Harrison is the best I've ever seen at the toe-tap in the corner, and Wayne isn't far behind.

11. Cris Carter and Jake Reed, Minnesota Vikings, 1991-2001
1,294 receptions, 17,129 yards, 131 touchdowns

Carter and Randy Moss were a more explosive combination, but they only played together for four seasons. Carter and Reed were together for 10. Best season: 1995.

12. Charley Taylor and Jerry Smith, Washington Redskins, 1965-77
1,010 receptions, 13,717 yards, 132 touchdowns

The first receiving duo ever to top 1,000 receptions together, they held the record for combined receiving TDs until 1992. I'd entertain arguments that these two should be top-10. Best season: 1967.

13. Tommy McDonald and Pete Retzlaff, Philadelphia Eagles, 1957-63
570 receptions, 10,054 yards, 89 touchdowns

Played with a pair of HOF QBs, Norm Van Brocklin (1957-60) and Sonny Jurgensen (1961-63). They were overshadowed by Berry and Moore, but great nonetheless. Best season: 1960.

14. Ahmad Rashad and Sammy White, Minnesota Vikings, 1976-82
735 receptions, 11,002 yards, 79 touchdowns

A remarkably consistent partnership, they kept up a very high level of success for an unusually long time, ranking near the top of the league every year from 1976-81. Best season: 1976.

15. Dante Lavelli and Mac Speedie, Cleveland Browns, 1946-52
592 receptions, 9,669 yards, 77 touchdowns

This bothers me. Lavelli is a Hall of Famer and Speedie probably should be. Why so low? Lavelli had some of his best seasons after Speedie retired. They only had one really great year together. Best season: 1947.

16. Larry Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin, Arizona Cardinals, 2004-09
1,008 receptions, 13,210 yards, 95 touchdowns

When Kurt Warner gets inducted into the Hall of Fame, he should spend about 15 minutes thanking Boldin, Bruce, Fitzgerald, Holt, and Marshall Faulk for getting him in. Has any QB in history played with so many great receivers? Best season: 2005.

17. Drew Hill and Ernest Givins, Houston Oilers, 1986-91
787 receptions, 12,048 yards, 69 touchdowns

Edged out Givins and Haywood Jeffires (935 rec, 12,308 yds, 82 TD). Hill is one of the more underrated receivers in history. Best season: 1987.

18. Kellen Winslow and Wes Chandler, San Diego Chargers, 1981-87
817 receptions, 11,613 yards, 76 touchdowns

Their 1982 season is perhaps the greatest of any receiving tandem in history. Projected to 16 games, their stats would be: 87 rec, 1,835 yds, 16 TD (Chandler); 96 rec, 1,282 yds, 11 TD (Winslow).

19. Don Maynard and George Sauer, New York Jets, 1965-70
631 receptions, 11,217 yards, 73 touchdowns

Maynard is a Hall of Famer, but not many fans today remember Sauer, who had three 1,000-yard seasons back when that was a major accomplishment. Best season: 1967.

20. Jerry Rice and Brent Jones, San Francisco 49ers, 1987-97
1,339 receptions, 19,153 yards, 170 touchdowns

The most combined receptions of any duo in history, but Jones was never an elite receiver. His best season produced just 747 yards. Of those 1,339 receptions, 922 are Rice. They're listed here mostly for longevity. Best season: 1990.

Honorable Mentions

Pete Pihos and Bobby Walston, 1951-55 Eagles; Ray Berry and Jim Mutscheller, 1955-61 Colts; Lance Alworth and Gary Garrison, 1966-70 Chargers; Cliff Branch and Fred Biletnikoff, 1972-78 Raiders; Randy Moss and Cris Carter, 1998-2001 Vikings; Randy Moss and Wes Welker, 2007-09 Patriots

The 10 Best Receiving Trios

In chronological order:

Dub Jones, Dante Lavelli, Mac Speedie (CLE, 1948-52)
Bob Boyd, Tom Fears, Crazy Legs Hirsch (LA, 1950-56)
Ray Berry, Jim Mutscheller, Lenny Moore (BAL, 1956-61)
Bobby Mitchell, Jerry Smith, Charley Taylor (WAS, 1965-68)
Wes Chandler, Charlie Joiner, Kellen Winslow (SD, 1981-86)
Gary Clark, Art Monk, Ricky Sanders (WAS, 1986-92)
Ernest Givins, Drew Hill, Haywood Jeffires (HOU, 1987-91)
Brent Jones, Jerry Rice, John Taylor (SF, 1987-95)
Larry Centers, Rob Moore, Frank Sanders (ARI, 1995-98)
Isaac Bruce, Marshall Faulk, Torry Holt (STL, 1999-2005)

Best By Year

1946: Mal Kutner and Bill Dewell, CHC
1947: Jim Keane and Ken Kavanaugh, CHB
1948: Mal Kutner and Bill Dewell, CHC
1949: Bob Mann and John Greene, DET
1950: Fears and Hirsch, LA
1951: Fears and Hirsch, LA
1952: Billy Howton and Bob Mann, GB
1953: Pete Pihos and Bobby Walston, PHI
1954: Harlon Hill and Jim Dooley, CHB
1955: Pete Pihos and Bill Stribling, PHI
1956: Billy Howton and Gary Knafelc, GB
1957: Berry and Moore, BAL
1958: Berry and Moore, BAL
1959: Berry and Moore, BAL
1960: Berry and Moore, BAL
1961: Charley Hennigan and Bill Groman, HOU
1962: Sonny Randle and Bobby Conrad, STL
1963: Sonny Randle and Bobby Conrad, STL
1964: Johnny Morris and Mike Ditka, CHI
1965: Dave Parks and Bob Casey, SF
1966: Charley Taylor and Bobby Mitchell, WAS
1967: Maynard and Sauer, NYJ
1968: Lance Alworth and Gary Garrison, SD
1969: Warren Wells and Fred Biletnikoff, OAK
1970: Marlin Briscoe and Haven Moses, BUF
1971: Gene Washington and Ted Kwalick, SF
1972: Gene Washington and Ted Kwalick, SF
1973: Harold Carmichael and Charle Young, PHI
1974: Cliff Branch and Fred Biletnikoff, OAK
1975: Chuck Foreman and John Gilliam, MIN
1976: Cliff Branch and Dave Casper, OAK
1977: Swann and Stallworth, PIT
1978: Swann and Stallworth, PIT
1979: Tony Hill and Drew Pearson, DAL
1980: John Jefferson and Kellen Winslow, SD
1981: Winslow and Joiner, SD
1982: Winslow and Chandler, SD
1983: Winslow and Joiner, SD
1984: Clayton and Duper, MIA
1985: Clark and Monk, WAS
1986: Clayton and Duper, MIA
1987: Hill and Givins, HOU
1988: Ricky Sanders and Art Monk, WAS
1989: Rice and Taylor, SF
1990: Henry Ellard and Flipper Anderson, RAM
1991: Clark and Monk, WAS
1992: Andre Rison and Mike Pritchard, ATL
1993: Rice and Taylor, SF
1994: Andre Rison and Terance Mathis, ATL
1995: Herman Moore and Brett Perriman, DET
1996: Carter and Reed, MIN
1997: Rob Moore and Frank Sanders, ARI
1998: Randy Moss and Cris Carter, MIN
1999: Randy Moss and Cris Carter, MIN
2000: Rod Smith and Ed McCaffrey, DEN
2001: Smith and McCardell, JAC
2002: Hines Ward and Plaxico Burress, PIT
2003: Holt and Bruce, STL
2004: Holt and Bruce, STL
2005: Fitzgerald and Boldin, ARI
2006: Harrison and Wayne, IND
2007: Randy Moss and Wes Welker, NE
2008: Fitzgerald and Boldin, ARI
2009: Randy Moss and Wes Welker, NE

Only three times in history have teammates both gained over 1,400 receiving yards in the same season: Moore and Perriman in 1995, Holt and Bruce in 2000, and Fitzgerald and Boldin in 2005. Moore and Perriman hold the records for combined receptions (231) and yards (3,174). Randy Moss and Wes Welker have the record for TDs (31), set in 2007.

Posted by Brad Oremland at 4:43 PM | Comments (1)